City Council Agenda Packet 02-08-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 2010 – 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2A. Approval of Minutes – January 25, 2010 Regular Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1)
b. Council Updates:
1) Citizen Service Desk (Angela)
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of approving temporary charitable gambling application for a raffle
conducted by Wright County Ducks Unlimited
C. Consideration of approving 2010 regular meeting schedule
D. Consideration of approving 2009 Operating Transfers
E. Consideration of approving 2009 Fund Balance Designations
F. Consideration of approving Request for Proposal for Electrician Repair/Services
and authorize its advertisement
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-05 approving Wright County CSAH
No. 75 pavement reconditioning project within the Monticello City limits
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-04 approving Feasibility Report and calling
for a Public Hearing for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001
8. Consideration of shifting Engineering Department to Prairie Center Office building
9. Approve payment of bills for February 8th
10. Adjournment.
Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments. (TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred
recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the
hiring/departure of all listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
A1. Budget Impact: (positions are generally included in budget)
A2. Staff Work Load Impact: If new positions, there may be some training involved.
If terminated positions, existing staff would pick up those hours, as needed, until
replaced.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. There is no
other recommendation but for the Council to exercise the authority given to them by state
statute.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Brett DeMarais Account Manager FiberNet 2/8/10 FT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Michele Brown Voluntary MCC 1/5/10 PT
Al Nystrom Voluntary Liquor Store 2/1/10 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A council_employee list.xls: 2/5/2010
Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5B. Consideration of approving a temporary charitable gambling application for a
raffle conducted by Wright County Ducks Unlimited (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wright County Ducks Unlimited has applied to the City for approval of an application for
a charitable gambling permit for a fund-raising raffle to be held on May 3, 2010 at River
City Extreme in Monticello.
To receive a permit from the State, the City must approve the application. In the past the
City has not opposed these exempt gambling license applications for charitable events.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the one day charitable gambling application for a raffle to be conducted
by Wright County Ducks Unlimited on May 3, 2010.
2. Do not approve the request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not aware of any reason why this application should not be approved.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application for exempt permit
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5C. Consideration of approving 2010 regular meeting schedule (JO, CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to approve the 2010 regular meeting schedule for City Council and
other City commissions as listed in this agenda item and shown on the attached calendar. The
League of Minnesota Cities suggests approving the regular meeting schedule established by
council rules and in keeping with the requirements of the Minnesota State Statutes for the
open meeting law. This approval overrides the need to post (or publish) a meeting notice for
regularly scheduled meetings. If a regular meeting should be changed, a cancellation and
special meeting notice for the rescheduled date would be posted.
City staff currently provides a monthly meeting calendar on the City bulletin board and
website for the public and will continue to do so.
Regular Meeting Schedule
Meeting Date Time Place
City Council 2nd & 4th Monday 7 p.m. Council Chambers
Planning Commission 1st (3rd) Tuesday 6 p.m. Council Chambers
Econ Dev Authority (EDA) 2nd Wednesday 6 p.m. Council Chambers
Ind Econ Dev Comm (IEDC) 1st Tuesday 7 a.m. Boom Island Room
Parks Commission 4th Thursday,
every other month
8 a.m. Public Works Conf Room
MCC Advisory Board 3rd Tuesday 4:30 p.m. River or Academy Room
FiberNet Advisory Board 1st Tuesday 6 p.m. FNM Office Conf Room
Police Advisory Comm 3rd Wed each Qtr 7 p.m. Academy Room
Library Board 4 times each year 5 p.m. Library meeting room
Bertram COL Advisory 1st Friday 8 a.m. Academy Room
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Monthly posting of meeting calendar.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the 2010 regular meeting schedule for City Council and
commissions.
2. Motion to not approve the schedule.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 to formally establish the 2010 regular meeting
schedule.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
2
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
2010 meeting calendar
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
March 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
January 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
February 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Th Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
June 2010
Sun Mon Tue We Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
July 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
April 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
September 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
October 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
May 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
November 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
August 2010
City of Monticello - Regularly Scheduled Meetings of Council and Appointed Commissions - 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
December 2010
Holiday
Planning
Commission
6PM
Parks
Commission
8AM
Bertram-
Chain of
Lakes
Advisory
8AM
Community
Center
Advisory
4:30 PM
Library
Board
5PM
Tentative
Industrial/
Econ Dev
Committee
7AM
City Council
7PM
Econ
Develop
Authority
6PM
FiberNet
Advisory
6PM
Police
Advisory
7PM
Tentative
Regularly scheduled meetings are sometimes rescheduled. Notice of meeting changes are posted 72 hours in advance on the Commu nity Center bulletin board in compliance with open meeting law.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5D. Consideration of approving 2009 Operating Transfers (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Every year, the City transfers money from one City fund to another City fund. These
transfers happen for various reasons including providing funding sources for City
projects, repayment of debt, or to fund operations instead of a property tax levy. Some of
these transfers were anticipated and accounted in the City’s 2009 budget. Others became
necessary during the course of operations during the year or based on funding decisions
made by staff or Council during the year. Whatever the reason for the transfers, it is a
good management practice to provide the City Council with a list of the transfers made
and have Council approve the transfers.
Attached is a list of the 2009 operating transfers for the City. A description of each
transfer is provided below.
1. Prior to 2007, the City budgeted funds for the purchase of a new fire truck in the
Capital Revolving Fund. Starting in 2007, funds were budgeted in the General Fund
for the fire truck purchase. The City purchased the new truck in 2009 from the
General Fund, so this transfer is to move the money that was budgeted in the Capital
Revolving Fund into the General Fund for this purchase.
2. In 2007, the City purchased land for a possible new public works facility. This land
purchase used General Fund reserves as its funding source. During 2009, it was
discovered that the City had set aside $350,000 in the Capital Revolving Fund for a
new public works facility. Thus staff is reimbursing the General Fund with the
money set aside in the Capital Revolving Fund for this expenditure.
3. The City’s 2009 budget included $150,000 for street improvements which was not
spent. Staff would like to transfer $75,000 from the General Fund to the Street
Reconstruction Fund so that this money can help fund future street
reconstruction/overlay projects.
4. Fund 2004-36C Library Expansion Fund is no longer needed as this project is
completed. The Fund has a small cash balance of $9.37 which staff would like to
transfer into the Capital Revolving Fund to help pay for future equipment purchases.
5. The City, in 2007, budgeted $80,000 in the General Fund for remodeling/
reconstructing/ improving the DMV facility and $80,000 for remodeling/
reconstructing/ improving the storage garage next to the fire station. The DMV
remodel project costs were funded from the Capital Revolving Fund, and the Fire
Station re-siding and roof were also paid from the Capital Revolving Fund. These
were paid from this fund because the DMV was moved from the General Fund into
its own fund in 2008, and the fire station projects were not anticipated and needed a
funding source. As such, staff would like to transfer the $180,000 from the General
Fund to the Capital Revolving Fund to pay for these two projects and other facility
projects in the future.
6. Prior to 2007, the Capital Revolving Fund was being used for equipment purchases,
facility improvements, and street projects. This made it very difficult to know how
much was available for purchases and projects. Since the City is already operating
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
2
the Street Reconstruction Fund, staff would like to transfer the $292,874 for street
projects out of the Capital Revolving Fund into the Street Reconstruction Fund.
7. The transfer of $2,316.50 from the Capital Revolving Fund to the DMV Fund is to
reimburse expenses related to the DMV building remodel that were paid in 2008 out
of the DMV Fund.
8. The transfer of $33,181.22 is to close out the 2005 Street Reconstruction project,
which was funded from the 2005A Improvement Bond.
9. The transfer from the Capital Revolving Fund to the EDA Fund is for the industrial
land purchased with EDA funds; however, the revenue from when the land was sold
was recorded in error to the Capital Revolving Fund.
10. The transfer of $2,393.77 is to close out the TIF 1989 Elderly Bond Fund to the EDA
Fund (the funding source) since this bond has been paid off and the fund is no longer
needed.
11. The $890,000 being transferred to the EDA Fund is to reimburse the downtown TIF
District for excess money transfer to the 2004A Taxable TIF Bond for bond
payments. This money is not need in the future to pay the outstanding bonds and
therefore must be transferred back to the TIF District.
12. The transfer from the EDA Fund to the EDA Fund in the amount of $45,438 is to
transfer fund from one TIF District to another so that the City can decertify Districts
26, 28 and 33.
13. The $700,000 transfer from the Community Center to the 2008A Revenue Refunding
Bonds is for the 2009 bond payment based on the debt schedule.
14. The next three transfers are to close completed construction project funds from their
funding source.
15. The transfer of $3,160.77 from the Water Fund to the FiberNet Fund is for the Water
Funds share of the purchase cost of an underground cable locator.
16. The Sewer Fund transfer to the 2007A Improvement Bond is for the Sewer Fund’s
share of the 2009 bond payment.
17. The FiberNet Fund transfer of $262.53 to the 2008C FiberNet Revenue Bond Fund is
to close out the 2008C FiberNet Revenue Bond Fund, which was set up in error.
18. The transfer of $6,626.25 into the Water Fund from the Sewer Fund and General
Fund is to reimburse the Water Fund for the purchase of a GPS unit.
19. The next three transfers are to close the 1999, 2000B and 2003A Improvement Bond
Funds, all of which were paid off and no longer required.
20. The transfer into the 2008 Sewer Refunding Bond Fund is for the Sanitary Sewer
Access Fund’s share of the 2009 bond payment based on the debt retirement
schedule.
21. The 2005A G. O. Bond Fund transfer in of $1,610,141 is for the EDA, Water Access,
Storm Sewer Access, and Sanitary Sewer Access Funds share of the 2009 bond
payment per the debt retirement schedule.
22. The next 5 transfers are to the Capital Revolving Fund for budgeted equipment
purchases not made in 2009 or to Improvement Funds for improvements not done in
2009. These transfers will allow the City to set funds aside for future purchases or
improvements, thus having less of an impact on future tax levies.
23. The final transfer is the transfer from the Liquor Fund to the Street Reconstruction
Fund as budgeted instead of levying property taxes.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
3
These are the 2009 operating transfers proposed by staff to fund City operations and fund
future equipment purchases or improvement projects.
A1. Budget Impact: As noted, some of the transfers were included in the 2009
budget, while other transfers are need to close out funds that are no longer needed
or required, and finally some transfers were made to better account for future
expenditures.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There would be no staff workload impacts for these
transfers.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the 2009 operating transfers as listed.
2. Motion to approve some variation of the 2009 operating transfers.
3. Motion to deny the 2009 operating transfers.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative #1, to approve the 2009 operating transfers as listed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of 2009 operating transfers
Transfer In Transfer Out
Item #Fund #Fund Amount Fund #Fund Amount
1 101 General Fund 119,114.00 240 Capital Revolving Fund 119,114.00
2 101 General Fund 350,000.00 240 Capital Revolving Fund 350,000.00
3 212 Street Reconstruction Fund 75,000.00 101 General Fund 75,000.00
4 240 Capital Revolving Fund 9.37 497 2004-36C Library Expansion 9.37
5 240 Capital Revolving Fund 160,000.00 101 General Fund 80,000.00
101 General Fund 80,000.00
6 212 Street Reconstruction Fund 292,874.00 240 Capital Revolving Fund 292,874.00
7 217 DMV Fund 2,316.50 240 Capital Revolving Fund 2,316.50
8 494 2005-01C 2005 Street Recon 33,181.22 312 2005A G. O. Bond Fund 33,181.22
9 213 EDA Fund 1,365,000.00 240 Capital Revolving Fund 1,365,000.00
10 213 EDA Fund 2,393.77 377 TIF 1989 Elderly Bond 2,393.77
11 213 EDA Fund 890,000.00 379 TIF 2004A Taxable Bond 890,000.00
213 EDA Fund - TIF Dist 28 6,929.00
12 213 EDA Fund - Tif Dist 33 45,438.00 213 EDA Fund - TIF Dist 29 27,032.00
213 EDA Fund - TIF Dist 31 11,477.00
13 314 2008A Revenue Refunding Bond 700,000.00 226 Community Center 700,000.00
492 2003-20C Closed to fund 310 199.20 310 2002 GO Bond 199.20
14 495 2004-30C Water Tower 5,736.32 312 2005A G. O. Bond Fund 5,736.32
499 2006-01C 2006 Core Street Recon 30,346.16 212 Street Reconstruction Fund 30,346.16
15 655 FiberNet Fund 3,160.77 601 Water Fund 3,160.77
16 313 2007A Improvement Bond 104,200.00 602 Sewer Fund 104,200.00
17 316 2008C FiberNet Revenue Bond 262.53 655 FiberNet Fund 262.53
18 601 Water Fund 6,626.25 602 Sewer Fund 3,313.13
101 General Fund 3,313.12
309 2000B GO Improvement Bond 7,857.46 306 1999 GO Improvement Bonds 7,857.46
19 300 Consolidated Bond Fund 8,066.41 306 1999 GO Improvement Bonds 8,066.41
311 2003A GO Bond 210,299.00 300 Consolidated Bond Fund 210,299.00
20 315 2008 Sewer Refunding Bond Fund 500,000.00 262 Sanitary Sewer Access Fund 500,000.00
213 EDA Fund 318,274.00
265 Water Access Fund 311,246.00
21 312 2005A G. O. Bond Fund 1,610,141.00 262 Sanitary Sewer Access Fund 713,030.00
263 Storm Sewer Access Fund 267,591.00
240 Capital Revolving Fund 37,000.00 101 General Fund 37,000.00
240 Capital Revolving Fund 40,000.00 101 General Fund 40,000.00
22 240 Capital Revolving Fund 100,000.00 101 General Fund 100,000.00
229 Park Dedication Fund 50,000.00 101 General Fund 50,000.00
245 Street Light Improvement Fund 30,000.00 101 General Fund 30,000.00
23 212 Street Reconstruction Fund 150,000.00 609 Liquor Fund 150,000.00
Total Transfers In 6,929,221.96 Total Transfers Out 6,929,221.96
2009 Budgeted Operating Transfers
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5E. Consideration of Approval of 2009 Fund Balance Designations (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the end of the City’s fiscal year the difference between revenues and expenditures is
closed out into the fund balance account of each individual City fund. Some of these
fund balances are restricted by law or by the nature of their revenue source. For example,
park dedication fees collected from developer or individual are restricted for park land
purchases. In addition, debt service (bond) funds are restricted for the repayment of debt.
Besides these funds that are legally restricted, the City may designate all or portions of
fund balances for future use, such as equipment purchases or capital projects. At the end
of 2009, staff recommends the following fund balance designations:
General Fund:
Designated for planning department (zoning ordinance work) $50,000
Designated for parks department buildings $154,700
Designated for parks department improvements (trail) $60,700
Designated for working capital (45% of 2010 budget) $2,850,000
Designated for contingencies (5% of 2010 budget) $320,000
Street Reconstruction Fund
Designated for future Edmundson $187,990.61
Designated for Elk Street $10,300
Designated for future 85th $135,636.50
Designated for 7th Street Extension $600,000
Designated for Fenning Ave. $202,077.55
Designated for Fallon Ave. $72,015
Designated for Haug & 95th $122,500
Community Center Fund:
Designated for MCC Improvements $49,000
Capital Revolving Fund:
Designated for building improvements $116,471
The City should designate these fund balances because the State Auditor and the
Legislature often point to Cities as having excess fund balances (reserves) and, that by
designating the fund balances, it will demonstrate that the City has a purpose for
maintaining these reserves. The explanation for the designation of fund balances is
described below.
General Fund:
The planning department designation of $50,000 was funds budgeted in 2008 and
left over as part of the comprehensive plan/zoning ordinance revision. The
zoning ordinance revision work is currently under way and will be spent in 2010.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
2
The $154,700.00 for park buildings consist of $75,000 for restrooms at Ellison
Park which was budgeted in 2007 and never done and $79,700 for shelters at Par
West and Groveland Parks budgeted in 2008.
The parks department improvements designation is funds budgeted in 2009 for
trail maintenance that was never spent.
The working capital designation is 45% of the 2010 General Fund budget per City
reserve policy. The State Auditor recommends Cities maintain 35% to 50% of
next year’s budget for working capital to fund City operations until cities receive
their first half tax settlement in July.
The contingency designation is for unexpected “must fund” items during the year.
This is not for items that would be nice to have but were not budgeted items. This
designation is more for major, must get done unexpected items, such as if a storm
destroyed trees all around the City and we needed to hire tree trimmers and
removers to help clear streets and power lines.
Street Reconstruction Fund:
All of these designations were funds collected from assessments to developers for
future major street improvement projects. When other vacant land in the area is
developed the improvements will be needed for those areas.
Community Center Fund:
This designation of $49,000 was for replacing the gym floor ($35,000) and
replacing carpet in the Mississippi Room ($14,000) budgeted in 2007 and never
spent.
Capital Revolving Fund:
This designation is also from 2007 when the City budgeted $80,000 for DMV
remodeling and $80,000 for remodeling/addition to storage garage next to the fire
station. These are the remaining funds after remodeling the DMV and re-siding
the fire station in 2009.
A1. Budget Impact: The amount designated will not need to be budgeted and levied
for in future years since these funds are being set aside for the purchase or
improvement; therefore, the budget impact is to lower the budget in the year the
purchase or work is completed..
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There would be no staff workload impacts for these
reserves.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the 2009 fund balance designations as listed.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
3
2. Motion to approve some variation of the 2009 fund balance designations.
3. Motion to deny the 2009 fund balance designations.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative #1 for the approval of the 2009 fund balance
designations as listed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
1
5F. Consideration of approving Request for Proposal for Electrician Repair/Services and
authorize its advertisment (JO, RH, BP, CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review and consider the attached Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Electrician Repair and Services for the City of Monticello. If the RFP is acceptable, then
Council is asked to authorize advertisement of the Request for Proposals opportunity.
Over the course of a year, the City experiences a number of situations that require repairs
and/or service by a Licensed Electrician. Some of the situations are under emergency
circumstances that require quick action to prevent negative impact to employees,
residents and city buildings and equipment. During a Personnel Committee meeting, it
was suggested that the City might benefit from having a Licensed Electrician on a
retainer, who would be available for both non-emergency and emergency repairs and
services. By going out for bid, the City would request quotes for hourly rates which
could be written into a contract, thus providing electrician services at a reasonable and
consistent rate.
In the proposed RFP, the City outlines possible repairs and services that might be
performed at various city locations. We are asking bidders to provide information related
to their business to verify that they would be qualified for commercial services, such as
would be performed for the City. It is hoped that we would solicit bids from local city
and area electricians by advertising on our website, in the local paper and through the
Chamber of Commerce.
At this time it is proposed that the length of the contract would be for one year. Council
may wish modify this term by making it a two year contract or a one year with the option
to renew.
A1. Budget Impact: It is expected that the costs for electrician repairs and services
would decrease based on better pricing received through an annual contract.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: This would require less work on the part of staff as
small jobs could be taken care of by a phone call to the Contractor without having
to solicit quotes first. A single contractor/company would become more familiar
with City buildings and equipment and should be able to reduce the time spent on
repairs and service calls.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the RFP for Electrician Repair/Services and authorize its
advertisement.
2. Motion to modify and approve.
City Council Agenda: 02/08/10
2
2. Motion to deny.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1. An annual contract for electrician services for
repairs and services on smaller jobs should reduce costs by setting price via a competitive
bidding process and by enhancing staff efficiency by having a set electrician to turn to
immediately when needed. The development of this RFP process was recommended
through the Personnel Committee.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Request For Proposal for Electrician Repair/Services
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
1
The City of Monticello is soliciting proposals from Licensed Electricians that are
experienced in repairs and services for electric and data for commercial, industrial, and
residential facilities.
If you have any questions, you may call the City of Monticello at 763-295-2711 or stop at
the Monticello City Hall. The full Request for Proposal can be downloaded from the City’s
website at www.ci.monticello.mn.us.
To submit a Request for Proposal, the submission must be sealed and plainly marked
“RFP for Electrical Repair/Services Contract” on the outside of the mailing envelope
as well as the inside sealed envelope, addressed to: City of Monticello, 505 Walnut
Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. Proposals will be accepted until {time} {date}.
The City of Monticello reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals, to waive technical
specifications or deficiencies, and to accept any Proposal that it may deem to be in the best
interest of the City.
Continue on succeeding pages for the complete bid.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
2
The Licensed Electrician, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor,” will be required to
perform services specified herein. The Contractor will be expected to enter into a service
contract with the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as “Owner,” consistent with the
terms of this RFP and Contractor’s submitted proposal.
During the course of a year, the City of Monticello requires electrical repair and services for
its municipal facilities including, but not limited to, City Hall, Community Center, Public
Works complex, Parks shelters and grounds, Deputy Registrar/Help Center building,
Library, Fire Hall, FiberNet Central Office, and Prairie Center offices. Some work is of a
scheduled nature and other work is of an emergency nature. Service shall be provided by
the Contractor on an as needed basis. By seeking proposals from contractors, the City does
not represent that it will utilize the successful bidder’s services any guaranteed number of
times over the course of the year.
As part of the service contract, Contractor will be required to meet the Insurance
Requirements included with this RFP.
The Contractor agrees to be the City’s Electrical Contractor for maintenance work
including, but not limited to, industrial and commercial electrical work, industrial and
commercial data work, and motors and motor controls to be performed at municipal
facilities.
The Contractor understands that any job, including material and labor, exceeding five
thousand dollars ($5,000) shall be subject to the City’s Purchasing Policy requirements.
The City reserves the right to place out for bid or solicit quotes from other vendors for any
job that is estimated to go over this amount.
The Contractor must comply with all local and State laws, rules, and regulations for an
electrician; possess a valid State of Minnesota Master Electrician’s License; and provide
their state contractor licensing information.
The City of Monticello prefers that the Contractor be “on call” on a 24-hour basis for any
emergency that many occur, including holidays. Response time to emergencies and routine
requests is expected to be timely, and proposals will be reviewed based in part on the
Contractor’s ability to provide such “on call” service and by written commitment to
respond timely to both scheduled and emergency situations.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to supply all necessary tools and equipment
to perform the work as requested to the extent that supplies, materials and parts are
required to perform the work. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining such
supplies, materials and parts if not provided by the City of Monticello. Such supplies,
materials and parts shall be of good quality and the cost of such shall be billed as reflected
in the bid document.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
3
The Contractor shall invoice the City within 30 days of a completed service call at the rates
agreed to in the contract. The City shall make payment within 30 days of receipt of invoice.
The City of Monticello shall retain the right to terminate the contract with seven (7) days
notice should the Contractor fail to perform work in a professional manner or perform the
work within the demands and time constraints established by the City of Monticello.
Failure to maintain an Electrician’s License, state contractor’s license, and/or insurance
coverage is grounds for immediate termination of the Contract. The City reserves the right
to utilize another electrician if Contractor fails to respond timely to an emergency.
The contract could be terminated upon mutual agreement between the Owner and the
Contractor, provided that at least 30 days notice is given by either party prior to
termination.
Contractor will be required to indemnify the City against all suits, claims, judgments,
awards, loss, cost or expense (including attorney’s fees without limitation) arising in any
way out of the Contractor’s performance or non-performance of its obligations under the
Service Contract. Contractor will defend all such actions with counsel satisfactory to
Owner at its own expense, including attorney’s fees, and will satisfy any judgment rendered
against Owner in such action.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
4
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals shall include the following:
1. Completed Statement of Qualifications, included in this document.
2. Completed References form, containing at least three (3) professional references,
including current contact name and phone number for similar contracts.
3. Completed Proposal Form, included in this document.
4. Copy of electrician’s license for all electricians who may be assigned work under the
contract.
5. Copy of State Contractor’s license.
Contractor may submit such additional information as it deems necessary or helpful to
the City’s evaluation process.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:
1. Qualifications of bidding Contractor’s electricians.
2. Contractor’s reputation for timely, quality performance.
3. Rates
4. Contractor’s willingness to commit to timely service.
5. Ability to provide 24-hour “on call” emergency service.
By submitting a proposal, the Contractor authorizes the City to undertake such
investigation as may be necessary to verify the Contractor’s qualifications and
reputation, including compliance with current city ordinances. The Contractor may be
requested to execute a release(s) in favor of third parties who have information relative
to the Contractor’s qualifications and reputation. Refusal to execute a release may
result in disqualification.
The City may, at its discretion, select a Contractor outright or select a finalist(s) for
interviews.
LENGTH OF SERVICE CONTRACT
The Service Contract will remain in effect until one (1) year from the date of award. Upon
the mutual agreement of both parties, the Service Contract may be renewed in one year
increments at the rates submitted in the proposal for a total period not to exceed three (3)
years.
SELECTION
Upon selection, the Contractor will receive a service contract and will be expected to
execute the contract within ten (10) business days of receipt. A completed W-9 shall
accompany the executed contract.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
5
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
All questions must be answered and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. This
statement must be notarized. Add separate sheets or attachments, as necessary. This
section must be submitted with Proposal.
1. Name of Contractor
2. Name of Business (if different than #1)
3. Form of Entity
4. Permanent Main Office and Mailing addresses and pertinent contact information
(phone, email, etc)
5. When Organized
6. Where Organized
7. How many years have you been engaged in the Electrical Repair/Service business
under your present name; also state names and dates of previous business names, if
any.
8. In the last five years, has Contractor ever been terminated from a contract or
project? If so, explain situation.
9. In the last five years, has Contractor ever been party to litigation related to the
Contractor’s work? If so, explain situation.
10. Please identify the number of licensed electricians and helpers available to work
under this contract:
______ Number of electricians _____ Number of helpers
11. List the most important contracts entered into by the Contractor in the last year;
identify contracting party and term of contract.
12. List your key personnel available for this contract.
The City of Monticello reserves the right to request from finalist(s) the latest financial
statements as well as to request such additional information as may be reasonably
necessary to determine whether the Contractor should be awarded the service contract.
NOTARY
Contractor____________________________________ of Business_________________________________________
hereby acknowledges that questions and statements contained in this document are true
and correct.
Sworn before me this _________________ day of ___________________________, 20_____.
BY ____________________________________________
(Notary stamp)
TITLE_________________________________________
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
6
REFERENCES
Reference #1
Contact Name___________________________________________________________________________
Business Name__________________________________________________________________________
Business Address_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Contact Phone________________________________ Contact Fax____________________________
Contact Email___________________________________________________________________________
Other Information (describe):
Reference #2
Contact Name___________________________________________________________________________
Business Name__________________________________________________________________________
Business Address_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Contact Phone________________________________ Contact Fax____________________________
Contact Email___________________________________________________________________________
Other Information (describe):
Reference #3
Contact Name___________________________________________________________________________
Business Name__________________________________________________________________________
Business Address_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Contact Phone________________________________ Contact Fax____________________________
Contact Email___________________________________________________________________________
Other Information (describe):
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
7
PROPOSAL FORM
Electrical Repair/Service Contract Rates
A) LICENSED ELECTRICIAN – Hourly Cost $_________________ per hour
B) APPRENTICE/HELPER – Hourly Cost $_________________ per hour
C) CONSULTANT (if applicable) $_________________ per hour
D) TRAVEL TIME/EXPENSE: $_________________ per hour
or Flat Rate: $_________________ per trip
E) MATERIALS COST:
Mark-up ____________% (expressed as percentage over cost)
Discount ____________% (explain circumstances when this would apply)
F) OTHER (describe, if any)
Availability
1) Can the Contractor provide 24-hour “on call” emergency coverage? (Y/N)
2) Response time to an emergency call? __________________________________________________
3) Response time for non-emergency request for service? ______________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Submission Acknowledgement
Contractor Signature _______________________________________________________________________
Print Name __________________________________________________________________________________
Title ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Business Name ______________________________________________________________________________
Date ______________________________________________
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
8
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Insurance shall be in such form as will protect the Contractor from all claims and liabilities
for damages for bodily injury, including accidental death, and for property damage, which
may arise from operations under this contract, whether such operations by himself or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contractor.
Amount of Insurance
A) Comprehensive General Liability: Bodily Injury or Property Damage - $1,000,000
each occurrence and general aggregate
B) Automobile and Truck Liability: Bodily Injury or Property Damage - $1,000,000 each
occurrence and general aggregate
*Comprehensive General Liability coverage and Automobile and Truck Liability coverage
may be met with a combination of coverage including excess and umbrella liability
coverage.
Type of Insurance for Contractor
A) Full Workers Comprehensive Insurance: Coverage for all people employed by the
Contractor to perform work under this contract. This insurance shall be in the
amount of $500,000 for each accident, illness or disease or such other amount that
may be required by the most current laws of the State of Minnesota, whichever is
greater.
B) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: Covering bodily injuries and property
damage and also including coverage for:
1) Injury to or destruction of wires, pipes, conduits, and similar property located
below the surface of the ground, whether public or private.
2) Collapse of or structural injury to any building or structure except those on
which work under this Contract is being performed.
3) Contractual liabilities related to bodily injury and property damage.
C) Automobile and Truck Liability Insurance: Covering bodily injury and property
damage relating to operation of all motor vehicles and equipment, whether or not
owned by the Contractor, being operated in conjunction with work under this
contract.
D) Product and Completed Operations Insurance: Coverage to be included in the
amounts specified above for Comprehensive General Liability.
City of Monticello
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
ELECTRICAL REPAIR/SERVICES CONTRACT
9
Evidence of Insurance
The City of Monticello shall be listed as an Additional Insured on the certificates of
insurance. The Contractor shall submit Certificates of Insurance to the Owner at the time of
execution of the Service Contract.
Written notice shall be given to the City of Monticello at least thirty (30) days prior to
cancellation or non-renewal of such insurance coverage.
As evidence of insurance coverage, the Owner may, in lieu of actual policies, accept official
written statements from the insurance company certifying that all the insurance policies
specified are in force for the specified period of the contract.
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
1
5G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-05 supporting Wright County CSAH
No. 75 pavement rehabilitation project within Monticello City limits (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Highway Department is currently proposing to complete a pavement
rehabilitation project on CSAH 75 from the Otter Creek Bridge in Monticello to
Clearwater. This project includes reclaiming the existing bituminous pavement section,
repaving CSAH 75 with safety edges, and resurfacing the shoulders. There would be no
cost to the City of Monticello for this work.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) requires that the Wright County
Highway Department obtain City approval for the project in the form of a resolution
since federal funds will be used for part of the funding for the project. Wright County is
hopeful that this project will be selected for the second round of federal stimulus funds, in
which case construction would begin this spring.
It should be noted that this project is not inclusive of the section of CSAH 75 containing
the bridge over the BNSF railroad tracks. Wright County is hoping to realign this section
of CSAH 75 and to remove the grade-separated railroad crossing (bridge) with an at-
grade crossing at some point in the future. The preliminary design for this work is shown
in the attached plans. If the at-grade crossing project moves forward we will have an
opportunity to provide input on the project at that time. This is important since there is a
pathway that parallels the railroad tracks in this area and the pathway would then also be
required to have an at-grade crossing, which the County has not been supportive of in
areas where speeds are posted at or above 45-mph.
A1. Budget Impact: There are no direct costs to the City with this project.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: It is anticipated that a minimal amount of time would
be required by staff to review and approve the project Plans and Specifications
and while working with the County and their contractor during construction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2010-05.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 2010-05.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative #1.
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
2
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City of Monticello Resolution #2010-05 (D1)
Title Sheet and Location Map for SP 86-675-18 (D2)
Preliminary layout of CSAH 75 realignment with at-grade RR crossing (D3)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-05
APPROVING CSAH NO. 75 PAVEMENT RECONDITIONING
WRIGHT COUNTY PROJECT NO. SP 86-675-18
WHEREAS, The plans for Project No. SP 86-675-18 showing Pavement Reconditioning for
improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 75 within the limits of the City of Monticello as a
Federal Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City; and
WHEREAS, City approval is required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation because
federal funding is involved on this County State Aid Highway improvement project, with no cost to
the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO: That the City of Monticello approves said plans for the improvements to
CSAH No. 75.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 8th day of February, 2010.
________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to
and adopted by the City Council of Monticello at a meeting held in the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, on the 8th day of February, 2010, as disclosed by the records of said City in my
possession.
_______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
[seal]
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
1
7. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-04 accepting Feasibility Report and
calling for a Public Hearing for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No.
10C001. (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 2009 Council authorized staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for a 2010
Street Reconstruction Project in continuation of the City’s Overall Street Reconstruction
Program approved by Council on February 9, 2004. The Feasibility Report addresses the
need for the project and defines its scope, current conditions, proposed improvements,
required permits and approvals, additional right-of-way and/or easement needs, estimated
costs, funding splits, availability of funds including the potential for assessments, and the
project schedule.
The streets proposed to be reconstructed with the 2010 reconstruction project include:
Area 4A (West River Street area)
West River Street – Chestnut Street to Pine Street (TH 25)
Front Street – Linn Street to Locust Street
Chestnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Elm Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Vine Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Minnesota Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Maple Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Linn Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Locust Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Walnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Prairie Road
Prairie Road – Nicholas Circle to Broadway (CSAH 75)
The total length of these streets is about 2 miles. The proposed reconstruction work
includes improvements related to pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, watermain, and other appurtenant work. A few of the improvements
discussed in the reports are optional so staff will be seeking Council direction on whether
those improvements should be completed with this project or not. Because the proposed
improvements differ significantly for Area 4A and Prairie Road staff prepared separate
Feasibility Reports for each, which are attached as supporting data. Some of the more
substantial design elements being proposed are summarized below.
Area 4A (West River Street area)
The Feasibility Report for Area 4A proposes a design including a sidewalk along the
north side of West River Street from Otter Creek Road to State Highway 25, as well as
along several connecting streets. It should be pointed out that it was proposed to extend
sidewalk along West River Street from Otter Creek Road to Chestnut Street in 2005
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
2
along with that street reconstruction project but area residents were not in favor of a
sidewalk extension at that time.
The proposed design also calls for a reduction in the street width for West River Street
from 36-feet to 32-feet, which reflects the minimum width needed to accommodate
traffic on low-volume roads while providing on-street parking on one side of the street
and emergency vehicle access. It should also be noted that West River Street from Elm
Street to TH 25, and Elm Street from West Broadway to West River Street, are both on
the City’s Municipal State Aid System. As such these streets are eligible to receive State
Aid funds if designed to State Aid standards which allow for parking on one side of the
street if the street is at least 32-foot wide, and allows for parking on both sides of a street
if the street is at least 38-feet wide.
The Feasibility Report also addresses the following optional improvements:
Chestnut Street sanitary sewer lift station wet well improvements
West Bridge Park pathway lighting improvements
TH 25 pedestrian underpass improvements
Walnut Street parking lot reconstruction
Sidewalk extension along West River Street between Locust Street and TH 25
The Feasibility Report addresses input received during two public input meetings held on
January 21st for property owners in Area 4A. One meeting was held for the residential
property owners and the other meeting was held for the non-residential property owners.
Approximately 35 people attended the two meetings and those in attendance generally
understood that the streets have deteriorated to the point that they require reconstruction.
However, several people questioned why the width of West River Street was being
proposed to be reduced from 36-feet to 32-feet. Staff informed them that this reduction
in width was being proposed to match the existing width or West River Street west of
Chestnut Street, and also because a 6-foot wide off-street concrete sidewalk was being
proposed along West River Street and City design standards call for a 32-foot wide street
to accommodate traffic on low-volume roads where off-street pedestrian facilities are
provided.
The most controversial topic of discussion at both meetings revolved around the need for
an off-street sidewalk along West River Street. Staff informed the meeting attendees that
we were proposing sidewalk because several West River Street residents recently told the
City Council that they wanted a sidewalk. In addition, the downtown business owners
recently voiced their support for more pedestrian facilities in the downtown area to better
connect the businesses to area parks and the river. Staff also noted that it is much safer
for pedestrians to use off-street sidewalks or pathways, especially for children.
Of the residential property owners who commented on the need for sidewalks, it seemed
to be about evenly split as to whether sidewalks provided enough benefit to outweigh the
cost. A few people said they often walk in the street and that they are rarely bothered or
passed by cars so they felt the sidewalk was not needed. Others said they do not feel safe
walking on West River Street and have seen some narrow misses so they do not go for
walks as often as they might if a sidewalk was available. One resident was initially
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
3
against the sidewalk because he did not want to maintain it, but when it was discussed
that the City Council may direct staff to maintain the sidewalk he changed his mind and
said he would support a sidewalk if the City maintained it.
Of the business property owners who commented on the need for sidewalks, all but one
felt that off-street sidewalks were not needed and would not be worth the cost citing that
times have changed and people no longer want to walk from store to store to shop so
additional sidewalk would provide no benefit to businesses in the area.
On Friday morning, the City received two petitions signed by residents who live within
Area 4A that are opposed to constructing sidewalks with the 2010 Street Reconstruction
project. Petition #1 includes 24 signatures of people living at 22 different properties
between Otter Creek Road and Chestnut Street. Petition #2 includes 46 signatures of
people living at 32 different properties between Chestnut Street and TH 25. Attached as
supporting data are copies of the petitions and a map showing the petitioners’ properties.
Last week staff discussed the fact that the City’s pathway plan shows West River Street
as having an on-road bicycle facility. Staff therefore recommends that the project design
as proposed in the Feasibility Report be altered to reflect one of the following options:
1. Reconstruct West River Street to 32-feet wide as proposed but construct a 9-foot
wide off-street bituminous pathway north of West River Street that would be
striped to allow shared pedestrian and bicycle use; or, as an alternative,
2. Reconstruct West River Street to 36-feet wide, construct a 6-foot wide off-street
sidewalk north of West River Street, and stripe a 6-foot wide on-street bicycle
lane on the north side of West River Street.
It was also noted that since this sidewalk or pathway is identified on the plan as a
“River Trail” providing off-road pedestrian connections between River parks and
trail segments, it was noted that perhaps this segment should be cleared of snow by
City equipment. Staff will discuss these options in detail during the Council meeting
since there was insufficient time to modify the Feasibility Report to reflect these options.
Prairie Road
The Feasibility Report for Prairie Road proposes a design including a sidewalk along the
south side of Prairie Road, which would be an extension of the existing sidewalk that
terminates west of Hedman Lane. This sidewalk would connect all the local residential
developments to the pathway along the south side of CSAH 75. The proposed design
also calls for Prairie Road to be converted from a 24-foot wide rural section with
drainage ditches to a 32-foot wide urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer.
The Feasibility Report also addresses an option to reconstruct the parking lot for Par
West Park. In addition, we may be required to provide additional improvements at the
BNSF railroad crossing.
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
4
The Feasibility Report addresses input received during a public input meeting that was
held on January 25th for all of the residential property owners included in the preliminary
assessment roll. Approximately 15 property owners attended the meeting. Those in
attendance generally understood that Prairie Road has deteriorated to the point that it
needs to be reconstructed. And while several people questioned the need for a sidewalk,
more people seemed to support it. Again it was discussed whether residents would be
required to maintain the walk or whether the City would maintain it and the overall
feeling was that if the City maintained it more people would support a sidewalk.
A1. Budget Impact: The estimated costs identified in the Feasibility Reports for both
project areas are as follows:
$2,898,450 – Area 4A base project
$508,000 – Area 4A optional improvements
$652,400 – Prairie Road base project
$31,000 – Prairie Road RR crossing and optional parking lot
improvements
Due to the existing low bond rates staff recommends using bonds to fund the
entire project. Bond payments would then be made using the appropriate funds.
As Council is aware, the bidding environment for street improvement projects has
been favorable over the last couple of years due to the economy and bid prices
have been coming in around 20% less than similar projects constructed several
years ago. All indications are that this favorable bidding environment will
continue in 2010 which will likely result in significant savings for the City if we
move ahead with this project in 2010.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Various staff from the Engineering and Public Works
Departments would spend a considerable amount of time working on this project,
both during the design and construction phases. Staff would also need assistance
from WSB and Associates for the development of plans and specifications and for
managing the project. City staff would handle construction inspection services.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-04 accepting the Feasibility Report and calling
for a Public Hearing for City Project No. 10C001 on February 22, 2010.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-04 accepting the Feasibility Report with
modifications as directed by Council and calling for a Public Hearing for City Project
No. 10C001 on February 22, 2010.
3. Motion to deny adopting Resolution No. 2010-04 at this time.
Council Agenda: 2/8/10
5
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1 or No. 2 since delaying the
Public Hearing could jeopardize project completion in 2010.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-04
Sidewalk opposition petitions (#1 & #2)
Map of petitioners’ properties
Feasibility Report for City Project No. 10C001 – Area 4A
Feasibility Report for City Project No. 10C001 – Prairie Road
Feasibility Report
February 8, 2010
Prepared by:
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
2010 Street Reconstruction Project
Area 4A
Street, Utility, and
Appurtenant Improvements
City Project No. 10C001
FEASIBILITY REPORT
2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
AREA 4A
STREET, UTILITY, AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROJECT NO. 10C001
February 8, 2010
Prepared By:
City of Monticello
Engineering Department
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
763-295-2711
763-295-4404 (Fax)
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1
2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................5
2.1 Authorization ....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Program Overview ............................................................................................................5
2.3 Scope.................................................................................................................................5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................9
3.1 Existing Soil Conditions ...................................................................................................9
3.2 Water Main .....................................................................................................................10
3.3 Sanitary Sewer ................................................................................................................10
3.4 Storm Sewer/Drainage ....................................................................................................12
3.5 Streets ..............................................................................................................................12
3.5.1 State Aid Routes .................................................................................................12
3.5.2 Existing Typical Sections ...................................................................................12
3.6 Land Use .........................................................................................................................12
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................13
4.1 Street and Stormwater Improvements .............................................................................13
4.1.1 West River Street ................................................................................................13
4.1.2 Chestnut, Elm, Vine, Minnesota, Maple, Linn and Locust Streets.....................14
4.1.3 Front Street .........................................................................................................14
4.1.4 Walnut Street ......................................................................................................15
4.1.5 Other Considerations ..........................................................................................15
4.1.6 Geotechnical Recommendations ........................................................................17
4.2 Stormwater Treatment .....................................................................................................17
4.3 Water Main Improvements .............................................................................................18
4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements ........................................................................................18
4.5 Construction Methods .....................................................................................................19
4.5 Private Utilities................................................................................................................20
4.6 Permits ............................................................................................................................20
4.7 Rights-of-Way/Easements...............................................................................................20
5. FINANCING ...........................................................................................................................21
5.1 Opinion of Cost ...............................................................................................................21
5.2 Funding ...........................................................................................................................23
5.2.1 Assessments ........................................................................................................23
5.2.2 City Contribution ................................................................................................25
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE .........................................................................................................27
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................28
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix C
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Assessment Map
Appendix D
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Project Number 10C001 continues the Overall Street Reconstruction Program and proposes
the reconstruction of streets located in the northern portion of the City. The streets proposed to
be reconstructed include the last remaining older segment of West River Street that connects
Chestnut Street to Pine Street (TH 25); Front Street from Linn Street to Locust Street; Chestnut
Street, Elm Street, Vine Street, Minnesota Street, Maple Street, and Walnut Street from West
Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street; and Linn Street and Locust Street from West
Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street. The project also includes extending Walnut Street to
intersect with West River Street and extending sidewalk along West River Street from Otter
Creek Road to TH 25. This project is referenced as Area 4A in the Overall Street Reconstruction
Program as adopted by the Monticello City Council on February 9, 2004. A map showing the
project area is included in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
All streets within the proposed project area were most recently evaluated and rated by City staff
in 2006. The ratings indicated a need for complete reconstruction of all streets within Area 4A.
After the preparation of this Feasibility Report was authorized by Council on October 12, 2009
City staff reviewed the ratings and determined that any new ratings would either be equal to or
worse than the 2006 ratings so it was decided that re-rating the streets would not be necessary.
On January 21, 2010 two separate public input meetings were held, one with residential property
owners and the other with the non-residential property owners within Area 4A. Approximately
35 property owners attended the two meetings. Those in attendance generally understood that
West River Street and the adjoining side streets have deteriorated to the point that they require
complete reconstruction. However, several people questioned the need to reduce the width of
West River Street from 36-feet to 32-feet as proposed by staff. Staff informed everyone that this
reduction in width was being proposed to match into the existing street width west of Chestnut
Street, and also because a 6-foot wide off-street concrete sidewalk was being proposed along
West River Street and City design standards only require a 32-foot wide street to accommodate
traffic on low-volume roads where off-street pedestrian facilities are provided.
The largest topic of discussion at both meetings revolved around the need for an off-street
sidewalk along West River Street. Staff informed the meeting attendees that we were proposing
the sidewalk because several West River Street residents recently told the City Council that they
wanted a sidewalk, and also because the downtown business owners recently voiced their
support for more sidewalks in the downtown area to better connect businesses to City parks and
the river. Staff also noted that it is always safer for pedestrians to use an off-street sidewalk or
pathway than it is to walk in the street, especially when children are present.
Of the residential property owners who commented on the need for sidewalks, it seemed to be
almost evenly split as to who felt sidewalks would provide enough benefit to outweigh the cost.
A few people said they walk in the street quite a bit and that they are rarely bothered or passed
by cars while walking so they felt the sidewalk was not needed. Others said they do not feel safe
when walking on West River Street and have seen some narrow misses and at times have felt
threatened by passing vehicles when walking in the street. One resident was initially against the
sidewalk because he did not want to maintain it, but when it was discussed that the City Council
may direct staff to maintain the sidewalk he immediately said he would support a sidewalk if the
City were to maintain it.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 2
Of the business property owners who commented on the need for sidewalks, all but one felt that
off-street sidewalks were not needed and would be a waste of money citing that times have
changed and people no longer walk from store to store to shop so sidewalks would provide no
benefit to businesses in the area.
This report therefore outlines a design that includes constructing a sidewalk along the north side
of West River Street from Otter Creek Road to State Highway 25, as well as along several
connecting streets. It was proposed to extend sidewalk along West River Street from Otter Creek
Road to Chestnut Street in 2005 along with the street reconstruction project however, residents
were not in favor of the sidewalk extension at that time.
This report also proposes to reduce the width of West River Street to 32-feet. This street width
reflects the minimum width needed to accommodate traffic flows on this low volume road while
also providing for emergency vehicle access while maintaining on-street parking on the south
side of the street only. West River Street from Elm Street to TH 25, and Elm Street from West
Broadway/CSAH 75 to West River Street are on the City’s Municipal State Aid System. These
streets are eligible to receive State Aid funds if designed to State Aid standards which allow for
parking on one side of the street only for a minimum 32-foot wide road, and allows for parking
on both sides of the street if the street is a minimum of 38-feet wide.
This report also addresses the following optional improvements:
Chestnut Street sanitary sewer lift station wet well replacement
West Bridge Park pathway lighting improvements
TH 25 pedestrian underpass improvements
Walnut Street parking lot reconstruction
Optional sidewalk improvements along West River Street from Locust Street to TH 25
The following is a summary of the proposed designs for the streets within Area 4A which total
approximately 1.4 miles in length.
West River Street:
Construct a 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the north side from Otter Creek Road to TH 25
with boulevard widths ranging from 0 to 17-feet, depending on existing building setback
requirements, landscaping, trees, etc. As always with these types of projects, staff will
work with property owners to minimize impacts to existing landscaping, trees and yards
as much as practical. The north side was chosen for the sidewalk for the following
reasons:
o West Bridge Park is on the north side and part of the intent of sidewalk in this
area is to connect the downtown area to the parks.
o Residential lots are typically deeper on the north side of West River Street which
provides a greater buffer area between the sidewalk and the homes.
o For ease of maintenance as the north side of streets are typically less shaded in the
winter and receive more sunlight which helps keep sidewalks clear of ice and
snow.
o When East River Street is reconstructed staff will propose that sidewalk also be
constructed on the north side of East River Street for similar reasons, and since it
will serve to connect East Bridge and Ellison Parks.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 3
Reconstruct to 32-feet wide, which is 4-feet narrower than its current width of 36-feet.
The reduction in width is being proposed for the following reasons:
o To match West River Street west of Chestnut Street, which is 32-feet wide.
o City design standards call for a 32-foot width on low-volume local streets with
off-street pedestrian facilities. Traffic volumes on this street equal approximately
1,800 vehicles per day.
o Adding a concrete sidewalk increases the impervious area along the street so to
prevent the need to add storm sewer and catch basins the street will be narrowed.
o Narrower streets tend to reduce vehicle speeds, and although data gathered by
City staff over the past couple of years indicates speeding issues are negligible,
several residents along this corridor recently voiced concerns that vehicles are
speeding and crowding pedestrians on West River Street.
Existing curb and gutter on the south side will remain in place except for areas needing
repair and for sanitary sewer and watermain replacement.
On-street parking will be allowed on the south side only to meet State Aid standards.
Front Street:
Reconstruct to existing width of 28-feet.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Construct storm sewer to pick up low-point in yards along south side and combine storm
sewer outlets into one outlet to the river.
Chestnut Street, Vine Street and Minnesota Street:
Reconstruct to existing width of 36-feet.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Elm Street and Maple Street:
Reconstruct to existing width of 36-feet.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Construct sidewalk on west side between West Broadway and West River Street.
Locust Street:
Reconstruct to existing width of 36-feet between West Broadway and West River Street,
and 28-feet between West River Street and Front Street.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Construct sidewalk along east side between West Broadway and Front Street.
Linn Street:
Reconstruct to existing width of 36-feet between West Broadway and West River Street,
and 28-feet between West River Street and Front Street.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Walnut Street:
Reconstruct to existing width, including on-street parking stalls.
Reconnect north end to West River Street to create a four-legged intersection.
Salvage existing curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway wherever possible.
Remove steps along sidewalk and realign sidewalk west of Walnut Street.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 4
The City Council directed staff to review costs associated with reconstructing West River Street
to it’s current width of 36-feet by salvaging the curb and gutter on the north side of the street.
Staff completed this review and found the estimated cost savings to be approximately $25,000.
This accounts for cost savings associated with salvaging a portion of the existing curb and gutter
on the north side of West River Street, which is then offset by the increased cost associated with
paving an additional 4-feet of street width along West River Street. This analysis did not include
costs associated with the proposed sidewalk. This number is relatively low because the sanitary
sewer and watermain trunk lines are proposed to be replaced between Maple Street and Locust
Street along West River Street, as well as at several other locations along West River Street,
thereby requiring much of the curb and gutter on the north side of the street to be reconstructed
anyway.
Staff also reviewed the costs associated with reconstructing the City’s parking lot east of Walnut
Street and south of West River Street. These costs were estimated to be $135,600 and included
costs for removing and replacing existing bituminous pavement, concrete sidewalk, curb and
gutter, constructing minor storm sewer improvements, restriping the lot for designated parking
stalls, and re-establishing turf. The City Council could consider allocating funds for this
improvement along with the proposed street reconstruction project. This is a reasonable estimate
regardless of whether Walnut Street is reconnected to the south side or West River Street or not.
The total estimated project cost for completing the work defined herein ranges from $2,898,450
to $3,352,350, depending on which of the options Council chooses to construct. These costs
include 10% contingency and 22% indirect costs. The project is proposed to be funded using a
mixture of funding sources including assessments to benefitting properties, City contributions,
utility trunk funds, State Aid funds, and street reconstruction funds.
Single-family residential property owners are proposed to be assessed for street construction at a
rate of $3,800 per lot with access to the reconstructed streets, and for sidewalk construction at a
rate of $260 per lot, which equals 25% of the total sidewalk costs in accordance with the City’s
policy to fund 75% of new sidewalk costs. The street assessment rate includes a 5% increase per
year from the previous rates assessed with the 2007 Street Reconstruction project to account for
increases in inflation and the construction cost index, and to make sure we meet the minimum
requirement that 20% of the project costs be assessed in order to bond for the project. Non-
residential lots are proposed to be assessed at $92 per front foot, which includes a sidewalk
assessment of $12 per front foot. .
City utility funds are proposed to be used for the sanitary sewer and watermain replacements on
West River Street, Linn Street and Front Street, for the sanitary sewer and water main extensions
along Linn Street, Locust Street and Walnut Street, and for general utility adjustments with the
project. Replacement of individual sewer and water services would be assessed to benefitting
property owners. Storm sewer utility funds would fund the new storm sewer along Front Street.
This project is necessary, feasible, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and can be
constructed as proposed herein.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 5
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization
The preparation of this report was authorized by the City Council on October 12, 2009 as a
continuation of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program adopted by the City Council on
February 9, 2004. This project has been designated as City Project No. 10C001.
2.2 Program Overview
The following report addresses the sixth reconstruction project to be completed from the multi-
year overall street reconstruction program. This project includes Area 4A from the Overall
Street Reconstruction Program which was scheduled to be reconstructed in 2006. However, due
to budget concerns in prior years, several areas of the program were split out into smaller
reconstruction projects thereby delaying the completion of the Overall Program. The last street
reconstruction project to be completed was City Project No. 2007-01C, which was constructed in
2007.
In 2003 City staff rated the streets in the Overall Street Reconstruction Program based on the
condition of the existing pavement, as well as the existing curb, underground utilities, and
sidewalk. This data was then utilized to provide a pavement condition index (PCI) rating for all
individual streets proposed for improvement. PCI ratings are based on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0
indicating a very poor street with a failed pavement structure and 100 indicating a newly
constructed street. These PCI ratings were then tabulated for each improvement area which
resulted in the creation of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program, which was adopted by the
City Council on February 9, 2004 and was subsequently used by the City to develop a Capital
Improvement Program for the reconstruction of all the streets identified within each project area.
In 2006 the streets in Area 4A were once again rated by City staff and the results indicated that
the streets were continuing to deteriorate. Then in the fall of 2009 staff evaluated the PCI ratings
and determined that any new ratings would be substantially worse than the ratings from 2006,
and that the new ratings would not change the recommendation to reconstruct the streets. As
such the streets in Area 4A are being recommended for reconstruction in 2010. These streets are
shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
2.3 Scope
The scope of this Feasibility Report includes the reconstruction of all streets located in Area 4A
as defined in the Overall Street Reconstruction Program. The overall PCI rating for the streets is
23. In addition, Chestnut Street between West Broadway and West River Street is proposed to
be reconstructed with Area 4A. This street was originally proposed to be reconstructed with
Area 3 in 2005 or 2006 but was delayed due to budgeting reasons.
Additional improvements are being proposed for West Bridge Park and the TH 25 pedestrian
underpass, including additional pathway lights and enhancing the TH 25 pedestrian underpass by
providing additional lighting, boxing in the area between the bridge beams to prevent people
from loitering there, and installing decorative fencing in place of the existing chain-link fence.
TABLE 1
Proposed Improvements – Area 4A
Street Name From To 2006 PCI Maintenance
Method
West River St Chestnut Street Pine St/TH 25 5 (avg.) Reconstruct
Front St Linn Street Locust Street 32 Reconstruct
Chestnut St West Broadway West River St 53 Reconstruct
Elm St West Broadway West River St 13 Reconstruct
Vine St West Broadway West River St 10 Reconstruct
Minnesota St West Broadway West River St 14 Reconstruct
Maple St West Broadway West River St 7 Reconstruct
Linn St West Broadway Front St 21 Reconstruct
Locust St West Broadway Front St 6 Reconstruct
Walnut St West Broadway West River St 10 Reconstruct
Pavement Management System (PMS) software was utilized to calculate the data from the
ratings to achieve the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is based on the physical condition
of the streets. The PCI is obtained from a field inspection of every square yard of street surface
measuring both the quantity and the type (severity) of distresses in the pavement. Some
examples of typical pavement distresses that are found in these streets include transverse and
longitudinal cracking, block cracking, and alligator cracking. Representative pictures of these
types of pavement distresses are shown below.
Longitudinal cracking Block Cracking Alligator Cracking
The calculation of the PCI value for an individual street takes into account the total area of
distresses encountered and the severity of the distresses. The field inspection was completed by
the Monticello Public Works Department, with assistance from WSB staff, in accordance with
the flexible “Pavement Distress Manual” prepared by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board
(MLRRB). This is a commonly used pavement rating system and was utilized in our past street
rating operations. Areas with the lowest PCI values represent streets exhibiting the highest
levels of distresses in the pavement, while areas with the highest PCI values represent streets
with the lowest levels of pavement distresses. The following table shows the relationship of the
PCI to the recommended maintenance strategies.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 6
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 7
PCI Range Street Characteristics Maintenance Method
Additional Items Often
Repaired
70 - 100
Low to medium severity potholes,
frost cracking, medium severity
transverse cracking, aggregate
polishing, low severity raveling
Routine Maintenance /
Crack Seal / Sealcoat
Spot patching, gate valve
adjustments
36 - 69
Low to medium severity
longitudinal and transverse
cracking, low and moderate
severity edge and curb cracking
and spalling, low to medium
severity block cracking, medium
severity raveling
Patch / Repair /
Resurface / Overlay
Raise manhole castings, adjust
gate valves, repair or replace
cracked or spalled curb, repair
or replace catch basin castings
0 - 35
Medium to high severity
longitudinal and transverse
cracking, medium to high severity
reflective cracking, alligator
cracking, medium to high severity
potholes, high severity edge and
curb cracking and spalling,
rutting, excessive skin patching,
high severity raveling, medium to
high severity frost heaving
Reclaim and Recycle /
Reconstruct / Upgrade
Replace or install sanitary
sewer, replace or install storm
sewer, replace or install water
main, replace utility castings,
adjust road grade and
alignment, replace or install curb
and gutter
Each of these maintenance strategies has its own life cycle, as well as its part in extending the
life of the overall pavement section.
Streets with PCI ratings from 0 to 35 indicate the presence of several distresses in the pavement
and it is difficult to quantify the amount of distresses given that there are so many. As a result,
comparing the ratings in this range, for example whether it is a 2 or a 20, does not result in a
significant change in the type of maintenance method for these streets or make the street with the
higher PCI rating in better condition than the street with the lower PCI rating. It is therefore
recommended that a street with a PCI below 35 be reconstructed for these reasons.
All streets within Area 4A, as well as Chestnut Street, are exhibiting significant pavement
distresses as described above. Following are descriptions of the relative ratings for each street
within Area 4A, including Chestnut Street.
West River Street (Chestnut Street to Pine Street): West River Street was last reconstructed in
1977 and had an average PCI rating of 5 in 2006. Some patching has been completed on this
roadway in the past. The entire pavement section of this street will be reconstructed and the
southerly curb and gutter will be left in place, except any panels needing repair.
Front Street (Linn Street to Locust Street): Front Street was last reconstructed in 1977 and had
an average PCI rating of 32 in 2006. Storm sewer is proposed to be added under the entire
length of the street to drain a low point in the front yard of a residential property, plus the
existing watermain and sanitary sewer need to be replaced along the entire street. As such this
street must be fully reconstructed, with the possible exception of the northerly curb and gutter.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 8
Chestnut Street (West Broadway to West River Street): Chestnut Street was last reconstructed in
1977 and had a PCI rating of 53 in 2006. The entire pavement section of this street will be
reconstructed, but all the curb and gutter will be left in place, except any panels needing repair.
Elm Street, Vine Street, Minnesota Street, Maple Street, Locust Street and Walnut Street: These
streets were last reconstructed in 1977 and had PCI ratings ranging from 6 to 14 in 2006. The
entire pavement section of these streets will be reconstructed, but all the curb and gutter will be
left in place, except any panels needing repair.
Linn Street: Linn Street was last reconstructed in 1977 and had an average PCI rating of 21 in
2006. The entire pavement section of this street will be reconstructed, as will all the curb and
gutter. It is also known that extensive groundwater springs exist in this area and needs to be
directed into the storm sewer system as best as possible during the reconstruction of the street.
It should be noted that one of the goals of the Overall Street Reconstruction Program was to
leave each area with a consistent quality and life span for each roadway. This goal was taken
into account when evaluating the quality of each street. In addition, the recommendations of the
geotechnical report and the quality of the underlying soil impacts the determination of the
appropriate maintenance strategy.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 9
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Existing Soil Conditions
A combination of five new and five previously obtained soil borings were used to determine the
subsurface soil conditions beneath the streets proposed for reconstruction with this project. The
new borings were needed where there were not enough previously obtained borings to properly
evaluate the existing soil conditions. It should be noted that most of the borings were taken
when groundwater is typically low so groundwater elevations are likely higher than the borings
are indicating. As such, this report assumes significant dewatering costs will be incurred during
construction of utilities.
The West River Street borings, 3 of which were borings taken in 1977 and 3 of which were new
borings, generally encountered 4 to 6-inches of bituminous surfacing underlain by 7 to 16-inches
of aggregate base. The pavement section was generally underlain by poorly graded sand with
silt, silty sand, and clayey sand fill and natural soils. No groundwater was observed in any of the
borings.
The new boring on Walnut Street encountered 2-inches of bituminous surfacing over 18-inches
of aggregate base underlain by poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand. As with the
West River Street borings, no groundwater was observed.
The new boring on Linn Street encountered 4-inches of bituminous surfacing over 9-inches of
aggregate base underlain by poorly graded sand. Groundwater was observed in this boring at a
depth of 10½-feet, which corresponds to an elevation of 915.5-feet.
The new boring on Vine Street encountered 5½-inches of bituminous surfacing over 5½-inches
of aggregate base underlain by 3-feet of silty and clayey sand fill over 5-feet of poorly graded
sand with silt fill over natural clayey sand. No groundwater was observed in this boring.
The 1977 Front Street boring encountered about 3-inches of bituminous surfacing over 3-inches
of aggregate base underlain by silty sand. Groundwater was not observed in this boring.
The soil boring reports indicate that the existing street subgrade soils consist of poorly graded
sand, silty sand and clayey sand, and that in general these soils are suitable subgrade soils for
street construction. However, if the silty and clayey sand soils are at or above their optimum
moisture contents they will be unstable and will require farming and drying, or alternatively a 2-
foot subcut could be completed with the soil being replaced with compacted select granular
material. The Geotechnical Report recommends a 2-foot subcut which was used to determine
the estimated costs for this Feasibility Report. However, based on pavement design calculations,
a 1-foot subcut is only required to meet traffic demands.
The borings also indicate that the existing street subgrade soils appear suitable for the support
and bedding of utilities. The Geotechnical Evaluation Report, including all soil borings, is
included herein as Appendix D.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 10
3.2 Water Main
In Area 4A the water main system was installed in the early 1940’s and consists of cast iron pipe
(CIP) ranging in size from 6-inch to 8-inch diameters with approximately 8 to 10 feet of cover.
The existing water main system was tested for leaks in January of 2010 and only one minor leak
was detected in the hydrant lead at the corner of Linn and Front Streets. This leak will be fixed
with the project. And based on recent visual inspections of several sections of water main in
Area 4A the pipe still appears to be in very good condition and as such does not need to be
replaced with this project however, the hydrants and valves are nearing the end of their useful
lives so all valves and hydrants will be replaced.
Chlorine residual levels have not posed an issue in this area in the past, and the majority of the
system provides adequate fire flows to adjacent properties.
3.3 Sanitary Sewer
The improvement area is currently served by a gravity sanitary sewer system comprised of 8 to
10-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP). This sewer has been televised many times over the
years, and will be televised again this spring when the ground water is at its highest to help
detect groundwater leaks. Based on staff’s review of the existing televising tapes, some of the
existing 8-inch VCP sanitary sewer is in adequate condition to meet the needs of the residents
during the design lives of the reconstructed streets and as such does not need to be replaced with
this project. However, certain sections will need to be replaced due to excessive sagging and/or
cracking. These segments have been sealed multiple times over the past several years. In
addition, extensive groundwater springs exist in this area along Linn Street from West River
Street to Front Street that have infiltrated in the pipes.
The existing trunk line is generally located along the centerline of each street and conveys
wastewater to the City’s wastewater treatment facility located north of CSAH 75 in the north
central portion of the City along the Mississippi River. If the roadway is narrowed by 4-feet as
proposed, the center of the manhole castings would then be located approximately 2-feet north of
centerline, which may fall in the tire track of the westbound traffic lane. However, project
inspectors would work with the contractor to tolerance the castings as close to finished grade as
possible to provide as smooth a driving surface as practical.
Chestnut Lift Station Flows
In the City’s 1995 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study and subsequent Feasibility Studies, the
long range plan for the Chestnut Lift Station was to redirect the forcemain discharge from the
Main Interceptor (located along 6th and 5th Streets) to the trunk sewer along River Street. This
would have involved upsizing the River Street sanitary sewer from Chestnut Street to the
wastewater treatment plant. The purpose for redirecting the Chestnut Lift Station forcemain to
the River Street Trunk Sewer was to free up capacity in the Main Interceptor System for future
development in areas south of I-94 that were planned to discharge to the Marvin Road Lift
Station and former Reservoir Lift Station. These lift stations currently or did flow to the Main
Interceptor Sewer System.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 11
Over the past several years, through additional planning, sewer construction projects have been
implemented that will allow redirecting portions of other service areas away from the Main
Interceptor Sewer System. This will free up capacity in the Main Interceptor System and allow
the Chestnut Lift Station to continue to discharge to the Main Interceptor Sewer System. These
construction projects have included the Southeast Interceptor/Bondhus Segment Trunk Sewer
Extension (completed in 2006) and the Otter Creek Lift Station, located along Chelsea Road in
the Monticello Business Center campus. The Southeast Interceptor/Bondhus Segment Trunk
Sewer Extension allowed removal of the Reservoir Lift Station and provides a means for
redirecting flows from portions of south sewer shed areas, which were originally planned to be
served by the Marvin Road Lift Station. The Otter Creek lift station project will serve the entire
sewer shed area west of the Marvin Road Lift Station. A portion of this sewer shed area was
originally planned to be served by the Marvin Road Lift Station.
In addition to the construction projects mentioned above that will permit the redirection of more
future projected flows from the Main Interceptor Sewer System than planned in the 1995
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study, wastewater flows from existing developed areas currently
served by the Main Interceptor System are lower than estimated in the 1995 Study. This is based
on the flow monitoring performed in 2005 as part of the Jefferson at Monticello (Silver Springs
Golf Course/Heritage development) Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Analysis Utility Study (CP
05C006).
Analysis of the capacity of the Main Interceptor Sewer System, shows that this interceptor
system has capacity to continue to carry the wastewater flows from the Chestnut Lift Station.
The analysis includes estimated peak flows from possible future development at the Monticello
Country Club golf course, located along Golf Course Road, that would be directed to the Main
Interceptor Sewer System near the intersection of 7th Street West and Elm Street. Wastewater
flows from potential development at the golf course were estimated by assuming a housing
density of 3.0 units per acre and a flow per day per unit of 274 gallons.
Analysis of the Main Interceptor System downstream of the Marvin Road Lift Station identified
a segment of 21-inch trunk sewer with critical (limiting) grade. Hydraulic flow calculations
indicate that the trunk sewer may surcharge when flows reach the capacity of the existing Marvin
Road Lift Station. Based on as-built information and field survey completed as part of the
Jefferson at Monticello Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Analysis Utility Study, it was
determined that the trunk sewer system can safely be surcharged 0.31 feet during the peak flow
period, giving the segment of 21-inch trunk sewer with limiting grade a capacity of 2,000 gpm
when surcharged.
The Otter Creek Lift Station currently discharges to the Marvin Road Lift Station. The analysis
of the Main Interceptor Sewer System indicates that in the interim there is available capacity to
convey wastewater from the future area served by the Otter Creek Lift Station. However, as
development occurs in the Northwest Area, the forcemain from the Otter Creek Lift Station will
need to be extended to the Southeast Area Interceptor located at the intersection of Chelsea Road
and Fallon Avenue as planned for in the Jefferson at Monticello Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
Analysis Utility Study. This will provide additional available capacity in the Main Interceptor
Sewer.
In summary, our analysis indicates that the Chestnut lift station can remain discharging to the
same location as it is currently and does not need to be rerouted to the River Street Trunk Sewer.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 12
3.4 Storm Sewer/Drainage
The existing roadways within this project area have curb and gutter to collect stormwater runoff
and transport it via storm sewer to outlets along the banks of the Mississippi River located at
Chestnut Street, Minnesota Street, Maple Street, Linn Street, Locust Street and Walnut Street.
3.5 Streets
3.5.1 State Aid Routes
West River Street between Elm Street and TH 25 is a State Aid route, as is Elm Street
between West Broadway and West River Street.
3.5.2 Existing Typical Sections
Existing street widths vary depending on location. All the streets within Area 4A were
constructed in 1977 and include B618 curb and gutter. The widths of these streets vary
between 28 and 36-feet from curb-face to curb-face within 65-foot (Front Street) to 100-
foot (Minnesota Street) right-of-ways.
Walnut Street from West Broadway to West River Street has painted head-in parking
stalls on both sides of the street. It also connects to a parking lot owned by the City. The
width between the painted parking stalls is approximately 24-feet wide. Sidewalk fronts
the street on both sides to accommodate pedestrian access between West Broadway and
West River Street, although the sidewalk connection to West River Street is not ADA
accessible since it contains steps.
3.6 Land Use
The properties affected by the proposed improvements in Area 4A are both single-family
residential and non-residential properties. There are a total of 32 non-residential properties and
121 single-family residential parcels, all of which are proposed to be assessed for the project
improvements to varying degrees. There are also 5 parcels owned by the City along West River
Street including the West Bridge Park parcel, 2 parcels containing the parking lot east of Walnut
Street and south of West River Street, and the EDA property located at Locust Street and West
River Street, and a residential lot east of Willow Street on West River Street.
The project area is currently zoned residential west of Maple Street, PZM between Maple Street
and Linn Street, and CCD east of Linn Street.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 13
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Street and Stormwater Improvements
4.1.1 West River Street
This feasibility report presents a design that provides direct access for local pedestrian
traffic to the City’s sidewalk and pathway system, salvages most of the existing concrete
curb and gutter, utilizes the existing drainage system, and minimizes impacts during
construction. The typical section for West River Street can be seen on Figure 2, and all
the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figures 3- 6.
Sidewalk:
A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed to extend along the north side of West River
Street from Otter Creek Road to Locust Street, or alternatively to Pine Street/TH 25.
This sidewalk would connect the existing sidewalk on the east side of Otter Creek Road,
which was constructed in 2006, to the sidewalk along West Broadway and to the pathway
in West Bridge Park, which also connects to the sidewalk on Pine Street/TH 25.
The boulevard widths between the sidewalk and West River Street would vary from 0 to
16-feet back of curb. While wider boulevards are preferred to provide a buffer area
between pedestrians and vehicular traffic and to accommodate snow storage, in some
areas such as at Elm Street where an existing garage was built within the City’s right-of-
way, thereby minimizing the driveway length, there will be no boulevard and the
sidewalk will be constructed adjacent to the curb.
The sidewalk would be aligned as straight as possible throughout the corridor, but in
some areas the sidewalk will likely need to be shifted to avoid established trees,
landscaping, utilities, etc.
During the public input meetings all but one of the non-residential property owners who
attended the meeting, along with numerous residential property owners, questioned the
need for the sidewalk. The non-residential property owners didn’t feel sidewalk was
needed since they feel people don’t want to walk to shop anymore, and therefore store-
front parking is much more important. Several of the residents said they would never
support a sidewalk, while some said they would not support a sidewalk unless the City
maintained it, in which case they would definitely support it. Still a few others said they
supported the sidewalk even if they would have to maintain it.
Street Design:
West River Street is currently 36-feet wide from face-of-curb to face-of-curb between
Linn Street and Chestnut Street but staff is proposing to reconstruct West River Street to
a 32-foot wide street, thereby narrowing it by 4-feet. Current City design standards call
for a width of 32-feet for local streets with low volumes of traffic and off-street
pedestrian facilities. This description matches the design of West River Street as
currently proposed. In addition, it should be noted that West River Street west of
Chestnut Street, which was reconstructed in 2005, was also reconstructed at 32-feet wide,
even though there are no off-street pedestrian facilities along that area of West River
Street. As such the width of West River Street would be consistent from Pine Street/TH
25 all the way to Sandy Lane.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 14
The south curb line of the street, which is composed of concrete B618 curb and gutter, is
proposed to be salvaged and will therefore remain in its current location. As such the
north curb line would be shifted 4-feet to the south, which would work well in helping to
provide wider boulevards between the street and the proposed sidewalk on the north side.
However, parking would now only be allowed on the south side of the street given the
proposed narrower street width and to conform to State Aid standards. No parking signs
would therefore be installed on the north side of the roadway.
Stormwater Improvements:
The existing storm sewer system is proposed to be left in place with this project and
would provide adequate drainage for the 10-year event for the life of the new streets.
However, the catch basins on the north side of West River Street would need to be
relocated to accommodate the narrower street width.
Staff is also proposing that the Mississippi River storm sewer outlets at Maple, Linn and
Walnut Streets be repaired with this project. Various components of these outlets
including pipe sections, aprons, trash guards and/or riprap are proposed to be repaired
and/or replaced. The existing Mississippi River outlet at Locust Street is proposed to be
removed by combining it with the Linn Street outlet. This work is being proposed since a
new storm trunk line is being proposed along Front Street to drain an existing low point
in the front yard of a residential property south of Front Street, just outside the City right-
of-way. This low point has been known to hold more than a foot of standing water
thereby limiting the use of a large area of the resident’s yard for long periods of time,
especially in the spring.
4.1.2 Chestnut, Elm, Vine, Minnesota, Maple, Linn and Locust Streets
These streets have existing B618 concrete curb and gutter and will have the complete
pavement section removed prior to receiving a new pavement section, including
aggregate base class 5. The typical section for these streets can be seen on Figure 2, and
all the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figures 4-6.
The existing curb and gutter will be salvaged, except for any panels needing replacement
to correct defects within the panel, to restore the existing flow line and grade where the
curb has settled, or where differential settlement has occurred. These spot repairs will
receive a full-depth sawcut to minimize disruption to the curb adjacent to the repair area.
Hydraulic jacking can also be utilized, which would involve injecting a concrete mix to
repair small segments of the curb. This method may be less expensive and provide fewer
impacts to the adjacent curb.
4.1.3 Front Street
Front Street has existing B618 concrete curb and gutter which will be removed and
replaced with new B618 curb and gutter. The entire pavement section will be removed
prior to receiving a new pavement section, including aggregate base class 5. The typical
section for this street can be seen on Figure 2, and all proposed surface improvements are
shown on Figure 6.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 15
4.1.4 Walnut Street
Walnut Street has existing concrete curb and integral sidewalk, along with head-in
parking along both sides of the street. The street will be reconstructed by removing the
entire pavement section but leaving the curb and sidewalk in place, except where
replacement is needed. A new pavement section will then be constructed between the
curbing, including aggregate base class 5. The typical section for this street can be seen
on Figure 2, and the proposed surface improvements are shown on Figure 6.
It is being proposed to connect Walnut Street and West River Street which currently do
not intersect. At one time the two streets did form a 4-legged intersection but the streets
were disconnected in the early 1970’s at the request of the local businesses. It is our
understanding that they felt the retaining wall west of Walnut Street and south of West
River Street formed a barrier and limited accessibility to their stores. At the time the
streets were disconnected Walnut Street was reconstructed to include store-front parking
along all the businesses.
Staff is proposing to again connect Walnut Street to West River Street with this project.
This is proposed because the City’s 1997 Downtown Redevelopment Plan recommends
that the two streets be reconnected. Also, during recent discussions with the downtown
businesses staff was told that the businesses feel it is important to increase the access
between the downtown area, East and West Bridge Parks and the river. Connecting
Walnut Street to West River Street would serve to enhance this accessibility, both for
drivers and pedestrians. And since Walnut Street will need to be reconstructed anyway
due to the extensive utility work occurring under the street the costs to do so would be
minimized at this time.
Approximately eight on-street parking spaces will be removed on the west side of Walnut
Street with the extension of the street to West River Street. In addition, approximately
ten parking spaces will be removed in the City-owned parking lot area. A small retaining
wall is proposed between Walnut Street and the City owned lot in order to minimize the
number of lost parking spaces.
4.1.5 Other Considerations
Chestnut Street Lift Station Wet Well Improvements:
The wet well at the Chestnut Street lift station is currently sized to provide the minimum
necessary capacity to allow enough wastewater storage for 45 minutes from the time the
alarm sounds in case of an emergency. This allows on-call staff up to 45 minutes to
respond and correct the problem, or begin pumping the wastewater to another location
that can accept it. This option would allow staff to upsize the wet well to provide
additional storage capacity. The added benefit to this option is that it would allow staff
more room to work within the lift station as currently the working room is very cramped.
Table 3 in section 5.1 contains the cost estimate as proposed.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 16
West Bridge Park Pathway Lighting Improvements:
The pathways in West Bridge Park are minimally lit so staff is proposing to enhance the
pathway lighting by installing 10 additional lights. This will provide a more secure
feeling for users of the pathway system, which is important since the pathway leads to the
TH 25 pedestrian underpass and to East Bridge Park.
Table 4 in section 5.1 contains the cost estimate as proposed.
TH 25 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements:
The TH 25 pedestrian underpass between East and West Bridge Parks is proposed to be
improved to increase safety. Currently the underpass is poorly lit using 4 lights with 1
light mounted at each end of the underpass and 2 lights mounted on the sides of bridge
beams in the middle of the underpass. In addition, the areas between the bridge beams
where they rest on the abutment are open and sometimes are used as “resting places” by
people, in which case their legs dangle over the pathway while people walk underneath
them. And lastly, a tall chain link fence serves to separate the pathway from the river,
which does not provide an inviting feel. Staff is therefore proposing to enhance the
underpass lighting, to box in the areas between the bridge beams to prevent loitering (if
Mn/DOT approves of this work), and to provide a decorative fence between the pathway
and the river in place of, or in conjunction with, the chain link fence.
Table 4 in section 5.1 contains the cost estimate as proposed.
Walnut Street Parking Lot Improvements:
The Walnut Street parking lot is in need of reconstruction, and by combining it with this
project we should be able to realize a significant savings due to economies of scale. This
work would include removing the existing pavement section and replacing it with the
same pavement section as is proposed for Walnut Street. The work would also include
minimal curb and gutter work, restriping parking stalls, and providing minor irrigation
and landscaping work. It is also proposed that the grade difference be removed between
the main parking lot and the small lot between the two buildings that Old Skool Kustoms
operates out of.
Table 5 in section 5.1 contains the cost estimate as proposed.
Optional Sidewalk Extensions – Locust Street to Pine Street/TH 25:
Included with the project is a cost for adding sidewalk on the north side of West River
Street from Locust Street to Pine Street/TH 25, which is designated by the dashed line in
Figure 8. Currently, there is no sidewalk in this area, and the sidewalk along West River
Street as proposed with this project would stop at Locust Street, where pedestrians would
then navigate north on Locust Street to access the sidewalk along the townhomes or
access the pathway in West Bridge Park to get to Pine Street/TH 25. This sidewalk is
being proposed as optional due to the relatively high cost associated with constructing the
sidewalk as the grades are steep and would require retaining walls behind the sidewalk.
Table 6 in section 5.1 contains the cost estimate as proposed.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 17
4.1.6 Geotechnical Recommendations
The Geotechnical Evaluation Report included in Appendix D recommends that if silty
sand and clayey sands are present in the subgrade and are at or above their optimum
moisture content that we should subcut “about 2 feet and replacing them with Select
Granular Borrow (Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B2).”
This project includes reconstructing local access roadways that have been in service for
over 30 years and while the roadway pavements have failed their failure seems to be
caused more from age than poor subgrade conditions. Excavating 2-feet of soil and
replacing it with select granular borrow would increase costs, however staff is proposing
to follow Braun’s recommendation for the purposes of providing a cost in this Feasibility
Report. Should it become apparent during construction that the existing subgrade soils
are adequate for construction using a 1-foot subcut we will make this change in the field
by reducing the subcut depth to 1-foot below the bottom of the aggregate base, which is
what was included with the adjacent reconstruction projects along West River Street
during the past few years which are holding up well.
4.2 Stormwater Treatment
This project involves reconstructing existing urban streets with existing storm sewer systems.
Unlike new developments, which would provide stormwater catch basins, pipes and stormwater
ponds to provide flood control and water treatment, redevelopment projects require a more
creative approach for stormwater management. It is the City’s policy that redevelopment
projects incorporate stormwater treatment systems where feasible. In the past, water quality has
been provided by grading new ponds or expanding existing ponds, by grading drainage swales,
and by installing sump manholes or “stormceptor” manholes.
The current management of stormwater in this section of the City utilizes storm sewer to route
and discharge stormwater runoff directly into the Mississippi River. Flooding or ponding of
surface water due to rainfall events are not significantly problematic in this area.
The project as proposed will exhibit a new net increase in impervious surface with the addition
of the sidewalk but it is anticipated that the boulevard areas can be used to treat the runoff to
meet the applicable permitting requirements. In addition, reducing the width of West River
Street by 4-feet will help to reduce the new net impervious area.
No new storm sewer is being proposed, except for a 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
under Front Street which will correct an existing issue with standing water in the front yards of
several residents south of Front Street.
The existing storm sewer outlets along the banks of the Mississippi River are proposed to be
combined, repaired and/or reconstructed with this project. These outlets are located at Chestnut
Street, Minnesota Street, Maple Street, Linn Street, Locust Street and Walnut Street, and will
require repairing or replacement of pipe sections, aprons, trash grates and/or riprap.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 18
During preparation of this report staff contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) to discuss future requirements for stormwater treatment in previously developed areas
since adding stormwater treatment ponds in these areas can be problematic. The MPCA was not
able to provide any clear direction on what types of treatment may be required of City’s in the
future, but they did inform us that stormceptor type manholes are probably not a method they
would approve of on a large scale approach. As such staff does not recommend installing any
stormceptor manholes with this project, but rather recommends adding sump manholes in several
key locations to remove as much grit from our stormwater runoff as possible before discharging
it into the river. Sump manholes involve minimal costs but yield sizeable gains by reducing the
discharge of solids. This approach will allow us to wait and see what the MPCA’s position will
be in the future while avoiding spending money on treatment methods that they may not approve
of.
4.3 Water Main Improvements
The existing watermain was tested for leaks in January of 2010. Based on the results of the leak
detection tests staff is proposing to leave the existing watermain in place unless it is identified for
replacement for other reasons. This is the case with the watermain along West River Street
between Maple Street and Locust Street and segments on either side of Minnesota Street, which
will be replaced with 8-inch DIP. This is being proposed to accommodate the current zoning per
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, and because the existing sanitary sewer running alongside and
parallel to the watermain is being replaced anyway.
The existing 2-inch copper pipe under Walnut Street is in very poor condition and needs to be
replaced also and, as before, the 2-inch pipe will be replaced with 8-inch DIP to reflect the
current zoning per the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Eight-inch DIP water main will also be
constructed under Front Street between Locust Street and Linn Street, under Linn Street from
West River Street to Front Street, and under Linn Street and Locust Street between West
Broadway and West River Street in place of the long service lines that currently serve several
properties along these streets.
Other than these identified repairs or replacements only valves, hydrants and leaking service
lines will be replaced with this project. The locations of the proposed repairs or replacements are
shown in the plans in on Figures 7, 8 and 9 of Appendix A.
4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements
All sanitary sewers in the project area were previously televised and will be televised again this
spring when groundwater levels are at their highest so any pipes with groundwater infiltration
issues will be most evident. Based on staff review of the televised tapes the segment of mainline
sewer along West River Street between Maple and Locust Streets will need to be replaced due to
the presence of cracks, substantial sags in the sewer line and leaking joints, as will the mainline
sewer under Front Street from Linn Street to Locust Street, and under Linn Street between West
River Street and Front Street. Other shorter sections of mainline sewer will need replacement to
correct issues with significant sags and cracked pipe sections. These pipe sections will be
replaced with 8-inch polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) pipe. In addition, several shorter sections of
sewer and numerous service lines need to be repaired and/or replaced. It is proposed to slip-line
other segments of the sanitary sewer that have significant infiltration and root intrusion.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 19
The locations of the proposed repairs or replacements are shown in the plans in on Figures 7, 8
and 9 of Appendix A.
Some manhole castings and adjustment rings have exhibited cracking and spalling and will be
replaced as necessary. Manhole casting lids with open pick holes will be removed and replaced
with sealed solid lids with concealed pick holes. This will reduce the volume of stormwater
inflow into the sanitary sewer system which will serve to lower the volume of clean water to be
treated at the wastewater treatment plant thereby reducing wastewater treatment costs at the
plant.
The existing sanitary sewer lift station east of Chestnut Street and north of West River Street is
proposed to be improved by replacing the pumps, rails, controls and access doors, which are all
near the end of their useful lives. The pumps are 23 years old. Pumps typically have a 20 to 25
year useful life. The control panel is small with inadequate space to install a future SCADA
system. It is also proposed to waterproof and seal the wet well and valve manhole from the
outside. Staff investigated the need and benefits associated with upsizing the wet well size as
identified in section 4.1.5, but due to the costs involved staff is proposing to delay this work until
and if the capacity of the lift station becomes an issue. In the meantime, staff will continue to
work around the confined space issues.
4.5 Construction Methods
Existing pavements will be reconstructed by removing the existing bituminous surface and class
5 aggregate base. The existing subgrade will then be farmed and compacted to provide a stable
base for the pavement section. However, if during construction it is noticed that the subgrade
soils are not deemed to be stable enough for construction purposes they will either be farmed to
dry the soil, if time allows, or they will be removed and replaced with a 1-foot section of
compacted select granular borrow as directed by the engineer. Pavement reclamation may be
used for this project depending on the suitability of the existing subgrade soils. This will be
evaluated during subgrade preparation operations.
During utilities construction, manhole and catch basin castings will be removed and the
structures will be covered to prevent materials from dropping into these facilities. Paving will be
completed in two separate lifts upon acceptance of the grading of the aggregate base. It is
anticipated that the final lift of the bituminous wear course could be placed on some of the streets
in the fall of the same year, as long as the weather cooperates, and where there are no utilities
installed under the street. On streets that had utilities installed under them, the wear course
would be left off until the following year to allow the soils under the street enough time to settle.
During construction the contractor will be required to phase their operations to smaller areas of
the overall project to minimize areas of disruption. This would serve to minimize the level of
traffic control needed on the project and minimize disturbances to properties.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 20
4.5 Private Utilities
Staff has not yet met with the telephone, gas, and cable utilities regarding this project. If the City
Council approves the preparation of Plans and Specifications staff will meet with the private
utility companies to discuss the proposed improvements. The alignment of streets and sidewalks
were considered to minimize impacts to private utilities and, if approved, the project will be
designed to minimize impacts to existing private utility infrastructure. It is anticipated that a few
of the power poles will need to be relocated.
Should some of the utility companies indicate that they want to upsize or modify their services
during this project those upgrades and replacements of private utilities will be at the discretion
and cost of the individual utility.
Residents voiced their desire for Xcel Energy to bury their overhead lines with this project. City
staff will contact Xcel Energy to relay these comments.
4.6 Permits
Permits required as part of the proposed improvements are anticipated as follows:
MPCA General Stormwater Permit (NPDES).....Grading and Storm Water
Wright County........................................................Roadway Right-of-Way
US Army Corps of Engineers.........Mississippi River Storm Water Outlets
MPCA MS4 Permit..................................................Impaired Water/TMDL
MPCA MS4 Permit....................................................Scenic River Segment
4.7 Rights-of-Way/Easements
It is anticipated that all improvements will occur within existing City right-of-ways. There are
no existing drainage and utility easements in this area of the City. It is not anticipated that the
City will need to acquire any additional right-of-way or easements for this project.
A temporary construction easement may be required along Front Street to construct the storm
drain in the front yard of the residential property but staff does not anticipate any costs
associated with this as the work is being done to correct an existing issue that the property
owners brought to our attention.
Rights of entries from individual property owners may need to be obtained prior to construction
commencing for grading, utility construction and restoration.
The potential costs for any other easements have not been included in this feasibility report.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 21
5. FINANCING
5.1 Opinion of Cost
A detailed opinion of probable cost for the proposed improvements can be found in Appendix B
of this report. These opinions of probable cost incorporate anticipated 2010 construction costs
and include a 10% construction contingency and 28% indirect costs. The indirect costs include
legal, engineering, administrative, and financing items. Summary tables of both the proposed
and optional project costs are shown below in tables 2 through 6.
TABLE 2
Project Costs
2010 Street Reconstruction Project
Area 4A
SCHEDULE TOTAL
Schedule A – Surface Improvements $1,586,000
Schedule A1 – Sidewalk $211,200
Schedule B – Storm Sewer Improvements $74,750
Schedule C – Water Main Improvements $330,550
Schedule D – Sanitary Sewer Improvements $505,650
Schedule D1 – Chestnut Street Lift Station Improvements $190,300
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,898,450
NOTE: Costs reflect the use of reinforced concrete storm sewer pipe throughout the project.
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic pipe could be bid as an alternate for certain sections
of storm sewer, but since concrete pipe must be used to repair or relocate most of the existing
storm sewer, staff felt the cost savings would be negligible and would not offset the time
required to do so. In addition, if West River Street were reconstructed to its current width of 36-
feet a savings of approximately $25,000 could be realized since much of the existing curb and
gutter could remain on the north side.
TABLE 3
Optional Project Costs
Chestnut Street Lift Station Wet Well Improvements
SCHEDULE TOTAL
Chestnut Street Lift Station Wet Well Improvement $137,600
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 22
TABLE 4
Optional Project Costs
West Bridge Park Lighting/TH 25 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements
SCHEDULE TOTAL
Pathway Lighting Improvements – LED Option $45,200
Pathway Lighting Improvements – HPS Option $35,600
TH 25 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements $20,000
NOTE: The LED (light emitting diode) option costs more to install but costs less to
operate thereby saving the City money over the life of the lighting fixture.
Conversely, the HPS (high-pressure sodium) lighting option costs less to install
but costs more to operate costing the City more over the life of the fixture.
TABLE 5
Optional Project Costs
Walnut Street Parking Lot Reconstruction
SCHEDULE TOTAL
Schedule A – Surface Improvements $130,000
Schedule B – Storm Sewer Improvements $5,600
TOTAL PROJECT COST $135,600
TABLE 6
Optional Project Costs
Sidewalk Extensions – Locust Street to Pine Street / TH 25
SCHEDULE TOTAL
Alternate 1 – Locust Street to Pine Street / TH 25 $115,500
Alternate 2 – Locust Street to Walnut Street $54,100
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 23
5.2 Funding
5.2.1 Assessments
A portion of the project costs is proposed to be recovered through assessments levied
against benefitting properties in the project area. Assessments are proposed to be
collected for surface improvements against residential lots and non-residential uses in
Area 4A. These assessments are described below:
Residential Assessments
The residential assessment is a per lot assessment for the general improvement work to
the roadways within the project area. There are a total of 121 residential units within the
project area that are proposed to be assessed. In general, properties with access to streets
being improved are proposed to be assessed as one residential unit.
Assessments are based on the City’s standard residential rate for previously completed
street reconstruction projects with an approximate annual increase of 5%. This results in
a proposed rate of $3,800 per residential unit for 2010 since the rate in 2007 was $3,300
per unit. Corner lots are proposed to be assessed as one unit. This total includes one
residential property with two accesses to different streets, but based on previous Council
action and direction this property is only being assessed one residential assessment unit.
The City’s assessment policy regarding new sidewalks dictates that the City pays for 75%
of the sidewalk, with 25% being assessed to property owners. In following this policy
the proposed rate for 2010 is proposed to be $260 per residential lot. We have included a
sidewalk assessment for each of the residential properties in Area 4A that don’t currently
have access to another sidewalk connected to the sidewalk on West Broadway or Otter
Creek Road. We also included sidewalk assessments for residential properties between
Otter Creek Road and Chestnut Street that can access the sidewalk on West River Street,
regardless if it fronts their property or not.
Non-residential Assessments
There are 32 non-residential properties in Area 4A that are proposed to be assessed at the
City’s standard rate of $92 per front foot, which includes the standard non-residential rate
of $80 per front foot plus $12 per front foot for sidewalk. This rate is based on the City’s
standard non-residential rate for previously completed street reconstruction projects with
an approximate annual increase of 5%.
The 10 residential townhome properties on Front Street between Locust and Walnut
Streets are proposed to be assessed $1,518 per unit which was calculated by multiplying
the non-residential rate times the townhome front footage along Locust Street and
dividing it equally among the townhomes. The townhome units have a direct benefit
from the reconstruction of the streets in Area 4A since Front Street is a one-way street in
front of the townhomes and as such requires any vehicle using Front Street to access the
townhomes to use Locust Street or Front Street upon leaving. Since the improvements
benefit all the townhomes the assessment rate is divided equally among them. However,
staff feels that the townhomes do not have as much benefit as single-family residential
units in the project so their assessment rate is considerably less than the residential rate.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 24
Trinity Lutheran Church, which is situated on the block bordered by West Broadway,
West River Street, Maple Street and Linn Street, is proposed to be assessed a total of
$43,528 for the 6 properties with frontage along the project area. This amount was
calculated by multiplying the side property footages along Maple and Linn Streets by
50% of the standard non-residential rate of $92 per front foot, and by multiplying the
front property footages along West River Street by 100% of the standard non-residential
rate of $92 front foot. This method is consistent with past assessment strategies
employed for similar properties on previous street reconstruction projects. This property
was previously assessed for 100% of their frontage along West Broadway with the CSAH
75 improvements (City Project No. 00C016) in 2003 based on the policy that 100% of the
frontage be assessed along the front side of the property.
City Property Assessments
The City currently owns 5 properties that are included in the assessment calculations.
The assessment for these properties total $49,584.
Sewer and Water Service Assessments
The Public Works department will be notifying property owners if any service line issues
are identified during televising of the sanitary sewer. The property owners will have the
option to replace their service lines and would be assessed for the actual costs from the
mainline to the property line. These service lines will be identified and bid with the final
plans for the project.
The preliminary assessment roll and accompanying map are included in Appendix C.
TABLE 7
Proposed Assessment Rates
Area 4A
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT RATE NO. OF
LOTS TOTAL
Residential Assessment * $3,800/Lot 70 $266,000
Residential Sidewalk Assessment ** $260/Lot 121 $31,460
Non-Residential Assessment *** $92/FF $229,034
TOTAL $526,494
* Ten townhome lots on Front Street are assessed at a rate of $1,518 each.
** Includes 25% of sidewalk costs.
*** Includes $12 per front foot (FF) for sidewalk costs.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 25
5.2.2 City Contribution
The City’s contribution to the project would include funding that is annually set aside for
street reconstruction, which has typically been $500,000. In 2010 there was no money
budgeted for this purpose. The current balance is approximately $800,000. The City’s
Trunk Utility Fund could be utilized and, if necessary, funds could be used from the
City’s General Fund. A summary of the proposed funding is presented in Table 6 below.
Please note that the following funding table assumes a 1-year construction schedule. A
description of other City funds is as follows:
State Aid Funds: Available State Aid funds could be utilized for West River Street from
Elm Street to TH 25, and on Elm Street between West Broadway and West River Street.
Each year the City designates 20% of our streets as Municipal State Aid Streets that are
then eligible for State Aid funding. The current balance in our State Aid account is
$1,340,910. This includes our 2010 construction allotment of $262,273. The estimated
amount of State Aid funds that could be applied towards this project is $791,100.
Trunk Funds: It is anticipated that the current trunk fund balance is available to fund the
sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer improvements.
Other Funds: Additional City revenue sources, special assessments, and general funds
could be utilized to fund remaining project costs.
TABLE 8
Proposed Project Funding
Area 4A
ASSESSMENTS CITY FUNDS TOTAL
Surface $495,034 $1,090,966 $1,586,000
Sidewalk $31,460 $179,740 $211,200
Storm Sewer – $74,750 $74,750
Water Main – $330,550 $330,550
Sanitary Sewer – $695,950 $695,950
TOTAL $526,494 $2,371,956 $2,898,450
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 26
City funds can be distributed as follows for the proposed improvements in Area 4A:
Total Project Cost $2,898,450
Less Assessments - $526,494
Subtotal = $2,371,956
Less State Aid Funds - $791,100
Subtotal = $1,580,856
Less Trunk Utility Funds (Storm, Water, Sewer) - $1,101,250
Subtotal = $479,606
Less City Street Funds - $479,606
TOTAL Remaining Cost = $0
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 27
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed schedule is as follows:
Council Accepts Feasibility Report and Orders Public Hearing.....................February 8, 2010
Council Conducts Public Hearing/Authorizes Plans and Specifications.......February 22, 2010
Private Utility Coordination Meeting......................................................................March 2010
Submit Final Plans to State Aid.............................................................................April 1, 2010
Council Approves Plans and Specifications/Authorizes Ad for Bids..................April 26, 2010
Receive Bids ........................................................................................................May 20, 2010
Award Contract ....................................................................................................May 24, 2010
Begin Construction ....................................................................................................June 2010
Construction Complete .........................................................................................October 2010
Assessment Hearing.......................................................................................November 8, 2010
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001 Page 28
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
City Project No. 10C001 consists of reconstructing streets, constructing new sidewalk, storm
sewer improvements, sanitary sewer and water main improvements, and appurtenant work for
the remaining unimproved section of West River Street in Area 4A of the Overall Street
Reconstruction Program.
It is the recommendation of City staff that City Project No. 10C001 is feasible, necessary, and
cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. The Council should consider the following items
as it relates to the project:
1. Reconstruct all streets and utilities within Area 4A as identified herein, which
includes narrowing West River Street to 32-feet wide and extending Walnut Street to
connect to West River Street.
2. Construct sidewalk along West River Street between Otter Creek Road and Locust
Street and along intersecting streets as identified herein.
3. Increase the standard street reconstruction rate to $3,800 at a minimum per unit for
2010.
4. Accept the non-residential street reconstruction and sidewalk construction assessment
rate at $92 per front foot, which includes a non-residential sidewalk construction rate
of $12 per front foot.
5. Accept the sidewalk assessment rate at $260 per unit. (Actual assessment will be
based on actual construction costs plus indirect costs.)
6. Consider improvements to pedestrian pathway lighting in West Bridge Park.
7. Consider improvements to the TH 25 pedestrian underpass between West and East
Bridge Parks.
8. Consider reconstructing the City-owned parking lot (on 3 parcels) east of Walnut
Street and south of West River Street.
9. Consider constructing sidewalk along West River Street between Locust Street and
TH 25.
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
APPENDIX A
Figures
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
APPENDIX B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Assessment Roll
?¾A@
Kampa Cir
Golf Course Rd
Maple
St
Willow
St
Locust St
Pine
St
Chestnut St
Riverside
C
i
r
4th St W
Sandy Ln
W Broadway St
Ot
t
e
r
c
r
e
e
k
R
d
Oak Ln
Eagle
Cir
Elm
St
Minnesota
St
Linn
St
River St E
Walnut St S
Cedar St
Walnut St
River St W
Vine
St
Front St
Fairway
Dr
River St W
3rd St W
32
33
34
35
3637
383940
41
42 43
44
45
4647
48 50
51
54
56
5859
60
61 62
63 64 65 66
67
686970
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79 8081
82 83
84 85 86
87 88 89
90 91
92 93 94
95
22
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109110
111
112113
114
115116
117
118119
120 121
122
123124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132133
134
135
136
137 138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
52
157
158
159
102
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
96
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
2324
2526
27
28
293031
Residential - Street & Sidewalk
Residential - Street
Residential - Sidewalk
Non-Residential
City Properties
±
0 350 700175
Feet
Preliminary Assessment Roll2010 Street Reconstruction ProjectCity of Monticello, MN
1 inch = 350 feet
Fi
l
e
:
K
:
\
0
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
2
0
1
0
.
m
x
d
,
F
e
b
0
3
,
2
0
1
0
1
0
:
2
8
:
0
7
A
M
Fro
n
t
S
t
Lo
c
u
s
t
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Riv
e
r
S
t
W
62
102
68
60
61
67
66
14
6
14
7
14
8
14
9
15
0
15
1
15
3
15
4
15
5
15
6
See Inset
49
55
57
Feasibility Report
2010 Street Reconstruction Project – Area 4A
Street, Utility, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
Feasibility Report
February 8, 2010
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 541-4800
WSB Project No. 1488-47
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City Project No. 10C001
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
FEASIBILITY REPORT
PRAIRIE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
CSAH 75 TO HEDMAN LANE
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
February 8, 2010
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-541-4800
763-541-1700 (Fax)
Engineering Planning Environmental Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
February 8, 2010
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Transmitted herewith is a feasibility report for the reconstruction of Prairie Road from County
State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75 to Hedman Lane.
We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please give us a call at
763-541-4800 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Jeff O’Neill, City of Monticello
Tom Kelly, City of Monticello
Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bob Paschke, City of Monticello
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Date: February 8, 2010 Lic. No. 41860
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
Quality Control Review By:
Bret A. Weiss, PE
Date: February 8, 2010 Lic. No. 20753
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1
2. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................2
2.1 Authorization................................................................................................................2
2.2 Project History..............................................................................................................2
2.3 Scope.............................................................................................................................2
3. GENERAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................3
3.1 Project Location............................................................................................................3
3.2 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Streets ...............................................................................................................3
3.2.2 Storm Sewer ......................................................................................................3
3.2.3 Watermain.........................................................................................................4
3.2.4 Sanitary Sewer ..................................................................................................4
3.3 Private Utilities.............................................................................................................4
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................................................5
4.1 Street Improvements.....................................................................................................5
4.2 Storm Sewer Improvements..........................................................................................6
4.3 Water System Improvements........................................................................................6
4.4 Trail Access..................................................................................................................6
4.5 Permits..........................................................................................................................7
4.6 Right of Way/Easements...............................................................................................8
5. FINANCING............................................................................................................................9
5.1 Opinion of Probable Cost..............................................................................................9
5.2 Funding.........................................................................................................................9
5.2.1 Assessments.......................................................................................................9
5.2.2 City Contribution ............................................................................................10
6. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE.............................................................................................12
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION....................................................................13
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Appendix C
Assessment Map
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Appendix D
Geotechnical Report
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A feasibility report was completed in April 2004 (City Project No. 2003-02C) for the
reconstruction of Prairie Road from County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75 west to the Timber
Ridge 2nd Addition development. The project was initiated by the Timber Ridge development as
the street needed to be extended to the west and utilities needed to be extended also. At that
time, residents were not in favor of the project and the Council approved reconstructing a portion
of the project from Hedman Lane to the west in order to serve the Timber Ridge development.
Since that time, the current Council authorized updating the previous feasibility study for the
remaining segment of Prairie Road from Hedman Lane to CSAH 75 to be included with the 2010
Street Reconstruction Project (City Project No. 10C001).
The current Prairie Road Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 10C001, includes
reconstructing the roadway from a rural section to an urban section from Hedman Lane to CSAH
75. The project is located north of Interstate 94 and south of CSAH 75. A map showing the
project location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.
The proposed improvements include reconstructing approximately 1,750 feet of Prairie Road.
The roadway is proposed to be reconstructed to a 32-foot-wide street with concrete curb and
gutter and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of the roadway. Storm sewer is proposed
to be constructed to accommodate runoff from the roadway and will be directed to the existing
pond at Meadows Park. Discussion on an outlet for this pond is included in the report. There
will be wetland impacts along the south and possibly north side of Prairie Road with the roadway
widening and sidewalk extension. Improvements to the existing sanitary sewer and watermain
are not needed at this time.
This report also briefly addresses options for trail crossing facilities at CSAH 75.
The total estimated project cost is $652,400 which includes a 10% contingency and 22% indirect
costs. Other costs that are not included with this total are potential improvements to the Par
West parking lot ($16,000) and installation of a surface crossing material at the railroad tracks
where the sidewalk extends ($15,000). These costs are identified separately in the report. The
project is proposed to be funded through special assessments to benefiting properties, City street
reconstruction funds, and utility funds.
The street reconstruction assessment is proposed to be $3,800 per single-family residential unit
for properties with access from Prairie Road. This is approximately 5% per year above the 2007
rate to account for the annual construction cost index and inflation. Sidewalk is proposed to be
assessed at $153 per single-family residential lot which is 25% of the total sidewalk cost based
on the City’s policy to fund the remaining 75%. The sidewalk assessment is calculated on an
areawide basis and includes properties on the streets intersecting Prairie Road that would benefit
from the sidewalk improvements.
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 25, 2010 in which residents conveyed comments
related to on-street parking, grading and drainage concerns, signage, overhead power poles,
cluster mailboxes and additional minor items. We have addressed some of these items in the
report or will address them during final design of the project.
The project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and can be
constructed as proposed herein.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 2
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization
The preparation of this report was authorized by the City Council as part of the Overall Street
Reconstruction Program at the October 12, 2009, City Council meeting. This project has been
designated as City Project No. 10C001.
2.2 Project History
A portion of Prairie Road from Hedman Lane west to the Timber Ridge development was
reconstructed in 2004 as a condition of the preliminary plat approval for the “Timber Ridge 3rd
Addition” development. The section of Prairie Road fronting the development was required to
be reconstructed as an urban roadway section. A feasibility study was completed in 2004 in
response to the development; also at that time, residents in the area requested the City to study
pedestrian facilities along Prairie Road. The feasibility study was authorized to address
reconstructing the remaining segment of Prairie Road from the proposed development east to
CSAH 75. The City also authorized analysis of a possible separated grade trail crossing at
CSAH 75 to address pedestrian and bikeway facility improvements. The project was designated
as City Project No. 2003-02C.
A public hearing was conducted in April 2004 and the Council only approved reconstructing a
portion of the project from Hedman Lane to the west in order to serve the Timber Ridge
development, since residents were not in favor of the project. Since that time, the current
Council authorized updating the previous feasibility study for the remaining segment of Prairie
Road from Hedman Lane to CSAH 75 to be included with the 2010 Street Reconstruction
Project (City Project No. 10C001).
Improvements to Prairie Road were designated as Area 6 of the overall Street Reconstruction
Program and were to be constructed in 2008 according to the program.
2.3 Scope
This report addresses street and storm sewer improvements for the reconstruction of Prairie Road
from CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane. Pedestrian improvements were also studied to provide a trail
crossing at CSAH 75. Opinions of probable cost and project financing for the associated
improvements are noted herein.
The proposed project improvements include the reconstruction of streets, addition of concrete
walkways, and storm sewer improvements.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 3
3. GENERAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Project Location
The project is located along Prairie Road from CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane. A map of the project
location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.
3.2 Existing Conditions
3.2.1 Streets
Prairie Road exists as a 24-foot-wide bituminous roadway extending west from CSAH 75
to approximately 150 feet west of Hedman Lane. From Hedman Lane to the west, the
roadway is 32 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter and terminates with a cul-de-sac
adjacent to the Timber Ridge townhome development. The existing roadway right of
way width is 66 feet. The roadway was constructed in 1978. Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks extend approximately 100 feet south and parallel to CSAH 75
with a crossing at Prairie Road. An 8-foot bituminous trail parallels CSAH 75 between
CSAH 75 and the railroad tracks. The Prairie Road/CSAH 75 intersection was recently
reconstructed in 2003 from CSAH 75 to the railroad tracks.
The existing roadway section consists of an average of 2.5 inches of bituminous
pavement, primarily underlain with fill material. Soil borings were taken in five
locations along the roadway to determine the subsurface soil conditions. The subgrade
soils consist mainly of poorly graded sand fill and silty sand fill. Borings with silty sands
were black in color and contain organic material that is not suitable for the upper 3 feet of
road subgrade. These soils will need to be replaced with suitable subgrade soils to
improve strength and drainage properties of the roadway section.
3.2.2 Storm Sewer
Runoff from the roadway is directed to adjacent ditches which outlet to two ponds
located on the north and south sides of Prairie Road in the approximate middle of the
roadway segment. The ponds are connected by a culvert and discharge north to the
Meadows Park pond and CSAH 75 ditch system, where there is currently no outlet. A
storm sewer stub was constructed with the 2007 Street Reconstruction Project from River
Street south at the east side of Hillcrest Park for future construction of an outlet across
CSAH 75 to the pond at Meadows Park. The outlet pipe may be needed if there is a
flooding issue at the park. There were previous concerns that a few of the homes
adjacent to Meadows Park have walk-out elevations below the high water level of the
pond that may flood after a heavy rain event. Staff is not aware of any significant
flooding issues in the park area and during the public input meeting, several residents in
attendance that live near the park, indicated that they have not witnessed any flooding
issues either.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 4
Drainage concerns at Kevin Longley Drive and Prairie Road and in the lots adjacent to
the Timber Ridge townhomes were brought up at the neighborhood meeting. These items
will be reviewed during final design of the project.
Drainage from the Timber Ridge 3rd Addition development is directed to pond(s) within
the site that outlets to the Prairie Road storm sewer system. Currently, the pond outlets to
the existing ditch system along Prairie Road.
It appears that the pond on the south side of Prairie Road is a wetland. The pond on the
north side is considered wetland also; however, it is estimated that the roadway
improvements will not impact this wetland. A wetland delineation to be completed in the
spring would confirm this. Mitigation will most likely be required by purchasing wetland
credits from the State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) at a reduced rate.
This would be least expensive option as opposed to mitigating onsite. Currently there are
not wetland credits banked in the City.
3.2.3 Watermain
Watermain consists of 12-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) extending from CSAH 75 to the
north leg of Marvin Elwood Road, and 6-inch DIP extends from the north leg of Marvin
Elwood Road to Hedman Lane. These utilities were installed in 1968. An 8-inch DIP
watermain was extended in 2004 through the Timber Ridge development from Hedman
Lane. The watermain is in adequate condition based on City records and is not being
recommended for replacement at this time.
3.2.4 Sanitary Sewer
Ten-inch poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) and 12-inch reinforced concrete (RC) sanitary sewer
pipe are located along the approximate centerline of Prairie Road from CSAH 75 to
Hedman Lane. These utilities were installed in 1968. Eight-inch PVC sanitary sewer
was extended in 2004 through the Timber Ridge development from Hedman Lane.
Sanitary sewer flows east by gravity to the lift station on Chestnut Street, which
eventually flows to the wastewater treatment plant.
The sanitary sewer system is in adequate condition based on City records and is not being
recommended for replacement at this time.
3.3 Private Utilities
Private utilities extend within the roadway right of way and consist of gas, electric, and phone.
Overhead power lines extend along the north side of the roadway, and an Xcel Energy
transmission line crosses Prairie Road near the eastern end of the roadway. The overhead power
lines are located approximately 10 feet within the right of way. These poles may need to be
relocated due to the roadway widening. We have contacted Xcel Energy and will coordinate
relocating the lines if the project moves forward. They have indicated that the poles will need to
be placed at a minimum 5 feet within the right of way.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 5
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Street Improvements
The proposed street improvements consist of reconstructing Prairie Road from CSAH 75 to
Hedman Lane, approximately 1,750 feet.
Prairie Road is proposed to be constructed as a 32-foot-wide face-of-curb to face-of-curb street
within the existing 66-foot right of way. The proposed roadway width is sufficient for the
projected traffic generated with the existing and proposed developments and will allow for
parking on one side of the roadway. Parking is proposed on the south side of the roadway, as
there would be less driveway impacts, but this will be reviewed for potential issues related to
parking demands due to the existing group home. As per City design guidelines, parking on one
side of the street is recommended for streets 32-feet in width. Residents voiced concerns of
wanting parking on both sides of the street. This could be possible as long as emergency
vehicles could access the roadway. Typically on-street parking takes up an 8-foot width, so with
parking on both sides of the street, that would leave 16 feet for emergency vehicle to pass, which
could be adequate.
A 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk is proposed to extend along the south side of Prairie Road from
the existing sidewalk at Hedman Lane and will connect to the existing bituminous trail along
CSAH 75. A retaining wall would be constructed along the sidewalk where it crosses the
wetlands in order to minimize wetland impacts. The proposed sidewalk will extend across the
BNSF railroad tracks to connect to the existing bituminous trail. BNSF Railroad has indicated
that they would require, at a minimum, timber or bituminous crossing materials to be placed
between the railroad tracks where the sidewalk will cross the tracks. A concrete crossing
material is not anticipated to be required at this time. A surface crossing where Prairie Road
crosses is not anticipated to be required at this time as well. BNSF typically requires the City to
fund all work associated with the crossings. It is estimated that this cost could range between
$10,000 and $15,000 depending on how much crossing material is required.
The roadway section will consist of 4 inches of bituminous pavement and 6 inches of Class 5
aggregate base. Based on the geotechnical investigation report completed for the project, it is
anticipated that an additional 2 feet of granular borrow will need to be placed under the roadway
bed to provide a suitable subgrade. The proposed typical section is shown on Figure 2 in
Appendix A.
Proposed street improvements are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A.
Par West Parking Lot Improvements
The Parks Department has identified the need to reconstruct the current parking lot at Par West
Park, located on the south side of Prairie Road at Kevin Longley Drive. The parking lot is
proposed to be reconstructed with bituminous pavement and curb and gutter. The cost associated
with this work is approximately $16,000 and is included as a separate cost to the total project
cost. It may be beneficial to include this in the overall project as there could be a cost savings
with including this work with a larger project.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 6
4.2 Storm Sewer Improvements
The existing ditches will be filled and replaced with storm sewer within the roadway. Existing
drainage patterns will be maintained with the proposed roadway improvements. The proposed
storm sewer system will collect storm water runoff from Prairie Road as well as portions of the
intersecting streets that currently drain to the roadway ditch system. The storm sewer system
will consist of 15-inch to 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe and will be designed to accommodate
a 10-year rainfall event. The storm sewer will be directed to the existing ponds and wetland
along Prairie Road. The pond at Meadows Park discharges north to the CSAH 75 ditch system.
As previously mentioned, wetland mitigation will be required for the wetland impacts with the
project. Pretreatment in the form of a sump manhole will be required prior to discharging runoff
into the wetland. The net increase in impervious surface for the project is approximately 0.57
acres. Stormwater treatment is not required under NPDES rules as the project has less than 1
acre of new impervious surface.
It was anticipated that a culvert under CSAH 75 and the railroad tracks will need to be
constructed to provide an outlet for the ponds, as there was a concern that a few of the homes
adjacent to Meadows Park have walk-out elevations below the high water level of the pond, that
may flood after a heavy rain event. To date, there has not been any flooding in the park area.
We are not recommending at this time, that an outlet pipe be constructed, since there have not
been any flooding issues in the past during a heavy rainfall event. Other options that could be
evaluated include expanding the pond to accommodate more storage if needed. This could be
evaluated if any issues arise with flooding in the future.
Proposed storm sewer improvements are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A.
4.3 Water System Improvements
Twelve-inch watermain exists along Prairie Road from CSAH 75 to the north leg of Marvin
Elwood Road and is reduced to 6-inch watermain west to Hedman Lane. Eight-inch watermain
is the minimum size required along new streets as per current City Standards. It is not
recommended that the existing 6-inch watermain be upsized to a trunk line given that the usage
rates, pressures, and the condition of the existing line appears to be adequate and minimal benefit
would be provided in upsizing the line. Extension of a trunk line would be better served along
River Street. In addition, the overall water system in the area was improved with the extension
of an 8-inch watermain through the Timber Ridge development to River Street.
4.4 Trail Access
We have previously researched options for providing pedestrian access across CSAH 75 on the
west end of the City. Currently, an unsignalized crosswalk with a push button/flasher exists at
Pinewood Elementary School. There is a need for improved access across CSAH 75 given the
high traffic volumes on the roadway. The following are three options that were evaluated in the
2004 feasibility study for the crossing:
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 7
1. Signalized Crosswalk: This option includes a crosswalk at a signalized intersection and
is most desirable as traffic can be controlled to allow pedestrians to cross the roadway in
a safe manner. There are currently no controlled intersections that would accommodate a
pedestrian crossing on the west end of the City, and further, there are no intersections that
would meet warrants for installation of a signal.
2. Underpass: This option is desirable given there are no signalized intersections in the area
to provide access. An underpass for trail access typically consists of a 10-foot-wide by
14-high box culvert. We have evaluated areas where an underpass could be constructed
without raising CSAH 75 and that would provide a drainage outlet for the underpass. A
crossing near Otter Creek could be a potential location; however, further analysis of the
site grades may make this option unfeasible. The proximity of this location and the
existing crosswalk at Otter Creek Road also makes this option less feasible. In addition,
a trail access point along the north side of CSAH 75 would need to be provided. Other
underpass locations would require CSAH 75 to be raised significantly, and retaining
walls would need to be constructed along the roadway given the constraints of the
railroad tracks that parallel CSAH 75 on the south side. Estimated construction costs to
construct an underpass could range from $500,000 to $750,000. These costs do not
include easement acquisition costs.
3. Overpass: This option would include a bridge over CSAH 75 with a spiral or similar type
access path to the bridge from the street level. The location of this bridge may require
additional right of way to be acquired in addition to a trail access point along the north
side of CSAH 75. Estimated construction costs for this type of bridge range from
$600,000 to $800,000. These costs do not include easement acquisition costs.
Federal funds were applied for in 2008 for an overpass pedestrian crossing at CSAH 75;
however, the funding was not granted. Most recently, the City approached Wright
County about installing an unsignalized crosswalk with a push button/flasher similar to
what exists at Pinewood Elementary School. The County was not in favor of this concept
due to the current speed limit leading to unsafe conditions if the push button/flasher were
to be installed. City staff has identified other counties where these systems are in place
and intends to gather information justifying these systems in order to approach the
County again.
At this time, no crossing improvements are being proposed.
4.5 Permits
Several permits will be required as part of the proposed improvements. The anticipated permits
required and the regulatory agencies are listed below:
MPCA General Stormwater Permit (NPDES).......................Grading and Storm Water
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)........................Railroad Right of Way
Wright County...........................................................................Roadway Right of Way
City as Local Government Unit (LGU),
US Army Corps of Engineers............................................................................Wetland
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 8
As previously mentioned, wetland mitigation will most likely be required by purchasing wetland
credits from the State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The process for approval
will take approximately 60 days.
4.6 Right of Way/Easements
The existing right of way is 66 feet wide and is adequate to accommodate the proposed
improvements. Rights of entries from individual property owners may need to be obtained prior
to construction commencing for grading and restoration.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 9
5. FINANCING
5.1 Opinion of Probable Cost
A detailed opinion of cost for the proposed improvements can be found in Appendix B of this
report. These opinions of cost incorporate anticipated 2010 construction costs and include a 10%
contingency and 22% indirect costs. The indirect costs include legal, engineering,
administrative, and financing items. A summary of the project costs is shown below.
Improvement Cost
Schedule A – Street Improvements $461,800
Schedule B – Sidewalk Improvements $78,900
Schedule C – Storm Sewer Improvements $111,700
Total Project Cost $652,400
Additional Costs
Railroad Crossing Improvements $10,000 – $15,000
Par West Parking Lot Improvements $16,000
5.2 Funding
5.2.1 Assessments
The project will be funded through the use of special assessments to benefiting properties
and City funds as described below:
Single-Family Lot Assessment: Lots with driveway access from Prairie Road would be
assessed at $3,800 per lot for street reconstruction based on the City’s assessment policy.
Assessments are based on the City’s standard residential rate with a 5% increase from the
last street reconstruction project in 2007 to account for increases in inflation and
construction cost index. The 2007 residential unit rate was $3,300, and the 2006 rate was
$3,000 per unit. We chose to use $3,800/unit for this year’s project and then that amount
could increase annually.
There are 16 lots that have primary access from Prairie Road that are proposed to be
assessed on a per unit basis. There are two corner lots, one located at Hedman Lane and
one at the south leg of Marvin Elwood Road, with a secondary access from Prairie Road.
City ordinance does not allow more than one driveway access for residential lots. In the
past, the property owners of these lots could opt to close their secondary access and
would not be assessed for street reconstruction. With the 2007 Street Reconstruction
project, the Council’s direction was to not assess more than one residential unit for
properties with multiple driveways, including corner lots, except where the additional
driveway widths exceeds 24 feet, in which case the cost to reconstruct the extra width
would be assessed. In this case, we have not included these two lots in the total number
of lots to be assessed for street reconstruction.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 10
In addition, there are two lots that front the Prairie Road improvements that were
completed in 2004 as part of the Timber Ridge 3rd Addition development. These
properties were not assessed for that improvement, as it was 100% developer funded.
These properties are noted as parcels 58 and 59 on the assessment map in Appendix C
and are proposed to be assessed with this project, as they did receive a benefit from the
street improvements. These properties were excluded from being assessed with the 2004
project with the intent that they would be assessed when the entire segment of Prairie
Road was to be constructed.
Sidewalk costs would be assessed at 25%, in accordance with the City’s sidewalk
assessment policy, and would be spread out on a per lot basis. We have included a
sidewalk assessment for each lot in the neighborhoods adjacent to Prairie Road since all
of these properties can access the sidewalk regardless if it fronts their property and where
they have no alternative pedestrian access.
A map indicating the properties to be assessed and the preliminary assessment roll can be
found in Appendix C.
A summary of these assessments are as follows:
Improvement Per Lot
Assessment
Residential
Units
Total
Assessment
Street Construction $3,800 16 $60,800
Sidewalk $153 129 $19,725
Total $3,653 per unit $80,525
5.2.2 City Contribution
The proposed City contribution would include City lots (Hillcrest Park and Par West)
fronting the street and the remaining street reconstruction costs not assessed to the single-
family lots. Based on the City’s sidewalk assessment policy, the City would contribute
75% of the sidewalk cost to be assessed to single-family lots.
Storm sewer improvements would be funded 100% by the City according to similar
assessment practices with previous street reconstruction projects.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 11
A proposed funding breakdown is as follows:
Improvement City Single-Family
Lot Assessment Total
Street $401,000 $60,800 $461,800
Sidewalk $59,175 $19,725 $78,900
Storm Sewer $111,700 $111,700
Total $571,875 $80,525 $652,400
The City may be required to fund an additional $10,000 to $15,000 for railroad crossing work. It
should be noted that the above costs do not include the Par West parking lot improvements.
The total proposed assessment is 12.3% of the total project cost. The City portion of the project
could be funded by street reconstruction funds and utility funds. The City could use general
obligation and utility bonds to fund the project since less than 20% of the project costs are
proposed to be assessed.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 12
6. PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
In consideration of the effort required to complete the project as presented, the following
preliminary schedule is proposed. This schedule may be revised as the project progresses.
City Council Accepts Feasibility Study/
Orders Public Hearing................................................................................February 8, 2010
Public Hearing...............................................................................................February 22, 2010
City Council Orders Project and Authorizes
Preparation of Plans and Specifications...................................................February 22, 2010
City Council Approves Plans and Specifications
and Authorizes Advertisement for Bids.........................................................April 26, 2010
Receive Bids.........................................................................................................May 20, 2010
Award Contract.....................................................................................................May 24, 2010
Begin Construction.....................................................................................................June 2010
Complete Construction.....................................................................................September 2010
Assessment Hearing...............................................................................................October 2010
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47 Page 13
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
City Project No. 10C001 consists of street and storm sewer improvements for the reconstruction
of the Prairie Road. The total estimated project cost is $652,400.
It is the recommendation of WSB & Associates, Inc. that City Project No. 10C001 is feasible,
necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. We recommend construction of
the proposed improvements as detailed in this report.
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
APPENDIX A
Figures
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
APPENDIX B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Engineer's Estimate
WSB Project: Prairie Road Reconstruction Storm Sewer and Street ImprovementsDesign By:CEH
Project Location: City of MonticelloChecked By:
City Project No.: 10C001
WSB Project No: 1488-47 (1494-34)Date:2/4/2010
Item
No.
MN/DOT
Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated
Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total
Cost
12021.501MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM1.0$9,000.00$9,000
22104.501REMOVE CURB AND GUTTERLIN FT20$3.50$70
32104.505REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSQ YD340$2.50$850
42104.505REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSQ YD80$3.50$280
52104.505REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTSQ YD4,640$3.00$13,920
62104.511SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT40$4.00$160
72104.513SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT420$2.50$1,050
82105.501COMMON EXCAVATIONCU YD9,210$7.50$69,075
92105.522SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)CU YD4,810$11.00$52,910
102112.501SUBGRADE PREPARATIONROAD STA17.5$250.00$4,375
112211.501AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5TON2,310$13.50$31,185
122350.501TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B)TON760$52.00$39,520
132350.502TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B)TON760$50.00$38,000
142531.507TYPE LV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR DRIVEWAYSSQ YD30$15.00$450
152357.502BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGALLON310$3.00$930
162504.602ADJUST VALVE BOXEACH9$250.00$2,250
172506.522ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTINGEACH9$500.00$4,500
182531.501CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN B618LIN FT3,040$8.50$25,840
192531.5076" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT HESQ YD410$44.00$18,040
202545.5234" NON-METALLIC CONDUITLIN FT500$4.00$2,000
212540.602SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOXESEACH12$150.00$1,800
222563.601TRAFFIC CONTROLLUMP SUM1$2,500.00$2,500
232564.531SIGN PANELS TYPE CSQ FT43$30.00$1,290
242564.602FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANEL TYPE DEACH4$300.00$1,200
252564.60312" SOLID WHITE-EPOXYLIN FT60$3.50$210
262573.502SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTYLIN FT400$3.00$1,200
272573.603BIOROLLLIN FT50$6.50$325
282575.501SEEDINGACRE0.2$1,000.00$200
292575.505SODDING TYPE LAWNSQ YD5,390$3.50$18,865
302575.523EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3SQ YD630$3.00$1,890
312575.608BWSR SEED MIXTURE NO. W4POUND20$10.00$200
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A - SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS$344,090
+10% Contingencies $34,410
Subtotal $378,500
+ 22% Indirect Cost $83,270
TOTAL Schedule A - Surface Improvements$461,800
Prairie Road Reconstruction Storm Sewer and Street Improvements
SCHEDULE A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Engineer's Estimate
Prairie Road Reconstruction
Storm Sewer and Street
Improvements
WSB Project No. 1494-35 1 Of 2 K:\01494-35\Quantity\Feasibility\Engineer's Estimate 11-30-09.xls
Engineer's Estimate
WSB Project: Prairie Road Reconstruction Storm Sewer and Street ImprovementsDesign By:CEH
Project Location: City of MonticelloChecked By:
City Project No.: 10C001
WSB Project No: 1488-47 (1494-34)Date:2/4/2010
Item
No.
MN/DOT
Specification No.DescriptionUnit Estimated
Total Quantity Unit Price Estimated Total
Cost
Prairie Road Reconstruction Storm Sewer and Street Improvements
322101.502CLEARINGTREE19$200.00$3,800
332101.507GRUBBINGTREE19$150.00$2,850
342411.618MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALLSQ FT360$35.00$12,600
352521.5014" CONCRETE WALKSQ FT9330$3.50$32,655
362531.602PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPEACH6$650.00$3,900
37WOOD FENCE (SPLIT RAIL)LUMP SUM1$3,000.00$3,000
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B - SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS$58,805
+ 10% Contingencies $5,880
Subtotal $64,690
+ 22% Indirect Cost $14,230
TOTAL Schedule B - Sidewalk Improvements$78,900
372104.501REMOVE PIPE CULVERTSLIN FT490$9.00$4,410
382501.51524" RC PIPE APRON WITH TRASH GUARDEACH2$800.00$1,600
392502.5416" PERF PE PIPE DRAINLIN FT80$8.00$640
402503.54115" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS VLIN FT510$28.00$14,280
412503.54118" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS VLIN FT1,030$30.00$30,900
422503.54124" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS IIILIN FT330$32.00$10,560
432506.501CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020LIN FT60$215.00$12,900
442506.502CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPECIAL 1 (2'X3' CB)EACH7$1,000.00$7,000
452511.515GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IVSQ YD14$3.00$42
462511.609FIELDSTONE RIPRAP CLASS IIITON7$125.00$875
SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE C - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS$83,207
+ 10% Contingencies $8,320
Subtotal $91,530
+ 22% Indirect Cost $20,140
TOTAL Schedule C - Drainage Improvements$111,700
SCHEDULE C. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
$652,400GRAND TOTAL - Prairie Road Reconstruction Storm Sewer and Street Improvements
SCHEDULE B. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
Engineer's Estimate
Prairie Road Reconstruction
Storm Sewer and Street
Improvements
WSB Project No. 1494-35 2 Of 2 K:\01494-35\Quantity\Feasibility\Engineer's Estimate 11-30-09.xls
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
APPENDIX C
Assessment Map
Preliminary Assessment Roll
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==========
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
====
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=====
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==========
=
=
==
=
=
==
=
==
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
==
=
=
=
=
=
===
=
=
===
=
=
=
=
==
=========================
=
=
=
=====================
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
==
========================================================
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")")
")
")
")!(
!(
!(!(
!(
")
")")
!(
")")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")")!(!(!(")")!(!(
!(
!(
")!(!(")!(!(")")
")!(
")
!(
")")
")!(")!(!(!(")!(")!(")")!(")!(!(")")!(")!(!(!(!(!(
GÕWX
!"b$
Marvin Elwood Road
Ma
r
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
Prairie
R
o
a
d
Hedman
L
a
n
e
Cr
o
c
u
s
L
a
n
e
Crocus Circle
Ni
c
h
o
l
a
s
C
i
r
c
l
e
A
l
p
i
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
UV124
UV36
UV76
UV2
UV127
UV117
UV43
UV89
UV96
UV103
UV104
UV88
UV97
UV39
UV120
UV98
UV75UV74
UV73
UV106
UV125
UV121
UV84
UV107
UV42
UV99
UV35
UV102
UV126
UV108
UV105
UV100
UV60
UV114
UV101UV40
UV115
UV44
UV41
UV68
UV109
UV95
UV38
UV90
UV118
UV113
UV94
UV48
UV30
UV72 UV77
UV78
UV24
UV52
UV69
UV37
UV110
UV1
UV45
UV122
UV119
UV123
UV29
UV112
UV46
UV64
UV79
UV128
UV93
UV34 UV83
UV111
UV71
UV50
UV47 UV22
UV80
UV27
UV65
UV33
UV61
UV66
UV26
UV25
UV85
UV116UV129
UV31 UV51
UV28
UV67
UV87
UV70
UV86
UV91
UV32
UV92
UV62
UV23
UV3 UV4 UV5 UV6 UV9 UV10 UV11
UV53
UV54
UV55
UV56
UV57
UV58
UV59
UV81
UV63
UV82
UV49
UV19UV18UV16
UV20
UV17
UV21
UV14UV7UV8UV12UV13UV15
Proposed Assessment MapPrairie Road ReconstructionCity of Monticello, MN
Legend
Sidewalk & Street Assessed Parcels
Sidewalk Assessed Parcels
Fi
l
e
:
F
:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
,
F
e
b
0
4
,
2
0
1
0
8
:
3
7
:
5
2
A
M
µ0200400100
Feet
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
1
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
R
I
C
K
Y
A
&
D
E
B
R
A
J
F
R
I
C
A
N
O
31
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
31
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
2
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
D
E
B
R
A
A
K
R
A
F
T
30
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
30
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
3
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
2
0
A
N
T
I
C
O
M
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
S
L
L
C
63
4
1
M
I
N
N
E
W
A
S
H
T
A
W
O
O
D
S
D
R
EX
C
E
L
S
I
O
R
,
M
N
5
5
3
3
1
30
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
4
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
3
0
J
A
M
E
S
D
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
A
H
A
D
A
C
13
9
2
5
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
BE
C
K
E
R
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
8
30
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
5
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
4
0
P
A
U
L
K
&
J
U
L
I
A
N
N
A
A
L
L
E
N
23
5
3
1
1
8
3
R
D
S
T
N
W
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
25
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
6
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
5
0
D
A
N
I
E
L
R
&
J
E
A
N
M
F
R
I
E
21
4
J
E
R
R
Y
L
I
E
F
E
R
T
D
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
25
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
7
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
6
1
K
E
V
I
N
L
&
K
A
T
R
I
N
A
K
K
O
L
A
S
A
23
7
2
4
1
6
4
T
H
S
T
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
24
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
8
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
6
0
K
E
V
I
N
L
&
K
A
T
R
I
N
A
K
K
O
L
A
S
A
23
7
2
4
1
6
4
T
H
S
T
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
24
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
9
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
7
0
T
H
O
M
A
S
J
S
R
&
V
I
C
K
Y
L
L
A
P
L
A
N
T
19
1
4
A
L
A
D
D
I
N
A
V
E
S
W
BU
F
F
A
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
1
3
24
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
8
0
R
O
B
E
R
T
C
M
E
R
S
H
O
N
PO
B
O
X
2
2
4
EL
K
R
I
V
E
R
,
M
N
5
5
3
3
0
23
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
9
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
G
H
O
L
T
H
A
U
S
23
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
23
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
0
1
K
E
V
I
N
L
&
K
A
T
R
I
N
A
K
K
O
L
A
S
A
23
7
2
4
1
6
4
T
H
S
T
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
23
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
13
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
K
E
V
I
N
L
&
K
A
T
R
I
N
A
K
K
O
L
A
S
A
23
7
2
4
1
6
4
T
H
S
T
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
23
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
14
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
1
1
U
S
B
A
N
K
N
A
N
D
20
5
W
4
T
H
S
T
S
T
E
5
0
0
CI
N
C
I
N
N
A
T
I
,
O
H
4
5
2
0
2
22
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
15
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
1
0
P
A
M
E
L
A
K
O
R
R
O
C
K
22
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
16
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
2
0
J
O
S
E
P
H
N
E
D
G
A
R
T
O
N
22
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
17
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
2
1
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
C
H
A
E
F
E
R
31
3
3
1
4
5
T
H
S
T
N
W
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
1
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
18
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
3
1
D
E
N
N
I
S
W
&
S
A
N
D
R
A
K
H
O
O
K
22
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
19
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
3
0
J
A
S
E
N
H
O
G
L
U
N
D
21
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
20
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
4
0
J
A
M
E
S
T
&
T
E
R
E
S
I
T
A
P
K
O
J
E
T
I
N
21
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
21
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
1
1
4
1
M
O
R
T
G
A
G
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
E
G
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
I
N
C
33
0
0
S
W
3
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
T
E
1
0
1
OC
A
L
A
,
F
L
3
4
4
7
4
21
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
22
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
5
0
1
0
J
A
S
O
N
C
S
T
E
B
E
21
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
23
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
5
0
2
0
J
A
C
K
R
&
K
I
M
B
E
R
L
Y
A
T
E
N
N
E
Y
20
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
20
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
24
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
5
0
3
0
J
A
M
E
S
J
&
B
R
E
N
D
A
M
F
I
S
E
T
T
E
26
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
26
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
25
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
6
0
1
0
D
A
N
I
E
L
O
&
M
E
C
R
O
C
K
E
R
22
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
26
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
6
0
2
0
D
U
A
N
E
W
&
E
R
N
E
S
T
I
N
E
C
A
R
L
S
O
N
21
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
PO
B
O
X
1
1
1
7
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
27
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
6
0
3
0
B
R
U
C
E
W
S
C
H
W
I
T
A
L
L
A
80
4
F
O
X
T
R
L
BU
F
F
A
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
1
3
20
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
28
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
1
0
J
E
R
E
M
Y
L
&
M
I
C
H
E
L
L
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
R
30
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
30
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
29
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
2
0
D
A
V
I
D
T
&
J
A
N
E
F
T
R
E
F
E
T
H
E
N
30
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
30
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
30
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
3
0
R
O
S
E
M
A
R
Y
F
P
R
U
D
H
O
M
M
E
23
5
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
23
5
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
31
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
4
0
S
U
S
A
N
L
D
O
N
N
E
R
23
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
23
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
32
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
5
0
J
A
M
E
S
&
E
R
I
C
A
D
O
R
O
U
G
H
22
7
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
7
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
33
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
6
0
R
O
N
A
L
D
L
&
S
H
A
R
O
N
L
W
E
I
M
E
R
22
3
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
3
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
2
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
34
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
3
0
1
0
K
A
R
E
N
M
W
Y
D
O
21
9
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
9
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
35
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
3
0
2
0
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
J
&
M
A
R
I
O
N
E
V
A
N
S
21
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
36
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
3
0
3
0
M
A
T
T
H
E
W
A
W
E
T
T
S
T
A
E
D
T
&
20
3
C
R
O
S
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
20
3
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
37
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
3
0
4
0
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
S
H
A
R
P
E
R
12
5
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
5
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
38
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
2
0
D
I
A
N
N
A
K
V
O
S
S
E
N
12
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
39
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
3
0
T
C
F
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
A
N
K
80
1
M
A
R
Q
U
E
T
T
E
A
V
E
MI
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
5
5
4
0
2
11
7
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
40
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
4
0
W
A
Y
N
E
E
S
P
I
C
E
R
11
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
1
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
41
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
5
0
G
E
N
E
L
O
K
E
N
S
G
A
R
D
&
10
9
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
9
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
42
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
6
0
T
I
N
A
M
H
E
L
L
M
A
N
10
7
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
7
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
43
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
7
0
A
L
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
V
&
A
M
Y
K
M
Y
T
N
I
K
10
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
44
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
8
0
M
I
C
H
E
L
L
E
A
H
O
L
L
A
N
D
10
4
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
4
C
R
O
C
U
S
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
45
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
9
0
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
W
I
D
E
H
O
M
E
L
O
A
N
S
I
N
C
40
0
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
W
I
D
E
W
A
Y
M
S
S
V
-
3
5
SI
M
I
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
9
3
0
6
5
10
5
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
46
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
0
0
E
A
R
L
R
J
R
&
D
E
B
O
R
A
H
E
D
O
M
K
E
43
1
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
E
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
23
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
47
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
1
0
J
O
H
N
L
&
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
J
H
A
N
S
O
N
13
6
0
8
J
O
S
E
P
H
A
V
E
BE
C
K
E
R
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
8
22
9
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
48
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
2
0
A
N
T
I
C
O
M
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
S
L
L
C
63
4
1
M
I
N
N
E
W
A
S
H
T
A
W
O
O
D
S
D
R
EX
C
E
L
S
I
O
R
,
M
N
5
5
3
3
1
22
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
49
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
3
0
B
R
I
A
N
D
L
U
N
D
G
R
E
N
&
21
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
3
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
50
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
4
0
T
I
M
O
T
H
Y
&
T
H
E
R
E
S
A
C
A
O
U
E
T
T
E
21
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
51
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
5
0
D
E
A
N
N
E
L
K
A
N
I
A
20
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
20
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
52
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
6
0
K
E
N
N
E
T
H
K
&
M
A
R
G
A
R
E
T
M
H
A
P
P
35
5
5
L
A
U
R
E
L
G
R
E
E
N
S
L
N
N
NA
P
L
E
S
,
F
L
3
4
1
1
9
30
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
53
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
7
0
M
A
R
K
R
&
J
A
N
E
T
M
C
N
A
M
A
R
A
31
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
31
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
54
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
8
0
S
T
E
V
E
S
&
D
E
B
R
A
S
A
M
E
U
L
S
O
N
32
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
32
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
55
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
1
9
0
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
J
G
U
S
T
A
F
S
O
N
33
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
33
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
56
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
2
0
0
L
A
R
R
Y
A
K
O
H
N
E
R
T
34
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
34
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
57
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
2
1
0
E
R
I
C
R
&
A
M
A
N
D
A
J
F
A
R
B
E
R
35
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
35
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
58
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
2
2
0
R
O
B
E
R
T
P
&
S
U
Z
A
N
N
E
L
M
A
R
R
O
N
E
36
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
36
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
59
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
4
2
3
0
D
A
N
N
Y
E
&
L
U
C
Y
L
K
O
C
H
37
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
37
5
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
60
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
1
0
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
R
&
G
I
N
A
M
L
O
N
G
L
E
Y
17
2
7
4
R
I
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
L
N
S
E
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
25
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
61
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
2
0
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
R
&
G
I
N
A
M
L
O
N
G
L
E
Y
17
2
7
4
R
I
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
L
N
S
E
BI
G
L
A
K
E
,
M
N
5
5
3
0
9
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
62
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
3
0
M
A
T
T
H
E
W
H
U
G
H
E
S
22
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
63
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
4
0
R
O
B
E
R
T
K
W
E
L
S
A
N
D
22
2
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
22
2
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
64
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
6
4
0
0
2
0
1
0
J
A
M
E
S
E
&
J
O
Y
C
E
M
S
A
U
N
D
E
R
S
21
8
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
21
8
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
65
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
6
0
B
A
R
O
N
J
&
L
I
N
D
A
A
B
L
U
H
M
11
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
6
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
66
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
7
0
L
E
R
O
Y
L
&
J
O
Y
C
E
H
M
E
H
R
PO
B
O
X
8
4
7
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
8
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
4
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
67
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
8
0
M
A
R
I
L
Y
N
L
M
O
R
R
I
S
O
N
49
1
1
7
T
H
A
V
E
BL
A
I
N
E
,
M
N
5
5
4
4
9
10
4
C
R
O
C
U
S
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
68
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
5
0
0
3
0
9
0
R
A
N
D
Y
J
H
E
L
L
M
A
N
73
1
0
C
A
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
N
E
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
24
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
69
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
G
E
R
A
L
D
S
S
A
T
T
E
R
15
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
15
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
70
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
C
L
A
R
E
N
C
E
R
B
E
R
T
H
I
A
U
M
E
&
15
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
15
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
71
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
3
0
E
R
I
K
W
&
A
P
R
I
L
D
E
R
S
T
A
D
15
2
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
15
2
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
72
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
4
0
C
H
E
R
Y
L
A
C
H
A
N
D
L
E
R
PO
B
O
X
4
LI
T
T
L
E
F
A
L
L
S
,
M
N
5
6
3
4
5
12
6
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
73
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
5
0
L
I
N
D
A
M
R
E
Y
N
O
L
D
S
12
2
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
PO
B
O
X
1
5
6
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
2
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
74
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
6
0
R
Y
A
N
D
&
B
R
A
N
D
I
L
J
A
N
S
S
E
N
11
8
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
8
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
75
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
7
0
T
I
N
A
L
M
A
R
T
I
N
11
4
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
4
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
76
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
8
0
S
C
O
T
T
D
&
H
E
A
T
H
E
R
J
S
T
R
A
N
S
K
Y
11
0
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
0
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
77
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
9
0
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
&
S
A
R
A
H
B
R
O
O
K
S
10
6
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
6
B
A
L
B
O
U
L
C
I
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
78
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
K
A
R
L
I
B
E
L
L
14
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
14
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
79
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
A
A
R
O
N
L
&
L
A
U
R
A
J
H
I
L
D
E
14
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
14
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
80
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
A
C
O
L
E
15
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
15
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
81
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
A
&
M
A
R
G
A
R
E
T
J
H
A
N
S
O
N
36
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
36
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
82
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
A
N
D
Y
T
H
I
E
L
E
&
S
H
A
N
A
L
S
A
N
D
O
Z
35
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
35
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
5
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
83
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
4
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
T
&
W
E
N
D
Y
M
G
U
I
N
E
Y
34
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
34
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
84
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
5
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
K
M
E
Y
E
R
33
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
33
0
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
D
1
1
$
3
,
8
0
0
$
1
5
3
$3,953
85
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
9
0
I
V
A
N
J
&
N
I
C
O
L
E
E
G
R
E
E
N
L
U
N
D
15
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
15
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
86
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
8
0
E
D
W
A
R
D
I
&
M
A
R
L
A
A
H
U
G
H
E
S
14
7
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
14
7
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
87
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
7
0
J
A
M
E
S
C
E
L
L
E
T
T
E
14
3
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
14
3
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
88
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
6
0
L
A
U
R
I
E
J
&
J
M
V
A
N
M
E
V
E
R
E
N
13
9
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
9
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
89
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
J
O
H
A
N
N
A
L
T
H
I
C
K
P
E
N
N
Y
13
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
90
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
4
0
2
0
D
I
A
N
E
R
O
M
A
N
O
13
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
91
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
4
0
3
0
J
A
C
Q
U
E
L
Y
N
S
W
I
L
K
E
S
12
7
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
7
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
92
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
4
0
4
0
T
I
M
O
T
H
Y
J
&
C
O
N
N
I
E
S
F
I
N
K
12
3
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
3
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
93
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
4
0
5
0
D
E
E
A
K
L
E
M
P
K
E
10
9
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
9
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
94
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
9
0
T
E
R
R
Y
R
&
J
A
N
I
C
E
R
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
10
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
1
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
95
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
C
O
L
L
E
E
N
M
S
K
I
L
L
I
N
G
S
10
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
5
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
96
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
8
0
O
R
M
O
N
D
E
D
B
R
A
D
F
O
R
D
&
11
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
97
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
7
0
T
H
E
R
E
S
A
M
K
L
E
I
N
51
3
3
4
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
MI
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
7
11
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
98
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
6
0
K
E
N
N
E
T
H
D
&
L
A
K
E
E
S
H
A
A
Y
E
A
T
S
11
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
99
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
5
0
T
H
O
M
A
S
A
&
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
H
I
N
A
B
A
R
G
E
R
17
0
2
S
O
U
T
H
G
A
T
E
D
R
BU
F
F
A
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
1
3
10
9
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
6
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
10
0
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
4
0
L
U
K
E
W
&
I
N
G
E
B
T
O
R
E
L
L
10
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
7
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
1
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
3
0
J
O
S
E
P
H
P
C
H
O
U
N
A
R
D
10
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
5
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
2
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
2
0
T
H
O
M
A
S
J
&
J
A
N
E
T
T
P
R
O
M
10
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
3
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
3
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
R
O
N
A
L
D
A
&
V
I
C
K
I
A
S
C
H
L
U
E
N
D
E
R
10
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
1
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
0
1
$
0
$
1
5
3
$153
10
4
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
1
0
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
S
A
V
O
Y
E
10
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
5
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
2
0
R
O
N
A
L
D
J
&
E
L
Z
B
I
E
T
A
A
T
I
N
G
E
L
S
T
A
D
10
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
6
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
3
0
W
E
S
L
E
Y
W
&
L
I
N
D
A
L
S
C
H
R
U
P
P
10
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
7
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
4
0
H
A
R
O
L
D
P
&
B
E
T
H
M
A
U
S
T
I
N
10
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
8
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
5
0
S
H
A
R
O
N
R
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
10
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
10
9
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
6
0
A
P
H
T
O
N
G
R
E
E
L
E
Y
11
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
0
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
7
0
S
U
Z
A
N
N
E
C
&
A
L
L
E
N
R
H
E
R
M
O
S
I
L
L
O
11
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
1
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
1
0
D
U
S
T
I
N
S
T
A
H
L
B
A
C
K
&
11
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
2
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
2
0
J
A
R
R
O
D
D
U
K
E
S
&
A
M
Y
C
O
O
K
-
D
U
K
E
S
11
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
3
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
3
0
D
E
A
N
E
&
A
N
G
E
L
A
L
E
R
I
C
K
S
O
N
11
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
4
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
4
0
D
A
V
I
D
J
&
M
A
R
I
L
Y
N
A
W
I
T
S
C
H
E
N
12
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
5
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
5
0
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
F
&
C
I
N
D
Y
A
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
12
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
6
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
6
0
D
E
N
N
I
S
J
&
A
M
Y
L
R
O
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
12
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
7
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
r
a
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Design By:CEH
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
Checked By:SKB
Ci
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
:
1
0
C
0
0
1
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
:
1
4
9
4
-
3
4
(
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
)
Date:2/4/2010
No
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
l
i
n
g
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
St
r
e
e
t
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
U
n
i
t
s
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
Total Assessment
Pr
o
per
t
y I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
.
Subtotal Sidewalk Improvements Assessment
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l Street
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
11
7
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
7
0
L
E
R
O
Y
L
&
J
O
Y
C
E
H
M
E
H
R
PO
B
O
X
8
4
7
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
6
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
8
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
8
0
J
A
M
E
S
R
&
C
A
R
O
L
J
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
12
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
8
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
11
9
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
0
9
0
M
A
R
K
A
G
O
O
K
I
N
13
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
0
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
0
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
1
0
0
T
H
O
M
A
S
J
&
S
H
I
R
L
E
Y
L
G
I
R
O
U
X
13
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
2
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
1
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
1
1
0
D
A
V
I
D
A
&
J
A
N
I
C
E
L
N
Y
B
E
R
G
13
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
13
4
M
A
R
V
I
N
E
L
W
O
O
D
R
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
2
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
1
2
0
R
O
M
A
N
R
O
D
R
I
G
U
E
Z
&
10
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
3
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
2
6
0
0
3
1
3
0
B
O
N
N
I
E
R
W
E
D
D
E
L
10
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
4
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
6
0
L
A
R
R
Y
J
J
R
&
M
E
L
I
S
S
A
A
P
I
L
M
A
N
10
8
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
10
8
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
5
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
5
0
L
A
R
R
Y
S
&
T
A
M
A
R
A
L
M
E
T
C
A
L
F
11
2
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
2
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
6
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
4
0
E
D
W
A
R
D
C
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
R
I
V
E
R
S
11
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
11
6
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
7
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
3
0
M
A
R
G
A
R
E
T
J
D
R
A
H
O
T
A
12
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
0
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
8
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
T
A
M
M
Y
R
E
E
N
T
S
-
N
O
R
T
O
N
12
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
4
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153
12
9
P
I
D
:
1
5
5
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
R
A
N
D
Y
&
K
A
R
I
B
R
Y
A
N
T
12
8
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
MO
N
T
I
C
E
L
L
O
,
M
N
5
5
3
6
2
12
8
H
E
D
M
A
N
L
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
1
5
3
$153 $80,525
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
G
R
A
N
D
T
O
T
A
L
-
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
O
A
D
R
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
8
O
f
8
F:
\
W
P
W
I
N
\
1
4
8
8
-
4
7
\
2
0
1
0
F
e
a
s
-
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
R
o
a
d
\
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
l
.
x
l
s
Feasibility Report
Prairie Road Reconstruction
CSAH 75 to Hedman Lane
City of Monticello Project No. 10C001
WSB Project No. 1488-47
APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Report
City Council Agenda: 2/8/10
1
8. Consideration of shifting Engineering Department to Prairie Centre Building (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to consider shifting the Engineering Department to the Prairie Centre
Office Building as a follow-up item to the previous meeting. At the previous meeting of
City Council, authorization was granted to move forward on remodeling and purchase of
office furniture necessary to expand the MCC staff offices. Copying equipment, storage
files, and displaced by this move are to be shifted to the work room adjacent to Bruce
Westby’s current office. Council held off on directing the associated move of the
Engineering Department pending gathering of more refined cost figures. Following are
updated cost figures associated with the move.
$2080 – Purchase and/or installation of office furniture including three desks,
three side chairs, 4 divider panels and hardware and (3) 5-drawer lateral files from
Office Environment Brokers and (3) 36” overhead shelf units from MCC
$700 - The existing office entrance door is relatively flimsy so it is recommended
that a sturdier door be installed to assure property security for the office
$150 – Paint
$150 – Refrigerator
$65 – Microwave
$30 – Coffeemaker
$100/month – addition of Printer/Copier machine to city’s lease with Marco
(includes cost of copies, service and supplies)
Matt Henning of FiberNet will be installing computer jacks
Grand Total = $3,175 plus 100/month for printer lease
Please note that, over time, it is our goal to utilize fiber optic capabilities through
development of multi-way interactive video/audio. At some point soon, we will be
developing the ability to have the City Engineer attend staff meetings without leaving his
office. We would also like to apply the same technology so that Bob Paschke at Public
Works can attend meetings at City Hall without having to travel. Similarly, if a
customer comes to City Hall for assistance and the City Engineer is needed, the same
two-way communication system can be used to put the customer in immediate contact
with the City Engineer without having to walk to his office. This capability, if
inexpensive to implement, could save significant time and money in the long run by
making us all more efficient. We are currently working with FNM and HBC to develop
the systems and cost estimates necessary to support this practical application.
A1. Budget Impact: This is a non-budgeted item but, as you will note in an earlier
Council Agenda item, there is a significant level of unspent funds budgeted for
development of office facilities. It is proposed that the funds needed for this
expenditure be drawn from this related fund.
City Council Agenda: 2/8/10
2
A2. Staff Workload Impact: City staff will be utilized to prepare the office for the
Engineering Department and help them move.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to authorize relocation of City Engineering Department to Prairie Center
Office Building at the cost of $3,200.
2. Motion to deny said request.
If the City Engineer does not move, the Engineering area will be cramped, and Tracy
Ergen would not be able to shift her office to where Bruce is currently located. Thus her
office would not open up for the Sheriff’s Department or for Economic Development. It
would also be difficult to find enough space for the equipment, furnishing and supplies
that are being moved out of the MCC expansion area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1 to have the Engineering Department shift to the Prairie
Centre building as proposed above, and that staff continue to seek ways to enhance
communication between offices via fiber optic capabilities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Layout of design for Engineering Department space at Prairie Centre office