Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-28-2011AGENDA SPECIALMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,February28,2011–5:30p.m. PublicWorksOffice Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf 1.CalltoOrder 2.PurposeofMeeting:Reviewcapitalexpendituresandbudgeteditemsfor2011forPublic Works 3.Workshop–ConsiderationofauthorizingreplacementofPublicWorksCapital Equipment 4.Adjournment CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 3.ConsiderationofauthorizingreplacementofPublicWorksCapitalEquipment (TM/BP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: StaffwouldlikeCounciltoconsiderreplacementofagedequipmentcurrentlyusedin operationsbythePublicWorksDepartment.Inthe2011CIP,thePublicWorks Departmentrequestedreplacementoftheshopventilationsystem,a1978Fordflail mowingtractoranda1992Forddump-plowtruck.WeareaskingCounciltovisitthe PublicWorksfacilityandtakeafirsthandlookattheshopandequipment. InJanuaryof2005,PublicWorksadoptedaVehicleReplacementPolicyasaguideline sothedepartmentcanefficientlyevaluatethereplacementofequipment.Thegoalisto maintainallequipmentingood/safe/efficientoperatingconditionandreplacethe equipmentbeforeitbecomesadetrimentorsafetyproblemfortheCity. PublicWorkshasothercapitalequipmentlistedontheCIP.IfCouncilwishestodiscuss theseitems,staffwilladvisewithinformationavailabletodate. Ventilation Theoriginalshopwasbuiltin1975,andatthattimeaventilationsystemwasinstalled withtheproject.In1992avehiclestoragebuildingwasaddedtothenorthend.Thenin 1995thetwobuildingswerejoinedtogether,addingapaintbooth/combinationwashbay. Alsoaddedontothesouthsideofthebuildingisthelunchroom,bathroomsand administrationoffice.Atthattime,itwasnottakenintoconsiderationwhetherthe existingventilationsystemcouldhandlethefumesduringperiodsofexcessivewelding andrunningofdieseltrucksintheshop.Sincethen,officepersonnelhavereported numeroustimesofsmellingfumesoftenresultinginheadaches.Ventilationmorethan likelywouldbeafutureissueonanOSHAvisit.Stafffeelsthisisasafetyissuefor visitors,personnelintheoffice,andtothe18staffmembersintheshopenvironmentona dailybasis. Tractor In2001,wepurchasedaused19874610Fordtractorequippedwitharearandside mountedflailmower.Itisusedtomowditches,outlots,city-ownedlots,pondareas,and alongpathwaysandroughareasofparks.Thisunitisnowinits24th yearofoperation andonlyoffersuseinthesummermonthsforlackofauseablecabandmatchingwinter attachments.Thisisawellusedmachineandithasservedauseablelife;howeverparts arebecomingscarceandbreakdownsarebecomingmorefrequent. Togiveyouanideaoftheamountofareaitcovers,wemow38lanemilesofditches,a totalof2acresattheendof8differentdeadendstreets,1acrearoundvariouscul-de- sacs,3acresalongpathways,17acresaroundvariousponds,and39acresofvariouslots andoutlotsthatthecityowns.Thisparticulartractorcanonlybeusedinthesummer months. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 Wehavehadinjuriesrelatedtotheopencabsuchasbeestings,particlesineyes,andat worstawirefromalocatemarkerwasejectedfromtheflailmowerdeckandembedded intotheoperator’sback.Theneedforaclimatecontrolledcabtominimizedecibeland environmentalexposureandtoreduceinhalationofdustandparticulatesintothe operator’slungsarealsofactorsinsafety. Asawaytomaximizeuseofequipment,staffadvisespurchasingatractorthatcanalso beusedforsnowplowingparkinglots,cul-de-sacsandpathwayswiththeadditionof respectivesnowremovalattachments.Wecould,therefore,utilizethispieceof equipmentyeararound. PlowTruck Wehavea1992Fordplowtruckwhichisinits19thyearofoperation.Accordingto policystandards,ithasmetandexceededlifeexpectancyforourneeds.Weareasking youtolookatthetruckfirsthandandgiveusanopportunitytoexplainwhatwewould liketoreplaceitwith.Supportingdocumentationshowsourequipmentlifeexpectancy comparedtoothercities’equipmentlifeexpectancy,withonlyonecityexceedingthe lengthoftimewekeepourequipment. In2000,wereplaceda1985Internationaldump-plowtruckwitha2000SterlingHook Lifttruckthathastheabilityofexchangingbodies.Alongwiththattruck,wepurchased adumpbody,V-boxsander,flatbed,aconstructiondumpbody,andanasphalthotbox; andstaffbuiltananti-icingtankapplicator. Ahookliftroll-on/roll-offsystemusesahydraulicliftconnectedtoahook.Itisversatile inthatitcaneasilychangebodies. Thisuniquesystemhasproveditselfmanytimesover,allowingustouseonetruckfor manyfunctions.Thereisconstantdemandforthistypeoftruckinallthedepartmentsof thePublicWorksoperations.Staffbelievesthat,withtwoofthesetrucks,PublicWorks Departmentwilloperatemoreefficientlyasthereismorefrequentneedtousetwo attachments,especiallyinwinter.Morecitiesarereplacingstandardplowtruckswith HookLifttrucks.MonticellowassecondtoNorthStPaultousethistechnologywhenit initiallybecameavailable.Ourswasthefirstinthenationtoincorporateahotboxandan anti-icingtankapplicator.Thehotboxsystemisnowdistributednationwideandanti- icingtankbodies,wearesure,willfollowthetrend.Wehavehadmultiplecitiesvisitto observeandadoptmultipleunitsintotheirfleet.Staffiscontinuallycomingupwithideas fornewattachments;therearelimitlesspossibilities. A1.BudgetImpact:Budgetedfor2011is$248,250foraHookLiftTruckandplow attachments,$80,000foraDitchMowTractor,and$14,000foraShop Ventilationsystem. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffwillrequireseveralweekstoresearch,demo,and writespecsoneachpieceofequipment,somewillrequiremoretimethanothers. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 3 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoauthorizestafftosolicitquotesand/orbidsonaHookLiftTruckand plowattachments,asuitablesizeTractor,andaShopVentilationSystem designedaccordingtospecifications,whichwillbepreparedbystaff. 2.Motiontodenyauthorizationtosolicitquotesand/orbidsatthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1tosolicitquotesand/orbidsonthevariouspieces ofequipmentlistedandbringbacktoCouncilforapprovaltopurchaseequipment. Underthisalternative,PublicWorksstaffwouldbegintheprocessofresearchingand developingspecificationsfortheequipmentdesignatedforreplacementpriortosoliciting quotesand/orbids. Theneedtobringcertainequipmentforwardearlyintheyearisthebuildtimerequired. Anordermustbeputinbeforethemanufacturersbuildcutoffdateortheequipmentwill notbecompletedintheyearordered.Generally,for28,000GVWvehiclesthedateis June1st;theearliertheorder,thesoonerthedeliverydate.Ifanorderdateisnearthe deadline,deliverycanbeexpectedintoDecemberofthatyear.Riggingofattachments willrequiremoretime,soseasonaluseoftheequipmentcouldbeaffected. IfthereareothercapitalitemsthatCouncilrecommendsconsideringforreplacement, CitystaffwouldappreciatedirectionfromCouncil. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CapitalImprovementPlan–pageshowingPublicWorksequipmentbudget Monticelloequipmentlifeexpectancyschedule Surveyofothercities’equipmentlifeexpectancyschedule F:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\POLICIES\VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL 2005.DOCX: 2/10/05 - Page 1 of 2 - VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT January 21, 2005 (Revised November 19, 2008) The purpose of the guidelines is to create a means by which the department can efficiently evaluate the replacement of the department’s equipment. The goal is to maintain all equipment in good/safe/efficient operating condition and replace equipment before it becomes a detriment or safety problem for the city. PROPOSAL: < All equipment will be evaluated at least two years before a possible replacement year. This will allow us to plan ahead for future budgets and will give the city the flexibility of delaying replacement of equipment if necessary. < Pickups (1/2 ton, 3/4 ton and 1 tons) and light duty trucks are evaluated after 8 years of service for expected replacement at age 10 to 12 years. This includes a vehicle inspection by the city’s mechanic or a reliable dealership, a trade in value of the vehicle is determined, and an estimate of how much longer the vehicle will perform efficient service for the city. This will help decide when it will be most cost efficient to replace the vehicle. The vehicle will be inspected and evaluated every two years after the initial eight year inspection. < Other smaller motorized equipment such as tractors, skid steers, lawn mowers, etc. will be assessed after 5 years and every two years after the initial inspection, with expected replacement at age 7 to 9 years. < Attachments will be assessed annually as to usage, wear, safety, and performance. < If any piece of equipment is found to have possible safety issues or excessive miles/hour associated with operation, that piece of equipment will have first priority for replacement. < Each year at the departmental budget meetings the replacement schedule will be re-evaluated and shared with other departments. The equipment replacement priority list will be determined at that time. < Additional new equipment purchases will be done when it has been shown that departmental inefficiencies are occurring due to lack of equipment or that the city’s public service needs are being negatively affected. < Compact 4 x 4 pickups commonly used for off road construction inspection will be evaluated after 6 years with possible replacement at 8 years. < The city will attempt to sell all vehicles and equipment outright through a bid process once trade-in values are known. F:\ADMIN\WORDPROC\POLICIES\VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY PROPOSAL 2005.DOCX: 2/10/05 - Page 2 of 2 - < Projected growth may require keeping better trade-ins for backup use or transportation service. < Large dump trucks: evaluated at 10 years of age for replacement at 12 or 14 years. < Small loaders (non skid steer) and street sweepers: evaluated at 8 years of age with replacement at 10 to 12 years. < Large loaders: evaluated at 10 years of age with replacement at 12 to 16 years. < Motor grader: continue to buy late model used; evaluate at 18 years of age with replacement at 20 to 22 years. < All trailers: inspect yearly with replacement as needed. < Specialized equipment: Inspect yearly with replacement as needed. < Vac-Con sewer cleaner: Evaluate yearly with estimated replacement at 12 - 16 years as well as other wastewater treatment plant heavy duty rolling stock such as trucks, trailers and applicators. AGENDA REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,February28,2011–7p.m. Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf 1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance 2A.ApprovalofMinutes–February14,2011RegularMeeting 3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda 4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncements,andstaffupdates a.CitizenComments: b.PublicServiceAnnouncements: 1)MarchMadness5KRun(3/22?) c.StaffUpdates: 1)IntroductionofFiberNetMonticelloGeneralManagerJerryOlson 5.ConsentAgenda: A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-11approvingcontributionfromTom PerraultfortheGeneralFund C.Considerationofapprovingatemporarycharitablegamblingapplicationfora raffleconductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimited D.Considerationofapproving2010OperatingTransfers E.Considerationofapproving2010FundBalanceDesignations F.ConsiderationofwaivingstatutoryliabilitylimitsforCityinsurancerenewals G.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008Monticello ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan H.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-12statingIntenttoReimbursefrom BondProceedsfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo. 11C001 SPECIALMEETING 5:30p.m.–Workshop:PublicWorksCapitalEquipment (TobeheldatPublicWorksOffice) I.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-14approving2011MunicipalState AidSystemDesignationsandRevocations J.Considerationofauthorizingout-of-statetravelfortrainingontheMetaSwitch phonesystemforFiberNetemployees K.Considerationofacceptingpreliminary4th QuarterFinancialreport L.Considerationofadopting Resolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardous Property 6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion 7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-13orderingimprovements andauthorizingpreparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor2011Street Reconstructionproject,CityProjectNo.11C001 8.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofapprovingsubmissiontotheDepartmentofNatural ResourcesoftheMonticello2011OutdoorRecreationGrantApplicationRequestforthe PhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakesRegionalPark 9.Addeditems 10.ApprovepaymentofbillsforFebruary28th 11.Adjournment CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments (TE) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCouncilisaskedtoratifythehiringanddeparturesofemployeesthathaveoccurred recentlyinthedepartmentslisted.ItisrecommendedthattheCouncilofficiallyratifythe hiring/departureofalllistedemployeesincludingpart-timeandseasonalworkers. A1.BudgetImpact:(positionsaregenerallyincludedinbudget) A2.StaffWorkLoadImpact:Ifnewpositions,theremaybesometraining involved.Ifterminatedpositions,existingstaffwouldpickupthosehours,as needed,untilreplaced. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoratifythehire/departuresoftheemployeesasidentifiedontheattached list. 2.Motiontodenytherecommendedhiresanddepartures. C.RECOMMENDATION: BystatutetheCityCouncilhastheauthoritytoapproveallhires/departures.Citystaff recommendsAlternative#1,fortheCounciltoapprovethehiresand/ordeparturesas listed. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Listofnew/terminatedemployees Name Title Department Hire Date Class Benjamin Schacht Slide Attendant MCC 2/7 PT Craig Jacobson Liquor Store Clerk Hi-Way Liquors 2/14 PT Name Reason Department Last Day Class NEW EMPLOYEES TERMINATING EMPLOYEES 5A hires-terms 022811.xlsx: 2/24/2011 CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5B.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-11toacceptcontributionfromTom PerraultfortheGeneralFund (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TomPerraultiscontributing$250forFebruarytogointotheGeneralFund.Asrequired bystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncilneedstoadopt aresolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2011-11 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-11 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE TomPerraultCash$250 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE TomPerraultCityofMonticelloGeneralfund(Feb) AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis28thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5C.Considerationofapprovingatemporarycharitablegamblingapplicationfora raffleconductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimited (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: WrightCountyDucksUnlimitedhasappliedtotheCityforapprovalofapermitfora charitablegamblingfund-raisingeventtobeheldonMay23,2010atRiverCityExtreme inMonticello. ToreceiveapermitfromtheState,theCitymustapprovetheapplication.Inthepastthe Cityhasnotopposedtheseexemptgamblinglicenseapplicationsforcharitableevents. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovetheonedaycharitablegamblingapplicationforaraffletobe conductedbyWrightCountyDucksUnlimitedonMay2,2010. 2.Motiontodenytherequest. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffsupportsAlternative#1andisnotawareofanyreasonwhythisapplicationshould notbeapproved. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ApplicationforExemptGamblingPermit Copyoffinancialreport CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5D.Considerationofapproving2010OperatingTransfers (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Everyyear,theCitytransfersmoneyfromoneCityfundtoanotherCityfund.These transfershappenforvariousreasonsincludingprovidingfundingsourcesforCity projects,repaymentofdebt,ortofundoperationsinsteadofapropertytaxlevy.Someof thesetransferswereanticipatedandaccountedintheCity’s2010budget.Othersbecame necessaryduringthecourseofoperationsduringtheyearorbasedonfundingdecisions madebystafforCouncilduringtheyear.Whateverthereasonforthetransfers,itisa goodmanagementpracticetoprovidetheCityCouncilwithalistofthetransfersmade andhaveCouncilapprovethetransfers. Attachedisalistofthe2010operatingtransfersfortheCity.Adescriptionofeach transferisprovidedbelow. 1.TheCitybudgetedthepurchaseofpublicworksstreetequipmentinboththe GeneralFundandtheCapitalRevolvingFundinthepast.Thetransferof $45,000totheGeneralFundisforthepurchaseofstreetdepartmentequipment andwasincludedinthe2010budget. 2.Thetransferof$4,000fromtheGeneralFundtotheLibraryFundwasincludedin the2010budgetandwasnecessarybasedonoperatingexpenditures. 3.TheCity’s2010budgetalsoincludedatransferfromtheLiquorFundtothe LibraryFundtohelpfundoperationsattheLibraryinsteadofapropertytaxlevy. 4.TheStreetReconstructionFundhasabudgetedtransferof$250,000fromthe LiquorFundinplaceofapropertytaxlevy. 5.ThetransferintotheEDAFundfromthe2004ATaxableTIFBondwasnot budgetedbutisneededtoretirethe2004ATaxableTIFBondandcloseoutthat fundwhichisnolongerneeded. 6.Alsotocloseoutthisfund,theCityneedstotransfer$356,179fromtheEDA Fundintothe2004ATaxableTIFBondforitsshareofthescheduled2010bond payment. 7.The$343,201transferintotheConsolidatedBondFundfromthe2003ABond Fundclosesthe2003ABondFundsincetheCityretiredthedebtin2010andthe fundisnolongerneededorrequired.Thistransferwasnotbudgetedin2010. 8.Thetransferof$187,317intothe2002BondFundfromthe2010Improvement& RefinancingBondFundistocloseoutthefundandretirethedebtofthe2002 Bondwhichwasrefinancedwiththe2010Bond.Thistransferalsowasnot budgetedbutrequiredtocloseoutthe2002BondFund. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 9.Thenextfourtransfersintothe2005BondFundallwerebudgetedin2010and arebasedonthefundingsourcesofthe2005bondissuance.Thesetransfers include$317,277fromtheEDAFund,$712,859fromtheSewerAccessFund, $264,599fromtheStormSewerAccessFund,and$310,774fromtheWater AccessFund. 10.Thetransferof$805,000fromtheCommunityCenterFundtothe2008A RevenueRefundingBondwasbudgetedandisbasedonthe2008ARevenue RefundingBondfinancingplanwhenthebondswereissued. 11.Thetransferof$400,137intothe2008SewerRefundingBondFundisforthe SanitarySewerAccessFund’sshareofthe2010bondpaymentbasedonthedebt retirementschedule. 12.ThetransferintotheLiquorFundof20,063wasnotbudgetedin2010butconsist of$10,032fromtheCommunityCenterand$10,031fromtheFiberNetFundfor theirshareoftheelectronicreaderboardinstalledontheLiquorStoresign. 13.Thefinaltransferwasnotbudgetedandisbasedonthecurrentundesignatedfund balanceoftheGeneralFund.Basedonthe2010revenueandexpenditureactivity plusthe2009undesignatedfundbalance,theCitywouldhaveapproximately $2,000,000.00inundesignatedfundbalanceintheGeneralFund.WhiletheCity needstomaintainsomeundesignatedfundbalanceintheGeneralFundthisis excessiveforourpossibleneeds.Forthatreason,staffwouldrecommend transferring$1,200,000.00outoftheGeneralFundandintothefollowingfunds. $300,000totheParkDedicationFundtohelpfinancethenextpurchaseof BertramChainofLakes.ThiswillprovidetheCitythefundstopurchase section7betweenthelakesincludingthebeacharea. $200,000totheCommunityCenterFundforbuildingrepairs. Remaining$700,000toreducethe$3,344,000cashdeficitintheI- 94/CSAH18InterchangeConstructionFund. Thesearethe2010operatingtransfersproposedbystafftofundCityoperationsandfund futurepurchases,projectsortoreducefunddeficits. A1.BudgetImpact:Asnoted,someofthetransferswereincludedinthe2010 budget,whileothertransfersareneedtocloseoutfundsthatarenolongerneeded orrequired.Finallysometransfersweremadetobetteraccountforfuture expenditures,financefutureprojectsorreducefunddeficits. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therearenostaffworkloadimpactsforthesetransfers. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 3 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethe2010operatingtransfersaslisted. 2.Motiontoapprovesomevariationofthe2010operatingtransfers. 3.Motiontodenythe2010operatingtransfers. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1,toapprovethe2010operatingtransfersaslisted. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Listof2010operatingtransfers TransfersInTransferOut Fund#FundAmountFund#FundAmount #1101GeneralFund45,000240CapitalRevolvingFund45,000 #2211LibraryFund4,000101GeneralFund4,000 #3211LibraryFund16,000609LiquorFund16,000 #4212StreetReconstructionFund250,000609LiquorFund250,000 #5213EDAFund5,3013792004ATaxableTIFBond5,301 #63792004ATaxableTIFBond356,179213EDAFund356,179 #7300ConsolidatedBondFund343,2013112003ABondFund343,201 #83102002BondFund187,3173172010AImprov.&RefinancingBd187,317 #9213EDAFund317,277 3122005AG.O.BondFund1,605,509262SanitarySewerAccessFund712,859 263StormSewerAccessFund264,599 265WaterAccessFund310,774 #103142008RevenueRefundingBond805,000226CommunityCenterFund805,000 #113152008SewerRefundingBond400,137262SanitarySewerAccessFund400,137 #12609LiquorStoreFund20,063226CommunityCenterFund10,032 656FiberNetConstructionFund10,031 #13229ParkDedicationFund300,000 226CommunityCenterFund200,000101GeneralFund1,200,000 486I-94/CSAH18InterchangeFund700,000 TotalTransfersIn5,237,707TotalTransfersOut5,237,707 BudgetedOperatingTransfers CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5E.Considerationofapproving2010FundBalanceDesignations (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: AttheendoftheCity’sfiscalyearthedifferencebetweenrevenuesandexpendituresis closedoutintothefundbalanceaccountofeachindividualCityfund.Someofthese fundbalancesarerestrictedbylaworbythenatureoftheirrevenuesource.Forexample, parkdedicationfeescollectedfromdeveloperorindividualarerestrictedforparkland purchases.Inaddition,debtservice(bond)fundsarerestrictedfortherepaymentofdebt. Besidesthesefundsthatarelegallyrestricted,theCitymaydesignateallorportionsof fundbalancesforfutureuse,suchasequipmentpurchasesorcapitalprojects.Attheend of2010,staffrecommendsthefollowingfundbalancedesignations: GeneralFund: DesignationforWorkingCapital(45%of2011Budget)$2,875,000.00 DesignationforContingencies(5%of2011Budget)$320,000.00 StreetReconstructionFund: DesignationforFutureEdmonson$187,990.61 DesignationforElkStreet$10,300.00 DesignationforFuture85th $135,636.50 Designationfor7th StreetExtension$600,000.00 DesignationforFenningAve.$202,077.55 DesignationforFallonAve.$72,015.00 DesignationforHaug&95th $122,500.00 CommunityCenterFund: DesignationforBuildingRepairs$200,000.00 CapitalRevolvingFund: DesignationforCommunicationImprovements$48,516.79 TheCityshoulddesignatethesefundbalancesbecausetheStateAuditorandthe LegislatureoftenpointtoCitiesashavingexcessfundbalances(reserves)and,thatby designatingthefundbalances,itwilldemonstratethattheCityhasapurposefor maintainingthesereserves.Theexplanationforthedesignationoffundbalancesis describedbelow. GeneralFund: Theworkingcapitaldesignationis45%ofthe2011GeneralFundbudgetperCity reservepolicy.TheStateAuditorrecommendsCitiesmaintain35%to50%of nextyear’sbudgetforworkingcapitaltofundCityoperationsuntilcitiesreceive theirfirsthalftaxsettlementinJuly. Thecontingencydesignationisforunexpected“mustfund”itemsduringtheyear. Thisisnotforitemsthatwouldbenicetohavebutwerenotbudgeteditems.This designationismoreformajor,mustgetdone,unexpecteditems,suchasifastorm CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 destroyedtreesallaroundtheCityandweneededtohiretreetrimmersand removerstohelpclearstreetsandpowerlines. StreetReconstructionFund: Allofthesedesignationswerefundscollectedfromassessmentstodevelopersfor futuremajorstreetimprovementprojects.Whenothervacantlandintheareais developedtheimprovementswillbeneededforthoseareas. CommunityCenterFund: Basedonapprovalofthe2010operatingtransferagendaitem,ifthe$200,000is transferredfromtheGeneralFundtotheCommunityCenterFundforbuilding repairsneeded.Designatethosefunds. CapitalRevolvingFund: Thisdesignationisfrom2009unbudgetedcablefranchisefeerevenueswhich werereturnedtotheCityforthepurposeoffinancingcommunication enhancementsintheMississippiRoomorotherCityfacilitiesandtoimprove otherCitycommunicationtools. A1.BudgetImpact:Theamountdesignatedwillnotneedtobebudgetedandlevied forinfutureyearssincethesefundsarebeingsetasideforthepurchaseor improvement;therefore,thebudgetimpactistolowerthebudgetintheyearthe purchaseorworkiscompleted. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therewouldbenostaffworkloadimpactsforthese reserves. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethe2010fundbalancedesignationsaslisted. 2.Motiontoapprovesomevariationofthe2010fundbalancedesignations. 3.Motiontodenythe2010fundbalancedesignations. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Citystaffrecommendsalternative#1fortheapprovalofthe2010fundbalance designationsaslisted. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: None CouncilAgenda:2/28/2011 1 5F.ConsiderationofwaivingstatutoryliabilitylimitsforCityinsurancerenewals (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: ThepurposeofthisitemistohavetheCouncilformallyadoptwhetheritwantstowaive ornotwaiveitsmonetarylimitsontortliabilityaspartoftheirinsurancecoverage. OurannualinsurancecoveragesarerenewableinMarchofeachyear,andaspartofthe renewalprocess,theCityCouncilmustformallyindicatewhethertheywanttowaive monetarylimitsestablishedbystatestatute.Bystatestatute,statutorytortlimitsinplace limittheCity’sliabilityto$500,000onanyclaimperindividualand$1,500,000fromall claimantsforoneincident.Inadditiontothebasic$1,500,000coveragelimit,theCity has,inthepast,purchasedanumbrellapolicyaddinganother$1,500,000worthof coverage.EventhoughtheCitycarriesineffect,$3,000,000worthofliabilitycoverage, ithasbeenthepastdecisionoftheCityCounciltonotwaiveitsmonetarylimitsontort liabilitythusstillnormallylimitingourliabilityto$500,000perperson.IftheCouncil didnottakethisposition,anindividualcouldseekdamagesabovethe$500,000limitin anylawsuit. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontodenywaivingthemonetarylimitsontortliabilityestablishedby MinnesotaStatute466.04. 2.Motiontoapprovewaivingthemonetarylimitsontortliabilityestablishedby MinnesotaStatute466.04. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: ItistherecommendationoftheCityStaffforAlternative#1.Underthisoption,theCity Councilwouldutilizethetortlimitsestablishedbystatestatuteandnotwaivethe monetarylimits.Thisensuresalimitontheamountofdamagesthatanindividualcould seekinalawsuitinvolvingtheCity. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Copyofliabilityinsuranceapplicationform CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5G.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008Monticello ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan (AS/BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoapprovethisresolution,whichisessentiallyahousekeeping item,formalizingpreviousactiontakenonJanuary24th. OnJanuary24th,theCityCouncilapprovedtheadoptionoftheTransportationPlanina 3-1-1vote.TheadoptionoftheTransportationPlanasaformalamendmenttothe ComprehensivePlanrequiresasupermajorityvote.Councilwillrecallthatthe TransportationPlanistoserveasChapter6oftheComprehensivePlan. Theresolutionproposedsimplycodifiesthedecisionandthelanguageofthe ComprehensivePlanamendment. Councilwillrecallthatthe2008ComprehensivePlanadoptedthe1997Downtown RevitalizationPlanastheguidingdocumentforthedowntowndistrict.Assuch,by amendingthe2008plan,the1997planisalsoamended. A1.BudgetImpact:Asmallfeewillbeincurredfortheupdateofthe ComprehensivePlandocument. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008ComprehensivePlan withtheadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-10amendingthe2008 ComprehensivePlanwiththeadditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Thisalternativeisconsistentwithformalaction takenbytheCityCouncilonJanuary24th andisanimportantstepinincorporationof transportationplanningwithintheoveralllong-rangeplanningeffortsforthecommunity. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-10 CityCouncilMinutesofJanuary24,2011 ComprehensivePlan-Chapter6CoverPage TransportationPlan-asadoptedonJanuary24,2011 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-10 APPROVINGANAMENDMENTTOTHE2008COMPREHENSIVEPLAN WITHTHEADDITIONOFCHAPTER6–TRANSPORTATIONPLAN WHEREAS,theCityadoptedanupdatetoitsmunicipalComprehensivePlanin2008;and WHEREAS,theCityadoptedaTransportationPlanatitsregularCouncilMeetingonJanuary 24,2011;and WHEREAS,theadoptionoftheTransportationPlan asanamendmenttotheComprehensive PlanprovidesanappropriatetransportationchapterfortheComprehensivePlan,supportsthe proposedlanduseplan,andfurtherstheCity’sland-useanddevelopmentpoliciesthroughthe provisionofvitaltransportationfacilities;and WHEREAS,itisintheCity'sbestinteresttoreevaluateitscomprehensiveplanandconsiderand analyzeamendmentsasnecessary;and NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTATHAT,the2008ComprehensivePlanshallbeamendedasfollows: AdditionofChapter6–TransportationPlan(seeattachedbooklet) ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO _________________________________ ATTEST:ClintHerbst,Mayor ________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Transportation | 6-12008 Comprehensive Plan The City of Monticello anticipates the completion of an updated Transportation Plan in 2008. Th e City will use the information in the Transportation Plan to prepare a transportation chapter for the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter Contents 6 completion of an updated will use the information in nsportation chapter for the Chapter Contents Transportation 6-2 | Transportation City of Monticello This page intentionally left blank January 2011 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 Monticello Transportation Plan City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN January 2011 Adopted by City Council January 24, 2011 Prepared by: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 541-4800 (763) 541-1700 (Fax) City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .............................................................3 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................3 2.2 Existing Functional Classification ...............................................................3 2.3 Existing Jurisdictional System .....................................................................5 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................5 2.5 Current Safety Conditions............................................................................5 2.5.1 Surface Streets .................................................................................5 2.5.2 Interstate 94 ......................................................................................9 3.0 PLANNING ISSUES ...........................................................................................11 3.1 Monticello Land Use..................................................................................11 3.2 Relevant Planning Documents and Projects/Activities..............................11 3.2.1 Documents .....................................................................................11 3.2.2 Projects/Activities ..........................................................................16 4.0 ROADWAY NEEDS ............................................................................................19 4.1 2030 Deficiency Analysis ..........................................................................19 4.2 Alternatives Analysis – TH 25 Relief ........................................................20 4.2.1 Local Improvements ......................................................................21 4.2.2 Network Improvements .................................................................23 4.3 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................28 4.4 Long-Term Planning ..................................................................................28 5.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ..............................................................................31 5.1 Funding Sources.........................................................................................31 5.2 Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements .........................................32 5.2.1 Pavement Maintenance ..................................................................32 5.2.2 Future Improvement Projects .........................................................33 5.3 Future Functional Classification and Roadway Jurisdiction .....................34 5.3.1 Future Functional Classification ....................................................34 5.3.2 Future Jurisdictional Classification................................................35 5.4 Access Management and Roadway Right-of-Way ....................................35 5.4.1 Access Management ......................................................................35 5.4.2 Right-of-Way .................................................................................36 5.5 Non-Motorized Transportation ..................................................................37 5.6 Transit ........................................................................................................38 City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 List of Tables 2.1 Number of Crashes by Location (2002-2006) 2.2 Crash and Severity Rates by Intersection (2002-2006) 2.3 2006 State-Wide Average Crash Rates by Intersection Category 3.1 Wright County Transportation Plan – Monticello Small Area Study Summary 3.2 Cumulative Impacts Study – Projected 2040 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios at Mississippi River Crossings 4.1 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New River Crossing 4.2 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road River Crossing 4.3 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Washington Street River Crossing 4.4 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 18 River Crossing 4.5 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New Interchange 4.6 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange 4.7 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 39 Interchange 4.8 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange Plus CSAH 39 Interchange 5.1 Primary Future Capital Improvement Projects 5.2 City of Monticello Access Spacing Guidelines 5.3 City of Monticello Right-of-Way Guidelines List of Figures (Please note that all figures are compiled at the end of the text) 1.1 Regional Location Map 2.1 Planning Area Aerial Photograph 2.2 Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map 2.3 Existing Roadway Jurisdictional Classification Map 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes 2.5 Surface Street Crash Locations and Frequencies 2.6 I-94 Crash Locations and Frequencies 3.1 Future Land Use Map 4.1 Projected Baseline 2030 Traffic Volumes 4.2 TH 25 – Local Improvement Alternatives 4.3 River Crossing Alternatives with No New Interchange – 2030 Traffic Volumes 4.4 River Crossing Alternatives with Interchange in the Vicinity of Orchard Road – 2030 Traffic Volumes 4.5 River Crossing Alternatives with Interchange in the Vicinity of CSAH 39 – 2030 Traffic Volumes 4.6 River Crossing Alternatives with Two New Interchanges – 2030 Traffic Volumes 4.7 Long-Term Roadway Improvement Plan 5.1 Future Roadway Functional Classification Map 5.2 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways 5.3 River Rider Transit Service Map City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Monticello is located in Wright County, approximately 45 miles northwest of downtown Minneapolis, and 30 miles southeast of St. Cloud (Figure 1.1). Given its relative proximity to these metropolitan areas and the fact that it has quick access to Interstate I-94, Monticello experienced rapid growth until the housing downturn beginning in 2006. Because of its location relative to other urban centers and important regional roadways, there is still strong potential for growth into the future once the housing market improves. The primary goals of this Transportation Plan are as follows: • Identify and characterize the existing transportation system, including safety analysis (Section 2.0). • Identify and discuss general planning factors pertaining to future transportation needs for the City (Section 3.0). • Identify potential future roadway deficiencies and assess improvement options to address the deficiencies (Section 4.0). • Prepare an overall Transportation Plan for the City, addressing capital improvement needs; functional classification, jurisdiction, right-of-way issues; bike / pedestrian considerations; transit (Section 5.0). This Transportation Plan will be summarized as Chapter 6 and included wholly by reference into the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 2 This page is left blank intentionally City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 3 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 2.1 Background The City of Monticello’s municipal boundaries and primary roadways are depicted on an aerial photograph included as Figure 2.1. Historically, the City developed in an area between the Mississippi River and what is now Interstate 94 (I-94). The construction of I-94 in the 1970s has had a large impact on the development of Monticello. This facility provides efficient access between Monticello and the Twin Cites to the southeast and St. Cloud to the northwest. This has encouraged steady growth and has substantially impacted development patterns for the City. According to the 1970 census, the population was 1,636. By the 2000 census, this figure had grown to 7,866, and the 2007 population as estimated by the Minnesota Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis at 11,253. Because much of the recent development as taken place south of the freeway, Monticello is now divided by an interstate freeway. This factor will become more pronounced in the future as development continues south of I-94. 2.2 Existing Functional Classification Roadways serve two basic functions: mobility and access. Mobility refers to relatively rapid movement over distance, and access refers to comprehensive connection with individual land uses. These are competing functions, in that roads designed for one function will often not serve the other effectively. As an extreme example, freeways cannot be used to get directly to the “corner store.” Conversely, traveling from one end of a large metropolitan area to another by using only local streets would be a very slow process with increased potential for crashes at intersections or other locations. The functional classification system is a hierarchy of roadways based upon the degree to which they provide the mobility versus the access function. The different classifications have different design and operating standards as dictated by their respective functions. A properly designed roadway network has an appropriate mix and integration of the different roadway types, allowing the overall system to operate efficiently and safely. The primary functional classifications are as follows: • Principal Arterials • Minor Arterials • Collectors (major and minor) • Local streets Further information on these classifications and the existing network in Monticello is provided under the following headings. The existing functional classification system for Monticello is presented on Figure 2.2. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 4 Principal Arterials have the highest traffic capacities and volumes of all roadways. Their purpose is to provide the mobility as opposed to access. They are intended to connect metropolitan centers with one another as well as regions with one another. They usually connect only with other principal arterials and select minor arterials. The principal arterial roadway in Monticello is: • Interstate 94 Minor Arterials provide somewhat more access than principal arterials and serve shorter trips. However, they still are intended to primarily provide the mobility function and should be designed accordingly. Only concentrations of commercial or industrial land uses should have access to them. Minor arterials should connect only with principal arterials, other minor arterials, and collectors (see below). The minor arterials serving Monticello are either state or County roads. The Wright County Transportation Plan states that Wright County minor arterials are generally spaced approximately five to ten miles from other arterials. The minor arterials in the Monticello area are: • TH 25 • CSAH 39 (east of CSAH 75) • CSAH 75 Major Collectors “collect” traffic from local streets and minor collectors and deliver these travelers to other major collectors or the arterial network. Collectors generally serve shorter trips at lower speeds than arterials. Major collectors place an equal emphasis on the mobility and access functions referenced previously. In developing urban areas, only local streets and large traffic generators should have access to major collectors and spacing should every one-half mile to one mile. In rural areas, collectors can provide more of a mobility function than in urban areas because access needs are less significant. The major collectors in the Monticello area are: • CSAH 39 (west of CSAH 75) • CSAH 37 • CSAH 18/Fenning Avenue (between CSAH 75 and CSAH 37) • CSAH 18 (east of Fenning Avenue) • School Boulevard (between TH 25 and Fenning Avenue) Minor Collectors serve approximately the same function as major collectors (connecting local traffic to the larger network) but place a greater emphasis on land access than mobility. They generally do not carry as much volume as major collectors and can accommodate more driveway connections. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 5 The minor collectors in the Monticello area are: • CR 117/Edmonson Avenue • CR 106 • Chelsea Road • 7th Street (between TH 25 and Fenning Avenue) Local Streets are intended to provide access to individual parcels of land as their primary function. They generally serve short trips at low speeds. In most cases, they will connect to other local streets or collectors. All of the roads not depicted on Figure 2.2 as arterials or collectors are local streets. 2.3 Existing Jurisdictional System Roadways are classified on the basis of which level of government owns or has jurisdiction over the road. The levels of government which have involvement for roadways within the City are the State of Minnesota (Mn/DOT), Wright County, the City of Monticello, and Monticello Township. Mn/DOT maintains the Interstate and Trunk Highway System. Wright County maintains the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) and County Road (CR) systems. The remaining streets (including State Aid streets) located within the City are the responsibility of the City of Monticello. Non-County streets that are on a municipal/township boundary are jointly owned by the City and the Township. These City/Township roads are maintained through agreements between the City and Township. Figure 2.3 depicts the jurisdictional classification for roadways serving Monticello. 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes Current average Daily Traffic volumes (ADT) on major streets in the City of Monticello are shown on Figure 2.4. The ADT volumes consist of the total traffic carried on the identified road in a typical 24-hour period. The information depicted on Figure 2.4 is the most current data available for each volume location identified. 2.5 Current Safety Conditions Crash data was obtained from Mn/DOT and was used to evaluate the relative safety of the transportation network within Monticello. All reported crashes contained within the Mn/DOT data set between 2002 and 2006 were used in the safety evaluation. The evaluation was used to determine both the frequency and severity of crashes located at intersections. The crash data was also reviewed to locate additional non-intersection accident clusters at other potential problem locations. 2.5.1 Surface Streets The evaluation revealed 39 intersections and one additional non-intersection cluster with three or more crashes. Table 2.1 presents the number of crashes identified at each City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 6 Intersection / Location Crashes (2002-2006)Intersection / Location Crashes (2002-2006) TH 25 / 7th St 75 Fenning Ave / Chelsea Rd 5 TH 25 bridge over I-94 48 CSAH 75 / Locust St 4 TH 25 / Chelsea Rd 39 Edmonson Ave / Dundas Rd 4 TH 25 / Oakwood Dr 39 Maple St / 3rd St 4 TH 25 / CSAH 75 38 School Blvd / Fenning Ave NE 4 TH 25 / 6th St 35 W River St / Otter Creek Rd 4 TH 25 / River St 34 Walnut St / 7th St 4 TH 25 / 4th St 15 CSAH 75 / River St W 3 TH 25 / School Blvd 13 CSAH 75 / Walnut St 3 CSAH 75 / Elm St 12 CSAH 75 / Willow St 3 Golf Course Rd / Elm St 11 Elm St / 3rd St 3 TH 25 / 3rd St 11 Fallon Ave / Chelsea Rd 3 CSAH 75 / Cedar St 10*Locust St / 3rd St 3 School Blvd / Cedar St 10 Maple St / 6th 3 CSAH 75 / Washington St 9 Sandberg Rd / Chelsea Rd 3 CSAH 75 / CSAH 39 8 TH 25 / I-94 WB ramps 3 CSAH 75 / Hart (west)7 TH 25 / I-94 EB ramps 3 Walnut St / 7th St 7 Walnut St / 3rd St 3 CSAH 75 / Hart (east)6 SOURCE: Mn/DOT; WSB & Associates, Inc. *Includes a fatality in 2002. location. Figure 2.5 displays the location and number of crashes at each location. The highest cluster of accidents identified occurred at the intersection of TH 25 and 7th Street. The non-intersection crash cluster identified was on the TH 25 Bridge over I-94. The analysis revealed one fatality at the intersection of CSAH 75 and Cedar Street in 2002. TABLE 2.1 Number of Crashes by Location – 2002-2006 (Table contains locations with three or more crashes) The 15 intersections experiencing the greatest number of crashes were also evaluated to determine the crash rate and severity rate. Crash rates for intersections were calculated in terms of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. Severity rates were calculated using the same formula used to calculate crash rates, but each accident is weighted as follows: fatality – 5 points; incapacitating injury – 4 points; non- incapacitating injury – 3 points; potential injury – 2 points; property damage only (no injury) – 1 point. Table 2.2 presents the crash rates and severity rates for the 15 intersections in Monticello with the highest total number of crashes. For comparison, Table 2.3 presents summary statewide crash rate information for different categories of intersections as compiled by Mn/DOT. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 7 Intersection / Location Crashes (2002-2006) Crash Rate Severity Rate TH 25 / 7th St 75 1.20 1.59 TH 25 / Chelsea Rd 39 1.13 1.48 School Blvd / Cedar St 10 1.09 1.19 TH 25 / Oakwood Dr 39 0.96 1.35 Golf Course Rd / Elm St 11 0.92 1.25 TH 25 / River St 34 0.68 0.86 TH 25 / 6th St 35 0.68 1.14 CSAH 75 / Elm St 12 0.63 0.95 TH 25 / CSAH 75 38 0.49 0.74 CSAH 75 / Cedar St 10 0.39 0.63 TH 25 / School Blvd 13 0.35 0.48 TH 25 / 4th St 15 0.32 0.47 CSAH 75 / Washington St 9 0.31 0.38 TH 25 / 3rd St 11 0.23 0.30 CSAH 75 / CSAH 39 8 0.19 0.24 Low Volume/ High Speed High Volume/ High Speed Low Volume/ Low Speed High Volume/ Low Speed Urban or Suburban Through/Stop All Way Stop Crash Rate 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 Severity Rate 1.1 1.2 0.8 1 0.4 0.8 SOURCE: Mn/DOT NOTE: “Low Volume” = less than 15,000 daily vehicles; “High Volume” = greater than 15,000 daily vehicles; “Low Speed” = less than 45 mile per hour zone; “High Speed” = greater than 45 mile per hour zone; “Through/Stop” = no stop signs on the major street, stop signs on the minor street; “All Way Stop” = stop signs on all four entering streets. Signalized Unsignalized TABLE 2.2 Crash and Severity Rates by Intersection (2002-2006) TABLE 2.3 2006 State-Wide Average Crash Rates by Intersection Category A useful way to review the information provided in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and on Figure 2.5 is as follows: • Total number of crashes indicates the general scale of the potential problem • Crash and severity rates can indicate the degree to which the problem is likely the result of a unique or specific deficiency associated with the facility or area in question Trunk Highway 25 Nine of the ten intersections with the highest total number of crashes in Monticello were located along TH 25. This isn’t surprising, given that TH 25 also carries the highest traffic volumes other than I-94. TH 25 is a minor arterial roadway carrying high volumes of regional traffic, yet it is also an important street for local traffic, and there are currently many local street and private driveway access points. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 8 In addition to intersection crash rates, Mn/DOT has also established guidelines for calculating segment crash rates: the number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled on a given stretch of roadway. The 2002-2006 crash rate for TH 25 from School Boulevard to River Street was 6.45. Based upon information provided by Mn/DOT, the 2006 Minnesota average for this type of roadway ranges from 3.7 (urban four-lane divided) to 4.7 (urban four-lane undivided). Summary Observations 1. Overall, Trunk Highway 25 through the City represents a significant safety concern. The crash rate for TH 25 from School Boulevard to River Street is higher than the average crash rate in Minnesota for similar roadways. The number of crashes observed on TH 25 may be reduced by providing additional opportunities for local traffic to use alternate routes to cross I-94 such as a bridge over I-94 at Fallon Avenue (see Section 4.0). However, diverting traffic to alternate routes may not reduce the overall crash rates without introducing additional measures to modify driver behavior including access management, signal modification, or traffic calming. 2. Individual intersections along Trunk Highway 25 may warrant attention. Table 2.2 indicates that the two intersections with both the highest crash rates and severity rates among the surveyed intersections are located along TH 25. Safety at individual intersections may be improved by modifying the geometry, signage, signalization, or other intersection attribute. 3. There is a high number of accidents on TH 25 between the I-94 ramps, primarily on the bridge over I-94. Intuitively, it would appear that movements onto or off of I-94 are forcing other motorists to decelerate, change lanes, or generally make abrupt maneuvers which cause safety difficulties. The information on the types of accidents supports this idea to a degree. The majority of the accidents are either “rear end” or “sideswipe—same direction.” However, it may be necessary to interview local officials, motorists, and police representatives to better understand the safety issues at this general location. It is possible that construction activities in this portion of TH 25 caused elevated numbers of crashes during a portion of the study period. 4. The Crash Rate analysis suggests that some intersections in Monticello have unique design and/or operating features which may require attention. Based on the findings summarized in Table 2.2, five intersections stand out as having high crash rates relative to statewide averages and relative to other intersections in Monticello: • TH 25 / 7th Street • TH 25 / Chelsea Road • School Boulevard / Cedar Street • TH 25 / Oakwood Drive • Golf Course Road / Elm Street City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 9 The TH 25/7th Street intersection is notable as having both the highest number of crashes in the City (by a wide margin) as well as the highest crash and severity rates. These intersections should continue to be monitored to determine if there are any specific operational or geometric features that could be monitored to improve safety conditions. In particular, the intersections of TH 25/Oakwood Drive and Golf Course Road/Elm Street have non-standard approach angles. 2.5.2 Interstate 94 Figure 2.6 displays the number of crashes (2002-2006) located along I-94 near Monticello. The 2000-2004 crash rate for I-94 from the township road bridge (120th Street NE) to the former eastbound entrance ramp between CSAH 75 and I-94 is 0.59. The average statewide crash rate for rural freeway facilities is 0.6. Overall, the existing crash rate along I-94 is consistent with the state-wide average crash rate. The southeastern portion of I-94 near the former interchange with CSAH 75 has been an area of concern. From 2002 through 2006, the segment between the CSAH 18 Bridge over I-94 to the former eastbound ramp from CSAH 75 to I-94 had a crash rate of 0.84. This portion of I-94 has a relatively sharp horizontal reverse curve which coincides with a vertical crest curve. In addition, merging and diverging movements occurred in this area resulting from the interchange. The westbound CSAH 75 exit ramp was located on the outside of I-94’s curving mainline. The exit did not appear to have a terminus, creating the illusion that the ramp disappeared. The interchange, in general, appeared hidden because the interstate passed over CSAH 75, and the eastbound entrance and westbound ramps were disconnected along CSAH 75. In 2007, a new “folded diamond” I-94/CSAH 18 interchange opened and the ramps connecting I-94 and CSAH 75 were closed. The crash rate in the former I-94/CSAH 75 interchange area should drop accordingly. It is reasonable to assume that the opening of the I-94/CSAH 18 interchange where access previously did not exist will result in additional crashes near this location. However, the design of the current I-94/CSAH 18 interchange is anticipated to provide safer operating conditions than the former I- 94/CSAH 75 interchange. It is recommended that a crash rate analysis be redone in the coming years to compare the post-CSAH 18 interchange safety conditions with pre- interchange conditions. The accumulation of three years of data should be sufficient for such analysis. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 10 This page is left blank intentionally. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 11 3.0 PLANNING ISSUES 3.1 Monticello Land Use In May of 2008, the City of Monticello adopted an update of its 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation chapter of the 2008 document was not completed, with the intention that this Transportation Plan will use the land use information from the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and will, in turn, be referenced and/or summarized as the Transportation Chapter for that document once completed. Determining future transportation needs is based on anticipated future land use. The land use map from the 2008 comprehensive plan is included as Figure 3.1. For 2030 traffic projections, the City was divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), and 2030 projections for population and employment were assigned to each zone. The TAZ map for Monticello and the households/jobs projections for each TAZ are presented in Appendix A (Monticello Travel Model and Procedures). 3.2 Relevant Planning Documents and Projects/Activities 3.2.1 Documents Documents with information pertaining to transportation planning issues for the City were reviewed. The most significant documents were as follows: • Wright County Transportation Plan (1994 – most current Countywide transportation planning document available) • Northeast Wright County Sub-Area Transportation Study (2004) • Sherburne County Long-Range Transportation Plan (2007) • Mn/DOT Region 3 Long Range Transportation Plan (2005) • Interstate 94 Inter-regional Corridor Study (2002) • I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection DEIS (2004) • Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003) • TH 25 Corridor Study (to be completed in 2009) • Big Lake Land Use Plan Wright County Transportation Plan (1994) (This document has been updated on a smaller scale by the Northeast Wright County Sub- Area Transportation Study, summarized under a separate heading below.) City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 12 Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is summarized below: • The functional classification information for roadways serving Monticello as presented in Figure 2.2 of this document are consistent with information provided by Wright County. • A “Small Area Study” for Monticello was performed as part of the Wright County Transportation Plan. The purpose of this study was “to evaluate problems in and around the TH 25/I-94 corridors and develop a concept plan that would benefit traffic operations for both TH 25 and local traffic.” The recommendations of this study, as summarized in the Wright County Transportation Plan, as well as the status of the recommended projects, are presented in Table 3.2. • The stretch of TH 25 in Monticello is identified as the second highest accident rate location in the County. It is also identified as a “high congestion” location indicating capacity deficiency. • The Wright County Transportation Plan notes that access management along trunk highways and county roadways is very important to maintain desirable speed, safety, and level of service characteristics for those facilities. That document recommends that the access management guidelines included as Appendix B of this Plan be adopted by the County. It also acknowledges that access management guidelines “allow government agencies to have some discretion and negotiating authority regarding access decisions.” • A County Bikeway Plan is referenced and is noted as identifying approximately 174 miles of trail and paved shoulders along county roads over the next 20 years. The Wright County Transportation Plan also recommends that roadways with projected traffic volumes in excess of 6,500 vehicles per day should be planned for off-street pedestrian/bikeway paths. • The lack of a County-wide transit system providing scheduled service is identified. A District 7W study (1994) is identified which recommended that Wright and Sherburne County pool, coordinate, and expand existing transit services. Similar demographics, proximity to the Twin Cities, and a history of working together on transportation issues are identified as factors supporting coordination between the two counties on transit services. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 13 TABLE 3.1 Wright County Transportation Plan – Monticello Small Area Study Summary Recommended Action Current Status Improve TH 25/CR 117 intersection and frontage road (detach CR 117, frontage road extension to CSAH 39, modifications to CR 117, and Chelsea Lane intersection improvements) Completed Upgrade of CSAH 75 west of CSAH 18/39 Completed Construct bridge over Fallon Avenue Assumed in this Plan for future construction Provide a full interchange at CSAH 18 and I-94 Completed Northeast Wright County Sub-Area Transportation Study (2004) Information from this document relevant to the Monticello transportation planning is summarized below: • The study identifies the need for an additional Mississippi River crossing between TH 101 and TH 25 and recommends locating the bridge on Kadler Ave NE. • CSAH 18 east of Fenning Avenue is recommended for ROW Preservation by local jurisdictions. • CSAH 39, from CSAH 75 east to Ostego, is recommended for Long-Term Improvements (2025-2040). The plan recommends reconstruction as a four-lane Minor Arterial. • Several streets are recommended for Functional Classification Changes: CSAH 18 (Fenning Ave NE – CSAH 19) from Major Collector to Minor Arterial; Fenning Ave NE (I-94 – CSAH 37) from Minor Collector to Minor Arterial; School Boulevard (TH 25 – Fenning Ave NE) from Local Street to Minor Arterial. Sherburne County Long-Range Transportation Plan (2007) Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is summarized below: • Portions of TH 25 between Monticello and Big Lake are identified on Figure 3: Existing Congestion as “Over Capacity.” Portions of TH 25 are also identified on Figure 4: Segment Crash Rates as “High Rate, High Frequency.” • The plan presents modeled 2030 traffic volumes from three development scenarios. TH 25 between CSAH 17 and CSAH 11 is projected to carry as many as 21,000 vehicles daily and is depicted as “Over Capacity” in all three scenarios. • Figure 10: Future Improvement Projects indicates that TH 25 will require “Congestion Improvements” and that the intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 11 will require “Safety Improvements” by 2030. • The plan identifies the need for additional Mississippi River crossings; the closest to Monticello as depicted Figure 10 is in the vicinity of Kadler Ave NE in Otsego. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 14 • The plan identifies that RiverRider transit services are provided to both Sherburne and Wright County residents. • The corridor between TH 10 and the Mississippi River is identified as a “Proposed Trail Corridor.” Figure 14: Multi-Modal Map also identifies an “Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing,” a “Possible Pedestrian Crossing,” and a “Proposed Regional Trail Corridor Connection” near the TH 25 Mississippi River crossing. Mn/DOT Region 3 Long Range Transportation Plan (2005) Information from this document relevant to Monticello transportation planning is summarized below: • Monticello-Big Lake is identified as a “Level 2 Regional Trade Center.” • A “Park & Pool” facility is identified at TH 25 and School Boulevard. • Figure 5.5 (Access Management Primary Categories) indicates that TH 25 south of I-94 is a Medium Priority Interregional Connector (IRC) and TH 25 north of I- 94 is a Minor Arterial. Figure 5.6 (Access Management Subcategories) indicates that TH 25 through Monticello is Rural/Exurban/Bypass. • TH 25 between Monticello and Buffalo, without improvement, is projected to surpass the assumed 16,400 vehicles per day threshold for LOS E under the projected 2010 conditions. • TH 25 is scheduled for expansion to four lanes between Monticello and Buffalo during the 2008-2014 timeframe. (Please note: the most current information from Mn/DOT is that this project will not commence until 2014). • I-94 is scheduled for expansion to six lanes from Monticello to the east during the 2024-2030 timeframe. Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003) The Mississippi River is designated as a Wild and Scenic River for the 53 mile stretch between the 10th Street Dam in St. Cloud and the western borders of the Cities of Anoka and Champlin. Transportation planners from Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and the St. Cloud APO have determined the need for three new crossings of the Mississippi River in this stretch within the next 20 years: • 33rd Street crossing in St. Cloud • I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection • Crossing between the Cities of Dayton and Ramsey To provide information to be used for “cumulative impacts” analysis in National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental documentation for these and potentially other projects, Mn/DOT and FHWA commissioned Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (Cumulative Impacts Study). Within this study, long-term transportation forecasting was performed to determine the potential need for and location of new river crossings beyond the three identified above. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 15 Based upon extensive land use assessment and forecasting, the Cumulative Impacts Study made projections of traffic levels for the year 2040 for crossings of the Mississippi River in the area of the Wild and Scenic River stretch. These volumes were compared against anticipated capacities to assess the potential need for additional crossings. “Selected link” analysis was then used to identify advantageous locations for any additional crossings. The study assumed that a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.0 or greater defined the threshold for level of service D or worse (i.e., “congested”) conditions, above which slow-and-go or stop-and-go conditions exist. For the year 2040, assuming the three crossing projects identified above and forecast land use growth, the river crossings were projected to have the following V/C ratios identified in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Cumulative Impacts Study—Projected 2040 Volume to Capacity Ratios at Mississippi River Crossings(1) Mississippi River Crossing Projected V/C Ratio St. Cloud Crossings 1.5 33rd Street (future) 1.5 TH 24 0.9 I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection (future--DEIS Alternative C1) 0.9 TH 25 1.7 CSAH 42 0.6 TH 101 1.3 Dayton-Ramsey (future) 1.1 TH 169 1.7 (1) Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway, Minnesota Department of Transportation in cooperation with Federal Highway Administration (2003). Presented results are for “Development Plus Minimum Additional Bridges” scenario. The Cumulative Impacts Study then identified potential new crossing locations which would relieve the congestion conditions identified above. Two of these locations were in the general vicinity of Monticello. One (Alternative 3 1 ) was within a mile southeast of the existing TH 25 bridge, and the other (Alternative 4) was approximately three miles northwest of the existing TH 25 crossing. The Alternative 3 location was projected to reduce the 2040 V/C ratio at TH 25 to 1.0, and the Alternative 4 crossing location was projected to reduce the 2040 V/C ratio at TH 25 to 1.5. The Cumulative Impacts Study determined that a combination of Alternative 1 (west of Elk River) and Alternative 3 in Monticello, as defined above, would provide the greatest overall congestion relief for all river crossing corridors in the study area. This approach also assumed maximized capacity improvements to the 33rd Street and TH 101 crossings, and was used as the basis for defining the “Maximum Additional Bridges” scenario in assessing 2040 impacts on the Riverway. 1 Please note that this alternative is identified as “Maximum 3” in the Cumulative Impacts Study. Similarly, “Maximum 1” and “Maximum 4” from the Cumulative Impacts Study are referred to as Alternative 1 and Alterative 4 in this Monticello Transportation Plan. Without the extensive background in the Cumulative Impacts Study, its titles may be confusing to the readers of this Plan. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 16 3.2.2 Projects/Activities TH 25/Sherburne CSAH 11 Intersection Improvements This intersection is north of Monticello, just across the River. However, it affects the operations on TH 25 through Monticello. As regional growth and associated traffic flows have grown over the years, this intersection has become increasingly problematical. The primary issue is the heavy northbound-to-westbound left-turning movement caused by travelers crossing the River on TH 25 and turning west and north to Becker and more regional destinations such as St. Cloud on TH 10. Conversely, the eastbound-to- southbound movement is also heavy. Mn/DOT studied various approaches to improving this intersection to address the situation described above. A roundabout approach was considered but was deemed to be not viable for this particular application. The alternative that has been selected is to reconstruct the intersection with dual left-turn lanes on northbound TH 25 and dual right- turn lanes on eastbound CSAH 11. This improvement is scheduled by Mn/DOT for construction in 2010. I-94 West Corridor Coalition I-94, from Maple Grove to Monticello, has become a very congested roadway, as extensive development in the northwest portion of the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area has taken place. There is a broad range of users of this roadway, from commuters to truckers hauling goods to recreational travelers accessing lakes and other amenities. These users must frequently wait in heavily congested traffic because I-94 does not have enough capacity to meet travel demand. To help address this situation, the I-94 West Corridor Coalition was formed in 2008. This body is made up of city governments, chambers of commerce and other business organizations, as well as other stakeholders. Its primary focus is to promote the construction of an additional freeway lane in each direction between the Fish Lake interchange in Maple Grove and the TH 25 interchange in Monticello. It meets with Mn/DOT staff and elected officials to heighten awareness of the congestion difficulties in this corridor, as well as the associated safety and economic impacts. The I-94 West Corridor Coalition has a goal helping identify sources of funding for the needed improvements in the corridor. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 17 Northstar Commuter Line In 2009, Northstar commuter rail service will commence. This service will run from a station in Big Lake to downtown Minneapolis along existing Burlington Northern tracks generally parallel to TH 10. Intermediate stations will be in Elk River, Anoka, and Coon Rapids. The one-way trip duration between Big Lake and Downtown Minneapolis will be approximately 40 minutes, regardless of traffic or weather conditions. This service is significant for Monticello residents because the Big Lake station is only approximately three miles from Monticello. It is further discussed in Section 5.6 of this Plan. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 18 This page is left blank intentionally. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 19 4.0 ROADWAY NEEDS 4.1 2030 Deficiency Analysis Background In the following analysis, the Baseline Alternative will first be characterized with deficiencies identified. Once these deficiencies have been identified, alternatives will be evaluated to address primary deficiencies. The 2030 baseline roadway network assumes the following improvements relative to current conditions: • Extension of 7th Street continuously from CSAH 39 east to CSAH 18. It is anticipated that 7th Street will increasingly become a southern alternative to CSAH 75 through the historic downtown area and also serve as a northerly frontage road to I-94. There is currently a gap between Elm Street and Minnesota Street that is assumed will be closed by 2030. • Southern Extension of TH 25 frontage roads. With the additional future development adjacent or close to TH 25 south of I-94, it will become increasingly important to remove as much local traffic and access from TH 25 as possible to optimize operational and safety conditions. It is assumed that the west frontage road will extend to 85th Street, and the east frontage road will extend to Davidson Avenue. • Expansion of TH 25 to four lanes from School Boulevard in Monticello south to the City of Buffalo). Mn/DOT anticipates that this overall project would be constructed no earlier than 2015 and requires two years to complete. This project is not currently in the 2011-2014 STP Plan. • Construction of a Bridge over I-94 at Fallon Avenue. This project has been discussed for a number of years to provide an I-94 crossing location serving as an alternative to TH 25 and CSAH 18. Residential development in the southeast portion of the City would have easy access to this crossing, which should remove significant volumes of local traffic from TH 25. The bridge would connect to 7th Street north of I-94 which is proposed to become a major collector roadway. • Extension of School Boulevard west to 90th Street and north to CSAH 39. It is intended that this roadway will become an important link from CSAH 39 in the western portion of the City to CSAH 18 to the east, serving existing and extensive future development south of I-94. • 7th Street, Chelsea Road, and School Boulevard ultimately striped as three-lane roadways (one through lane each direction plus a center left-turn lane). This approach will maximize the capacity and safety characteristics of these important roadways, which are anticipated to become major collectors within the City street system without the need to reconstruct or physically expand them. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 20 Traffic forecasts for year 2030 were generated using an updated and refined version of a traffic forecasting model initially used for the 1994 Monticello Transportation Study (OSM and Associates). The current model uses CUBE/TP+ software. The 2030 land use data entered into this model was based on the Land Use Plan from the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 3.1). Further information on the modeling process is provided in Appendix A of this Plan. Results The projected 2030 traffic volumes, assuming the baseline roadway alternative, are presented on Figure 4.1. These volumes were compared against Level of Service “C” capacities for the respective roadways within the network. Level of Service (LOS) is a standardized measurement of operational performance of a section of road or an intersection with grades from A through F. For roadway segments, LOS A represents free-flow conditions where there is little or no restriction in speed or maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. At the other extreme, LOS F represents excessive congestion and delay. Operations at LOS D or even E may be acceptable in Monticello for limited durations or distances. However, the overall goal is to provide LOS C or better for all possible roadways within Monticello. This will strike a sound balance between good operational and safety performance of the network versus economic and other requirements. It can be seen from Figure 4.1 that the majority of the roadway system is anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2030 assuming the improvements identified above. The only roadway segments which are projected to experience excessive congestion include TH 25 through town. The most problematical segment will be between I-94 and the Mississippi River. 4.2 Alternatives Analysis – TH 25 Relief Given that the primary roadway deficiencies for 2030 are projected to be along TH 25 through the traditional downtown area, the alternatives to be evaluated in this plan focus on relieving overall traffic congestion on TH 25 through town. There are two basic categories of improvements that will be evaluated: local and network. Local improvements include measures that specifically involve TH 25, such as traffic signal timing improvements, additional turn lanes, access management, and added capacity. Network improvements involve the larger transportation system; they include a potential new I-94 interchange and/or a potential new river crossing. Local improvements are shorter-term options, and network improvements are longer-term options requiring substantially more financial investment and regional coordination. These two categories of improvements will be addressed, respectively, in the following sections. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 21 4.2.1 Local Improvements Six categories of local improvements have been evaluated as part of the TH 25 Study and this comprehensive transportation planning process: • Signal timing modifications • Additional turn lanes • Access modifications • Roundabouts • Additional through lanes • One-way pair (includes new River bridge) These improvements are addressed, respectively, under the headings below. Signal Timing Modifications Within the City, there currently are traffic signals on TH 25 at the following locations: • School Boulevard • Chelsea Road • The I-94 ramps • 7th Street • CSAH 75 • River Street These signals are currently coordinated with a hardwire interconnect. The timing system has not been checked or refined for some time. With potential changes in local and regional traffic patterns in recent years, the timing should be reviewed to ensure that the allocation of “green time” to the various movements at each of the signalized intersections is optimized. This review and potential adjustment would follow applicable traffic engineering standards to ensure the best possible traffic operations along this stretch of TH 25 combined with necessary access onto TH 25. This approach would represent a relatively low-cost option, since no new construction would be required. It would require close coordination with Mn/DOT, since TH 25 is a State Highway. The potential operational benefits from this approach would not be dramatic but could be significant. With the degree of congestion that this stretch of roadway is experiencing, any form of operational and safety improvement should be considered. Additional Turn Lanes The option of adding right-turn lanes has been reviewed for the following locations: • Westbound I-94 ramp at TH 25 • Northbound TH 25 at 7th Street City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 22 • Southbound TH 25 at 7th Street • Westbound 7th Street at TH 25 • Westbound CSAH 75 at TH 25 The benefit of these lanes would be to remove right-turning drivers from the primary flow of “through” traffic at these intersections to improve operational and safety conditions. These would be relatively low cost options, and additional right-of-way would not be required. As with the signal timing review and potential improvements discussed above, the traffic improvements associated with additional turn lanes would likely not be dramatic, but given current and anticipated congestion conditions along TH 25 all reasonable improvements should be considered. Access Modifications A basic traffic engineering approach to improving operational and safety characteristics of a roadway is manage access to it. With a high-volume roadway like TH 25 which is seeing increasingly difficult levels of congestion and high-crash rates through town, it may be necessary control how much access there is to the roadway. The access that is provided is designed appropriately to ensure the best possible operations as well as effective linkage to adjacent land uses. Some linkage to land uses may become somewhat less direct, but this needs to be balanced against the overall gains in terms of operational and safety conditions on this critical roadway through town. The following access modifications measures have been reviewed and merit more detailed study: • Restrict access at River street • Center median with right in/right access to TH 25 from cross streets • Traffic signal at 4th Street Roundabouts Roundabouts have been widely used in Europe, particularly in Great Britain, for many years. They are increasingly being used in the United States, including Minnesota. Under the correct circumstances, they can handle more vehicles per hour than conventional traffic signals and with greater safety. Roundabouts promote continuous flow of traffic, because motorists only yield before entering the roundabout rather than having to stop at a traffic signal for the full red phase of the signal cycle. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that roundabouts reduce crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or traffic signals were previously used. The crashes that do take place are significantly less severe because they typically happen at lower speeds than is the case with signalized intersections. As more roundabouts are built throughout Minnesota, such as the one at CSAH 18 and Meadow Oak Avenue, drivers will become increasingly familiar and comfortable with them. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 23 Roundabouts have been reviewed on a preliminary basis for the following locations on TH 25: • 7th Street • 4th Street • CSAH 75 This alternative is depicted on Figure 4.2. Pending direction from the City, this approach warrants further investigation. Additional Through Lanes One option to improve traffic flow and safety on TH 25 through town would be to construct an additional traffic lane in each direction between I-94 and the Mississippi River Bridge. This approach would involve substantial costs and right-of-way impacts because the roadway would have to be physically widened to accommodate the lanes. Additionally, the River Bridge and the I-94 Bridge would both likely need to be widened under this approach. This alternative or any other major improvement for traffic flow within the TH 25 corridor would be a long-term option requiring further study prior to implementation. One-Way Pair An additional alternative to create expanded capacity to TH 25 through town would be to create a one-way pair of roadways. This approach is depicted on Figure 4.2. Existing TH 25 would be southbound-only from the River to I-94. Cedar Street would be northbound- only, connecting directly to the TH 25 and the I-94 ramps at the south, and then would proceed over a new River crossing bridge, reconnecting to TH 25 directly north of the River. As with additional lanes as discussed above, this alternative is a long-term option that would require additional study prior to implementation. 4.2.2 Network Improvements Interchanges There currently are two I-94 interchanges serving Monticello, one at TH 25 and one at CSAH 18. Two other locations have been identified as potential options for interchanges that would improve access to existing and/or future Monticello land uses and that would have the potential to relieve traffic levels on TH 25: • In the vicinity of Orchard Road/120th Street • In the vicinity of CSAH 39 These locations (along with six others in the overall study corridor which extended from the Greater St. Cloud Area to Maple Grove) were identified on the I-94 Interregional Corridor Management Plan (I-94 IRC Study, Mn/DOT, 2002) as potential interchanges put forward by local authorities. The IRC Study identifies that an interchange could be City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 24 advanced at these locations pending analysis consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements to document that the mainline operations on I-94 would not be adversely affected. River Crossings Another approach to relieve traffic volumes on the TH 25 River crossing and TH 25 through Monticello would be to construct a new River crossing that could serve as an alternative to TH 25. As was discussed in Section 3.2 of this Transportation Plan, Mn/DOT conducted a study in 2003 2 addressing potential future River crossings which would connect TH 10 and I-94 between St. Cloud and Anoka/Champlin. The study assumed three new crossings as part of its 2040 baseline scenario: • 33rd Street in St. Cloud • I-94/TH 10 Interregional Connection (one of four potential locations between St. Cloud and Becker) • Dayton -Ramsey The study also identified four other potential crossing locations in the study area: • West of Elk River/Otsego (Alternative 1 and 2 3 • East of TH 25 in Monticello (Alternative 3) ) • Western portion of Monticello (Alternative 4) The study results indicated that Alternative 3 had substantially greater benefits in terms of relieving congestion conditions on TH 25 than Alternative 4. Alternative 3 was projected to reduce 2040 travel demand on the TH 25 crossing by approximately 50 percent relative to the baseline bridge assumptions identified previously. The study assumed Maximum 1 – 2 (one crossing) and Alternative 3 in its Maximum Additional Bridge scenario. For this Transportation Plan, three river crossing locations were identified and analyzed: • Orchard Road – connect Wright CSAH 75 with Sherburne CSAH 11 • Washington Street – connect Washington Street with 20th Street Northwest (Big Lake) • CSAH 18 – connect Wright CSAH 18/39 with Ormsbee Street (County Road 68) The Orchard Road option is in approximately the same location as Maximum 4 in Mn/DOT’s 2003 study, and the Washington Street and CSAH 18 options are within the general area defined for Alternative 3 in Mn/DOT’s 2003 study. 2 Cumulative Impacts Study for the Mississippi Scenic Riverway (2003) 3 Please note that “Maximum 1” through “Maximum 4” from the Cumulative Impacts Study are referred to as Alternative 1 through Alternative 4 in this Plan. Without the full context and explanation of that Study, its labels may be confusing to the readers of this document. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 25 Analysis and Findings The network improvement options were modeled for the year 2030 to evaluate the degree to which they would relieve travel demand on TH 25. The modeling included the following assumptions: • 2030 land use information for Monticello • Baseline 2030 roadway network improvements summarized in Section 4.1 • Estimated 2030 land use for Big Lake / Sherburne County • Estimated 2030 regional volumes on “external” arterial and collector roadways The 2030 land use estimates for each of these areas was based on the assumptions in the current Comprehensive Plan for each of the communities as discussed in Chapter 3. Specifically the Big Lake / Sherburne County development growth were assumed to be primarily in the area’s south of existing TH 10 between CSAH 11 and CSAH 15. The findings of this modeling are presented graphically on Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.6: • Figure 4.3: no new River crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives assuming no new interchange • Figure 4.4: no new River crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives assuming an interchange near 120th Street/Orchard Road • Figure 4.5: no new River Crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives assuming an interchange near CSAH 39 • Figure 4.6: No new River Crossing and the three new River crossing alternatives assuming interchanges near 120th Street/Orchard Street and CSAH 39 For clarity purposes, these figures only depict volumes at: a) the new crossing locations, b) TH 25 at the River, and c) TH 25 just north of the I-94 ramps. Effects of the Interchanges Table 4.1 through Table 4.4 present information from Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.6 organized to facilitate an evaluation of how effective the interchange options are at reducing travel demand on TH 25. TABLE 4.1 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New River Crossing Traffic Volume Location Interchange Option No new interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd. plus CSAH 39 TH 25 at River 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 33,000 33,000 32,000 City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 26 TABLE 4.2 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road River Crossing Traffic Volume Location Interchange Option No new interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd. plus CSAH 39 TH 25 at River 40,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 33,000 33,000 31,000 TABLE 4.3 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Washington Street River Crossing Traffic Volume Location Interchange Option No new interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd. plus CSAH 39 TH 25 at River 30,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 TH 25 north of I-94 38,000 30,000 30,000 29,000 TABLE 4.4 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 18 River Crossing Traffic Volume Location Interchange Option No new interchange Orchard Rd. CSAH 39 Orchard Rd. plus CSAH 39 TH 25 at River 38,000 38,000 37,000 37,000 TH 25 north of I-94 39,000 30,000 31,000 30,000 From the information presented in these tables, three primary observations can be made: • All of the interchange options are projected to result in a significant reduction of traffic volumes on TH 25 north of I-94. These reductions range from 20 to just over 30 percent. • Interchange location does not appear to have an impact on how effective the interchange is at reducing volume on TH 25. What has the most affect is what river crossing option the interchange is paired with. The interchange options have the greatest reduction on TH 25 when paired with the Washington Street River crossing option. • Having two new interchanges versus one only provides minimal additional traffic relief on TH 25 north of I-94. Effects of River Crossings Table 4.5 through Table 4.9 present the information from Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.6 organized to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the various crossing options in terms of reducing travel demand on TH 25. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 27 TABLE 4.5 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming No New Interchange Traffic Volume Location River Crossing Location No New River Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18 New Crossing N/A 9,000 22,000 15,000 TH 25 at River 45,000 40,000 30,000 38,000 TH 25 north of I-94 40,000 40,000 38,000 39,000 TABLE 4.6 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange Traffic Volume Location River Crossing Location No New River Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18 New Crossing N/A 11,000 22,000 15,000 TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 38,000 TH 25 north of I-94 33,000 33,000 30,000 30,000 TABLE 4.7 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming CSAH 39 Interchange Traffic Volume Location River Crossing Location No New River Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18 New Crossing N/A 10,000 22,000 15,000 TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 37,000 TH 25 north of I-94 33,000 33,000 30,000 31,000 TABLE 4.8 2030 TH 25 Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Orchard Road Interchange Plus CSAH 39 Interchange Traffic Volume Location River Crossing Location No New River Crossing Orchard Rd. Washington St. CSAH 18 New Crossing N/A 11,000 22,000 16,000 TH 25 at River 45,000 38,000 29,000 37,000 TH 25 north of I-94 32,000 31,000 29,000 30,000 From the information presented in these tables, two primary observations can be made: • All of the River crossing options significantly reduce TH 25 volumes across the River. • The location with the greatest reduction under all the interchange assumptions is at Washington Street. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 28 Summary Observations Overall observations from the analysis are summarized below: • A new interchange would significantly reduce travel demand on TH 25 north of I- 94. • Adding more than one new interchange would not result in further reduction of travel demand on TH 25. • A new River crossing would significantly reduce travel demand on TH 25 across the River. • Combining any of the interchange options with the Washington Street River crossing would provide the most overall network relief to TH 25. 4.3 Intersection Analysis As development in Monticello continues into the future and roadways carry increasingly heavy traffic volumes, certain intersections will have to be assessed to determine the need for traffic control measures, most notably traffic signals. Within the 2030 timeframe and assuming an I-94 bridge to be constructed at Fallon Avenue, the following intersections are anticipated to reach traffic levels where signal analysis will need to be done: • 7th Street and Fallon Avenue • CSAH 18 and School Boulevard • School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue • School Boulevard and Edmonson Avenue • TH 25 and 85th Avenue 4.4 Long-Term Planning As be seen on Figure 3.1, there are extensive areas of future development, primarily south of I-94, which will require the existing network to be upgraded. This will involve improving existing roadways and adding new links to expand system coverage, access, and continuity. Figure 4.7 depicts new roadway segments envisioned to support a network to serve as the “backbone” of future development in Monticello. These new links and the overall network is based upon an assessment of existing roadways, anticipated future development patterns, general roadway spacing requirements, and environmental and land ownership constraints (wetlands, Bertram Chain of Lakes area). How these new roadways will be coordinated into the functional classification system will be further discussed in Section 5.3 of this Plan. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 29 Some elements of the new roadway network depicted on Figure 4.7 will have to be built within the Transportation Needs timeframe (2030 and before). For example, it is anticipated the following segments from Figure 4.7 will be built prior to 2030 (and are, therefore, part of the 2030 Baseline Alternative for traffic forecasting): • Fallon Avenue Bridge • Westerly extension School Boulevard • 7th Street between Elm Street and Minnesota Street • Southerly extension of TH 25 frontage roads These segments will best be added in a manner which is consistent with the long term plans for the network. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 30 This page is left blank intentionally. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 31 5.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5.1 Funding Sources Funding for transportation improvements and programs can be obtained from a variety of sources as summarized below: General Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes – Transportation projects can be funded with the general pool of municipal revenues raised through property taxes. State Aid – Cities with populations of greater than 5,000 are eligible for funding assistance from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (funded with the state gas tax and vehicle taxes, as well as federal transportation funds through Mn/DOT). These funds are allocated to a network of Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Currently, the City of Monticello receives an apportionment per year for improvements to its MSA streets, which are generally collector roadways. Federal Transportation Funds – The guidelines for direct federal funding for transportation projects are established under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETELU). Theses funds are allocated by Mn/DOT District 3 through the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP). Monticello is a member of the ATP as part of the former Region 7W area. Roadway, transit, non-motorized, and other transportation-related projects are selected on a competitive basis based on evaluation, prioritization, and recommendation by the ATP. The process of solicitation for project proposals and resulting allocation of federal funding to selected projects occurs every two years on odd years (2011, 2013, 2015 etc.). Cooperative Agreements with Mn/DOT and/or Wright County – Different levels of government can cooperate on planning, implementing, and financing transportation projects which provide benefits to all the concerned agencies. The financial terms and obligations are generally established at the front end of the projects. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – This is a method of funding improvements that are needed immediately by using the additional tax revenue anticipated to be generated because of the given project’s benefits in future years. The difference between current tax revenues from the targeted district and the increased future tax revenues resulting from the improvements is dedicated to retiring the municipal bonds used to finance the initial improvement(s). Developer Contributions/Impact Fees – Under this approach, the impact of the additional traffic from a proposed development on the local roadway system is projected using standard traffic engineering procedures. Costs associated with improving the roadway system to handle the additional traffic at an acceptable level of service are assessed to the developer. This approach generally involves City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 32 some level of negotiation between the local government and the developer to work out a cost-sharing agreement that allows the development to move forward. Assessments – Properties that benefit from a roadway scheduled for improvement may be assessed for the cost of construction. In order to assess the owner, it must be demonstrated that the value of their property will increase by at least the amount of the assessment. Two potential sources of transportation funding have been proposed and discussed for a number of years but are not currently allowed under state law. They are: Road Access Charge – All new developments would be charged based on the trip generation rates of the given development, without an estimation or documentation of specific traffic impacts or improvement requirements. It would be analogous to the Sewer Access Charge (SAC) for access to the Metropolitan Council’s sanitary sewer system. Revenues from this source could be used to build or improve collector and arterial roadways within the local jurisdiction collecting the tax. Transportation Utility Billing – All properties within the local jurisdiction would be subject to a periodic fee, based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of property. The pool of funding generated in this manner would be used for community-wide transportation improvements such as preventive maintenance and road reconstruction. The periodic nature of the billing would be beneficial in terms of supporting ongoing or routine roadway maintenance projects through the entire network. The City supports the passage of legislation at the state level which would allow these forms of dedicated local transportation revenue generation. 5.2 Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements 5.2.1 Pavement Maintenance The City has implemented a pavement management program which uses specially developed software (ICON, GoodPointe Technology Corporation). The purpose of this program is to allow the City to meet overall street maintenance policy objectives in the most economically efficient manner possible on a life-cycle cost basis. The basis of this approach is that the cost of maintaining or repairing roads can increase dramatically if they are allowed to deteriorate past certain levels (better to pay a little now versus pay a lot later). City crews have completed a conditions survey of all Monticello City streets. This work has utilized a detailed and standardized system of identifying and evaluating physical distresses in pavements and computing a pavement condition index (PCI) for each roadway. The PCI is a numerical expression of pavement conditions initially developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It has been standardized by the American Society City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 33 of Testing and Materials, and is endorsed by numerous organizations including the American Public Works Association (APWA). WSB staff has completed entering the condition surveys for Monticello streets into the software program and have calculated PCI values for all Monticello City street segments. Next, WSB will discuss policy goals (such as maintaining all pavements at a given pavement condition index level) with the City. Once agreement on policy goals is reached, this information, along with maintenance cost information pertaining to the City will be entered into the ICON program. WSB staff will then use the program to perform iterative analysis and ultimately generate a long-term maintenance plan which, on an annual basis over the life of the program, identifies: • Required budgetary outlays. • Appropriate allocation of budgeting between maintenance strategies including seal coating, overlays, and reconstruction. • Individual maintenance projects. On an annual basis, one-third of the City streets will be surveyed so as to maintain a complete and updated database of PCI information. The outputs and recommendations will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the investment and maintenance objectives are being met and to make revisions as necessary. Potential changes in budget availability and/or overall policy goals can be effectively addressed within this overall approach. 5.2.2 Future Improvement Projects Based on analysis summarized in this Transportation Plan and on previous planning work and discussions, Table 5.1 identifies recommended transportation infrastructure improvements and an overall timeframe for implementation. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 34 TABLE 5.1 Primary Future Transportation Capital Improvement Projects Facility Improvement Project Responsibility 2009-2015 TH 25 between I-94 and Mississippi River Congestion management strategy(ies) to be determined, potentially including signal timing modifications, added turn lanes, etc. City coordinating with Mn/DOT Second River Crosses New Mississippi River Crossing – Study location and impacts to adjacent properties including Monticello Big Lake Hospital Mn/DOT/County/City Fallon Avenue New bridge over I-94 City coordinating with Mn/DOT 95th Street NE Connect to CSAH 75 City School Boulevard Extension west to 90th Street City TH 25 Intersection improvements at 7th Street 7th Street Extension west to Elm Street City TH 25 Extend frontage south to 85th Street (west side) and Davidson Avenue (east side) City coordinating with Mn/DOT School Boulevard Extension from 90th Street to CSAH 39 City 2015-2030 TH 25 Intersection improvements at 4th Street, and CSAH 75 City coordinating with Wright County and Mn/DOT Orchard Road or CSAH 39 I-94 Interchange (pending development needs and funding availability) City coordinating with the Mn/DOT 2030 - 2050 Expanded Collector Roadway Network (Figures 4.6 and 5.1) New roadways pending development needs City NOTE: The timing of individual projects may be accelerated based upon development proposals and requirements, as well as funding availability. 5.3 Future Functional Classification and Roadway Jurisdiction 5.3.1 Future Functional Classification Future roadway functional classification information is provided on Figure 5.1. The future roadways depicted will generally be collector roadways. Regarding existing roadways, it is anticipated that the following classification revisions will take place: • School Boulevard will become a minor arterial between TH 25 and Fenning Avenue. • CSAH 18 will become a minor arterial east of Fenning Avenue. • CSAH 18 / Fenning Avenue will become a minor arterial south of CSAH 75. • 7th Street will become a major collector which will ultimately extend between CSAH 18 and Elm Street. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 35 • Chelsea Road will become a major collector linking CSAH 18 and CSAH 39. • CR 117/Edmonson Avenue will become a major collector. • Fallon Avenue will become a minor collector south of 7th Street. • 90th Street south of Chelsea Boulevard will become a minor collector. 5.3.2 Future Jurisdictional Classification Existing jurisdictional classification information for roadways serving Monticello was discussed in Section 2.3 and summarized on Figure 2.3. There do not appear to be any pressing jurisdictional issues which need to be addressed at this time or into the foreseeable future. 5.4 Access Management and Roadway Right-of-Way 5.4.1 Access Management Access to the transportation network serving the Monticello system through features such as driveway openings and side street intersections should be appropriately controlled. The level of control is determined by the type of access being considered and the functional classification of the roadway itself. Arterials need the most access control to provide their primary function of mobility (longer-distance trips at relatively high speeds). Local streets, on the other hand, carry short trips and primarily serve an access function. Collector roadways serve both a mobility and access function in roughly equal measures and access should be managed accordingly. Residential, commercial, and industrial access will be directed to local streets to the greatest degree feasible. Property that is being developed or whose use is changing may be required to provide internal access and circulation design so as to limit the number of external access points to the network The City has developed and continues to expand a frontage road system for TH 25 south of I-94 in an effort to limit local access onto TH 25, the most heavily traveled roadway in the City. Table 5.2 outlines minimum desirable access spacing guidelines. This information provides guidance, but City has discretion and negotiating authority regarding access decisions. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 36 TABLE 5.2 City of Monticello Access Spacing Guidelines Type of Access Principal Arterial(1) Minor Arterial(1) Major Collector(1) Minor Collector(1) Local Residential Driveways No Direct Access No Direct Access No Direct Access No Direct Access As Required Commercial Driveways No Direct Access Based on: Speed, Traffic Volume, Sight Distance, etc. (1/8 to 1/4 mile) Based on: Speed, Traffic Volume, Sight Distance, etc. (Min. 500 ft) Based on: Speed, Traffic Volume, Sight Distance, etc. (Min. 200 ft) Based on: Speed, Traffic Volume, Sight Distance, etc. (Min 100 ft) Low volume Residential Streets 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/8 mile 1/16 mile High Volume Residential Streets (<1,000 ADT) 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/8 mile 1/16 mile Collector Streets 1/2 mile 1/2 mile 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/18 mile (1) On Trunk Highway and County Roads, MN/DOT and Wright County has Jurisdiction for access spacing. 5.4.2 Right-of-Way It is advisable for the City to purchase right-of-way for the future or to-be-expanded roadways as early as practicable. This helps to limit future high costs and unforeseen purchase issues as on-going development occurs in the areas of the roadways. Table 5.3 shows right-of-way requirements for different types of roadway cross sections. These guidelines should be considered for inclusion in the City’s relevant ordinance sections. The identified right-of-way widths could vary with topography and requirements for sidewalks or off-street facilities and are intended to provide minimum street needs and green space. City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 37 TABLE 5.3 City of Monticello Right-of-Way Guidelines Functional Classification ADT Lanes Right-of-Way Required (1) Urban Rural Principal Arterial 30,000 + 4 - Lane Divided 150 to 200 ft 200 + Minor Arterial 15,000-30,000 4 - Lane Divided 120 to 150 ft 150 to 200 ft Major Collector 7,500-18,000 4 - Lane Undivided 100 ft 100 ft 10,000-25,000 + 4 - Lane Divided 120 ft 150 ft Minor Collector 2,000-8,000 2 – Lane 80 ft 100 ft 4,000-16,000 3 – Lane 80 ft 100 ft 7,500-18,000 4 - Lane Undivided 100 ft 100 ft Local 0-9,000 2 – Lane 60 ft 80 ft (1) Additional R.O.W. width should be obtained for the addition of left and/or right turn lanes. 5.5 Non-Motorized Transportation Pedestrian Safety and Access Ensuring pedestrian safety is a critical goal for the City. Most pedestrian accidents and injuries take place at roadway intersections; thus, intersections must be properly designed to accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian movements. Many pedestrians in the downtown area must cross TH 25, which carries high volumes of vehicular traffic. While there have been no known examples of vehicle/pedestrian accidents in recent years along this stretch, it is an area that should be reviewed on an on- going basis. This is particularly true given the anticipated increased volumes of regional and local traffic along TH 25. CSAH 75 and CSAH 39 are other relatively high-volume roadways that should be monitored in terms of potential pedestrian safety issues. Should given intersections become problematic in terms of motorized/non-motorized conflicts, safety measures including the following will be assessed and implemented as-needed: • Installation of new traffic control signals • Revised timing of existing signals • Revised roadway geometry (layout and design of lanes) • Curb bump-outs • Traffic calming measures • Others City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 38 Another way to promote pedestrian safety, as well as access, is to provide a coordinated network of sidewalks in locations where there is sufficient demand. Figure 5.2 depicts the existing and planned network of sidewalks in Monticello. Bikeways The City is committed to providing a comprehensive and coordinated series of bikeways. Figure 5.2 depicts existing and proposed bikeways, including off-road paths on-road bike routes. Future development will include bikeways consistent with the existing and currently proposed network. The City will coordinate with Wright County regarding bike/pedestrian facility planning and development. Potential Motorized/Non-Motorized Conflict Points With the expansion and anticipated added usage of pedestrian/bicycle facilities, locations where non-motorized facilities cross roadways will need to be assessed and monitored regarding safety conditions. Key locations warranting evaluation are identified on Figure 5.2. 5.6 Transit General Transit Dial-a-ride transit services are provided in Monticello by River Rider, which is administered under a Joint Powers agreement between Wright County and Sherburne County. River Rider’s service area is depicted on Figure 5.3. Any resident can use the service, which costs $1.25 per ride for pre-scheduled trips, and $2.00 per ride for same- day trips. River Rider also has two scheduled runs per day on TH 25 between Big Lake and Buffalo with a stop in Monticello. One of these runs is in the morning and the other is in the late afternoon. The fare for this city-to-city service is $4.00 per round trip. There currently is a park-and-ride lot off of School Boulevard west of TH 25. There is no scheduled transit service which stops at this location; it primarily serves as a consolidation point for carpoolers. It appears currently not to be heavily used. In the future, potential regional transit services could make good use of this lot. As development continues northwest of the Twin Cities it is anticipated that express transit service will be extended further out along the I-94 corridor. Under these circumstances, a good location for a new park-and-ride lot would be in the vicinity of the I-94/CSAH 18 interchange. This would be particularly true with a new River crossing in the vicinity of this interchange as discussed in Section 4.2.2 of this Plan. Northstar Corridor The Northstar line will provide commuter rail service paralleling TH 10, using existing Burlington Northern tracks, northwest of the Twin Cities. Service is anticipated to commence in late 2009. Initially, the line was to extend all the way from the Twin Cities to St. Cloud. However, the service was shortened considerably to meet Federal Transit City of Monticello Transportation Plan FINAL – January 2011 39 Administration (FTA) requirements regarding cost-effectiveness. The service that will open in 2009 will run from downtown Minneapolis (with connection to the Light Rail Transit [LRT] service in the Hiawatha Corridor in Hennepin County) to a terminus station in Big Lake. Other stations will include Fridley, Coon Rapids, Anoka, and Elk River. The line could be extended to St. Cloud at a future date pending ridership demand and funding availability. Once the Northstar line is operational, the Big Lake station would be only approximately three miles from Monticello. This facility would be accessed via TH 25 between the two cities. It is anticipated that a number of Monticello residents would use the Big Lake station. This would put some commuting trips onto TH 25 and would take these trips off of I-94 and its access roads/interchanges. Northstar’s official ridership model shows travel demand of 530 passengers per day at the Big Lake station. This assumes come carpooling. The capacity at the park-and-ride lot will be 518 spaces when the facility opens. Metro Transit staff reports that they are evaluating parking expansion possibilities to implement as needed, but do not have a firm expansion plan in place at this time. It is possible that a commuter-timeframe (6-9 AM, 4-7 PM) shuttle service could be provided between the Monticello park-and-ride and the Big Lake Northstar station. River Rider currently does not have enough funding to provide such service without negatively impacting their core 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. dial-a-ride service. The City may coordinate with Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority regarding additional funding that would be required for such service. There currently are not any “Transit Advantage” features on TH 25, so potential future shuttle service between Monticello and the Big Lake Northstar station would be subject to the same congestion conditions as conventional passenger vehicles. Other Commuter Transit River Rider has considered the option of providing service linking residents from Monticello and potentially other communities to express bus service in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. However, this would not be viable given the funding constraints referenced above. River Rider needs to cover as many of its operating expenses as possible through fares; providing express commuter service would take resources (buses and drivers) away from their core 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. dial-a-ride service which recovers more economically than the express service would. This also raises the issue of equity. Dial-a-ride service is needed by seniors and others who may have difficulty driving. To sacrifice this service in order to help commuters get to work may not be viewed as a fair trade-off in terms of social goals and policies. Aside from these financial constraints, River Rider has considered the option of providing service along TH 25 to link with the express transit service in the Metro area. However, TH 25 does not have “transit preference” features, such as bus-only shoulders, so transit buses would have no time savings relative to conventional passenger vehicles along this route. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5H.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-12statingIntenttoReimbursefrom bondproceedsfor2011StreetReconstructionImprovements,CityProjectNo. 11C001 (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheInternalRevenueServicerequirestheCitytoadoptaresolutiondeclaringtheofficial intenttoreimbursecertainprojectexpendituresfrombondproceeds,iftheCityplansor wouldissuebondstofinanceprojectcosts.Bypassingthisresolutionitwouldallowthe Citytoincludethe2011StreetReconstructionImprovementprojectinafuturebond issue.Withouttheresolution,theprojectcouldnotbefundedbybonds.Atthistimeitis unknowniftheCitywouldissuebondstofinancethisproject. A1.BudgetImpact:Byadoptingtheresolution,theCitywouldhavetheabilityto includethe2011StreetReconstructionProject#11C001inafuturebondissue. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Therewouldbenoimpactonthestaffbythisaction. WhentheCityissuesbonds,therewouldbestafftimeandconsultantcostsrelated tothebondissue. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-12declaringtheofficialintenttoreimburse expendituresfromtheproceedsofbondsforCityProject11C001–2011Street ReconstructionImprovements. 2.Motiontonotadoptaresolutiondeclaringtheofficialintenttoreimburse expendituresfromtheproceedsofbonds. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-12 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION2011-12 DECLARINGTHEOFFICIALINTENTOFTHECITYOFMONTICELLO TOREIMBURSECERTAINEXPENDITURESFROMTHEPROCEEDS OFBONDSTOBEISSUEDBYTHECITYFOR 2011STREETRECONSTRUCTIONIMPROVEMENTS,CITYPROJECT11C001 WHEREAS,theInternalRevenueServicehasissuedTreas.Reg.§1.150-2providingthat proceedsoftax-exemptbondsusedtoreimbursepriorexpenditureswillnotbedeemedspent unlesscertainrequirementsaremet;and WHEREAS,theCityexpectstoincurcertainexpenditureswhichmaybefinancedtemporarily fromsourcesotherthanbonds,andreimbursedfromtheproceedsofabond; WHEREAS,theCityhasdeterminedtomakethisdeclarationofofficialintent(“Declaration”)to reimbursecertaincostsfromproceedsofbondsinaccordancewiththeReimbursement Regulations. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOF MONTICELLO(THE“CITY”)ASFOLLOWS: 1.TheCityreasonablyintendstomakeexpendituresfortheprojectsdescribedinExhibitA (the“Projects”),andreasonablyintendstoreimburseitselfforsuchexpendituresfromthe proceedsofdebttobeissuedbytheCityinthemaximumprincipalamountdescribedin ExhibitA.Allreimbursedexpenditureswillbecapitalexpenditures,costsofissuanceof thebonds,orotherexpenditureseligibleforreimbursementunderSection1.150-2(d)(3) oftheReimbursementRegulations. 2.ThisDeclarationhasbeenmadenotlaterthan60daysafterpaymentofanyoriginal expendituretobesubjecttoareimbursementallocationwithrespecttotheproceedsof bonds,exceptforthefollowingexpenditures:(a)costsofissuanceofbonds;(b)costsin anamountnotinexcessof$100,000or5percentoftheproceedsofanissue;or(c) “preliminaryexpenditures”uptoanamountnotinexcessof20percentoftheaggregate issuepriceoftheissueorissuesthatfinanceorarereasonablyexpectedbytheCityto financetheprojectforwhichthepreliminaryexpenditureswereincurred.Theterm “preliminaryexpenditures”includesarchitectural,engineering,surveying,bondissuance, andsimilarcoststhatareincurredpriortocommencementofacquisition,constructionor rehabilitationofaproject,otherthanlandacquisition,sitepreparation,andsimilarcosts incidenttocommencementofconstruction. 3.ThisDeclarationisanexpressionofthereasonableexpectationoftheCitybasedonthe factsandcircumstancesknowntotheCityasofthedatehereof.Theanticipatedoriginal expendituresfortheProjectandtheprincipalamountofthebondsdescribedinparagraph 1areconsistentwiththeCity’sbudgetaryandfinancialcircumstances.Nosourcesother thanproceedsofbondstobeissuedbytheCityare,orarereasonablyexpectedtobe, reserved,allocatedonalong-termbasis,orotherwisesetasidepursuanttotheCity’s budgetorfinancialpoliciestopaysuchprojectexpenditures. 4.TheCityAdministratorisauthorizedtodesignateappropriateadditionstoExhibitAin circumstanceswheretimeisoftheessence,andanysuchdesignationshallbereportedto theCouncilattheearliestpracticabledateandshallbefiledwiththeofficialbooksand recordsoftheCityasprovidedinSection3. 5.Thisresolutionisintendedtoconstituteadeclarationofofficialintentforpurposesof Treas.Reg.§1.150-2andanysuccessorlaw,regulation,orruling. ADOPTEDBY theCityCouncilthis28thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO __________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator EXHIBITA OFFICIALINTENTRESOLUTION#2011-12 ADOPTEDFebruary28,2011 DATEOF DECLARATION DESCRIPTIONOFPROJECT MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNTOFDEBT FORPROJECT 2/28/20112011STREETRECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS,CITYPROJECTNO. 11C001 $2,500,000.00 CouncilAgenda:2/28/11 1 5I.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-14approving2011MunicipalStateAid SystemDesignationsandRevocations (BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheMunicipalStateAidStreet(MSAS)systemallowscitieswithpopulationsover5,000 tobeeligibletoreceivefundingforstreetconstruction,improvementsandmaintenance throughtheStateHighwayUsersFund,administeredbytheMinnesotaDepartmentof Transportation’sStateAidoffice.TheCitycandesignateupto20%ofourlocal improvedstreetstoreceiveMSASfunding.InordertomaximizefundingforourMSAS system,staffdesignatesasmuchmileageaspossible,uptothe20%cap. Wecurrentlyhaveabout54.76milesofimprovedlocalstreets,excludinganyStateand Countyhighwaysandunimprovedstreets.Thisallowsustodesignateupto10.95miles ofstreetsonourMSASsystemin2011.In2010wedesignated10.83milesofstreetson ourMSASsystem.Thisleavesuswith0.12milesofcurrentlyundesignatedstreets.It shouldbenotedthatforstreetstobedesignatedasMSASstreetstheymustconnectto otherMSASstreetsoneitherend,orconnecttostreetsofahigherdesignationsuchas countyroadsorstatehighways. Currently,thesegmentofEastRiverStreetbetweenWashingtonandPineStreet/TH25is designatedasoneofourMSASstreets.However,sinceEastRiverStreetwillnolonger beconnectedatCedarStreetfollowingthecompletionofourTH25/CSAH75NE QuadrantImprovementsproject,staffisproposingthefollowingmodificationsbemade toourMSASsystemdesignations: RemoveEastRiverStreetfromPineStreet/TH25toPalmStreet(0.18miles) AddPalmStreetfromEastBroadwaytoEastRiverStreet(0.08miles) AddPalmStreetfrom4th StreettoEastBroadway(0.16miles) Aftertheproposedchangesaremade,onlyabout0.06miles(0.12+0.18-0.08-0.16= 0.06)ofundesignatedMunicipalStateAidStreetswillremain,whichislessthanone block. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-14removingEastRiverStreetbetweenPine Street/TH25andPalmStreetfromtheMSASsystem,anddesignatingPalm Streetfrom4th StreettoEastRiverStreetasMSASadditionsfortheyear2011. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-14. CouncilAgenda:2/28/11 2 C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsapprovalofAlternative#1.Uponadoptingtheresolution,theCity shallprovideacertifiedcopyoftheresolutionbyMay1,2011fortransmittaltothe CommissioneroftheDepartmentofTransportation. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyofResolution#2011-14 Proposed2011MSASRevisionsdrawing CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-14 UPDATINGTHE MUNICIPALSTATEAIDSTREETSYSTEM FORTHECITYOFMONTICELLO WHEREAS,asarequisitefortheCitytobeeligibletoreceivestateaidfunds,itisnecessarythatthe CityCouncildesignatecertainstreetswithintheCityofMonticellotocompriseaMunicipalState AidStreet(MSAS)system;and WHEREAS,theCouncilhasreviewedtherecommendationoftheCityEngineerandhasapproved certainstreetswithintheCitytoberemovedoraddedtosaidMSASsystem; NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED,bytheCityCouncilfortheCityofMonticellothat: 1.ThatEastRiverStreetfromPineStreet/TH25toPalmStreetshallberemovedfromtheCity ofMonticelloMSASSystem. 2.ThatPalmStreetfromEastBroadwaytoEastRiverStreetshallbeaddedtotheCityof MonticelloMSASsystem. 3.ThatPalmStreetfrom4th StreettoEastBroadwayshallbeaddedtotheCityofMonticello MSASsystem. 4.ThattheCityAdministrator/ClerkprovideacertifiedcopyofthisresolutionbyMay1,2011 fortransmittaltotheCommissioneroftheDepartmentofTransportation. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO _____________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonDecember13, 2010,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator NotaryPublic:_______________________________ Date:___________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:2/28/11 1 5J.Considerationofauthorizingout-of-statetrainingontheMetaswitchphonesystem forFiberNetemployees (JO/CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: InkeepingwithCitypoliciesgoverningapprovaloftrainingprovidedoutoftheState, Councilisaskedtoauthorizeout-of-statetrainingforupcomingcoursesonthe Metaswitchphonesystem,whicharecriticalforoperationofthesystemandinstallation andimplementationinbusinesscustomersites.MetaswitchNetworkssystemconsistsof integrated,stateofthearthardwareandsoftwarethatrequiresaconsiderableamountof technicalunderstandingandexpertise.Metaswitchprovidesforallthetrainingthatis availableforitssystemandtheclassesfillupveryfast. TheoriginalcontractwithMetaswitchNetworksprovidedfor8daysoftraining,which wasusedinprioryears.Additionalcoursesappeartobepricedat$500pertrainingday foreachseat(perpersonattending).Courselengthsrangefrom1to5daysdepending onthetopicstobecovered.Trainingcoursesareheldinlocationsdeterminedby MetaSwitch,whichincludeBocaRatonFL,AlamedaCA,WestboroughMA,DallasTX, andDesMoinesIA.Otherexpensesgenerallyassociatedwiththetrainingwouldbe travel(airfareandassociatedfeesormileage),hotel,andmeals. Attheirlastmeeting,theFiberNetAdvisoryBoardrecommendedsendinguptotwo employeesforMetaSpheretraining,whichisdirectlyrelatedtothemanagedphone serviceswithinMetaswitchthatwillbeusedbybusinesscustomers.Additionaltraining willalsobeneededintheverynearfutureforFiberNetemployeestofacilitateoperations andtroubleshootingofitsphonesystems. WiththerecentchangeintheGeneralManagerforFiberNet,thetrainingschedulewill bereviewedwithstaffandHBCtodeterminethecoursesthatarenecessaryandaplan developedfortheappropriatetraining.Inordertoexpeditetheprocessforregisteringfor coursesandmakingthenecessarytravelarrangements,Councilisbeingaskedto authorizeout-of-statetraininginadvance.ThiswouldpermitFiberNetstafftoplacea holdonthecoursestheyneedtoattendallowingenoughtimetomaketravel arrangementsandkeepCouncilupdatedonout-of-statetrainingplans. Inthesupportingdata,youwillfindsomegeneralinformationaboutMetaswitch NetworksandalistoftheupcomingcoursesthatareincludedintheMetaswitchtraining schedule.Atthistime,theyareschedulingoutintoMayandanumberoftheclassesare alreadyfull. A1.BudgetImpact:Fundsfortheseexpensesareidentifiedinthebusinessplan. Thereisatotalof$12,000budgetedforTrainingandTravelExpensesin2011. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:FiberNetemployeeswouldattendtrainingcoursesas determinedbydiscussionsbetweenstaffandHBC. CityCouncilAgenda:2/28/11 2 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoauthorizeout-of-statetravelplanninganddirectstafftoworkwithHBC indevelopingatrainingplanfortheMetaSwitchphonesystem. 2.Motiontodenyauthorizationofout-of-statetravelforFiberNetemployees. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.TheMetaswitchtrainingisessentialforFiberNet employeestobeabletooperateandmaintainthephoneswitchaswellasproceedwith appropriateinstallationandimplementationofmanagedservicesforbusinessclients. Thetrainingisonlyofferedinafewplacesatdesignatedtimesduringtheyearandisnot availableinMinnesota. Inordertominimizetravelcostwhilemaximizingtrainingopportunitiesthatcomewith thecontract,aplanwillbepreparedidentifyinginspecifictermsthecourseandlocation oftrainingneededbystaff.Registrationandtravelarrangementsfortheseclasseswill bemadesufficientlyinadvancetoassureaspotintheclassandassureproper managementoftravelexpenses. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: A-GeneralinformationaboutMetaswitchNetworks B–MetaswitchTrainingSchedule C-Traininginformationandsamplecoursesheets CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5K.Considerationofacceptingthepreliminary4th QuarterFinancialReport (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Attachedisthepreliminary20104th quarterfinancialstatusreport.TheFinancestaffis stillworkingonclosingoutthe2010fiscalyearwithsomerevenueandexpendituresyet toberecorded.AlsotheCity’sauditfirmwillbeherereviewingtheCityrecordsand makinganypossibleadjustmentsinlateMarch,whichiswhythisreportispreliminary. Asyoucanreadinthereport,permitrevenueswereasexpectedbelowbudget,while manyotherrevenuesourcesfinishedtheyearexceedingtheirbudgets.Expendituresalso forthemostpartwereunderbudgetinmanyfunds,withtheexceptionoftheFiberNet Fund.EvenwiththeeconomicsituationandtheStatebudgetissues,theCityfinishedthe 2010fiscalyearingoodfinancialcondition. A1.BudgetImpact:Thequarterlyreportshaveverylittlebudgetimpactotherthan stafftimetopreparethereport. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thereporttakesstaffacoupleofhourstoprepare,but thehopeisthenewsoftwaresystemwillreducethistimeinthefuture. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoacceptthepreliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusreport. 2.Motiontonotacceptthepreliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusreport. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: TheCitystaffsupportsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Preliminary20104th QuarterFinancialStatusReport December31st InvestmentSchedule 1 2010Preliminary4th QuarterFinancialStatusReport TheFinancestaffisstillprocessingfinancialrecordsfor2010andbalancingaccounts, whichisoneofthereasonsthisreportissolateinbeingcompleted.TheCity’saudit firmwasonsiteinFebruarytoperformpreliminaryauditworkandthenwillreturnatthe endofMarchtocompletefieldworkforthe2010auditreport.Sincestaffisstill processingsome2010recordsandtheauditisnotcomplete,thisreportoftheCity’s2010 financialstatusispreliminaryandsomeofthefigureswillbedifferentwhentheCity’s auditorspresenttheAnnualFinancialReportinearlyJune.Withthat,hereistheCity’s 20104th QuarterPreliminaryFinancialReport. Overall InspiteoftheeconomytheCity’srevenuesandexpendituresareinlinewithpastrevenue andexpenditurelevelsandtheirbudgetamounts.Thechartbelowshowseachfundtype comparedtobudgetforyears2009and2010throughtheendofthe4 th quarter 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received GeneralFund7,157,601 7,091,117 99.07%6,329,450 6,814,338 107.66% SpecialRevenueFunds 6,632,144 9,783,520 147.52%6,110,647 5,783,909 94.65% DebtServiceFunds6,192,140 4,436,673 71.65%6,064,497 5,649,233 93.15% CapitalImprovementFunds4,495,643 75,275 100.00%5,602,320 3,111,700 55.54% EnterpriseFunds6,257,325 6,377,635 101.92%8,620,167 7,645,998 88.70% TotalRevenues30,734,853 27,764,220 90.33%32,727,081 29,005,178 88.63% 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Spent GeneralFund7,157,601 8,410,917 117.51%6,329,450 6,383,092 100.85% SpecialRevenueFunds9,065,958 9,310,677 102.70%7,521,339 6,212,603 82.60% Debt ServiceFunds 9,134,080 9,103,840 99.67%6,845,275 7,934,328 115.91% CapitalImprovementFunds4,715,000 228,515 100.00%4,289,220 3,175,176 74.03% EnterpriseFunds7,960,546 13,897,260 174.58%9,909,830 16,230,304 163.78% TotalExpenditures38,033,185 40,951,209 107.67%34,895,114 39,935,503 114.44% Thebiggestdifferencebetween2010and2009revenuesandexpendituresisthe2010 bondsale(revenues)andthe2010streetreconstructionproject(expenditures)bothwhich havethe2010CapitalImprovementFundsmuchhigherin2010thanin2009.Theother changeisFiberNetrevenuesandexpendituresintheEnterpriseFunds. Therestofthisdocumentwilldescribethefinancialactivityofeachfundtype. 2 GeneralFund TheCitywasabletocollectmorefundsthenbudgetedforrevenues,thisinspiteof permitrevenuescontinuingtobeslow.TheCitylowereditsbudgetto$235,000for buildingpermitsandcollectedonly$149,639.Onesurprisebasedontheeconomyisthat theCitytypicallycollectsaround98%ofitspropertytaxlevyaftertheJanuarysettlement hasbeendistributed,for2010thisappearstobealmost100%includingdelinquencies collected.ThisalsoaffectedMiscellaneousRevenuesastheCitycollected$34,100in specialassessmentlatefeesfromtheCounty.TheCityhasalwayschargedits constructionprojectsa1%administrationsfeebasedoncurrentyearexpenditures.Due tothelargeoverlayprojectin2010,theCityrecordedrevenuesof$181,628forthese administrationfees.Thetablebelowcompares2009and2010budgetsand4th quarter revenuesfortheGeneralFund. 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received PropertyTaxes5,272,397 4,912,384 93.17%5,297,065 5,289,336 99.85% Licenses&Permits 591,900 266,297 44.99%296,650 217,184 73.21% IntergovernmentalRevenues498,056 482,334 96.84%114,801 317,956 276.96% ChargesforServices383,950 571,213 148.77%306,023 561,036 183.33% Fines&Forfeits750 1,220 162.67%300 205 68.33% Miscellaneous 291,452 388,555 133.32%269,611 383,621 142.29% TransfersfromOtherFunds119,114 469,114 393.84%45,000 45,000 100.00% TotalGeneralFundRevenues7,157,619 7,091,117 99.07%6,329,450 6,814,338 107.66% OntheexpendituresidetheCityhasspent100.85%ofitsbudgetandtherearestillsome billsforconsultingservicesandsomeothersmallbillsthatwillbechargedinto2010. Thetablebelowcompares2009and2010budgettoactualexpendituresbydepartment. 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Spent GeneralGovernment1,441,244 2,173,003 150.77%1,372,973 1,526,168 111.16% PublicSafety1,977,997 2,433,275 123.02%1,697,794 1,684,220 99.20% PublicWorks2,524,089 2,644,250 104.76%2,275,156 2,258,526 99.27% Miscellaneous345,601 342,288 99.04%165,593 235,645 142.30% Parks793,974 739,528 93.14%744,590 618,281 83.04% EconomicDevelopment74,714 78,573 105.17%73,344 60,252 82.15% TotalGeneralFdExpenditures7,157,619 8,410,917 117.51%6,329,450 6,383,092 100.85% The generalgovernmentdepartment isoverbudgetduetotheelectionactivitybeing overbudgetby$22,727andthepayingofthelobbyistrelatedtoYuccaMountainoutof thelegalbudgetthatwasnotabudgetedexpenditure($66,342).FinallytheCityspent $39,251(includingpropertytaxes)tooperatethePrairieCenterBuildingwhichwasnot budgetedfor2010. 3 The publicsafetydepartment isjustunderbudgetfor2010,whichislargelyduetothe onceayearpaymenttothefirereliefassociationmadeinOctoberandwas$13,242 belowbudgetbasedonStateAidpaymentsbeinglessthananticipated.Otherwiseline itemswhichwereoverbudgetwereoffsetbylineitemswhichwereunderbudget. The publicworksdepartment alsoisjustundertheirbudgetssofar.Againtheline itemswhichareoverspentwereoffsetbylineitemsbeingunderspent.Oneareathat shouldn’tcomeasasurprisethatwasoverspentwastheIceandSnowactivity.For2010 thisactivityoverspentitsbudgetby$48,144andthisismainlyintheareaofwagesand benefits.However,thisisoffsetbetheStreetsandAlleysactivitybeingunderspentfor theyearandagainmainlyintheareaofwagesandbenefits. Anotheractivitywhichwasslightlyoverbudget($22,974over)wastheRefuse CollectionandwasduetotheCitychangingthewaytheseservicesweredeliveredin 2010,mainlywiththecontractortakingoverthecartmaintenanceandchangingtothe largerrecyclingcarts,whichincreasedvolumes. Thebudgetforthe miscellaneousdepartment willfinishtheyearabovebudgetasthe City’sinsurancepremiumshaveincreasedbecausestafffoundanumberofCity propertiesnotcoveredundertheCitiespoliciesinthepastandincludedthosein2010. The parksdepartment isunderbudgetduetomostlineitemsbeingunderbudgetand onlyspending$5,379ofthe$$20,000budgetedfortrailmaintenance.Finally,the economicdevelopmentdepartment wasunderitsbudgetby$13,092whichwasdue againtomostlineitemsbeingunderbudget. InsummarytheGeneralFundrevenuesshouldendtheyearabovebudgetandover expenditures,whileexpenditureswillfinishtheyearjustoverbudget.Overallthe GeneralFundshouldbeingoodshapeforthefiscalyear2010. SpecialRevenueFunds SpecialRevenueFundsarefundswhichtheusesoftheirrevenuesarerestrictedfor specificpurposesbyagoverningbody.TheCitycurrentlyoperates17specialrevenue funds,eachwiththeirownbudget.FundssuchastheLibrary,ShadeTree,Street ReconstructionandCommunityCenteralldependonapropertytaxlevytosupporttheir activities.ThechartonthenextpagecompareseachSpecialRevenueFund’srevenue budgettoactualrevenuesfor2010. 4 ThetotalrevenuebudgetforallSpecialRevenueFundswas$6,110,647andtheCityhas collected94.65%fortheyear.Onereasontheserevenuessourcesarebelowbudgetfor theyearisinterestearningscominginbelowbudget.Thebudgetanticipatedsome improvementsininterestratesin2010andthisdidnothappenresultinginlowerinterest earningsfortheyear.AlsotheLibraryFund,StreetReconstructionFund,ShadeTree Fund,andCommunityCenterFundallhaveataxlevyasarevenuesource.Allofthese havereceivedaround99%oftheirtaxlevy. TheDMVsurpassedtheirsalesprojectionsastheirbudgetwas$280,000andthey collected$303,839fortheyear.AlsotheCommunityCenterFundhadabudgetof $1,119,800forchargesforservices(memberships,concessions,etc.)buttookin $1,149,915fortheyear. OntheExpenditureside,allfundhavespentonly82.6%oftheirbudgetedexpenditures, whichalargepartoftheirexpendituresisforoperatingtransferstoDebtServiceFundfor theirshareofdebtpayment. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 BudgettoActuals-Revenues Budget 4thQTRYTD 5 DebtServiceFunds TheCityhasmadeitsdebtpaymentfortheyear,soexpendituresarecompleteforthe year.TheCityrefinancedthe2002improvementbondswiththeissuanceofthe2010A ImprovementandRefinancingBond,thusreducingfuturepropertytaxleviesfordebt service.Alsothe2004ATaxableTaxIncrementBondwasretiredin2010.Onthe revenuesidethetransfersofCityfundsfortheCityshareofdebtpaymenthavebeen madeandthespecialassessmentshavebeencollected. OveralltheCityhasoutstandingdebtof$64,964,000atyear-end,whichincludedthe FiberNetrevenuebond.ThisnumberishighforaCityofoursize,butithasalottodue withthefinancingoftheinterchangeproject,wastewatertreatmentplantbond,and communitycenterbond,whichhavebondsoutstandingof$18,065,000(13yrs. remaining),$7,294,0000(8yrs.Remaining),and$4,920,000(5yrs.remaining) respectivelyasof12/31/10.Plusthereisthe$26,445,000TelecommunicationsRevenue BondforFiberNet,whichthecityisonlymakinginterestpaymentsatthistimeandhas 19yearsleft.IsaythisbecausethecommontoolforcomparingdebtfromoneCityto anotherisdebtpercapitaandIoftenseetheserangingfrom$700to$1,500,butifwe usedapopulationof12,000forMonticello,ourdebtpercapitawouldbeover$5,414. Butagainyoucanpointtotheprojectslistedaboveasgoodreasonstobehighanddoes notmeantheCityisinbadfinancialhealth. TheCity’snextdebtpaymentwasdueandwasmadeFebruary1st,2011intheamountof $5,252,472.82andincludesbothprincipalandinterest. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 BudgettoActuals-Expenditures Budget 4thQTRYTD 6 CapitalProjectFunds In2010theCitybudgetedrevenuesorexpendituresfortheCity’scapitalprojectsand wasbasedontheCity’s5-yearcapitalimprovementplan,whichincludeddoinga reconstructionprojectin2010.BasedonthatplanWestRiverStreetandsomeofthe adjacentstreetswerereconstructed.FortheyeartheCapitalProjectFundshadrevenues of$3,111,700,whichwasfromtheissuanceofbonds,interestearningsandoperating transfersfromthevariousfundswhichwerefundingsourcesfortheprojects.TheCity hasspent$3,175,176onthevariousprojects.Thesefunds,dependingonthetimingof revenuesourcesandtheirexpenditures,willorcanhaveperiodswhenexpenditures exceedrevenuesbysomeamountor,ifalargefundingsource(forexample,bond proceeds)isreceived,revenueswillexceedexpenditures.Sothisisnothingtobe concernedwith. EnterpriseFunds TheCityhasfiveEnterpriseFundsthatitoperates.TheseareoperationsthattheCity runslikeabusinessactivity.TheWaterandSewerFundsthroughDecemberhavebilled andrecordedrevenuesforthefirstthreequartersoftheyearandwillbillforthefourth quarterinJanuary.TheLiquorandCemeteryFundsreceivetheirrevenuesonapretty consistentbasisthroughouttheyear,withDecemberfortheLiquorFundbeingitsbusiest period.FinallytheFiberNetMonticelloFundisstillinthestartupphasesandin2010 beganbillingforthevariousservicesprovided.Belowisthetableofbudgettoactualfor theEnterpriseFundrevenuesforthepasttwoyears: 20092009%20102010% Budget 4thQTRYTD Received Budget 4thQTRYTD Received WaterFund973,375804,00682.60%989,977956,93196.66% SewerFund1,485,9501,086,00773.09%1,536,6251,568,418102.07% LiquorFund3,742,0004,427,999118.33%4,121,5704,599,202111.59% CemeteryFund31,00021,28668.66%24,2219,63939.80% FiberNetMonticelloFund25,00038,3370.00%1,947,774511,808100.00% Total6,257,3256,377,635101.92%8,620,1677,645,99888.70% Ontheexpendituresidetherearenobigsurpriseseither.TheLiquorFundisover103% spentduetoincreasedsales,whichrequiredincreasedmerchandisepurchases.The FiberNetMonticelloFundbudgetisoverspent,butthatisbecausewebudgetedperthe originalbusinessmodelswhichhadtheCityfinishingconstructionofthesysteminstead ofconstructingthemajorityofthesystemin2010. 7 BelowaretheexpensesfortheEnterpriseFunds: 20092009%20102010% Budget4thQTRYTDSpent Budget4thQTRYTDSpent WaterFund1,165,368569,37748.86%1,307,876913,50169.85% SewerFund2,402,7541,242,56851.71%2,477,1212,198,92488.77% LiquorFund3,714,9264,072,125109.62%4,107,4344,234,041103.08% CemeteryFund35,49824,09267.87%39,16923,22359.29% FiberNetMonticelloFund642,0007,989,0980.00%1,978,2308,860,615100.00% Total7,960,54613,897,260174.58%9,909,83016,230,304163.78% WhileitappearsexpenditureshaveexceededrevenuesintheWaterandSewerFunds, thislossisfromtherecordingofdepreciationofsystemassets,asrevenuesaresetata leveltocoveroperationsandonlypartofthedepreciation. Investments Finally,theCity’sinvestmentactivityhasbeenrelativelyminor.Attheendoftheyear theCityhad$23,937,204investedatanaverageinterestrateof3.40%andanaverage yieldof3.30%.Thiscomparesto$29,495,024atanaverageinterestrateof3.56%and averageyieldof3.61%attheendof2009.TheCityhasnotlostanyofitsinvestments duetothetroublesofthefinancialmarkets;howevertheCityhashadanumberof GovernmentSecuritiescalledearly.AlloftheCity’sCD’sarecoveredbyFDICand shouldnotbeatrisk.OnthenextpageisthebreakdownoftheCity’sinvestments: CD's FNMA FFCB FHLMC FHL Money Markets Bonds InvestmentsbyType 8 FHL=FederalHomeLoan;MoneyMarkets=GovernmentSecurityMoneyMarketFunds;CD’s= CertificateofDeposits;FNMA=FederalNationalMortgageAssociation;FFCB=FederalFarmCredit Bank;FHLMC=FederalHomeLoanMortgageCorporation. AlloftheseinvestmentsmeetStateandCityinvestmentrequirements.Attachedarethe investmentholdingsoftheCityasofDecember31st. Conclusion Overall,consideringthestateoftheeconomyandtheState’sbudgetcrisis,theCitywill endthe2010fiscalyearingoodshapewithsolidfundbalances.Revenueswillfinishthe yearnearorbelowbudgetandduetodebtretirement,the2010streetreconstruction project,andtheFiberNetconstruction,expenditureswillbeover2010budgetamounts. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 5L.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardous Property (DJH/AS/CampbellKnutson) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisaskedtodeclaretheabandonedRegencyInn&Suitespylonsigna “hazardousbuildingorhazardousproperty”pursuanttoMinnesotaStatute463.15. ThesignstructureislocatedonLot1,Block1oftheSilverFoxAddition.Thisisthe southeastcorneroftheintersectionofCedarStreetandOakwoodDrive.Thesign propertyisaseparateparcelfromtheSuper8Motelat1114CedarStreet,whichisLot2 oftheSilverFoxAddition.ThepropertyisownedbyJyotiPatelofBigLake,MN.Ithas beenpurchasedonacontract-for-deedfromChinYuenSilverFoxInn,Inc. TopLineAdvertising,thefirmwhichinstalledtheSuper8signsonthathotelbuilding wasalsohiredtochangethepylonsignmessage.Afterinspectingthepylon,they indicatedtotheCitythattheydeclinedtoworkonthatsignduetothedilapidatedstateof thestructure.TopLineemailedphotosoftheirinspectiontoRonHackenmueller.These photos,alongwithonsiteinspectionsbycitystaffwereusedindeterminingthehazardous natureofthestructure. Inseparatebutrelatedaction,theCitypreviouslynotifiedthepropertyownerthatthis propertyisinviolationofthezoningcode,asthesignisnowaprohibitedabandonedoff- premisesign.Thisisduetothefactthatthesignfacenolongerrepresentsthehotel propertyontheLot2parcel.Throughthisprocess,theCityhasprovidedsufficienttime toremovethesign.Thelastcorrespondenceregardingthezoningviolation(dated February7th,2011)specificallycitestheconcernsregardingthehazardousnatureofthe signandnotestheCity’sintentiontomoveforwardwithadditionalactioninthatregard. TheCityhasnotreceivedanycorrespondenceinresponsetothatletter. TheDamage:Thesteelcolumnsonthesignarebadlyrustedandshowingsignsof disrepairandneglect.Theweldsconnectingthetwohalvesofthecolumnshaverusted andseparatedallowingthesigntoswayandrockwhenthewindblows.Thenutsand boltsthatconnectthesigntothepylonstructurearealsobadlyrustedandsomehave backedoutandarenolongertightlysecured. TheDanger:Thesignstructureisapproximately50feettallandisincloseproximityto thepublicright-of-way.Thebasesofthepylonsaresetbackapproximately10-15feet fromnortheastpropertyline(OakwoodDriveEastroadright-of-way)and20-25feet fromnorthwestpropertyline(CedarStreetright-of-way).Itisalsolocatedapproximately 20feetfromthepedestriansidewalk.PowerlinesthatfollowtheCedarStreetcorridor arealsowithinthefallradiusofthesign. ThepurposeoftheresolutiontoOrderAbatementofHazardousPropertyistoallowCity AttorneySorenMatticktostartthelegalproceedingsasoutlinedinMNStatute463.15. Thefollowingisanoutlineofthisveryspecificstatutoryprocess: CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 TheOrdermustbeservedonthepropertyowner(JyotiPatel)andtheLienholder (OnnKhauv,PresidentofChinYuenSilverFoxInn,Inc.)andanyoneelsewithan interestintheproperty. Alldefendantswillhave20daystoabatethehazardorfileananswerwiththeCourt iftheywanttocontesttheOrder. IfthedefendantsdonotcontesttheOrder,theCitywillmovetheCourtforsummary enforcement.Ifitiscontestedtherewillbeaciviltrial. Enforcement:iftheorderissustainedbytheCourt,theCourtwillfixatimeasto whenthehazardousconditionsmustberemoved. IfthejudgmentisnotcompliedwithinthetimeprescribedbytheCourt,theCitymay removethestructure. SubjecttoCourtapproval,thecostofremoval,andattorneys’fees,mayberecovered byaspecialassessmenttotheproperty. Councilshouldnotethatalthoughtheorderforabatementwillbeimmediatelyservedon thepropertyownerandlienholder,theCityisnotobligatedtofiletheorderwiththe Courtimmediately.TheCitycanwaitforaresponseand/orremovalwithinthespecified 20dayperiod.Ifnoactionistaken,theCitythenhastheopportunitytoimmediatelyfile theorderwiththecourtandproceedasoutlined. A1.BudgetImpact:TheCitywillincurlegalcostsassociatedwithpursuingthis action.Asnoted,theCitymayrequestthatthecourtassignthosecostswithinthe abatementassessment,butisnotguaranteedthatthecourtwilldoso. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffwillcontinuetomonitoractionasdirectedby Council’sdecisionandworkwiththeCityAttorneyontheabatementprocess. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementofHazardousProperty. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-16toOrderAbatementof HazardousProperty. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffbelievesthattheimmediateorderforabatementunderAlternative#1addressesthe City’sconcernsregardingthestructuremostdirectly.IfCounciladoptstheOrderfor Abatement,thepropertyownerdoeshavetheopportunitytoanswertheorderand thereforehastheabilitytoprovideengineeringinformationsupportingthestructural integrityofthesign. Thepropertyownerhasbeenprovidedsufficienttimetoremovethesignunderthe zoningcompliancecorrespondence.Additionally,theFebruary7,2011letterfromthe CityspecificallystatesthattheBuildingDepartmentwouldproceedwithseparate enforcementrelatedtothehazardousnatureofthesign.Thesignliescloseenoughtothe CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 3 publicrightofway,thepublicsidewalkandthepowerlinestonecessitateimmediate reviewbytheCityCouncil. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-16 CopyofDemolitionOrderforRemovalofaHazardousProperty LocationAerialImage SignStructureImages MinnesotaStateBuildingCodeReference ZoningCodeComplianceLetters: August25th,2010 December6th,2010 February7th,2011 PropertyOwnerResponseEmail CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-16 ORDERINGABATEMENTOFHAZARDOUSPROPERTY WHEREAS,theChiefBuildingOfficialfortheCityofMonticellohasinspectedcertainproperty intheCityofMonticello,Minnesota,legallydescribedasLot1,Block1,SilverFox,Wright County,Minnesota;and WHEREAS,theChiefBuildingOfficialhaspreparedanInspectionReportdated{fillin};and WHEREAS,theMonticelloCityCouncilhasreviewedtheInspectionReportandhas determinedthattheRegencysignonthedescribedpropertyconstitutesahazardousproperty withinthemeaningofMinn.Stat.§463.15,subd.3. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello, Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§463.16,etseq.,theCityherebyadoptsandapprovesthe DemolitionOrderforRemovalofHazardousProperty,attachedheretoasExhibit“A”. 2.TheCityofMonticellofindsthattheconditionofthepropertylegallydescribedasLot1, Block1,SilverFox,WrightCounty.Minnesota,isahealthandsafetyhazardand containsahazardouspropertywithinthemeaningofMinn.Stat.§463.15,subd.3. 3.TheCity’slegalcounsel,CampbellKnutson,P.A.,317EagandaleOfficeCenter,1380 CorporateCenterCurve,Eagan,Minnesota55121,isdirectedtoservetheOrderfor RepairorRemovalofaHazardousPropertyandtoproceedwithenforcementin accordancewithMinn.Stat.§463.15,etseq. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28th dayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO _______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonFebruary28, 2011,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator NotaryPublic:_______________________________ Date:___________________________ (STAMP) 156208 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WRIGHT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil _____________________________________________ Court File No. ______________ IN RE: The Matter of a Hazardous Property DEMOLITION ORDER Legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Silver Fox, FOR REMOVAL OF A City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota HAZARDOUS PROPERTY _____________________________________________ TO: The following Owners and lienholders of the above real estate: Jyoti R. Patel, 19749 County Road 14 NW, Big Lake, Minnesota 55309 Onn Khauv, President, c/o Chin Yuen Silver Fox Inn, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, 1114 Cedar Street, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the Monticello City Council and by authority of Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order upon you, to remedy the health and safety hazard and the hazardous condition of the property located in the City of Monticello, State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Silver Fox, Wright County, Minnesota The Chief Building Official for the City of Monticello has inspected the above referenced property. The subject property contains an abandoned “Regency Inn & Suites” sign. The inspections revealed that the condition of the property as presently situated is unsafe, and constitutes a health and safety hazard to the residents of the City of Monticello. If you fail to remedy the situation the City will seek permission from the District Court for the City to do so. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.19 unless you remedy the situation within said twenty (20) 156208 day period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you. Upon enforcement of the Order by the City, all costs expended by the City will be assessed against the real property and collected as other taxes as provided in Minnesota Statutes § 463.21. Dated: February _____, 2011. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: ________________________________ Soren M. Mattick, #27785X City Attorney 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The City of Monticello, by and through its undersigned attorney, acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 549.21, Subd. 2. Dated: _____________, 2011. __________________________________ Soren M. Mattick, #27785X Regency Inn & Suites Sign Location City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 7.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-13ordering improvementsandauthorizingpreparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor 2011StreetReconstructionproject,CityProjectNo.11C001 (BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: OnFebruary14,2010,CouncilacceptedtheFeasibilityReportfortheproposed2011 StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001.Thisprojectisincontinuationof theCity’sOverallStreetReconstructionProgramasadoptedbytheCityCouncilon February9,2004.TheFeasibilityReportaddressestheneedfortheprojectanddefines itsscope,currentconditions,proposedimprovements,requiredpermitsandapprovals, additionalright-of-wayand/oreasementneeds,estimatedcosts,fundingsplits, availabilityoffundsincludingthepotentialforassessments,andprojectschedule. Thestreetsproposedforreconstructionin2011arelocatedintwoareasinthenorthern portionoftheCityasshowninFigures1and2ofthesupportingdataandincludethe following: Area4B(EastRiverStreet) EastRiverStreet–CedarStreetto+/-1,100’eastofWashingtonStreet CedarStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet PalmStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet NewStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WrightStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet RamseyStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet HennepinStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WashingtonStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)topublicaccess/parkentrance EllisonPark–Parkinglot,internaldrive,andboatlaunchaccessdrive WestRiverStreet WestRiverStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toXcelballfieldsentrance Perthe2004OverallStreetReconstructionProgram,Area4Bwasoriginallyplannedto bereconstructedin2006,andWestRiverStreetwasplannedtobereconstructedin2008. However,duetotheeconomy,thesizeoftheprojectareasannuallydesignatedfor reconstructionwerescaledbackinrecentyears,delayingthereconstructionofmanyof thestreetsdesignatedwithintheprogram. ThestreetswithinthetwoprojectareaswereratedbyCitystaffin2003,withassistance fromWSBandAssociates.Theseratingsindicatedtheneedtoreconstructallofthe streetswithinArea4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75.Whilepreparingthe FeasibilityReportitwasdeterminedthatthestreetswouldnotneedtobere-ratedasnew ratingswouldbeequaltoorworsethantheoriginal2003ratings,whichwouldnot changetherecommendationtoreconstructthesestreets. City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 OnJanuary26,2011,apublicinputmeetingwasheldwiththepropertyownerswithin Area4BandWestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75.Approximately21residentialand non-residentialpropertyownersattendedthemeeting.Allwhoattendedgenerally understoodthatthestreetsproposedforreconstructionhavedeterioratedtothepointthat theyrequirecompletereconstruction. Duringthepublicmeeting,CitystaffinformedtheArea4Bpropertyownersthatthe streetsintheirareaareproposedtobeleftattheircurrentwidthof36-feet,eventhough thiswouldmeanon-streetparkingwouldberestrictedtoonesideofthestreetonEast RiverStreetbetweenPalmandWashingtonStreets,andonPalmStreetandWashington StreetsbetweenEastBroadwayandEastRiverStreet.Thisisbecausethesestreetsare onourMunicipalStateAidStreet(MSAS)systemandassuchareeligibletoreceive stateaidfundsifdesignedandconstructedtostateaidstandards.Accordingtostateaid standardsparkingisonlyallowedononesideofstreetsthatareaminimumof32-feet wide,andonbothsidesofstreetsthatareaminimumof38-feetwide.Noneofthe propertyownersinattendanceobjectedtothis. TheArea4BpropertyownerswerealsoinformedthattheCouncilrecentlydirectedstaff toomitanynewsidewalkconstructionwithinArea4B,withtheexceptionofaone-block segmentofsidewalkalongCedarStreetbetweenEastBroadway(CSAH75)andEast RiverStreettoconnecttheexistingsidewalkonEastBroadwaytoEastBridgePark. Council’sdirectionwasbasedontheirreviewoftheresultsofasidewalksurveytakenin earlyJanuary.ThesurveyaskedthepropertyownersinArea4Biftheysupportednew sidewalkinthisarea,andifso,where.Atotalof78surveysweremailed,ofwhich22 responseswerereceivedwhichequaleda28%responserate.Ofthosewhoresponded,6 supportednewsidewalks,1wasundecided,and15wereopposednotingthatthelevelof trafficontheirstreetdoesnotwarrantasidewalk,especiallysinceEastRiverStreetwas detachedfromTH25. ItshouldbenotedthatseveralresidentsfromtheEastRiverStreetareadidcontactCity staffinpreviousyearstorequestthatsidewalksbeconstructedalongEastRiverStreet. Staffwasthereforeexpectingagreaterlevelofsupportforsidewalkthanwhatwas received.ItshouldalsobenotedthatEastRiverStreetiscurrentlysignedasanon-road bikeroutepertherequirementsoftheISTEApathwayandpedestrianbridgeproject completedinthelate1990’s.Thissigningisproposedtoremaininplacefollowingthe reconstructionofthestreet. TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownerswhoattendedthepublicmeetingseemedtoagree thatthestreetneededtobereconstructed,andgenerallyunderstoodourrecommendation toaddcurbandgutterandabituminouspathwayalongthestreet.However,oneproperty ownerquestionedwhytheintersectionofWestRiverStreetandCSAH75wasnot proposedtoberealignedtoforma90-degreeintersectionatthistime,similartowhatwas doneatPrairieRoad.Hesaidhehaswitnessednumerousnear-missesatthisintersection inthepastduetoitsskewedconfigurationwhichforcestrucksheadingeastboundon CSAH75thatareturningrightontoWestRiverStreettoswingintothepathofvehicles approachingCSAH75onWestRiverStreet. City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 3 StaffinformedthepropertyownerthatWrightCountyevaluatedtheintersectionof CSAH75andWestRiverStreetwhiledesigningtheirprojectbutdeterminedtherewas notenoughofanissuetowarranttherealignmentoftheintersection.Staffnotedthat WrightCountywillbeaddingprotectedrightandleftturnlanesatWestRiverStreet whichwillincreasesafety.Staffalsoinformedthepropertyownerthatweareproposing toincreasethesizeoftheradiusinthenorthwestquadrantofthisintersectionwithour project,whichwillincreasesafetybyallowingtrucksturningrightontoWestRiver Streettobeabletodosowithoutencroachingintooncomingtraffic.Itwasalso discussedthat,ifCouncilauthorizedthisproject,staffwouldthenreviewtheintersection inmoredetailtoensurethatarealignmentoftheintersectionisnotwarrantedatthis time.Ifitwere,wewouldthenrequestCouncilauthorizationtoworkwithWright Countytoaddtherealignmentimprovementstotheirproject. Itshouldbenotedthatsincethepublicinputmeeting,andfollowingCounciladoptionof theFeasibilityReport,staffmetwithWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentstaffto discussthedesignofthisintersection.Basedonourdiscussions,andconsideringthe improvementsthatarebeingproposedwitheachofourprojects,itwasdeterminedthat theintersectionshouldfunctionproperlyasis,bothnowandwellintothefuture.Wright CountyHighwayDepartmentstaffnotedthattheydonotanticipateanincreaseintheuse ofMontissippiParkintheforeseeablefuture,andsinceWestRiverStreetterminates beforeI-94itisnotexpectedtogenerateanappreciableamountoftraffic.Itwasalso discussedthatanyrealignmentoftheintersectionshouldincludearealignmentoftheleg ofWestRiverStreetonthenorthsideofCSAH75aswell,whichwouldincreaseproject costsbyabout$100,000anddelayWrightCounty’sprojectbyseveralweeksduetothe needtore-designtheturnlanesatthisintersection.LettersfromWSBandAssociates andtheWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentdescribingthesediscussionsinmoredetail areattachedassupportingdata. TheWestRiverStreetpropertyownersalsoquestionedtheproposednon-residential assessmentrateof$80perfrontfoot.TheownerofElectroIndustries,BillSeefeldt, submittedalettertotheCityfollowingthepublicmeetinginwhichhequestionedthe proposedrateandaskedthatitbere-evaluated,alongwithseveralothercommentsand requests.Thisletterisattachedassupportingdata.ThepresidentoftheAlanoSociety alsoquestionedtheproposedassessmentrate,notingthattheirannualoperatingbudget wouldnotallowthemtocovertheirproposedassessmentbasedonthenon-residential rate.StaffthereforereviewedtheAlanoSociety’sproposedassessmentandreviseditto matchthestandardassessmentratefortworesidentialpropertiestobeconsistentwiththe assessmentapproachusedwithboththeRodandGunClubandRitzeTruckingaspartof the2007StreetReconstructionProject.StaffthenreceivedaletterfromtheAlano SocietyBoardofDirectorsonFebruary17th.TheletterrequeststhattheCityCouncil waivetheirassessmentinitsentirety,therebyallowingthemtomaintaintheirpresent obligationsandfutureplans.TheCouncilshouldtakeintoaccounttheCity’sestablished assessmentpolicypracticesandwhatprecedentwouldbesetwhenconsideringthis request. IfCouncilorderstheseimprovements,staffwillreviewthenon-residentialassessment rateagainstrecentprojectstodeterminetheactualpercentageofprojectcoststhattheir City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 4 assessmentscovered.ThisinformationwouldthenbereviewedwithCouncilpriorto developingthefinalassessmentrollsandholdingtheAssessmentHearingthisfall. ThefollowingisasummaryoftheproposedimprovementsforstreetswithinArea4B, whichtotalapproximately6,700feetinlength,aswellasforWestRiverStreet,westof CSAH75,whichtotalsapproximately1,650feet. EastRiverStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. On-streetparkingisproposedtobelimitedtothesouthsidebetweenPalmStreetand WashingtonStreetinordertoallowstate-aidfundstobeutilized. CedarStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. Constructa6-footwideconcretesidewalkontheeastsidebetweenEastBroadway andEastRiverStreet,includingaconnectionthroughthecul-de-sac. PalmStreet: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. On-streetparkingisproposedtobelimitedtotheeastsidebetweenEastBroadway andEastRiverStreetinordertoallowstate-aidfundstobeutilized. New,Wright,Ramsey,HennepinandWashingtonStreets: Reconstructbituminouspavementtomatchexisting36-footwidth. Existingcurbandgutterwillbesalvagedwhereverpossible.Exceptionstothis wouldincludethosecurbandgutterpanelsinneedofrepair,andwherethe replacementofsanitarysewer,stormsewerand/orwatermainisrequired. EllisonPark: Reconstructbituminouspavementinparkinglot,internaldriveandboatlaunch accessdriveareas.Theexistingpavementsectionsareinpoorconditionandthe internaldrivewasoverlaidwith2”ofbituminousseveralyearsago.Staffisworking withtheDNRtodetermineiftheywouldbewillingtoshareinsomeorallofthe costsofreconstructingthepavementleadingtoandsupportingthepublicwater access. Installsanitarysewerandwaterservicestoeastendoflogshelterforfutureuse.This workwouldinvolveloweringabout600-feetofsanitarysewertrunklineunderEast RiverStreet,whichisbeingreplacedalready,toloweritenoughtoservethepark City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 5 shelter,andinstallingabout180feeteachofsanitaryandwaterservicelines.This workwasnotaddressedintheFeasibilityReportpreviouslyadoptedbyCouncil. Staffestimatestheconstructioncostsforthisadditionalworktobeabout$15,000. AttheFebruary14,2011CityCouncilmeeting,staffwasdirectedtoreviewalternate optionsforreconstructingWestRiverStreetincludingexcludingcurbandgutterand narrowingthestreetwidth.Optionswereevaluatedforthisasidentifiedbelow. WestRiverStreet,westofCSAH75: Option1–34’wideurbanstreetw/off-roadpathway(perFeasibilityReport) ConstructB618concretecurbandgutteralongbothsidesofthestreet to: o allowforconstructionofanoff-roadpathway; o protectpavementedgesfrombreakingupduetoheavytrucktraffic;and, o providepositivedrainagetoreduceerosionpotential. Reconstructpavementtoa31-footwidebituminoussection. Constructa9-footwideoff-roadbituminouspathwaynorthofthestreet toconnect thepathwaysouthofWestBroadwaytotheXcelballfields. ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet. ConstructnewRRcrossingforproposedoff-roadpathway. Estimatedcostsforoption1=$451,600 Option2–34’wideurban/ruralhybridstreetw/off-roadpathway ConstructB618concretecurbandgutteralongonlythenorthsideofthestreet to: o allowforconstructionofanoff-roadpathwaynorthofthestreet; o protectpavementedgesfrombreakingupduetoheavytrucktraffic;and, o providepositivedrainagetoreduceerosionpotential. Reconstructpavementtoa31-footwidebituminoussection. Constructa1.5-footwidegravelshoulderonthesouthside. Constructa9-footwideoff-roadbituminouspathwaynorthofthestreettoconnect thepathwaysouthofWestBroadwaytotheXcelballfields. ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet. ConstructnewRRcrossingforproposedoff-roadpathway. Estimatedcostsforoption2=$431,600 (decreaseof$20,000fornoC&Goneside) Option3–35’wideruralstreetw/on-roadpathway Nocurbandgutterwouldbeconstructedwiththisoption. Reconstructpavementto33-footwidebituminoussectiontoaccommodatea16-foot wideEBlane,a12-footWBlane,anda5-footwideon-roadbikelane. Construct1-footwidegravelshouldersonbothsides. Gradeadrainageditchonthenorthsideofthestreet. ConstructnewRRcrossingforWestRiverStreet/on-roadpathway. Estimatedcostsforoption3=$375,000 (decreaseof$76,600fornoC&G/off-road path) City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 6 Itshouldbenotedthattheestimatedcostsforeachoptionshownaboveareforsurface (streetandpathway)improvementsonlyanddonotincludeutilityimprovementcosts. StaffrecommendsnotreducingthewidthofWestRiverStreettoanythingsubstantially lessthanwhatitcurrentlyis,a35-footwidebituminouspavementsectionwithtwo15- footdrivelanesandtwo2½-footbikelanes.Thisrecommendationtakesintoaccount thecurrentuseofthisstreet,whichisprimarilynon-residential.Non-residentialstreets, orstreetsthathavehighertrafficvolumesthanaverageresidentialstreets,aretypicallya minimum36-feetwideaccordingtotheCity’sdesignguidelines.Inaddition,trafficon thisstreetconsistsofahigh-percentageoflargetrucks,manyofwhichutilizethestreetto turnaroundtobackintoloadingdocks,toparkalongtheedgewhilewaitingforaloading docktoopenup,orwhilewaitingforinformationontheirnextdeliveryroute.Itis thereforestaff’srecommendationthatthestreetwidthnotbenarrowedsubstantiallyfrom whatitistoday,asisreflectedinthethreeoptionsabove. Whileremovingcurbandgutterdoestendtoreduceconstructioncosts,italsotypically increasesmaintenancecostsduetotheneedtogradethegravelshouldersperiodically, andtocorrecterosionissuesthatoccurfromtimetotimeasaresultofhavingnocurb andguttertodirectstormwaterrunoffawayfrompavementedgesandditchin-slopes. However,sincetheCityalreadygradesthegraveldrivewayandparkinglotattheball fieldsanyincreasedcostsassociatedwithgradinggravelshoulderswouldbeminimal, buttherewouldlikelybeadditionalmaintenancecostsforaddressingdrainageand erosionissueswiththeditchsystems. PerCouncildirectiononFebruary14th,thereconstructionoftheparkinglotinEast BridgeParkwillbebidasanalternateimprovementtothisproject.Aswasnotedby Council,sincetheplansfortheseimprovementswerecompletedlastyearitwillnotcost muchtoaddtheplanstotheoverallplansetforbiddingpurposes. Thecontractorwhoisawardedtheprojectwouldnotbeallowedtostartconstruction operationsinArea4BuntilafterJuly11th toavoidimpactinganyRiverFestactivitiesin EllisonPark.Thisisnotanticipatedtoresultinsubstantialdelaysorincreasedcoststo theproject. ThetotalestimatedprojectcostforcompletingtheworkdefinedintheFeasibilityReport is$2,413,200whichincludes10%contingencyand22%indirectcosts.Thisprojectis proposedtobefundedusingstreetreconstructionfunds,Citycontributions,utility operatingfunds,stateaidfunds,andassessmentstobenefittingproperties. Single-familyresidentialpropertyownersareproposedtobeassessedforstreet constructionatarateof$4,000perlothavingaccesstoanyofthereconstructedstreets. Thisstreetassessmentratereflectsa5%increaseoverthe2010StreetReconstruction projectassessmentrates,whichwereincreased5%peryearfromtheratesassessedwith previousstreetreconstructionprojectstoaccountforincreasesininflationandthe constructioncostindex,andtoensurethattheCitycanmeettheminimumrequirement City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 7 that20%oftheprojectcostsbeassessedwhenusingChapter429bondfundstopayfor theproject. Non-residentiallotsareproposedtobeassessedforstreetreconstructionatarateof$80 perfrontfoot,withanadditional$12perfrontfootaddedforsidewalkassessmentswhen appropriate.Perpreviousassessmentpractices,thesenon-residentialratesareappliedto 100%ofthefrontfootageand50%ofthesidefootageoftheproperty,aslongasthe propertyhasdirectaccesstothereconstructedstreet,or25%ofthesidefootageifthe propertydoesnothavedirectaccess.However,ifdirectaccessisaddedatalaterdatethe propertyownerwouldthenberequiredpaytheadditional25%atthattime.Previous assessmentsforpropertiesassessedwiththeCSAH75improvementprojectweretaken intoconsiderationwiththepreliminaryprojectassessmentsbasedontheabove methodology. Ashasbeenthecaseinthepast,assessmentsareproposedtobeappliedbasedonthe currentuseofthepropertyatthetimetheimprovementsaremade.However,iftheuse ofthepropertychangesinthefuture,theassessmentwouldbere-evaluatedatthetime basedona20-yearpavementlife,notincludingadditionalinterestcosts. Utilityoperatingfundsareproposedtobeusedforallsanitarysewerandwatermain replacementsonstreetswithintheprojectareas,aswellasforgeneralutilityadjustments. Replacementofindividualsewerand/orwaterservicelineswouldbeassessedtothe benefittingpropertyownerwhentheworkisrequestedbythepropertyowner.IftheCity initiatesworkonanindividualservicelinethepropertyownerwouldnotbeassessedfor thework.Stormsewertrunkutilityfundswouldfundallnewstormsewerwork. BasedonCouncilinputreceivedduringtheJanuary24th workshop,staffisnotproposing toenhanceexistingstreetlightingwiththisproject. A1.BudgetImpact:TheestimatedprojectcostsidentifiedintheFeasibilityReport, whichinclude10%constructioncontingencyand22%indirectcostsforlegal, engineering,administrativeandfinancingitems,areasfollows: $1,858,500–Area4B* $554,700–WestRiverStreet** $2,413,200–Total *ThisistheamountincludedintheadoptedFeasibilityReport.ShouldCouncil approveaddingtheEllisonParkshelterutilityservicesworktotheprojectthe estimatedcostwouldincreaseto$1,873,500forArea4B. **ThisamountdependsonwhichdesignoptionCouncilapproves. Duetothelowbondrateswearecurrentlyexperiencing,staffrecommendsthe useofbondstofundtheproject.Bondpaymentswouldthenbemadeusingthe appropriatefunds. City CouncilAgenda:02/28/11 8 AsCouncilisaware,thebiddingenvironmentforstreetimprovementprojectshas beenveryfavorablerecentlyduetotheeconomywithbidpricescominginat 10%-20%lessthansimilarprojectsconstructedseveralyearsago.All indicationsarethatthisfavorablebiddingenvironmentwillcontinuethisyear whichwilllikelyresultinsignificantsavingsfortheCityifwemoveaheadwith thisprojectin2011. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:StafffromtheEngineering,PublicWorksandFinance Departmentswouldbeimpactedbythisprojecttovaryingdegrees,bothduring thedesignandconstructionphases.ItshouldbenotedthatEngineering Departmentstaffwouldberesponsibleforprovidingfull-timeconstruction inspection,andthatPublicWorksDepartmentstaffwouldspendaconsiderable amountoftimeinspectingutilitiesconstruction. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-13orderingimprovementsandauthorizing preparationoffinalPlansandSpecificationsfor2011StreetReconstruction Improvements,CityProjectNo.11C001. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolution#2011-13atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1whichincludesreconstructingWest RiverStreetasa34-footwideurbansectionroadwaywithaseparatepathwayandnot realigningtheintersectionatCSAH75.ReconstructionoftheEastBridgeparkinglot andprovidingsewerandwaterservicestotheEllisonParkshelterarealsoincludedwith Alternative#1,withtheEastBridgeparkinglotreconstructionbeingbidasanalternate. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-13 LetterfromElectroIndustriesdatedJanuary31,2011(2pgs) LetterfromMonticelloAlanoSocietydatedFebruary14,2011(1pg) Memow/figurefromWSB&AssociatesdatedFebruary23,2011(3pgs) MemofromWrightCountyHighwayDepartmentdatedFebruary23,2011(3pgs) CITYOFMONTICELLO RESOLUTIONNO.2011-13 ORDERINGIMPROVEMENTSANDAUTHORIZINGPREPARATION OFPLANSANDSPECIFICATIONS 2011STREETRECONSTRUCTIONPROJECT CITYPROJECTNO.11C001 WHEREAS,aresolutionwasadoptedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary14,2011,acceptingthe FeasibilityReportforthe2011StreetReconstructionProject,andcallingforaPublicHearingon February28,2011onsaidproposedimprovements;and WHEREAS,afterdueNoticeofPublicHearingwasprovidedontheconstructionofsaid proposedimprovementsforthe2011StreetReconstructionProject:Area4B–EastRiverStreet fromCedarStreettoapproximately1,100feeteastofWashingtonStreet,aswellasPalm,New, Wright,Ramsey,Hennepin,andWashingtonStreetsbetweenEastBroadway/CSAH75andEast RiverStreet,andthereconstructionofpavedsurfacesinEllisonPark;andWestRiverStreet, westofWrightCSAH75.Improvementsincludethereconstructionofurbanandruralsection roadways,curbandgutterreplacement,sidewalk,pathwayandstormsewerconstruction,utility improvementsandotherappurtenantwork.OptionalimprovementsincludeEastBridgePark parkinglotreconstruction.AhearingwasdulyheldonFebruary28,2011onsaidimprovements andtheCityCouncilheardallpersonsdesiringtobeheardonthematterandfullyconsideredthe same;and WHEREAS,atsaidhearingtherewasavailableareasonableestimateoftheamounttobe assessedandadescriptionofthemethodologywaspresented; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello, Minnesotaasfollows: 1.Saidimprovementsarenecessary,cost-effective,andfeasibleasdetailedinthe FeasibilityReport. 2.Itisadvisable,expedientandnecessarythatsaidimprovementsasdescribedintheNotice ofHearingthereonbeconstructed,andthesameareherebyorderedmade. 3.TheimprovementsdescribedinsaidNoticeofHearingareherebydesignatedandshallbe knownasthe2011StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo.11C001. 4.TheCityEngineeralongwithconsultingengineers,WSB&Associates,Inc.ishereby directedtopreparefinalplansandspecificationsforsaidimprovements. 5.TheCityCouncilshallletthecontractforallorpartoftheworkforsaidimprovements ororderallorpartoftheworkdonebydaylabororotherwiseasauthorizedby MinnesotaStatutes,Section429.041,Subdivision2withinoneyearofthedateofthis resolutionorderingsaidimprovements. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis28thdayofFebruary,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ___________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 1 8.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofapprovingsubmissiontotheDepartmentof NaturalResourcesoftheMonticello2011OutdoorRecreationGrantApplication RequestforthePhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakes RegionalPark.(AS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: InJanuaryof2011,theCityCouncilauthorizedsubmissionof2011grantapplicationsto theDepartmentofNaturalResourcesforfuturelandacquisitionattheBertramChainof Lakes. Aspartofongoinggrantapplicationefforts,staff’sintentionwastopreparearequestfor Councilauthorizationforapplicationtothe2011OutdoorRecreationGrantprogramfor parcels1and2.Parcel1and2comprisethemajorityoftheactiverecreationareaatthe BertramChainofLakesRegionalPark.ThegrantapplicationrequiresthattheCityhold apublichearing. However,staffisrequestingthatCounciltableactionontheOutdoorRecreation applicationatthistime.Bytablingaction,Councildoesnotneedtoopenthepublic hearing.AtsuchtimeastheCityseekstomoveforwardwiththeOutdoorRecreation Grantprocess,apublichearingwillbeheldatthattime. CityandCountyrepresentativesontheBertramChainofLakesAdvisoryCouncilwillbe meetingonFriday,February25th todiscussnextstepsintheboththepublicreviewand planapprovalprocessfortheactiverecreationareaconceptplan. Althoughthe2011grantwouldallowtheCitytopursueacquisitionofparcel1and2 immediately,staffbelievesthattheinformationthatcomesoutofthemeetingonFriday, andtheplanningthatfollowswillbehighlybeneficialtothefinalgrantapplication.In short,moredetailedinformationabouttherecreationareaplanandtheplan’seventual approvalprocesswillhelpstaffprepareamorecompletegrantapplicationpackage. Therefore,staffisrequestingthattheCounciltableactiononthisitemuntiladditional informationonthereviewandapprovalprocessfortherecreationalareacanbe developed. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontotablethepublichearingindefinitelyforconsiderationofsubmissionof anOutdoorRecreationGrantapplicationtotheDepartmentofNaturalResources forthePhaseIVPropertyAcquisitionattheBertramChainofLakesRegional Park. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1. CityCouncilAgenda:02/28/11 2 D.SUPPORTINGDATA: None