City Council Agenda Packet 08-28-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 28, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ren Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 14, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/pet itions, requests, and complaints.
4. Review preliminary Transportation Management Plan.
5. Consideration of amending proposed Seventh Street right-of-way. Lincoln
Coupanies/R-Mart.
6. Consideration of purchasing lawn vacuum for the Parks Department.
7. Consideration of maintaining sidewalk on I-94 right-of-way.
8. Consideration of bills for the month of August.
9. Adjourn.
MINUTES
Rf.MWR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 14, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus , Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson,
Dan Blon igen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes.
Warren Smith requested that item 6 be amended by adding the following
remarks to item 6: "Smith saw no reason to Shop around for consultants,
as the City has already conducted a selection process which resulted in
Benning b Associates being selected for development of the City logo.
Smith saw no reason to repeat the selection effort."
Dan Blonigen requested that sentence 4 paragraph 2 on item $1 be amended
to state, "It was B lonigen's view that the pension fund should be at a
level to where the fire department could raise sufficient pension funding
on its own."
There being no further arnenctnents to the minutes, motion was made by
Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the meeting minutes as
amended. Motion carried unanimotinly.
3. Citizens comments petitions, requests, and complaints.
Council addressed a storm water drainage problem associated with
development of a home at the northeast corner of the intersection of
.Willow and River street (Block 3, Lot 10, River Terrace Addition).
According to Public Works Director Simola, drainage problems in the area
will be increased if the lot is developed as proposed. Currently, the
undeveloped lot is the collection point for an area larger than the size
of one-half block. If the property is elevated by placing fill and a
home on the site, the water displaced by the development will spill into
other areas thus creating further problems and adverse conditions for
other homeowners in the area. Simola reported that a building permit has
been approved but not issued for the site and some excavation has
occurred. However, staff has recognized the problem prior to building
construction activity. He went on to note that the builder is willing to
sell the property to the City at his cost plus the cost of excavation to
this point. The builder also asks for first right of refusal in the
event the City develops a storm water drainage system that renders the
lot buildable in the future. Simola reccusnended that the City purchase
the property for the sum of $23,500, as this cost is minimal compared to
the cost of developing a temporary storm water system necessary to solve
the problem. It wain also noted that the roads in the area may likely be
upgraded to met current City standards in the future and at that time
the necessary storm drainage systems could be installed, thereby
rendering the lot buildable. Until that time occurs, the City can hold
the lot and utilize it for drainage purposes.
- t o
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
�- Ren Maus noted that the price is fair and that he supports buying the
property.
Warren Slnith asked why the drainage problem was not identified prior to
excavation of the prope:=y.
Gary Anderson noted a drainage concern upon building permit application
and was in the process of obtaining the proper survey documents as well
as reviewing his concerns with other staff. Since the extent of the
drainage problem was not known and was thought to be manageable by site
grading, Mr. Lanners was allowed to excavate prior to the permit being
issued.
After discussion, notion was trade by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren
Smith to purchase Lot 10, Block 3, River Terrace Addition, from Quintin
Lanners for the sum of $23,500 and provide Quintin Lanners first right of
refusal at such time that the City elects to sell the lot once the
drainage problem has been resolved. Motion carried unanimmusly.
4. Consideration of variance request. Applicant, Fair's Garden Center.
Prior to addressing variance related issues, Council defined the use
associated with Fair's landscaping. Dan Blonigen expressed the concern
that the proposed expansion of the facility represented a change in the
use or development of a non-contorming use rather than an expansion of a
sales and storage area which is allowed as a conditional use in the B-4
zone. Staff concurred that it is not quite clear if the proposed
expansion represents development that is not allowed in the district, or
the expansion siiTly represents development of an open sales and storage
area which is allowed in the B-4 zone. Staff noted that Council has the
authority to review the proposed action and then interpret the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to this situation. Gary Anderson
noted that open/outdoor storage associated with garden centers and
landscaping service center activities are typically interwoven and could
be considered as a single use for the property. Warren Smith suggested
that we might be splitting hairs in considering the service portion of
the business as a separate use. Shirley Anderson did not offer an
opinion on the question. However, she did express her concern regarding
potential for development of an unwanted precedent.
Motion was wade by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley Anderson to table
further consideration of this issue pending opinion from the City
Attorney. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson. Opposed:
Fran Fair, Ren Maus, Warren Smith. Motion fails 3-2.
Motion was trade by Warren Smith and oeconded by Ren Maus to interpret the
proposed expansion as an allowable conditional use under 14-4: (AI and
(BI of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which, an a conditional use,
allows open or outdoor storage service, sale, and rental as a principal
and accessory use. Voting in favor of the motion: Warren Smith, Ren
Maus, Fran Fair. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen. Motion
carried.
O
Counci 1 Minutes - 8/14/89
At this point in the meeting, Assistant Administrator O'Neill outlined
variance related issues. Council acted as follows:
Motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to
require that the Carden Center develop 24 parking stalls. Voting in
favor: Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Ren Maus. Opposed: Dan
Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley Anderson to
require installation of a cedar screening fence around three sides of the
rock storage bins. Fence height to be 6" higher than the average height
of the front wall of the existing bins. voting in favor: Dan Blonigen,
Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Ren Maus, Warren Smith. Abstaining: Fran
Fair. Motion fails.
Motion made by Ken Maus and seconded by Warren Smith to accept Planning
Commission recoimnendation to accept present level of screening of the
rock storage bins. Voting in favor of motion: Ken Maus, Warren Smith.
Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair.
Motion fails.
Motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to accept
Planning Commission recommendation regarding variance to hard surfacing
requirement in the area in front of the rock bins with one stipulation:
Said area may not be used as a driveway or through area for customer
traffic. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson.
Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair. Motion carries.
Motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to allow
development of parking area without installation of curb perpendicular to
stalls located along Broadway. Eliminating the curb requirement in this
area allows for future expansion of the parking area. Voting in favor:
Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. opposed: Dan Blonigen.
Abstaining: Fran Fair. Motion carries.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to
require hard surface paving of private drive area and rear yard storage
area by September 1, 1990. Voting in favor: Ken Maus, Warren Snith,
Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Pair.
Motion carries.
Discussion returned to the method of rock storage bin screening. warren
Smith noted that he would rather resolve the issue now rather than let it
linger to a subsequent meeting.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to
require installation of a cedar fence to a height 6" higher than the
average height of the front wall of the rock storage bins. Fence shall
be installed along three sides of the storage bins. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow expansion of
sales and storage area associated with a landscape center in the B-4
zone. Applicant, Fair's Garden Center.
After discussion, motion was wade by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to approve conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Gross floor area may be increased to approximately 300 percent of the
principal use.
2. An escrow account uwst be established by the applicant in an amount
equal to 1-1/2 times the dollar amnount necessary to complete all of
the landscaping, screening, curbing, and hard surfacing as outlined
in the alternative $1 site plan.
3. The westerly driveway entrance be closed off iimnediately with the
existing sales area material (patio blocks) being located in this
area to block off the driveway entrance.
4. Applicant will install curbing from Cedar Street through stall 24 per
the attached site plan and will stripe all stalls noted on the site
plan. This will be done within 30 days of acquiring conditional use
pe nni t .
5. Applicant shall remove existing blacktop and create a green area
between the new parking area (stalls 17-24) and Broadway right-of-way
by October 15, 1989.
6. Applicant shall apply a 3 -inch to 5 -inch surface of red limestone to
the interior drive area within the nursery sales and storage area.
This area to be maintained in a neat and driveable condition.
Material must be applied by October 15, 1989.
7. The driveway area between the Broadway access and a point parallel
with the opening of the storage bins shall receive a minimum of a
2 -inch bituminous hard surface application by October 15, 1989.
B. Applicant shall not utilize the private drive area for business use.
use of this drive shall be limited to private use associated with the
residence.
9. Applicant shall install screening material along the perimreter of the
site in the formn of a 6 -foot fence and/or planting materials. This
shall be accomplished by October 15, 1989.
10. Applicant shall install a split rail fence along the southern
boundary of the sales and storage area between the existing house to
the southwest corner of the sales area. The fence material is to be
of cedar hand split rail fencing material and shall be installed by
October 15, 1989.
11. Applicant shall install a City approved cedar fence achieving
90 percent opacity. This fence shall be installed to screen the rock
storage bins from the public right-of-way and shall be installed
along the front and sides of the storage bins.
12. Individuals inhabiting the residential structure on the property
shall be limited to the owner/operator of the Fair's Garden Center or
the manager of the Garden Center.
O
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
Voting in favor: Ren Maus, Warren Sinith, Shirley Anderson. Opposed:
Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair. Motion carried.
6. Consideration of simple subdivision request to allow a subdivision of a
B-3 (highway business) lot. Applicant, John Johnson.
Motion was wade by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve
the simple subdivision request subject to the following conditions:
1. Drainage and utility easement as recorded on the new lot line between
Parcels A and B shall be drafted and recorded within 30 days of the
Planning Cormnission meeting date of August 1, 1989.
2. A letter of agreement shall be recorded along with Parcel B
indicating that this parcel is not served by city water and sewer.
The letter should indicate that the buyer or seller of Parcel B shall
pay for the complete installation of city sewer and water utility
extension to Parcel B. This document to be recorded within 30 days
of the Planning Cormnission meeting date of August 1, 1989.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. A variance request to allow less than minimum 5 -foot green area
separation from property line to parking lot curb. Applicant, Monticello
Auto Body .
Cary Anderson reviewed the proposed variance and indicated that the
variance request is not consistent with the conditions associated with
the conditional use permit previously granted the applicant. Assistant
Administrator O'Neill noted that the applicant has not demonstrated a
hardship or unique circumstance which justifies granting the variance.
Street Superintendent, Roger Mack, recommrrended against granting the
variance, as the parking lot would then extend into an area that would
otherwise be used for snow storage by both the City and by the property
owner. It was Mack's recoimnendation that the ordinance be upheld in this
instance so as to reserve the proper space for snow storage.
After discussion, motion was trade by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
variance as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Consideration of am endmrent to the zoning ordinance which would allow as a
conditional use a bed and breakfast operation in the P'LM zone.
Applicant, Merrill Busch.
Cary Anderson reported that Merrill Busch has applied for a zoning
ordinance amendment which would allow development of a bed and breakfast
facility in the P2M zone. Anderson reviewed the recommendation of tho
Planning Comnission and outlined those conditions associated with
operation of a bed and breakfast in a PZM zone. Administrator Rick
Wolfetoller informed Council that the bed and breakfast currently is not
utilizing city sewer and water. He went on to note that the Council
could require that the bed and breakfast facility be hooked up to city
9
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
sewer at this point, or the bed and breakfast could be required to hook
up within three years of the time that the services have been available
to the facility. Wolfsteller informed Council that under either
circumstance, the facility will be connected to city services within
1-1/2 years.
It was the general consensus of the Council not to require that the bed
and breakfast facility be required to utilize city services as part of
the conditional use permit, as the services will be required by ordinance
within 1-1/2 years. During discussion, Council voiced support for the
establishment of the bed and breakfast in the Rand Mansion and expressed
best wishes to Mr. Busch and his efforts to preserve and maintain the
Rand Mansion.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith,
to amend the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance by adding bed and
breakfast facilities as a conditional use in the PZM zone provided that:
1. Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential
structures existing prior to the date of this ordinance.
2. When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR districts, a buffer area with
screening and landscaping shall be provided in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 (C), of the Monticello Zoning ordinance.
3. Adequate off-street parking and an access shall be provided in the
form of one parking space per rental unit, plus one space for each
ten rental units, and one space for each employee on each shift.
4. Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight guests of
the bed and breakfast.
5. The owner, operator, or manager of the bed and breakfast shall reside
on the premises.
6. Activities shall be limited to those customary to the operation of a
bed and breakfast facility. Commrercial use of the property for other
activities not normally associated with the operation of a bed and
breakfast such as wedding receptions, parties, etc., are not allowed
under this conditional use permit.
7. Material used for the parking area shall consist of dust and erosion
resistent materials that will not cling to vehicle tires and track
onto public streets. The materials used shall also be capable of
supporting vehicular traffic.
8. Operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with all
state regulations governing such facilities.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 180.
9. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of
a bed and breakfast facility in the PZM zone. Applicant, Merrill Busch.
After discussion, motion was trade by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to grant a conditional use permit to Merrill Busch which allows
operation of a bed and breakfast facility in a PZM zone subject to
conditions listed by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
10. Consideration of City Assessor position alternatives for year 1990.
City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, outlined issues associated with
continuance of City policy of providing assessing services at the City
level. Wolfsteller noted that the City may have a problem in keeping our
own assessor, as recent state regulations require that the City of
Monticello have an accredited assessor. At this point in tiire, Gary
Anderson is a certified appraiser but has not yet obtained enough
training nor completed seminars that would allow him to become an
accredited appraiser. Furthermore, it does not appear that there is
enough titre for Anderson to complete the necessary course work and
testing to obtain the proper certification. Wolfsteller then reviewed
the different irethods that might be utilized in fulfilling the assessing
process. Wolfsteller noted that the City can attempt to hire a certified
assessor to work with Mr. Anderson and keep the function on a local
level, or the City has the option of contracting for services with the
County.
Dan Blonigen noted that a significant amount of information regarding
building construction, etc., comes out of City Hall and that he is
leaning toward keeping the assessing function local. Ren Maus asked Doug
Gruber, County Assessor, what he saw as potential problems associated
with bringing the assessing function to the County. Gruber noted that
the Council has more control if the function is kept local. People that
live and work in the city might provide slightly better accountability.
At the same time, Gruber noted that the County has a good handle on
what's going on in Monticello and that a particular person would be
assigned to the City of Monticello and would, therefore, gain an
understanding of the coummnity, as he would be consistently working in
the cormnunity. Gruber went on to note that the County would be willing
to provide assessing services to the City and that he would like to set
it up for a four year contract. Shirley Anderson asked if Gary can do
part of the assessing work with soveone else in the City providing the
credentials. Doug Gruber noted that, yes, Gary can work under someone
else in the coimnunity if that person is accredited.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson to
hire a certified assessor to work with the City on a part -titre basis with
the intention of utilizing the County in the event that a certified
assessor cannot be found at a reasonable price. Motion was seconded by
Fran Fair and carried unanimously. Doug Gruber requested that the
decision be made by the first of October, 1989.
11. Consideration of additional extension to probationary period/residency
requirement - Tony Strands.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that Tony Strande has been unable to
sell his home in Palmer and, therefore, unable to move to the comounity
within the extended probationary period. Wolfsteller recouxrended that
the City extend the probationary period of Tony Strande for another six
months or until he has relocated to the Monticello area and end the
probationary period at the time that he relocates. wolfsteller went on
i
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
to note that Tony is doing an excellent job and that he would by no means
recoimnend at this tune that Tony Strande be dismissed from his position
for not now meeting the residency requirement outlined in his employment
agreement.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran
Fair, to extend Tony Strande's probationary period for another six months
or until he has relocated to the Monticello area and end the probationary
period at the time that he relocates. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of purchasing safety equipment for sanitary sewer
collection maintenance department.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to
authorize purchase of a Neotronics gas meter from Process Systems
Corporation of Minneapolis for a cost of $1,722. Motion carried
unanimously.
13. Consideration of eurchasing 16 -channel, real voice alarn dialer for the
water reservoir and sanitary sewer collection system.
John Simola reported that with the pump house @3 project, the City and
its engineer specified a 16 -channel real voice alarm dialer for
installation at the water reservoir in the industrial park. The dialer
is designed to handle and integrate all of the alarins for the various
wells, booster puups, water reservoirs, and chlorine leak detectors as
well as handling the lift station alarms which were relocated from the
waste water treatment plant. The contractor, Richuar Construction, and
Automatic Systems Cotrpany never delivered the dialer as specified. We
recently learned that the contractor was not going to supply the dialer
alarm system we specified, as it was unavailable at the time of the bid.
As a teuporary solution, the City accepted a 4 -channel real voice alarm
dialer so that we could operate the system. It is our intention to
transfer this 4 -channel dialer to the waste water treatment plant, as
their 2 -channel dialer has failed numerous times and is currently in for
repair. Simola went on to note that he obtained two quotea for the
16 -channel real voice alarm dialer, one from Automatic Systems in the
amount of $5,130, and the second quote from Tri-State pump Control in the
amount of $2,850. Simola recomnnelded that the City Council authorize
purchase of a 16 -channel dialer from Tri-State Puup Control as outlined
in alternative 41 in the amount of $2,850.
After discussion, motion was trade by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair,
to authorize purchase of a 16 -channel dialer from Tri-State Pump Control
as outlined in alternative 11 in the amount of $2,850.
9
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
14. Consideration of acceptance of Meadow Lane in Meadow Oak 4th Addition.
Public works Director Simola reported that the project has been coupleted
in general coinpliance with the requirements of the plans and
specifications, and he recoarended that the City accept the dedication of
Meadow Lane.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to accept
Meadow Lane in the Meadow Oak 4th Addition and take over perpetual
maintenance of the roadway. Motion carried unanimously.
15. Consideration of changing part-time deputy registrar position to
full-tiuve status.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reviewed the circumstances leading toward
the request for establishment of a full-time deputy registrar position.
Wolfstel ler noted that there is no question that the deputy registrar
activities require the equivalent of 1 to 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 full-time
personnel; and that at such time that Diane comes back from maternity
leave, the new employee can devote approximately 1/2 of her time to
deputy registrar activities with the remaining time available for other
clerical duties within City Nall. wolEsteller went on to remind Council
that when Pat was hired as a permanent part-time erployee, it was his
suggestion to start her off on a part-time basis to allow us
flexibility. But she actually replaced a full-time employee. In
WalfsteIler Is opinion, even the addition of Pat as a full-time employee
will not eliminate all of our staffing problems, and that there still irey
be a shortage of personnel for specific duties in the future. Finally,
Wolfsteller reported that based on colaparable worth, a full-time clerical
position such as Pat's would indicate a salary of $8.95 per hour.,
equivalent to what we were paying previously. Pat is currently at $7.50
per hour, and he suggested that this be increased to a minimum of $8.25
per hour immediately, with a final increase to $8.95 after completion of
a six-month probationary period normally associated with full-time
euployeess. In his recounnendation, Wolfsteller noted that Pat Rovich has
done an excellent job as far as the special area of deputy registrar
activities are concerned. He also indicated that Patricia*a skills in
dealing with the public are exceptional. Shirley Anderson asked if the
City might do better financially with two part-time employees rather than
one full-time. Ren Maus noted that in most cases, utilizing part-time
employees is more advantageous. Shirley Anderson also asked if the
deputy registrar function pays for itself. Rick Wolfateller noted that
the funds generated by the deputy registrar activity will pay for the
proposed staffing level and that utilization of two employees at the
deputy registrar desk will allow other city staff that at times inust
support the deputy registrar function to concentrate on city related
duties. warren Smith noted that we should not give short shrift to city
functions by understaffing the deputy registrar position.
After discussion, motion was msde by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to establish the part-time deputy registrar position to
full-tixm status. Motion carried unanimously.
-8
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to
appoint Patricia Kovich to the position of deputy registrar clerk with a
starting salary of $8.25 per hour. Motion carried unanimously.
16. Consideration of agreeirent with Yonak Landfill for solid waste disposal.
John Simola noted that with our new contract with Corrow Sanitation, the
City will be paying 100 percent of the landfill for solid waste
processing facility fees. Because of this, Corrow Sanitation is
restricted from picking up any conarercial or industrial garbage on the
Monday and Thursday pickup days for Monticello. At this time, it seems
most appropriate to pay the landfill or processing facility directly an a
monthly basis rather than pay Corrow, to pay the landfill. He went on to
note that because of the new reporting capabilities, the City will be
able to monitor that solid waste which comes from the City of Monticello
which, therefore, provides us with the capabilities of establishing an
enforceable contract. Simola noted that the agreement with Yonak will
set out fees, reporting parameters, and insurance requirements. The fees
will be guaranteed for a period of six months, not including taxes or
surcharges imposed by state, county, or local ordinances.
After discussion, motion was wade by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan
Blonigen, to authorize City staff to prepare an agreeirent with Yonak
Landfill for the deposition of solid waste from the City of Monticello.
Motion carried unanimously.
17. Consideration of upgrading well A1.
John Simola reported that City Council had authorized OSM to make the
necessary calculations and recrnmnendations for a replacement pump for
well !1 which would allow the well to be used in conjunction with the new
water reservoir. Based upon the design parameters prepared by OSM, a
quote has been received from E.H. Renner a Sons of Elk River to install
the necessary equipment for the sum of $5,884. Simola recoimnended that
the City authorize replacement of the puirp for well !1 from E.H. Renner b
Sons for a cost of $5,884, as this represented the only practical
alternative for use of well #1 in conjunction with the new water
reservoir. Ken Maus asked how old the pwp is that is being replaced.
John noted that the pump was installed in 1964.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to
authorize replacement of the pump for well 81 from E.H. Renner b Sons for
a cost of $5,884. Motion carried unanimously.
16. Consideration of change order 01 for Project 88-05 - 800,000 gallon
standpipe.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to approve change order t1 for a credit of $4,328 and to
authorize staff to advertise locally for bids to complete the grading,
seeding, and landscaping at the tank site. Motion carried unanimously.
10 9
Council Minutes - 8/14/89
19. Consideration of setting a special meeting for goals and objectives -
1990 budget.
It was the consensus of the Council to set a special meeting for Tuesday,
August 22, at 8:00 a.m. for the purpose of discussing goals and
objectives for the 1990 budget.
20. Consideration of contribution to Minnesota Rural Water Association and
National Rural Water Association for Operation Impact.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to contribute
$400 toward the lobbying efforts on behalf of the City conducted by the
Minnesota Rural Water Association and National Rural Water Association
for Operation Impact. Motion carried unanimously.
21. Consideration of approval of preliminary application for state funding of
a portion of the Robert Leathers Play Structure project.
---------------
Representatives Crain the ?inewood Elementary School ?layground Co mnittee
sub,nittel r.;Teir r�P+t fpr r.iey pact Lcipatipn Ln development of a grant
application. The need for the addLtional funding stens from the
playground cannittee' 4ilre to :leve 1pn a han&ai, ar,,;N t;iblt :;t to Cl:a r+
+hi:h .+L11 .add aoor3xLln_jteil $2D,000 to the cost of the nrLginal
AP. Cyr .l1gr•.Iy.i i,. I, :n a II t•,a,i +a3 -o-1-1e '.iy "tan lair ant id:: mde,1 by ;hit 1•�y
andarson to direct City it:,iff to wnr< 4L' -;i Ii-! layyrn:uut Ln
,1.?v:ann,n•,p; :iU .f '.Ir ilr „y..y :,":�:lyinh:�ndnting Pooling
necessary to finance the develnainent of the Rohert Leathers ?laygroond
Stnlct,ur- at ?lneweNarl Elenantary School. voting in favor: Ren -taus,
Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
Motion carried.
22. K -Mart update.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that site plan related
L3sues are la,:ing stu,iled by the City's Consulting Planner and the City
:.ngi,vvtr I,,i if ^,a�lncil. ryvi,...,� it t)•
went on to Inform nunctl that. TAnaaln ^.ul�ainL?n in C[nincing 'tty
expenses associated with preliminary design work on the extension of
utilities associated with the development of the proposed 87,000 square
foot K -mart facility.
There bring no further dLacuasbin, the neeting was .adjourned.
L9
Jaf 0' Nci L L
Aoainr..�nt 4:1inLpintratnr
l
11 9
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
Review preliminary Transportation Management Plan. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee IMTRAC) has been working
towards development of a management plan which outlines the method and
cost of delivering public transportation services to the citizens of
Monticello. At this point in the process, MTPkC is requesting guidance
from Council regarding a number of issues prior to finalization of the
management plan.
On Monday, MTRAC plans on reviewing the narrative portion of the plan and
budget information in detail with Council. Significant issues will be
addressed as the program is described. Significant issues to be thinking
about include further definition of the hours of service. Also,
determining whether to lease or purchase the bus is a thorny issue that
has not been resolved.
The draft copy of the narrative portion of the management plan assumes
that the transportetion system will be operated by Hoglund Transportation
12 hours per day, 5 days per week. This service level is not cut in
stone, as you will note in the budget documentation that the State is not
able to finance 60 percent of the cost associated with a 12 hour per day
service level. The State is able, however, to finance 60 percent of the
service level associated with an 8 hour per day service. The State has
limited its contribution to the City of Monticello program to $36,000,
which represents 60 percent of a program with an operation cost of
$60,000. Therefore, 12 hour per day service to only possible if
additional funds can be found to close the funding gap. The attached
Table 1 describes the funding gap associated with six basic programs.
Each program represents a different combination of hours of service and
bus lease vs. bus purchase option. The six programs can be broken into
two categories, including a purchase option or lease option. Those two
categories are then further broken down into 12 hour per day service,
10 hour per day service, and 8 hour per day service. Please review
Table 1 for the detail. Following Table 1 is a budget report associated
with each of the six options, which you need not review in detail.
During our discussion, I plan on reviewing the basic elements
contributing to the budget.
Again, Council is asked to make comments on the preliminary irenagement
plan. No formal action is requested at the next meeting. Council
comments will be incorporated into final materials which will be coirpfled
and presented to Council at a subsequent meeting for final approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Table 1, summary of transportation service options/coati Projected
budgets for 8, 10, and 12 hour per day service utilizing bus lease or bus
purchase optional Preliminary draft of narrative version of management
plant Copy of picture of proposed bus.
V�\SIT yti A�lt�l�lil:�il
(Assumes Council adopts 12 hour/day service)
City of Monticello
Public Transit Program 1989-1990
A. Organization
The transit system is organized and monitored by the City of
Monticello under a contractual arrangement with Hoglund Transportation
of Monticello. The Monticello Public Transit Program will be operated
through 1990 as a "demonstration project." Competitive bidding for
the bus service delivery contract will not be conducted prior to
initiation of the demonstration project. It is anticipated that the
1991 management plan, .contract bid specifications, and budget will be
based on the service demand and delivery experience gathered during
the demonstration period. If as a result of the demonstration project
it is found that utilization of a private contractor is in the best
interest of the Monticello Transit Program, selection of the service
provider for budget year 1991 will be the result of a formal bidding
process and in keeping with state requirements.
Hoglund Transportation owns the transit system and is responsible for
the day to day operation of the transit program. Gordy Hoglund, owner
of the Hoglund Transportation is responsible for the day to day
management and operation of the transit system.
The owner/operator of Hoglund Transportation is responsible for
hiring, establishing wages, and terminating all employees working in
conjunction with the Monticello Transit Program.
The City of Monticello's Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, will
represent the applicant in negotiating an assistance contract with the
state.
Hoglund Transportation currently provides bus service to the
Monticello School District and to other organizations. The existing
bus company staff consists of drivers and
dispatchers. of the drivers wor full-time, -w a work
part-time. Two employees will be added to the existing HogTun3
Transportation staff to service the contract with the City of
Monticello. Of the staff added, one will be a full-time driver and
one will be part-time. it is expected that each part-time driver will
work four hours per week.
Hoglund Transportation is responsible for filing required reports to
the Transportation Regulation Board.
B. PROJWT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOALS: The main goal for 1990 is to establish a client base through
delivery of an efficient and effective transportation
service.
9
Management Plan
Page 2
1. Cost Efficiency
Establish service level designed to encourage ridership while
maintaining reasonable operating costs through efficient use of
employees and vehicles.
1990 Estimated miles per primary vehicle: 30,000
Estimated miles per secondary vehicle: 10,000
1990 Cost per mile: $2.32
1990 Hours per employee: 1515
2. Service Effectiveness
Target elderly and handicapped markets with a variety of
marketing campaigns to attract initial ridership. Establish user
oriented system featuring a minimal call ahead requirement of one
hour.
Achieve a ratio of .75 passengers per mile.
1
3. Cost Effectiveness
Make efficent use of transit dollars by establishing cost per
passenger at $3.48.
Establish revenue to cost ratio of .19
C. LEVELS OF SERVICE
1. Service Area and Population
The Monticello Public Transit Program is intended to service the
population residing within the city of Monticello, the areas
immediately adjacent to the city known as the Orderly Annexation
area, and a portion of Big Lake Township which is a populated
area lying adjacent to Monticello across the Mississippi River.
The population of the city of Monticello is estimated at 4,500.
The Orderly Annexation Area is estimated to be 2,600. No
population estimates are available for the portion of Big Lake
Township that will receive bus service. These areas are outlined
on Exhibit A.
Transportation to the Big Lake Nutrition Center from points in
Monticello will be provided once a day during the noon hours. No
other transportation outside the areas mentioned is anticipated.
Management Plan
Page 3
Of primary importance is establishirent of a transportation
service level that will attract citizen of Monticello ridership,
as the City of Monticello is the primary source of local revenue
for this program. Therefore, extension of transportation service
to areas outside the Monticello city limits will be phased in as
the service demand and concurrent impact on service delivery
becomes better understood. Extension of service level beyond
city limits will be considered by the City Council when it can be
demonstrated that service expansion will not diminish capability
of the system to offer desirable service level to Monticello
citizens. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the City
portion of the cost to deliver service to the outlying areas can
be recovered through a combination of user fees and through added
cost efficiency created by new ridership. At such time that the
bus service is expanded into outlying areas, the City Council of
Monticello will establish bus fares that reflect the added cost
of sevicing outlying areas that do not contribute to the local
share revenue generated by taxation.
2. Type of Service to be Operated
The City will administer through contract a "dial a ride" service
which will feature a minimuto one hour call ahead requirement.
3. Days of Operation
The City will be providing 3060 hours of service in budget year
1990, which is equal to 12 hour a day service, five days per
week, not including holidays. At this time, 12 hour a day
service is planned for Monday through Friday. Initially, days of
operation do not include Saturday and Sunday. However, days and
hours of operation may be adjusted to reflect service demand
experienced. For instance, if it does not appear cost
justifiable to operate on Tuesday between 4:00 and 8:00 PM, those
hours might be transferred to Saturday or Sunday morning. Sunday
service might also be possible in the event that additional
funding becomes available or in the event that an organization or
individual would volunteer to drive the bus on Sunday mornings.
4. Hours of Operation
Service will be provided between the hours of 8:00 AM and
8:00 PM.
0
Management Plan
Page 4
D. PARES
The proposed fare structure calls for a base fare of $1.00 per one-way
ride. This fare will apply to all city of Monticello riders including
elderly, children, and able bodied adults. Reduced fares will be
available to all potential users of the system through purchase of
ticket books. Reduced fares can be obtained when tickets are bought
in bulk through ticket books per the following table:
Base rate: $1.00
10 ride ticket book $ 7.50
50 ride ticket book $25.00 ($.50 ride)
Bus drivers will not sell ticket books or make change for individuals
paying the base fare.
Ticket books will be sold at a variety of local establishments,
including local retail stores, City Ball, Public Library, Senior
Center, School District, etc.
Pare structure for outlying areas shall be established by the City
Council at a later date.
E. MARKETING
1. The initial thrust of the marketing effort will be focused on the
primary users of the system, which is expected to be the elderly
and handicapped. Approximately 750 senior citizens reside within
the city of Monticello, of which a significant portion
participate in programa offered by the local senior citizens
center. This center will be a major trip destination point and
will oleo be the primary distribution point for marketing
information regarding the program. Successful development of the
senior market will occur if the senior center resources are
properly used in promoting the program.
The remainder of the transit market is difficult to identify. It
is expected that some children will utilize the system in
conjunction with after school and summer recreation activities.
Marketing efforts will be trade to comnnunicate the service to this
segment of the population through cooperative effort with the
school district.
Twenty percent of the local households are considered to be "low
income" as defined by the State of Minnesota Department of Trade
and Economic Development. This represents approximately 740
households within the city of Monticello. A portion of these
households tray utilize the bus transportation program for
economic reasons. An additional focus of the marketing effort
0
Management Plan
Page 5
will include comminicating the program to this group through
standard means and through organizations that have frequent
contact with this segment of the population. Local social
services such as the food shelf, the "WIC" program, and Wright
County Social Services and local churches will be utilized as the
medium by which the program can be marketed to this special
group.
2. MARREfING CONCEPT
Standard methods for prorating the transportation system will be
utilized. The City of Monticello will strive toward development
of an efficient marketing program by utilizing many of the
techniques now in place in other communities. Such techniques
may include but not be limited to the following:
Of primary importance in development of an advertising campaign
is the proper utilization of the local newspaper. A series of
advertisements will be developed prior to the initiation of the
system.
Development of information brochures describing the transportaton
bus service. Brochures to be distributed to various
organizations for further distribution.
Development of an attractive image by maintaining a clean and
attractive bus. Service image will focus on providing "coach"
service rather than bus service.
Clean and efficient operation of the transportation service will
be goals which will allow the system to market itself through
word of mouth advertising.
Demonstration rides and tours will be given in conjunction with a
moving "open house." It is expected that presentations will be
given to numerous organizations for the purpose of describing the
program and allowing people to get a "hands on" feel for the
system and its potential. It is hoped that charitable
organizations and the business community will be impressed with
the program to the extent that they will purchase blocks of
tickets for later distribution to the elderly and the needy.
Local schools and the local library will be asked to participate
in marketing availability of service to youngsters.
]. Marketing Plan Cost/Benefit
The proposed marketing plan is relatively inexpensive in terms of
cost of advertising and suppliesr however, it does require
considerable effort in terms of man-hours. Much of the marketing
effort requires personal contact and one-to-one advocacy which is
likely to reap significant rewards in terms of ridership.
Fortunately, volunteers and mon-hours are available to
sufficiently market the service to groups and service O
organizations. i /
Management Plan
Page 6
P. COORDINATION WITH EXISTIIM TRANSIT OPERATIONS
The degree in which this program will be coordinated with the
Sherburne County Heartland Express is not well understood at this
point. It is likely that there will be occasions when a citizen of
Monticello could be transferred to a Sherburne County system vehicle
for transport to points in Sherburne County. This type of occurrence
might be rather rare. By the same token, there may be Sherburne
County residents that might wish to be transported to a drop off point
in the Monticello transit area, with the Monticello system then
transporting the individual to a specific point in the City.
The Monticello Transit Program will be coordinated with an existing
volunteer driver transportation program originating from Wright County
to the extent that the new local service will relieve some of the
local driving duties of the volunteers. This will allow the volunteer
resources to be used for other longer distance driving duties such as
transporting individuals to metro locations and back:
G. EXPENSE CONTRACTS
The City of Monticello will contract with Hoglund Transportation for
the 1989 through 1990 transportation service. The contract concept
includes a "cost plus" concept whereby Hoglund passes through direct
costs to operate the system and charges an additional flat fee $5,000.
C
7--61,- %.
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OPTIONS/COST AUGUST 24, 1989
FUNDING GAP CONSISTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE FUNDING GAP
AND 60% OF PROJECTED BUDGET - HOW SHOULD GAP BE ADDRESSED? REDUCED SERVICE
OR ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES.
FIRST YEAR COST INCLUDING CAPITAL EQUIPMENT/OEPRECIATION
I PURCHASE OPTION A I LEASE OPTION S
I I
(OPER. OPER. CAPITAL/ POTENTIALIOPER. OPER. CAPITAL/ POTENTIAL
SERVICE 100ST FUNDING DEPCTN/ TOTAL (COST FUNDING DEPCTN/ TOTAL
LEVEL I GAP OPERATION COST I GAP OPER. COST
_I
TWELVE
HOUR 1$11.000 $1,904 $10,780 $23,684 1$11,000 $9,604 $280 $20,884
I I
l TEN 1$10,798 $0 $10,780 $21,518 1$12,300 $3,854 $280 $16,434
1 , HOUR I I
I 1
3EIGHT 1 $9,590 $0 $10,780 $20.310 1$12.880 $0 $280 $13,160
. HOUR 1
I I
SECOND YEAR COST INCLUDING CAPITAL EOUIPMENT/DEPRECIATION
I PURCHASE OPTION I LEASE OPTION
(OPER. OPER. CAPITAL/ POTENTIALIOPER. OPER. CAPITAL/ POTENTIAL
SERVICE ICOST FUNDING DEPCTN/ TOTAL (COST FUNDING DEPCTN/ TOTAL
LEVEL I GAP OPERATION COST I GAP OPER. COST
_I
TWELVE I I
HOUR 1$11,000 $1,904 $1.797 $14,701 1$11,000 $9,604 $47 $20,651
1 1
TEN 1$10,798 $0 $1.797 $12.595 1$12,300 $3,854 $47 $16,201
HOUR 1 I
1 I
EIGHT 1 $9.590 $0 $1,797 $11,381 1$12,880 $0 $47 $12.927
HOUR
0
I
Oman
Everything You Expect From The Leader.
AI
i�, /a. b"7
TRANSPORTAT ION SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - C I TY PURCHASES VEH ICLE
SY'STBli c_:MENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
NUMBER OF BUSES
1
TWENTY FIVE PASSENGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
30.000
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE—WAY TRIPS
20.000
ANNUAL SYSTEM HOURS
3.060
12
HOURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20%
FRINGE BENE PT MULT
10$
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE— MATERIALS
$C.08
MAiNT/REPAIR/MILE — LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
20.000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
10,000
M I NUTES/MONTH
833
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
REMAINING MINUTES
773
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$178.67
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0. 11
MINUTES ON PHCNE/CLAY
40.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HCUR
3.27
COST PER MILE FUEL/LUG
$0. 12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0. 65
OPER. COST
I C I TY BUDGET NOTES
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES
1
1
1010 ADMIN, MA14AGEMENT
$7,500
1 $3.780
(10% ASSISTANT ADMIN/10$)
$0
1 $3.000
(TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
7020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
• $15.600
( $0
($7.50.2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
$7,350
1 $0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2,400
1 $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40.000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0
I $3,308
(108 CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
$0
1 $0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS F7
' $3, 120
1 $1,418
(20$ OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
$735
1 $0
TOTAL
$36,705
I
1$11.505
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
1
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
$0
1 $0
1088 TARIFFS 6 TRAFFIC
$0
I $1,000
(20,000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
$0
1 $0
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200
I $0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
$0
1 $0
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200
1 $50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES 6 RENTALS
$0
1 $0
1130 UTILITIES
$2. 144
I $0
(BRIDGEWATER MOBILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES
$0
1 $0
TOTAL
$2.544
1 $1.050
VEH I CLE CHARGES
I
1
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS
• $3,600
1 $0
(DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
1180 MAINT/REPAIR MATERIAL
• $2,400
1 $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1185 CONTRACT SERVICE LBR
$0
1 $0
A
TRANSPORTATiON SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - CITY PURCHASES VEHICLE
SYSTEM ELEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
NUMBER OF BUSES
1
TWENTY FIVE PA.Y--LAGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
27,000
REDUCED 10% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE-WAY TRIPS
18,000
REDUCED 10% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM HOURS
2,500 10
HCURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20%
FRINGE BENE PT MJLT
10%
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE- MATERIALS
$0.06
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE - LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
18,000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
9,000
MINUTES/MONTH
750
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
REMAINING MINUTES
690
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$162.00
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0.11
MINUTES ON PHONE/DAY
36.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HOUR
3.60
COST PER MILE FUEL/LUB
$0.12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0.65
0PER.COSTICITY BUDGET NOTES
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES
I
1
1010 ADMIN. MANAGEMENT
$7,500 1 $3.780
(10% ASSISTANT ADMIN/10%)
$0 I $3.000
(TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
1020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
• $15.600 I $0
($7.50.2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
• $3.150 1 $0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2.160 I $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40.000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0 1 $3,308
(10% CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
f0 I $0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS FT
• $3.120 I $1,418
(20% OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
$315 I $0
TOTAL
I
$31,845 1$11.505
I
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
$O I $0
1088 TARIFFS S TRAFFIC
$0 1 $1,000
(20,000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
$0 I $0
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200 1 $0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
$0 I f0
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200 I $50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES b RENTALS
f0 I $0
1130 UTILITIES
• $1.944 I $0
(BRIDGEWATER M08ILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES
f0 1 $0
TOTAL
$2.344 1 $1.050
I
VEHICLE CHARGES
I
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS
$3.240 ( $0
(DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
1180 MAINT/REPAIR MATERIAL
$2.160 I $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1185 CONTRACT SERVICE LBR
f0 1 $0
S.
ov
1 190 T I RES
1195 OTHER CHARGES
TOTAL
OPERATIONS CHARGES
1230 PURCHASE OF SERVICE
1238 DEPRECIATION
1240 MILEAGE REIM3URSEMENT
1243 REPAIR/MAINT OTHER PROP
1246 LEASES AND RENTALS
TOTAL
INSURANCE CHARGES
1280 PUB LIAR/PROP OAMAGE/VEH
1310 PUB LIAB/PROP DAMAGE/0TH
TOTAL
TAXES AND FEES
1350 VEHICLE REG/PERMIT
1360 FED FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
1370 STATE FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
•1380 OTHER TAXES/FEES
TOTAL
1426 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
OPERATING REVENUES
0000 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS
1440 PASSENGER FARES
1472 CONTRACT REVENUES
1478 REVENUES -OTHER
1490 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
0000 CITY OF MONTICELLO
0000 FUNDING GAP
1505 TOTAL REVENUES NEEDED
CAPITAL EXPENSES
1500 VEHICLE
1602 LIFT.RAMP ETC
1604 RADIO EOUIPMENT
1606 FAREBOX
1610 OTHER CAPITAL EXPENSES
1585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
1617 FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
1519 OTHER FIN ASSIST FOR CAP EQUIP
1700 HEARTLAND EXPRESS MARKETING
$0 1
$0
( INCLUDED IN MAINT COST)
$0 1
$0
I
$150
-----1--
$5,400
I
$0
------------------
I
$0 1$41,339
$0 ( FED AND STATE
(HOUGLAND OPERATIONS COST -10$)
$0 1
$0
244
$0
$0
60%STATE FUNDS CA
$200
SO
(MISC)
$1 .200 I
$0
(27 PASS BUS/GARAGE SPACE)
.--.
$0
(SNOW PLOW)
1
$1,600 1$41.339
I
I
0 1 $2.350
$0 1
$0
$0 1 $2.350
I
I
$150
$0
$0 I
$0
$0 (
I
$0 ( FED AND STATE
I
$150 I
$0 COST/M
I
$41,339 1$56.
244
I
IPERCENT
1
$33,746 I
60%STATE FUNDS CA
$11.700 1
21$
$0 1
0%
$0 1
0%
$0 1
0%
$10,798 I
19%C ITY CONTRIBUT
$0
0%
$56.244 1
45000 ICITY TOTAL FIRST
1CAPITAL YEAR EXPENSE
$900 1EXPENSE FOR CITY IF
$300 1 PLUS C 1 TY FUNDS GAP
$0 OPECTN
1
$46,200 1$10,780 $21,578
$36.960 I
I
$2.000 I
TAX COMBINED)
ILE - $2.08 '
PPED AT $36.000
ION BASED ON $60,000
v
A3
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - CITY PURCHASES VEHICLE
SYSTEM ELEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
,a:� s 5 �� � •.
1
NUMBER OF BUSES
1
TWENTY FIVE PASSENGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
25,500
REDUCED 15% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE-WAY TRIPS
17,000
REDUCED 15% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM HCUF".,
2,000
8.00 HOURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20$
FRINGE BENE PT MULT
10%
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE- MATERIALS
$0.08
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE - LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
17,000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
8,500
MINUTES/MONTH
708
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
REMAINING MINUTES
648
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$153.67
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0.11
MINUTES ON PHONE/DAY
34.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HOUR
4.25
COST PER MILE FUEL/LUB
$0.12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0.65
OPER.COSTICITY BUDGET NOTES
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES ��
1
1010 ADMIN, MANAGEMENT
$7,500 1
$3.780
(10$ ASSISTANT ADMIN/10$)
$0 1
$3,000
TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
1020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
• $15.600 1
$0
($7.50.2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
($600)1
$0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2,040 1
$0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40.000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0 1
$3,308
(10$ CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
$0 1
$0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS FT
• $3.120 I
$1.418
(20% OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
($60)1
$0
TOTAL
$27,600 1$11,505
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
I
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
$0 1
$0
1088 TARIFFS & TRAFFIC
$0 1
$1.000
(20.000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
SO 1
$O
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200 1
$0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
$0 1
$0
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200 1
$50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES S RENTALS
$0 1
$0
1130 UTILITIES
• $1.844 1
$0
(BRIDGEWATER MOBILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES
$0 1
$0
----------
TOTAL
—1—
$2,244 I
$1,050
---------- - -------
VEHICLE CHARGES
I
I
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS
' $3,060 1
$0
(DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
$2.040 I
$0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
SERVICE LBR
$0 1
$0
s
ov-
1190 TIRES
1195 OTHER CHARGES
TOTAL
OPERATIONS CHARGES
1230 PURCHASE OF SERVICE
1236 DEPRECIATION
1240 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
1243 REPA I R/MA I NT OTHER PROP
1245 LEASES AND RENTALS
1248 OTHER OPER CHARGES
TOTAL
INSURANCE CHARGES
1290 PUB L1AB/PROP DAMAGE/VEH
1310 PUB L IAB/PROP DAMAGE/0TH
TOTAL
TAXES AND FEES
1350 VEHICLE REG/PERMIT
1350 FED FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
1370 STATE FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
,1380 OTHER TAXES/FEES
TOTAL
1426 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
OPERATING REVENUES
$0 1 $0
$0 I $0
-- I --
$5 100 I $0 SO
$0 IS35, 694
50 1 $0
$0 1 $0
$200 $0
$1,200 I $0
$200 I $0
1
$1,600 1$36,594
1
1
0 1 $2.350
$0 1 $0
1
$0 1 $2,350
1
1
$150 1 $0
$0 1 $0
$0 1 $0
$150 1 $0
1----
$36.694 1$51,599
I
I PERCENT
I
(INCLUDED IN MAINT COST)
(HOUGLAND OPERATIONS COST+10%)
(MISC)
(27 PASS BUS/GARAGE SPACE)
(SNOW PLOW)
(FED AND STATE TAX COMBINED)
COST/MILE -- $2.02
0000 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS
$30.959
60%STATE FUNDS CAPPED AT $36.000
1440 PASSENGER FARES
$11,050
21%
1472 CONTRACT REVENUES
$0 I
0%
1478 REVENUES -OTHER
$0 I
0%
1490 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
$0
0%
0000 CITY OF MONTICELLO
$9,590
19%CITY CONTRIBUTION BASED ON $60.000
0000 FUNDING GAP
$0 I
0%
1505 TOTAL REVENUES NEEDED $51,599
CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
1600 VEDA ICLE
45000 IC 1 TY TOTAL F 1 RST
1602 LIFT,RAMP ETC
(CAPITAL YEAR EXPENSE
1604 RAID 10 EQUIPMENT
$900 (EXPENSE FOR CITY IF
1606 FAREBOX
$300 PLUS CITY FUNDS GAP
1610OTHER CAP ITALEXPENSES
$O IDPECTN
1585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
$46,200 1$10.780 $20,370
1617 FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
$36,960 1
1619 OTHER FIN ASSIST FOR CAP EQUIP
I
1700 HEARTLAND EXPRESS MARKETING
52,000 1
6 0
m
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - CITY LEASES VEHICLE
SYSTEM ELEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
NUMBER OF BUSES
i TWENTY FIVE PASSENGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
30,000
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE-WAY TRIPS
20,000
ANNUAL SYSTEM HOURS
3,060 12 HOURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20%
FRINGE BENE PT MULT
10%
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE- MATERIALS
$0.08
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE - LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
20.000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
10.000
MINUTES/MONTH
833
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
REIMAINING MINUTES
773
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$178.67
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0.11
MINUTES ON PHONE/DAY
40.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HOUR
3.27
• COST PER MILE FUEL/LUB
$0.12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0.65
OPER.COSTICITY BUDGET NOTES
I
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES
I
1
1010 ADMIN, MANAGEMENT
$5,000 1 $3,780
(10% ASSISTANT ADMIN/10%)
$0 1 $3.000
(TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
1020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
• $15,600 1 $0
($7.50*2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
• $7,350 I $0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2.400 1 $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0 1 $3,308
(10% CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
$0 1 $0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS FT
• $3.120 1 $1,418
(20$ OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
$735 $0
TOTAL
I
$34,205 1$11.505
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
1
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
$0 1 $0
1088 TARIFFS & TRAFFIC
$0 1 $1.000
(20,000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
$0 1 $0
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200 1 $0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
$0 I $0
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200 1 $50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES & RENTALS
$0 1 $0
1130 UTILITIES
$2.144 I $0
(BRIDGEWATER MOBILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES
$0 1 $0
TOTAL
I
$2,544 I $1.050
I
VEHICLE CHARGES
I
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS
' $3.600 I $0
(DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
1180 MAINT/REPAIR MATERIAL
• $2,400 I $0
(CNE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1185 CCNTRACT SERVICE L13R
$0 1 $0
1190 TIRES
$0 1
$0 (INCLUDED IN MAINT COST)
1195 OTHER CHARGES
$0 1
$0
TOTAL
I
$6.000 1
$0
OPERATIONS CHARGES
I
$0 1DPECTN
1230 PURCHASE OF SERVICE
$0 1$57,049 (HOUGLAND OPERATIONS COST -10%)
1238 DEPRECIATION
$0 1
$0
1240 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
$0 1
$0
1243 REPAIR/MA1NT OTHER PROP
$200
$0 (MISC)
1246 LEASES AND RENTALS
$10,500 1
$0 (27 PASS BUS/GARAGE SPACE)
1248 OTHER OPER CHARGES
$200 1
$0 (SNOW PLOW)
TOTAL
I
$10.900 1$57,049
INSURANCE CHARGES
1
1
1280 PUB LIAB/PROP DAMAGENEH
2350 1
$0
1310 PUB LIAR/PROP DAMAGE/OTH
$0 1
$0
TOTAL
I
$2,350 1
$0
TAXES AND FEES
1
1350 VEHICLE REG/PERMIT
$150 1
$0
1360 FED FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
$900 1
$0
•1370 STATE FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
• $0 1
$0 (FED AND STATE TAS( COMBINED)
1380 OTHER TAXES/FEES
1
TOTAL
$1.050 1
$0 COST/MILE $2.32
1426 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
$57,049 1$69.604
OPERATING REVENUES
1PERCENT
0000 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS
I
$36,000 1
52%STATE FUNDS CAPPED AT $36,000
1440 PASSENGER FARES
$13.000 1
19%
1472 CCNTRACT REVENUES
$0 1
0%
1478 REVENUES -OTHER
$0 1
0%
1490 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
$0 1
0%
0000 CITY OF MCNTICELLO
$11,000 1
16%CI7Y CONTRIBUTION BASED ON $60.000
0000 FUNDING GAP
$9.604 1
14%
1505 TOTAL REVENUES NEEDED $69.604 1
CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
1600 VEHICLE
0 1CITY TOTAL FIRST
1602 L1FT,RAMP ETC
1CAPITAL YEAR EXPENSE
1604 RADIO EQUIPMENT
$900 1EXPENSE FOR CITY IF
1606 FAREBOX
$300 1PLUS CITY FUNDS GAP
1610 OTHER CAPITAL EXPENSES
$0 1DPECTN
1585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
$1,200 1 $280 $20,884
1617 FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
$960 1
1619 OTHER FIN ASSIST FOR CAP EQUIP
1700 HEARTLAND EXPRESS MARKETING $2,000 1
A 0
B- Z
t?d5 IC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - CITY LEASES VEHICLE
SYSTEM ELEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
NUMBER OF BUSES
1
TWENTY FIVE PASSENGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
27,000
REDUCED 10$ FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE -NAY TRIPS
18.000
REDUCED 10$ FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM HOURS
2,500 10.00
HOURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20%
FRINGE BENE PT MULT
10%
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE- MATERIALS
$0.08
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE - LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
18.000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
9,000
MINUTES/MONTH
750
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
REMAINING MINUTES
690
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$162.00
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0.11
MINUTES ON PHONE/DAY
36.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HOUR
3.60
COST PER MILE FUEL/LUB
$0.12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0.65
OPER.COSTICITY BUDGET NOTES
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES
I
1
1010 ADMIN, MANAGEMENT
$5,000 I $3.780
(10% ASSISTANT ADMIN/10$)
$0 I $3.000
(TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
1020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
• $15,600 I $0
($7.50.2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
` $3.150 1 $0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2.150 1 $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0 I $3.308
(10% CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
$0 1 $0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS FT
" $3,120 1 $1,418
(20% OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
$315 I $0
TOTAL
$29.345 1$11.505
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
I
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
$0 1 $0
1088 TARIFFS 6 TRAFFIC
$0 1 $1.000
(20.000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
$0 1 $0
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200 1 $0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
$0 1 $0
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200 1 $50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES b RENTALS
$0 1 $0
1130 UTILITIES
' $1,944 I $0
(BRIDGEWATER MOBILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES
$0 1 $0
TOTAL
I
$2.344 1 $1,050
CVEHICLE
CHARGES
I
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS
• $3.240 1 $0
(DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
1180 MAINT/REPAIR MATERIAL
• $2.160 1 $0
(CNE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40,000)
1185 CONTRACT SERVICE LBR
$0 I $0
3
O
1190 TIRES
$0 1
$0 (INCLUDED IN MAINT COST)
1195 OTHER CHARGES
$0 1
$0
TOTAL
$5.400 1
$0
OPERATIONS CHARGES
I
1
$0 1DPECTN
1230 PURCHASE OF SERVICE
$0 1$51,299
(HCUGLAND OPERATIONS COST -10%)
1238 DEPRECIATION
$0 1
$0
1240 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
$0 1
$0
1243 REPAIR/MAINT OTHER PROP
$200 1
$0 (M1SC)
1246 LEASES AND RENTALS
$10,500 1
$0 (27 PASS BUS/GARAGE SPACE)
1248 OTHER OPER CHARGES
$200 1
$0 (SNOW PLOW)
TOTAL
I
$10.900 1$51,299
INSURANCE CHARGES
I
1
1280 PUB LIAR/PROP DAMAGE/VEH
2350 1
$0
1310 PUB LIAR/PROP DAMAGE/OTH
$0 1
$0
TOTAL
$2,350 1
$0
TAXES AND FEES
I
1
1350 VEHICLE REG/PERMIT
$150 1
$0
1360 FED FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
$810 I
$0
1370 STATE FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
' $0 1
$0 (FED AND STATE TAX COMBINED)
•1380 OTHER TAXES/FEES
1
TOTAL
I
$960 1
$0 COST/MILE --- $2.36
1426 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
I
$51,299 1$63,854
OPERATING REVENUES
1
1PERCENT
0000 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS
I
$36,000 1
56%STATE FUNDS CAPPED AT $36.000
1440 PASSENGER FARES
$11.700 1
18%
1472 CONTRACT REVENUES
$0 1
0%
1478 REVENUES -OTHER
$0 1
0%
1490 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
$0 1
0%
0000 CITY OF MONTICELLO
$12,300 1
19%CITY CONTRIBUTION BASED ON $60,000
0000 FUNDING GAP
$3.854 1
6%
1505 TOTAL REVENUES NEEDED $63,854
CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
1600 VEHICLE
0 1CITY TOTAL FIRST
1602 LIFT.RAMP ETC
1CAPITAL YEAR EXPENSE
1604 RADIO EQUIPMENT
$900 1EXPE'NSE FOR CITY IF
1606 FAREBOX
$300 1PLUS CITY FUNDS GAP
1610 OTHER CAPITAL EXPENSES
$0 1DPECTN
1585 IOIAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
1
$1,200 1 $280 $15.434
1617 FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
$960 1
1619 OTHER FIN ASSIST FOR CAP EQUIP
1700 HEARTLAND EXPRESS MARKETING $2.000
Y 0
1
i3 3
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BUDGET MODEL - CITY LEASES VEHICLE
SYSTEM ELEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Uw) Situ ;.
NUMBER OF BUSES
1
TWENTY FIVE PASSENGER BUS
ANNUAL SYSTEM MILES
25,500
REDUCED 15% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM ONE-WAY TRIPS
17,000
REDUCED 15% FROM 12 HOUR SERVICE
ANNUAL SYSTEM HOURS
2.000 8.00
HOURS PER DAY/5 DAYS PER WEEK
HOURLY DRIVER WAGE
$7.50
FRINGE BENE FT MULTIPLIER
20%
FRINGE BENE PT MJLT
10%
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE- MATERIALS
$O.Od
MAINT/REPAIR/MILE - LABOR
$0.08
ANNUAL MOBILE TELEPHONE CALLS
17,000
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CALL
0.50
(30 SECONDS)
ANNUAL TELEPHONE MINUTES
8.500
MINUTES/MONTH
708
COST FIRST 60 MINUTES/MONTH
$24
R64AiNING MINUTES
646
CHARGE/MINUTE OVER 60 MINUTES
$0.20
TELEPHONE COST/MONTH
$153.67
TELEPHONE COST/CALL
0.11
MINUTES ON PHONE/DAY
34.00
MINUTES ON PHONE/HOUR
4.25
COST PER MILE FUEL/LUB
$0.12
COST/MILE FUEL LUB TAX
$0.03
EXPECTED AVERAGE FARE
$0.65
OPER.COSTICITY BUDGET NOTES
PERSONNEL SERVICES/WAGES
I
1
1010 ADMIN, MANAGEMENT
$5.000 1 $3,780
(10% ASSISTANT sCM_:,•:Ca)
$0 1 $3.000
(TICKET SALES/MONITOR SERVICE.)
1020 OPERATOR'S WAGES FT
$15,600 I $0
($7.50.2080 HOURS)
OPERATOR'S WAGES PT
' EO 1 $0
($7.5• REMAINING HOURS)
1030 MAINTENANCE/REPAIR
• $2.040 I $0
(ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40.000)
1035 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPORT
$0 1 $3,308
(10$ CLERICAL SUPPORT)
1045 OPERATIONS SUPPORT
EO I $0
1055 FRINGE BENEFITS FT
$3,120 1 $1,418
(20% OF SALARY)
FRINGE BENEFITS PT
EO I $0
TOTAL — —
1---
— $25.760 1$11,505
--
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
I
I
1085 MANAGEMENT FEES
EO 1 $0
1088 TARIFFS & TRAFFIC
$0 I $1.000
(20,000 NUMBERED TICKETS/BKS OF TEN)
1090 ADVERTISING/PROMO
EO I $0
1100 LEGAL/AUDITING FEES
$200 1 $0
(SYSTEM ACCOUNTING)
1105 SECURITY COSTS
EO 1 EO
1110 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$200 1 $50
(MISC PHOTO COPYING ETC)
1120 LEASES b RENTALS
EO I $0
1130 UTILITIES
$1.844 I $0
(BRIDGEWATER MOBILE TELEPHONE)
1135 OTHER ADMIN CHARGES EO 1 $0
TOTAL $2.244 I $1,050
I
VEHICLE CHARGES I
1170 FUEL AND LUBRICANTS • $3.060 1 $0 (DOES NOT INCLUDE GAS TAXES)
1180 MAINT/REPAIR MATERIAL • $2.040 1 $0 (ONE BUS - .08 PER MILE/40.000)
1185 CONTRACT SERVICE LBR EO I EO O
i 7
1190 TIRES
$0
$0
1195 OTHER CHARGES
$0
$0
TOTAL
^$5 100
$0
OPERATIONS CHARGES
I
1
0%
1230 PURCHASE OF SERVICE
!0 1:47.259
0%
1238 DEPRECIATION
$0
$0
1240 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
$0 I
$0
1243 REPAIR/MAINT OTHER PROP
$200 1
$0
1246 LEASES AND RENTALS
$10,500
$0
1248 OTHER OPER CHARGES
$200 1
$0
TOTAL
1
$10.900 1$47 .269
INSURANCE CHARGES
1
1
1280 PUB LIAR/PROP DWMAGE/VEH
2350 I
$0
1310 PUB LIAR/PROP DAMAGE/0TH
$0
$0
TOTAL
I
$2,350 1
$0
TAXES AND FEES
I
1
1350 VEHICLE REG/PERMIT
$150
$0
1360 FED FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
$765 I
$0
1370 STATE FUEL/LUBRICANT TAX
' $0 I
$0
1380 OTHER TAXES/FEES
1
TOTAL
I
$915 1
$0
1426 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
I
$47,269 1$59,824
OPERATING REVENUES
1
IPERCENT
I
(INCLUDED IN MAINT COST)
(Y.CUGLAND OPERATIONS COST«1C`k)
(MISC)
(27 PASS BUS/GARAGE SPACE)
(SNOW PLOW)
(FED AND STATE TAX COMBINED)
COST/MILE - $2.35
0000 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS
$35,894
60%STATE FUNDS CAPPED AT $36.000
1440 PASSENGER FARES
$11,050 1
18%
1472 CONTRACT REVENUES
SO 1
0%
1479 REVENUES -OTHER
$0 1
0%
1490 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
$0 1
0%
0000 CITY OF MONTICELLO
$12.880
22%CITY CONTRIBUTION BASED ON $60,000
0000 FUNDING GAP
$0 I
0%
1505 TOTAL REVENUES NEEDED
CAPITAL EXPENSES
1600 VEHICLE
1602 LIFT,RAMP ETC
1604 RADIO EOU I PMENT
1606 FAREBOx
1610 OTHER CAPITAL EXPENSES
1585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
1617 FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANTS
1619 OTHER FIN ASSIST FOR CAP EQUIP
1700 HEARTLAND EXPRESS MARKETING
$59.824 1
0 ICI n TOTAL FIRST
ICAPITAL YEAR EXPENSE
$900 1EXPENSE FOR CITY IF
$300 1 PLUS CITY FUNDS GAP
$0 DPECTN
I
$1.200 I $280 $13.160
$960 1
I
$2.000 1
GENERATION SUMMARY
- MAY 24. 1989
.X
e�
0
P
G
iORGANIZATIONS
SURVEYED
RPA
t
C
E
U
o
IM
E
8 S
5
M
M
P I A
T
T
T
T
W
A
18
D
L R
N
A
0
0( V
0
0
0
0
E
V
IL
Y
U
N
S I E
T
T
T
T
D
E
I
E
N C
D
5
T
T 1
A
A
A
R
P
A
U E
E
0 I W
3
L
L
L
T
A
IG
R
T N
R
F
C
F I E
R
0
G
IM
L
R T
S
0
L
F I E
D
M
T
F
T
E
IS
Y
C E
0
I
I K
0
U
R
I
C
T R
D
N
I
M
N
E
S
M
D
I
H
R
S
C
I D
0
D
5
T
i
A
I
1 A
N
A
TUE
D
Y
I Y
Y
MONTH
AVE DAILY TRIPS 123
PERCENT OF TOTAL
1
0%
12 40 20 10
11$36$18$ 94
1
1%
4110
441
110
112
119
125
151
123
121$
ARRIVAL TIMES 1
I
6:00 AM TO 10:00 AMI 7
0
0 3
6
0
0
1
0 1 17
17
17
17
23
17
18
10:00 AM TO 2:00 PMI 6
0
12 32
7
5
0
2 i 64
70
64
64
64
104
72
2:00PM TO 6:00 PM 1 7
0
0 5
5
5
0
2 } 25
25
25
33
33
25
28
-00 PM TO 10:00 PMI 3
0
0 0
2
0
0
0 1 5
6
6
5
5
5
5
j:00 PM TO 6:00 AMI 0
I
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DEPARTURE TIME 1
I
I
6:00 AM TO 10:00 AMI 1
0
0 3
6
0
0
I
0 1 10
10
10
10
16
10
11
10:00 AM TO 2:00 PMI 5
0
12 0
7
5
0
2 1 31
37
31
31
31
71
39
2:OOPM TO 6:00 PM 114
0
0 37
5
5
0
2 ( 63
63
63
71
71
63
66
6:00 PM TO 10:00 PMI 4
0
0 0
2
0
0
0 1 6
7
7
6
6
6
6
10:00 PM TO 6:00 AMI 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CUS7pMER SERVICE ARE{ —
I
I
CITY OF MONTICELLO 1 9
0
0 39
13
9
1
I
3 1 74
80
75
81
85
113
85
MONTICELLO TOWSHIP 1 2
0
0 1
3
1
0
1 1 9
9
9
9
10
10
9
WRIGHT CTY - CUTSIOEI 4
0
0 0
2
'0
0
0 1 6
7
6
6
7
6
5
SIG LAKE/BIG LAKE TNI 3
0
12 0
2
0
0
0 i 17
17
17
18
18
17
17
OTHER 1 4
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 1 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
I^
EXISTING TRANSPORTAII
i
1
Drive Own Vehicle 1 2
0
0 7
0
2
0
1
1 1 12
14
12
14
16
17
14
Walk - other alternal 0
0
0 2
6
2
0
0 1 10
10
10
11
11
13
11
Trangoortod by Frieni 7
0
12 26
10
5
1
2 1 63
67
63
67
71
93
71
'ranaoorted by cublil t
0
0 0
4
0
0
1 1 6
7
7
8
6
6
6
�-
-lk - no other aitel 0
0
0 3
0
0
0
0 3
3
3
4
4
5
4
NO tPerenortaticn avl12
1
0 2
0
0
0
0 1 14
14
14
14
14
14
14
reach these individul
9%
32%
54%
53
0%
69%
84
54
144
34
124
9%
584
54
34
11%
e�
0
P
G
it
RPA
t
C
E
U
o
N
v
T
}
0
S
r.
5
15%
58%
23%
1
44
Ca
9%
32%
54%
53
0%
69%
84
54
144
34
124
9%
584
54
34
11%
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
Consideration of amending proposed Seventh Street right-of-way. Lincoln
Corrpanies/K-Mart. (J.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Lincoln
Coupanies in association with the proposed development of an
87,000 square foot K -Mart store directly adjacent to the existing
Monticello Mall. In developing the site plan around the adopted
right-of-way, Lincoln Corrpanies has had some difficulty in creating a
desirable parking lot configuration. Although it is possible to develop
a site plan for the K -mart in conjunction with the adopted right-of-way,
Lincoln Companies has asked that the City consider re-establishing an
alternate route for Seventh Street which would iuprove the site plan and
also provide for more flexibility in developing the land irmnediately west
of the K -Mart. The alignment proposed by Lincoln Coupanies would create
a more usable/larger area west of the K -Mart for development of
additional retail establishments. In response to Lincoln Coupanies'
request and in light of Lincoln Companies' cormnitment to cover City
research costs, staff directed Dahlgren, Shardlow, 6 Uban and OSM to
prepare reports which outline the pro's and con's associated with the two
possible alignments. Attached you will find a copy of each report. Also
attached is a table which swmrarizes the conclusions drawn by both
consultants.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
Motion to reaffirm plan for the Seventh Street right-of-way and
request that Lincoln Companies develop site plan accordingly.
Under this alternative, Lincoln Coupanies would work within the
present plan for the proposed Seventh Street right-of-way. Although
this is not the preferred route requested by Lincoln Coupanies and
K -Mart, it is acceptabler and selection of this alternative would not
mean that Lincoln Coupanies would not construct a building for K -Mart
at this site. This alternative is the best alternative in terms of
eiuplictty and up -front frost for the following reasons:
1. Affected property owners support the alignment and all necessary
easement descriptions have already been written.
2. This alternative does not require the purchase of land or removal
of homesteads, whereas alternative 02 requires an approximate
expenditure of $200,000 for land acquisition.
3. Despite its curvilinear and undulating route, the cost to build
the roadway under alternative Al is about $60,000 less expensive
than alternative 12.
6. City expenditure for purchase of any land associated with Seventh
Street right-of-way might undermine the idea of dedication of
Seventh Street between Minnesota Street and ELn Street, therefore
creating potential for additional cost associated with the long
term extension of Seventh Street to Elm Street.
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
2. Motion to amend the adopted Seventh Street alignment as proposed by
Lincoln Companies.
This alternative creates the potential for significantly higher cost
to extend Seventh Street from its existing point to Elm Street.
However, it also creates the potential for the highest and best use
of the land abutting the freeway. For an additional $260,000, the
City can gain the potential for an additional 50,000 square feet of
commercial property. This proposed alignment provides flexibility
for future development by creating the potential for larger lots
along the freeway and could thereby encourage larger regionally
oriented businesses whereas alternative al will encourage smaller
businesses. Finally, alternative #2 uses the bluff line effectively
to create a buffer between the proposed commercial use of land
adjacent to the freeway versus residential use of land on the north
side of the Seventh Street right-of-way.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In directing the City Engineer and Planner to work on this report, staff
was looking to them for an overriding reason to pursue the idea of
amending the adopted Seventh Street right-of-way. Prior to receiving the
findings of our consultants, there was a concern that the proposed
right-of-way, with its relatively close proximity to the freeway, might
severely limit future cominercial development associated with regional
businesses such as a K -Mart. It appears now that this concern is
unfounded and the road alignment associated with alternative 01, though
not ideal, is adequate in terms of providing land area suitable for
future commercial development. It is staff's view that the proposed
re-alignnent, though generating potential for larger retail uses, is
difficult to justify in terms of cost, as this alignment will create the
potential for only 50,000 square feet of commercial area at a cost of
$200,000. It may be that this is too high of a price to pay for an
additional 50,000 square feet of retail comnarcial space.
This recommendation assumes that the City would be involved in purchasing
the land necessary to accoirplish alternativo §2. In the event that
Lincoln Companies would see the need to purchase the homes and properties
necessary to accomplish alternative f2, staff would then recotmnend that
Council adopt the alignment associated with alternative 12. It is not
known at this time if Lincoln Companies is considering the purchase of
the properties necessary to accomplish alternative !2.
FINAL NOTE: Once the decision on the road alignment has been made,
Lincoln Companies will be finalizing the site plan and will be submitting
it to the Planning Commission for review via the conditional use
process. A special meeting of the Planning Commission has been scheduled
immediately prior to the Council meting scheduled for September 11 at
which time the conditional use permit request will be reviewed.
A
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
Council will then address the natter at its regularly scheduled meeting
on the 11th following the special meeting of the Planning Cormnission.
The method by which the roadway and utilities will be installed and
financed has not been determined at this point. Staff will be working
with Lincoln Coupanies in designing a plan for utilities construction
very soon in anticipation of development activities occurring this fall.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Seventh Street alignment reports from OSM and Dahlgren, Shardlow, a Uban;
Summary of planner and engineer reports.
Off
Q6,234"i
��'rona
ILsSoclalCS, InG
",I I;., sl I1, nn.rl• A 111.L7in n,•4 r,ili� .J 55411
;,Q.1,11-S, 0
I Al ].11-lBUn
F:"S." —,
Surcrr, rs
P—L,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Dan Kling, Project Manager
DATE: August 24, 1989
SUBJECT: 7th Street Extension Alternative
OSM Comm. No. 1748.64
SCOPE:
This report consists of a discussion and Cost Analysis for two proposed 7th Street
right-of-way alternatives. The study area is located between 6th Street and the
194 corridor from Pine Street to Elm Street. This report is preempted by the land
use requirements of the proposed Kmart, which is to be located on the west side of
the existing mall. The study will determine if there is a more efficient route for
7th Street, that is beneficial to the City and the abutting property owners.
DISCUSSION:
The 7th Street right-of-way will be used as a separation between commercial
property and residential multi -dwelling areas. The critical factor in locating the
alignment is a steep ridge located from east to west along the proposed right-of-
way. Additionally, two parcels on either side of Minnesota Street are directly in
line with a straight east/west alignment. 7th Street from Pine Street to Locust
Street has already been constructed and will not require replacement. The two
proposed alignments are described as follows:
`\
ALTERNATIVE N0. 1.
The right-of-way alignment for this alternative is placed approximately 500 feet
straight west from Locust Street and then bends at a 35 degree angle to the
southeast until it intersects with Minnesota Street (this angle allows the right-
of-way to bypass the Holthaus and Kramer properties), from Minnesota Street the
alignment is placed 400 feet straight east and then bends northeasterly to a
connection at Elm Street with existing Country Club Road (see Drawing 1). This
alignment was selected by the City Council after five separate alternatives were
presented and modified. Additionally, much discussion with the abutting property
owners was undertaken to arrive at this location.
This alignment currently has al l of the necessary easement descriptions written for
all of the land to be acquired. A proposed Street grade has been determined for
the proposed Street from Locust Street to Elm Street. After further review, the
portion of 7th Street between Locust Street and Minnesota Street does not have
grades that are complementary to serving both sides of 7th Street. Currently the
grades reflect the concerns of the residential side of the Street and presents the
commercial side with a difficult situation. The grade would cause grades too
excessive for parking lot placement. After further review, a more balanced Street
profile is proposed to serve both sides of the Street. The profile wil l require a
slight altering of the grading; plan for Phase 2 of the Ridgeway Apts, which will
involve raising the driveway access roads in to the development slightly more than
was originally anticipated. The existing alignment forces the proposed Kmart to
alter their proposed site and parking plans. Kmart can accommodate this alignment,
but not to the degree of success that would be accomplished with the alignment
documented in Alternate No. 2.
ALTERNATIVE N0. Z
The right-of-way alignment for this alternative is located along the existing ridge
line. The alignment is directed straight west through the Holthaus and Kramer
property with the alignment matching into Alternative No. 1 near the middle of the
Lucius Johnson property and at approximately 350 feet east of Elm Street.
The existing ridge line is located approximately 100 feet south of the Lucius
Johnson property, which would place the right-of-way into the existing parking lot
for the mall. The mall has required parking space limits that currently extend to
the Street right-of-way and because of City requirements can not reduce these
limits. An existing auto parts store is located on the corner of Locust Street and
7th Street at a elevation lower than the surrounding street. If the street were to
be raised in this location, the 7th Street entrance into the store would most
likely be eliminated. The parking requirements combined with the low elevation of
the existing auto parts store on the corner of 7th Street and Locust Street do not
allow the Street alignment to be moved horizontally or vertically in this area.
l The Street grades are modified similarly as is in Alternative No. 1. This
alternative will eliminate, through grading, the need for retaining walls along the
Holthaus property. Acquisition of the two parcels associated with the Holthaus and
Kramer properties and removal of the two homesteads will be necessary with this
alignment.
C
71H STREET AND T.H. 25 INTERSECTION
The intersection of 7th Street and Highway 25 is critical to the utimate
development of the commercial area along proposed 7th Street. The existing layout
on the westconsists of one westbound lane, an eastbound right turn lane, an
eastbound thru-lane and an eastbound left turn lane.
MnDOT has determined that the intersection can accommodate an additional 2,000 cars
per day (see Appendix B). Kmart is proposing that they will require 1,400 - 1,600
cars per day, which leaves 400 - 600 cars per day capacity for the remaining
devel opment .
Currently, MnDOT is noticing a slight decrease in traffic activity on Highway 25,
which may help to alleviate any future problem. Typically, MnDOT takes a wait and
see aproach to existing intersection modifications. If a problem occurs in the
future though, the City will be responsible for making the necessary improvements.
At this time, it is difficult to estimate the potential traffic volumes associated
r with the area surrounding 7th Street, due to the uncertainty of development. There
l is additional right-of-way available to expand into if the need arises.
The existing intersection does not require any modification at this time. Within a
year or so, after Kmart i s In business, we would recommend a traffic and movement
count of this intersection.
COST ESTIMATES:
A detailed cost estimate for the two alternatives can be found at the back of this
report, in Appendix A. A summary of these cost is as follows:
Alternative No. 1 $335,000
Alternative No. 2 $597,000
The above referenced total estimated project cost includes a contingency factor and
all related indirect costs. Indirect costs are estimated at 27% and include legal,
engineering, administrative and fiscal costs.
The two alternatives are very similar in the length of Street and quantity of
materials required to build the Street. As can readily be seen from the cost
estimates, Alternative No. I requires a substantial amount of retaining wall
compared with Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 2, however, has twice as much
common excavation and also requires the purchase of two parcels of land.
3
PREVIOUS STUDY AND WORK ON THE 7th STREET EXTENSION
Consideration of 7th Street and the extension of 7th Street dates back to 1975 when
OSM developed the Comprehensive Utility Plan and Howard Dahlgren developed the
zoning and planning plan for the City of Monticello. This major collector roadway
was on the north side of Interstate 94 from County Road No. 118 on the east to
County Road No. 39, opposite the Monticello Country Club (Golf), to the west.
One segment of 7th Street was constructed to Urban State Aid Standards (44' width)
from T.H. 25 to Locust Street prior to 1975. Later in 1979, Lauring Lane from
Cedar Street to Washington Street was constructed to a State Aid width using a
rural section with ditch drainage. Following this in 1982, 7th Street from T.H. 25
to Cedar Street was constructed to Urban State Aid Standards completing a portion
of the westerly segment from T. H. 25 to Washington Street.
In 1978, the Country Club addition was developed and Country Club Road (future 7th
Street)was constructed to Urban State Aid Standards from Elm Street northwesterly
to County Road No. 39 opposite the Country Club. it was in 1980. that OSM
developed 3 roadway alternatives for the extension cf 7th Street from Locust Street
west to Elm Street to tie in with Country Club Road. These layouts were presented
to City Staff, the City Council and to the Property Owners for their consideration.
In September of 1982. Alternate 2A was developed and generally favored by City
Staff and some of the Property Owners. This alternative more or less abandoned the
construction portion of 7th Street from Walnut Street to Locust Street and shifted
the locust Street intersection 250 feet south onto Rosewood Corp. property
(Monticello Mall) and split their property to the west with probable development on
either side of the 7th Street 2A alignment.
Nothing transpired for the next 2 or 3 years on this segment of 7th Street until
1985 when the Rosewood Corp. (now called Monticello Lincoln Commercial Partners)
approached the City about an addition to the Mall to the west (Snyder Drugs). The
2A alignment would have taken a considerable amount of parking area adjacent to 7th
Street. Then requested that the proposed roadway remain on existing 7th Street
between Walnut Street and Locust Street. This was agreed upon and OSM was asked to
e develop another alignment shifting the entire roadway northeasterly between Locust
Street and Minnesota Street. During this time, the Lucius Johnson property south
of 6th Street and Lynn Street was contemplating development.
On May 21, 1985, arranged by Tom Eidem, City Administrator, a meeting was held
between City Staff and Property Owners from Locust Street to Elm Street. At this
meeting were Property Owners, Tom Holthaus, Tom Brennan, Lucius Johnson, Kramer,
Lowell Magner (Lincoln Properties); City Staff Eidem and Simola and Badalich (OSM).
Comments were from no roadway, depreciate property, move further north between
Minnesota Street and Elm Street, etc.
It was fairly well agreeded to shift the roadway to the property line between
Lucius Johnson and Rosewood Corp. taking a triangular piece (SE corner) of Holthaus
property the southerly 40 feet of Kramer property and continue through the Brennan
property to Elm Street and Country Club Road. In 1987, Brennan presented a sketch
plan to the City for a residental development.
Since this meeting, the Lincoln Co, gave the City the required easement at Locust
Street as did Lucius Johnson (Ridgeway Apts), Holthaus and 1 believe Kramer at the
time of subdividing their property last year.
It would appear that the alignment agreed upon in 1985 has fallen into place except
for the Brennan proposed development. This is the approved Alignment shown as
Alternative No. 1.
APPENDI X -A
CONCLUSIONS b RECOMMENDATIONS
The difference between the two proposed alternatives is not dramatic from an
engineering standpoint. The difficulty of construction is slightly higher for
Alternative I due to additional grading along the ridge line. The critical
decision on whether the benefit of changing the alignment outweighs the cost, will
be answered by the City Planner.
The current alignment was selected by the City staff and Council out of five
alternatives after numerous discussion with the abutting property owners. Before
any alterations are made, the abutting property owners should be notified and
consulted about the proposed changes.
C
l ALTERNATIVE N0, 1
ITEM QUANTITY
Common Excavation
10,000
Class Five
4,100
Bituminous Mixture
2,500
Bituminous Material for Mixture
160
Concrete Curb and Gutter
5,140
Retaining Mall
2,500
Structural Retaining Nall
450
Sodding w/Topsoil
12,000
C
UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
G.Y. S 2.50 $ 25,000
Tons 5.00 20,500
Tons 10.00 25,000
Tons 130.00 20,800
L.F. 5.00 25,700
S.F. 12.00 30,000
L.F. 140.00 63,000
S.Y 2.50 30.000
$240,000
10% Contingency: 24.000
$264,000
27% Indirect Cost: 71.280
GRAND TOTAL 3f 35.280
ALTERNATIVE N0. 2
ITEM QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
Common Excavation 20,000
C.Y.
$ 2.50
50,000
Class Five 3,800
Tons
5.00
19,000
Bituminous Mixture 2,400
Tons
10.00
24,000
Bituminous Material for Mixture 150
Tons
130.00
19,500
Concrete Curb and Gutter 4,860
L.F.
5.00
24,300
Structural Retaining Mall 450
L.F.
140.00
63,000
Sodding 11,000
S.Y.
2.50
—_V7 Soo
Land Purchase 1
L.S.
200,000.00
00,000
$427,300
rl� GN'�
10% Contingency:
42.730
`/ / a
$470,030
t
-L 0
27% Indirect Cost:
126.908
1-1
Y 3 Y
GRAND TOTAL:5$
96.938
X
A P P E N D I X
ORWAMAP4
Mb ti L
� T�p
V A
4-7
gel
Ll a 0 DO
'r Ce
Rk 23 ' e5 1a: 50 rWiDOT 8PAINEPD
1 Mn/Ot3ftcsimi* -Tmfl9rnRtei 502 ,1
-For Immediate Attention -
NENEFR OF PAGES TO FOLLOW 2
date: August PV. 19Pq Time Sant Initial
To: Name John $adalach Pnone Fax X 13-451-0405
Unit/Roarn USM - 2021 East H nn n+ - - t -rt lia 5%41'4
From: Name Sud McCulloch phone 218-828-2660
Unit/Room Mn/DOT - Brainerd 56401
Subiect: Mortticella
Special inaructiom: John. I see no nrobleen v th a traffic jncreaneon_7th Street of
2000 A'n' ezpecially on the vest side of !'.H. 25. Hovever. the City may want to
make Tth S r t etvrretrir7l!
Mnioor ttaoi oaoi ; -ail
00"P Of
COQ
Pp.
--.Wo
kV
8
,prtsrpO)tM0 YOgNT(p '
(prj rOl YtO W/ttQy rp/git0
.LOTt0 110 '
;tLgUttO•T a►10 f1p1
Vitt Wl(nOMOt. 43V .1
X 4 1
1
1
M,M.f till
f1l/4.1Sc KK #R-:`
11-210A4�:�y I
,1
N
I;
S
TRI/ -b a•lIOaO •f
l•CNKgtT 4IOw C 0VIMtott0 N{KXllto
TT1t tot t+CK1wholt01)0•
a-1/OefTa1M ►NS111ottTgl u0 It"S
1ta11N.111 -3111 watt w1tU►t01. 110.1
WIND INTO
4111• tic
j s•ivc.0
VIC.31
1•i/Cola �•�y//{p/
M.M.11 t0M.N.11 ty
ol`afC
tali/Coll
1d/tall
e•itcl3s
41.1/030
M M.iT 10 x.M.l!
t•1tt1}t
g T•1 r•yl. •1 •:01.1 .E�.'r�•+"•1'�"�1
110. its. TO M.N.3 A�+••iw 1 ( •. ••• - ��
!•1lClti 1.IJNti �.,•`.. MMO �•-•+_•'- N.M.11 t0 M.N.10
M.M. to tow.M.S •i'f1C
,. LO M.M.t �• at M•.tt O0 00 OYA1C
1001.1001001.11 i-131ta3
MMCI0 !� •• 0-11/Coll 1•t/0l1
4 :.sic 1- og.8tOM.N.0 ►t ./� 1-1tt11' 1.I/C010
t•1/ta3l 3CT--+ • 1-ittu 3 -sic I
♦11cs I ht1/too 1 ' Al/tit0
1•htcolo MASAI l r,q.1 tO M.N.1
T-UCO1 ill/µalt
1.1/tfS0 1 1.1/01%
- to tmalet � 4 ton na wI K.o•/
H►1 ►4111) A-46 04110-11 / ' 1.0M1V.+ SION.t towtNol(.i) I" I0U+T1t
(.dl[YiT {itWtlartltNt.0)t/q VOWi10 i•ON3+.Tto0=41r10 W%/af
1.O1KNO 1tOn't (aVt4t4.o) Vi0 IMPA l lgwit0 w tow � Oi 7( �AK1 TV1t tit 1p31110140 3+0•
"It toe 10ttVO IM190, too, . 0.notavalks 1ulouli011 tD Stan%
i.►1011TftaN►YTYoution me 11Y } + 1N11N.tat.110 V.tT wo(.paol. sat
%WiYlfe -ti0 %fail MI lOMact: two + tittle INTO M.M.10
stood tot* N.NJ + 01. tat
0p tit 1 •ti/Coll
411/colt l•i/Nltt
0.11031 � 1dlCot0
Impotra Mct coma 011ta t0001114111' LI
6o1gC1 tpu►rtitt tote WIT 010110 • w4att o7+111T
1 Mo 4,0100111041110
1 as Mi N1. "031
,
It. M.4 t0 M.M.t I
wow
1.33/to%1 M.M.}10
3-11011 p 3Jt•Oit
f•tttol4
!•i(tf 110 6.3lC%Y4
,1
N
I;
S
TRI/ -b a•lIOaO •f
l•CNKgtT 4IOw C 0VIMtott0 N{KXllto
TT1t tot t+CK1wholt01)0•
a-1/OefTa1M ►NS111ottTgl u0 It"S
1ta11N.111 -3111 watt w1tU►t01. 110.1
WIND INTO
4111• tic
j s•ivc.0
VIC.31
1•i/Cola �•�y//{p/
M.M.11 t0M.N.11 ty
ol`afC
tali/Coll
1d/tall
e•itcl3s
41.1/030
M M.iT 10 x.M.l!
t•1tt1}t
g T•1 r•yl. •1 •:01.1 .E�.'r�•+"•1'�"�1
110. its. TO M.N.3 A�+••iw 1 ( •. ••• - ��
!•1lClti 1.IJNti �.,•`.. MMO �•-•+_•'- N.M.11 t0 M.N.10
M.M. to tow.M.S •i'f1C
,. LO M.M.t �• at M•.tt O0 00 OYA1C
1001.1001001.11 i-131ta3
MMCI0 !� •• 0-11/Coll 1•t/0l1
4 :.sic 1- og.8tOM.N.0 ►t ./� 1-1tt11' 1.I/C010
t•1/ta3l 3CT--+ • 1-ittu 3 -sic I
♦11cs I ht1/too 1 ' Al/tit0
1•htcolo MASAI l r,q.1 tO M.N.1
T-UCO1 ill/µalt
1.1/tfS0 1 1.1/01%
- to tmalet � 4 ton na wI K.o•/
H►1 ►4111) A-46 04110-11 / ' 1.0M1V.+ SION.t towtNol(.i) I" I0U+T1t
(.dl[YiT {itWtlartltNt.0)t/q VOWi10 i•ON3+.Tto0=41r10 W%/af
1.O1KNO 1tOn't (aVt4t4.o) Vi0 IMPA l lgwit0 w tow � Oi 7( �AK1 TV1t tit 1p31110140 3+0•
"It toe 10ttVO IM190, too, . 0.notavalks 1ulouli011 tD Stan%
i.►1011TftaN►YTYoution me 11Y } + 1N11N.tat.110 V.tT wo(.paol. sat
%WiYlfe -ti0 %fail MI lOMact: two + tittle INTO M.M.10
stood tot* N.NJ + 01. tat
0p tit 1 •ti/Coll
411/colt l•i/Nltt
0.11031 � 1dlCot0
Impotra Mct coma 011ta t0001114111' LI
6o1gC1 tpu►rtitt tote WIT 010110 • w4att o7+111T
1 Mo 4,0100111041110
1 as Mi N1. "031
,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 24 August 1989
TO: Jeff O'Neal
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: 7th Street Alignment
We have studied the various conditions affecting two choices of alignments for 71h Street
with the City's consulting engineers, OSM. Lincoln Properties is proposing the addition of
K -Mart to the west of the e.isting shopping center which necessitates the extension of 7th
Street for access.
The extension of 7th Street with the building of K -Mart will act as a catalyst for
additional development in the arca specifically to the west adjacent to the interstate. We
believe the addition of K -Mart in this arca will create a strong market for new
development and the impact of the alignment on the property adjacent to the interstate
should be looked at at this time.
Alternate Routes
Alternate 1 is the existing proposed route which curves around existing single-family
properties leaving a curving and undulating frontage road which narrows at the property
adjacent to 1.94 and limits development opportunities in sonic areas adjacent to the
interstate. Alternate I has been used for planning purposes for other adjacent properties
as development has been approved, thus locking in certain access relationships and grade
restrictions along 71h Street.
Alternate 2 is a more direct route that necessitates the removal of two residential
properties. however, it opens up more land along the interstate to allow greater depth of
property and thus, more flexibility for future development. Alternate 2 alignment follows
a natural ridge line in the area, offering the opportunity to create separation between
commercial and residential uses through the use of grade separation.
1
C '�
Jeff O'Neill, 24 August 1989 Page 2
Proposed Development
Lincoln Properties is proposing the addition of a K -Mart which would require a parking lot
of approximately 450 parking stalls. -lite K -Mart would back against the interstate with
its main parking to the north and west facing out toward the future 7th Street. K -Mart
parking lot can be sloped at four percent grade allowing it to match into either alignment.
We anticipate that additional commercial development could range in size from 120,000 and
175,000 square feet. The probable uses might be a grocery store, building supply, auto
dealership, restaurants, and other freestanding retail. All of these uses will want visibility
from the interstate:
City TraMc Circulation
OSM has reviewed the probable traffic load at the intersection of 7th Street and Highway
25 and have confirmed with the Highway Department that future development will not
overload this intersection. Presently, the mall and other interstate commercial is
connected to the downtown commercial area by way of Walnut Street and Highway 25.
As commercial expands to the west a nd 7th Street is extended to the west, additional
north -south connectors need to be strengthened. At present, Locust Street and Lynn Street
do not cross the railroad tracks and cannot provide this linkage. Maple Street crosses the
tracks but cannot ennnect to 7th Street Ix cause of Monticello Ana rtments. Minnesota
Street can connect to 71h Street but does not cross the tracks. Vine Street also does not
cross the tracks. Elm Street to the far west does connect through. We recommend that
some combination of a tied together alignment between M innesota and Maple Street be
explored to provide the north -south 1 inkage to the downtown area.
Alternate 1
Alternate I is the alignment of 71h Street that his been approved by the City Council
and reviewed by the affected landowners. This alignment gives access both to K -Mart and
Lucas Johnson multiple family development but skirts around the Monticello Apartments and
the Christensen property along Minnesota Street. By avoiding the Christensen property and
the next residential property on the west side of Minnesota Street, the 7th Street
alignment comes within 190 feet of the interstate, creating an irregular shaped and shallow
commercial lots. no alignment then connects to film Street and creates deeper lots
adjacent to Elm Street. This alignment would allow some medium sued development
adjacent to K-Mnri possibly using a shared parkingarrangement. The shallower lots would
attract smaller businesses such as restaurants, muffler shops, etc. 'the far western end of
7th Street adjacent to film Street would support larger development because of the added
depth to the interstate right-of-way.
0n the north side of Urn Street, the Comprchensivelllan calls for apartments but
additional commercial could he developed in this area for double frontage on 7th Street.
It would he anticipated that all of 7th Street be dedicated by the nffected property
owners as development progresses.
Jeff O'Neill, 24 August 1989 Page 3
Alternate 2
Alternate 2 provides an alignment that moves 7th Street farther from the interstate
R.O.W. to provide lot depths in the 400 foot range. This lot depth will create the
opportunities for larger developments and businesses to be located adjacent to the
interstate. This alignment also follows the natural bluffline providing an opportunity for
separation of a dissimilar use of residential by virtue of topography. Alternate 2 provides
the same anticipated access to the Johnson property, but would necessitate the purchase of
the Christenson property and the nem residential property to the west for the purpose of
completing the road alignment.
We would anticipate development potential of 170,000 square feet which would be about
50,000 square feet more than the potential for Alternate 1. The added costs of this
alignment might be in the range of $200,000 for the developer or City to add to the cost
of 7th Street.
Conclusions
1. To maintain commercial linkage to downtown a strong north :south connector
to 7th Street via Minnesota/Maple Street and via Elm Street should he developed.
2. Alternate 1 will encourage smaller businesses adjacent to the interstate where
:+Sterna^. ^ wil! rcgionALty cricntcd husincssc< p,JjIrenT In thr
interstate. Alternate 2 would be less circuitous and more convenient for cross
traffic along the interstate.
3. Based on planning for the extension of commercial from the K -Mart area, Alternate
2 would provide for the best access and encourage more typical dLvclopment
patterns along the interstate. Alternate 1 is already approved and accepted and
would not need additional expenditures of money for right-of-way but would force
some small lot development along the interstate and would provide some large lot
development to the far west.
4. Since the Alternate 2 alignment would offer greater potential for spin-off
development from K -Mart, we believe it is in the best interest of the developer to
weigh the costs of the acquisition of additional property against the potential for his
expanded development. City expenditures at this time for additional properties may
undermine the idea of dedication of 7th Street between Minnesota Street and Elm
Street.
\ DECISION FACTOR TABLE - SUMMARY OF PLANNER AND ENGINEER REPORTS
SEVENTH STREET RIGHT OF WAY ALIGNMENT AU0JST 25, 1989
ADDED COMMERCIAL OEVELOPMFNT COULD RANGE FROM 120,000 TO 170.000 SO FT
ALTERNATEIALTERNATE
IGNE ITWO
-- ------------------------------------------------------
1 ACCEPTABLE TO LINCOLN COMPANIES/KMART
I
IYES
I
IYES (PREFERRED)
2 RE( TIRES RE-701RES CHANGE TO KMART DARE!NG PLAN
I
IYES
I
INO
3 ALL NECESSARY EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN
I
IYES
IND
4 AFFECTED PROP OWNERS SUPPORT ALIGNMENT
I
IYES
I
INOT KNOWN
5 GRADING PLAN ALTERATION - RIOGEWAY APT
I
IYES
I
IND
6 REQUIRES ACGJISITICN/REMOVAL OF TWO HOMES -COSI
I
INO
I
1$200,000
7 REQUIRES MODIFICATION - HWY 25/7TH INTERSECT
1
1NO
I
IND
i
i b
8 ROADWAY CONSTRUCTICN COST
18335.000
1
1$313-9t1Dj���s 3
1
9 C"ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN SO FT.
120.000
1 170,000
10 PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
I
I
I
IYES
11 MIRE CONVENIENT FOR CROSS TRAFFIC ALONG FREEWAY
I
IND
I
IYES
12 CREATES IRREGULAR CCDMERCIAL LOTS WEST OF MN AVE
I
IYES
I
I
13 ENCOURAGES SMALLER BUSINESS
I
IYES
I
I
14 PROVIDES FOR MORE TYPICAL FREEWAY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNI
I
IYES
15 ENCOURAGES LAWER REGIONALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
I
I
I
IYES
I
16 FOLLOWS BLUFFLINE PROVIDING BUFFER BETWEEN LAND USES I
I
I
IYES
17 PROVIDES OPPORIUNIIY FOR HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF LANDI
I
IYES
r �t
t. •y i 0P OOn CO 0 00•
n' � i � �[• _��`"',,,,� a ttt '(/� _ i J 0 f.J�) iV '!-�/�-.-.+yY�,7j�,
:moi i'a•i ,w,Y 1 �, J r '@
j\fit 1 1 '•���+..•{a t j .. ' ,... �,�y f �ri„ ,• �.- ""oo” -� , '• �.....�
db
�' tom. : b t�. `�-��. �`•�/ :i .• � i � ^'' m.. \ � �F� J '�
�. ,'♦ r' , .' Ott `f ` �, _ Jam,
� `.i� t , ! is �rr /�^ +.,....... �S =.3-�•^�,•.I � _� _..' O ; `' ,�. t t I
" ! ter! �� 7 ,r � � � '1 . �•. � /(Yyt� , y �.;�. ''+. � ...,"'�
Y f
}}��•��. \_/� A
• t , ��•• e . i F• it . ii' '{ ` \ � J •
Y
Aug 22,99 16:20 THE LINCOLN COMPANIES
The
Lincoln
Companies
un t:. t.xkr8treet, %,iw 2(KI
Weytam. Minn—t. sn:en
112! 47G.0mo
p1: (01 2) itbdinxn
August 22, 1489
Mr. Bret Weiss BY FACSIMILE
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron i Associates
2021 E. Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238
Minneapolis, MN 55913
REt Proposed K Mart
Monticello M&U
Monticello, Min necota
Dear Brett
Pursuant to your request, traffic counts relative to the proposed K Mart
indicate 1,400 - 1.600 cars per day. Counts for the existing mall
Indicate approximately 350 cars per day.
Should you have any questions or need additional information. please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
THEE LINCIOLN� COyMPANIES
Charles W. DuPresne
Executive Vice President
CWDtmv
P. 02/02
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
Consideration of purchasing lawn vacuum for the Parks Department. W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello currently maintains approximately 40 acres of
parks. In the fall when leaves begin depositing on the park properties,
it becomes a monumental task to windrow these leaves, rake them by hand,
and load them out to the leaf compost pile. A lawn vacuum is needed to
speed up the process. Assuming we could retrofit an existing trailer
with the proper equipment, we placed a sum of $800 in the 1988 budget.
During the preparation of the 1989 budget in the summer of 1988, we felt
confident we could still retrofit an existing piece of equipment to be
used for the lawn vacuum, so no additional funds were placed in the 1989
budget other than $3,500 for a turf aerator. Further checking in the
fall of 1988, as well as during 1989, led us to believe that it was not
practical to retrofit this older trailer but would be more practical to
purchase a complete lawn vacuum including trailer and possibly sell the
other trailer.
We have worked out a mutual aid agreement with the school district to use
their turf aerator. In exchange for this use, we have allowed them to
use our tow -behind fertilizer spreader. We, therefore, request that the
Council allow us to use a portion of that amount for the purchase of a
new lawn vacuum.
The Park Superintendent has obtained a quote for a trailer mounted EZ Vac
with a capacity of 37-40 bushels and a trailer mounted Trac Vac. One
quote is from Moon Motors for the EZ Vac for 51875. The second quote is
from Scharber 6 Sons for the Trac Vac for St, 745.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to purchase the Trac Vac lawn vacuum from
Scharber 6 Sons for $1,745.
2. Tho second alternative would be to continue manually raking and
handling the leaves on the 40 acres of parks in our system.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommnendation of the Public Works Director and Park
Superintendent that the Council authorize purchase of the Trac vac lawn
vacuum as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the quotes.
a
Freight................................. F.O.e.....
Dealer Assembly 8 Service .........................
TOTAL..........................................
Loss—Altowanco for Trade-in ......................
Makro Model
Year License Color
Tall...............................................
l( License, Title & Foos ..............................
y ,his quotation oxphor
PIC.. gWled rrmem We Kd**Cl to chWW by the MmgrhCtwo.
wi11mW AMC. ConaaMns or umd vahtin..h.. be r -ah" in
dial. of d.h&y
TOTAL q
........... $
..........................................1.
Serial No.
Mileage Engine No
... .............. ................
!'
Not Cash Delivered Price S
•
7 -
Saws M.r1.e.r
' GIVOTATION
r s
Phone: (612) 295.2920
MOON MOTOR SALES, Inc.
•
414 S. Highway 25
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
'r
CNAM
✓
Salesman 4�1
Year
Make Model Colo
' Serial No.
Engine No,
FactoryF.O.B. Price.........................................................................
9
G L Ct
-
Sr4 #'t JN C /. ✓G%c! b 4-
L!N �i 5-.5 e-...
-/! /V
\'
� /'O rrlp�a�C SySi��+a /N�./• l u� 6,.,L � S U, •.
1
Freight................................. F.O.e.....
Dealer Assembly 8 Service .........................
TOTAL..........................................
Loss—Altowanco for Trade-in ......................
Makro Model
Year License Color
Tall...............................................
l( License, Title & Foos ..............................
y ,his quotation oxphor
PIC.. gWled rrmem We Kd**Cl to chWW by the MmgrhCtwo.
wi11mW AMC. ConaaMns or umd vahtin..h.. be r -ah" in
dial. of d.h&y
TOTAL q
........... $
..........................................1.
Serial No.
Mileage Engine No
... .............. ................
!'
Not Cash Delivered Price S
•
7 -
Saws M.r1.e.r
the easyUMjbay to pickup...
VACUUM MODEL 95 is a superb piece of equipment for
fho la::n caro ;ad and all !argo larrn ma!ntonanco cperaGors. Pugged 0-In-oneconstruction. Single pin quick hitch, extra targe cart and extension, and 8 h.p. engine
are but a tow of its professional features. Capacity: 37-40 bushels.
• Comes complete with Gan, vinyl cart cover
and extension
■ super Can -33- - 57- inside
dimensions
N wheels -6:50.8 wide rim fire$,
sturdy exio
Quick -dump
feature
Flnget-lip lover and quick hoso release allow
filled con to till easily for quick dumping of load,
Fast, simple sl!do•!n tailgate facilitates
dumping.
Extra Heavy Duty Construction — E -Z Rake Manufactured Carts
Ideal Vacuum for the Lawn Care Professional!
4 (�
commercial Vacs
Serlous Equipment for Serious work
Model Number
capacity
7118
18 Cu ft
7121
21 Cu ft
f \'\l 1�� 7950
50 Cu ft
1. Model 71113
18 cum; foot tapered
aluminum container, fun
mounted, self dumping, ?hp
CIO, electric Start engine.
6hp electric start diesel
engine available.
For )tuns Deere, Kubota.
Toro and Ransomes out
front mowers and RansomeS
reel mowers
Recommended for 3 acres
ano up,
Note: Model 287118 for
Kubota • Diesel engine Only
Model 227218 for Toro • Left
hand only.
2. Model 7121
21 cuoic foot, tapered
aluminum container, fuuy
mounted, self Dumping Shp
CIO' electric start engine
For tractors, gas or diesel,
12 t0 3211p Wlth 48" f0 74"
decks.
Recommenned for 3 acres
and up
OPTIONS ufiyht vi lefl
hand for category -r
point hitch tractors
2i Casters
3. Model 7950
50cuoic foot trailer type
self latching door, 8110 CIO -
electric start engine, left or
rigor hand, trap o-matic
mtcn. tapered aluminum
Oak. Steel frame, turf tires
For lawn and garden
tracrors and commercial
mowers 16ho and up wills
50" anti up decks,
Recommended for 3 acre;
and up
We] hplb.i Dimensions Fuel i
werrSnlPtnq 1
460/500 39W 24H 46L Gas or diesel
332/375 44W 46H 36L Gas or diesel
412/500 48W 62H 60L Gas or diesel
•tM - un�em.
MAI
I . -.= *"
k
J&I
IR 'AA
MAI
I . -.= *"
k
CUM -
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
Consideration of maintaining sidewalk on I-94 right-of-way. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND aACKGROUND:
As you may recall, the Minnesota Department of Transportation included
sidewalks on both sides of the I-94 bridge widening project when they
presented it to the Council earlier this year. The City had requested
during the main Highway 25 project that that portion of sidewalk be
deleted between Seventh Street and the I-94 right-of-way, as there was no
continuation of sidewalk across the bridge or down to Oakwood Drive at
that time.
MN/DOT indicated there would be no cost to the City of Monticello for the
installation of this sidewalk. My only concern at that time was whether
or not we would be able to get Perkins, Country Kitchen, and McDonalds to
maintain that portion of sidewalk in front of their property as required
by City ordinance. I did not realize that MN/DOT was expecting us to
maintain forever that portion of sidewalk on the I-94 right-of-way
between the private properties and the bridge structure itself.
MN/DOT was slow in giving a set of plans for the sidewalk to the City of
Monticello. We received them only after the project was started. And a
couple of weeks ago, the project engineer from MN/DOT sent a sidewalk
agreement to the City Administrator which includes the City maintaining
the sidewalk all the way to the bridge on both sides. Mr. Wolfateller
was given the ultimatum that if the City did not wish to sign the
agreement, there would be no sidewalks placed to the bridge, thus
pedestrians would have to walk on the Highway 25 surface itself. Rick
asked if I would discuss this with the MN/DOT people to see if we had any
options. on Thursday, August 24, I spoke with MN/DOT's local
representative and the project engineer from St. Cloud and informed them
that currently we had no problem in maintaining the sidewalk up to the
Interstate right-of-way on both sides of the project, as the City's
ordinances require the property owner to do this; and if not, the City
takes action to see it completed. In ny discussions with Tony Keupenich,
the project engineer from St. Cloud, it seemed as though we could work
out an agreement so that MN/DOT would maintain that portion of sidewalk
between the bridge and the edges of the interstate right-of-way or that
we would share maintenance and responsibility for that portion and that
the sidewalk project could continue. Tony called core back a few hours
later and informed me that his supervisor said "absolutelyX not." The
City takes all the maintenance of the sidewalk to tho briLe or no
sidewalk, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Since I am drafting this item on Friday, I have not had the opportunity
to go further up the chain of command with MN/DOT or to check with other
coimm nittes to determine if MN/DOT is maintaining any sidewalks on the
interstate rights-of-way. I will hopefully have this information for you
at Monday evening's meeting. I will also request that representatives
from MN/DOT and possibly a representative from the Federal Highway System
attend Monday evening's meeting.
Council Agenda - 8/28/89
One other concern about the sidewalk is the steepness of the slope near
the Country Kitchen restaurant. M11/DOT is providing a 2 -foot buffer area
of exposed aggregate on the western edge of the sidewalk, then an
immediate dropoff at a 2 to 1 slope surfaced with concrete down to steel
fencing. The City staff, as well as the local MN/WT representatives,
recognize this is a hazard, especially for anyone in a wheel chair, as
there is a significant slope on the sidewalk itself. The City should
demand that some type of safety railing be built along this edge if this
project is to continue.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve MN/DOT's sidewalk agreement which
basically gives us total responsibility for the sidewalk forever all
the way to the bridge.
2. The second alternative is to negotiate a different agreement with
MN/WT which makes them responsible for the sidewalk on the I-94
right-of-way.
3. The third alternative would be to request MN/DOT to build only that
section of sidewalk to the I-94 right-of-way which we guarantee to
maintain. I don't believe this is acceptable to MN/DOT, however.
4. The fourth alternative is to do nothing, whereby MN/DOT would not
build any sidewalk and pedestrians would be walking out on the
Highway 25 street surface itself. This puts MN/DOT at great risk
froin a liability standpoint for any accidents, as well as the City of
Monticello, as well as providing hazard to pedestrians and should be
totally unacceptable to the City if not MN/DOT.
C. STAFF RECOMMEt4DATION:
I had hoped that we would be able to work out some sort of an agreement
with MN/DOT whereby the City would not be responsible forever for a
sidewalk located on an interstate federal highway system. At this time,
It does not appear to be forthcoming, so staff does not have a
recommendation at this time. Hopefully, our research during Friday
afternoon and Monday will yield some additional information regarding who
maintains those sidewalks in other circumstances in other cities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the sidewalk layout, Copy of the proposed agreement.
:p4
, fr
rrrtcewtrer
T Ui
Wow-","
.................. ...... I
............. . ... ...............
NTERCMWCT LMMLIT
I I I I oil I
I&". � of. #too..? ty" 0.. 111} swo W. . •f . W..,
....... .................
M lip f
R== "ma.
m.
PLAN vltw
.m n•nca rt toa
AVING 09TAIL
JUM WIND 09YAM
N.M
M lip f
R== "ma.
m.
PLAN vltw
.m n•nca rt toa
AVING 09TAIL
JUM WIND 09YAM
pirR. 1I ba.
—.3 all V.Cto -f P
Fit 3ECTICH A -A
PAVIW# NTAIL
IlLopt Pjkvlmo 09TAIL
OWMM"Urs
wromom
T
Nnoco"CT LAW
Ith4pIes. W4460-01 ft.0-3tt) Skw
0
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROUTINE t1AINTE4ANCE AGREEMENT
PREPARED BY AGREEMENT NO.
OFFICE OF MAINTENANCE
66250
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
FOR
Routine maintenance of certain portions of sidewalks within the corporate
limits of the City of Monticello upon the terms and conditions set forth in
this agreement.
AMOUNT ENCUMB.
None
(Per Fiscal Year)
Maintenance Agreement No. 66250
Maintenance Agreement between the
State of Minnesota and the
City of Monticello
Sidewalks Along T.H. 25 in Monticello
A G R E E M E N T
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation (Sate), and the City of Monticello (City).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 161.38, subd. 3 (1984), the
parties desire to enter into an agreement relating to the maintenance of trunk
highway(s) within the corporate limits of the City upon the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I D
it is hereby understood ane agreed that upon the satisfactory completion
of State Project No. 8680-110 (1-94.392) construction, the City $hall
thereafter provide for the proper maintenance without coat or expense to the
State of all the concrete walk constructed within the corporate city limits
under said State Project except that which is an integral part of Bridge No.
86603. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, but not limited to,
snow and ice and debris removal and any other maintenance activities necessary
to perpetuate said concrete walk in a safe and usable condition.
II
The parties agree that all persons working on such sidewalks adjacent to
trunk highway(s) are employees or agents of the City and in no way employed by
the State. provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to parson&
employed directly by the State. All contracts and agreements made by the City
with third parties for the performance of any work to be done under this
agreement shall be subject to the terms of this agreement.
III
The parties agree that the City will not seek lademnity-oT contribution
from the State, its agents or employees, Jo any claim, action or cause of
action of any kind or character arising from alleged City negligence of the
maintenance work to be accomplished by the City under this agreement.
Agreement No. 66250
IV
This agreement may be terminated or supplemented to n_ct chaaeing
conditions at any time during its effective term by written agreement of the
State and City.
This agreement shall not be construed as a relinquishment by the State
of any powers or control it may have over the above described trunk
highway(s).
-2-
Agreement No. 66250
IN YITNESSYHEREOF, the State and the City sign and enter this agreement 1
through their duly authorized officials:
(CITY SEAL)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Mayor
Attest
Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF MINNESOTA
Recommended for Approval:
By
Assistant Commissioner -
Operations
By Date
Area Maintenance Engineer i
By Approved:
District Engineer
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
Approved as to form and Executions
By
Special AsailtanC Attorney'
General
.I.
By
Authorised Signature
Do to
Agreement No. 66250
R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N
Introduced by Councilman
Seconded by Councilman
Whereas the Department of Transportation of the State of Minnesota has
submitted to the City of Monticello an agreement for the maintenance of trunk
highway(s) within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello.
Be It Resolved by the City of Monticello;
That the Mayor and the City Clerk of said City are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into the Maintenance Agreement as submitted, with the
Department of Transportation of the State of Minnesota, for the maintenance of
trunk highway(s) within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello.
The question being on the passage of the resolution, there were yea's
and no's.
Passed 19
Mayor
Piled and attested this day
of 19
City Clerk
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
CITY OF MONTICELLO ) as
I, , City Clerk of the City of Monticello. Minnesota,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution
passed by the City Council of said City at's regular meeting, ,
19 and now on file in my office.
Dated this day of , 19 --
City Clark
.4.
LIQUOR FVND
CASH DISBURSEMENTS --- AUGUST 1989
AMOUNT
CnCK
NO.
Sentry Systems, Inc. - Repairs
65.00
14575
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
3.087.56
14576
Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor
1,576.49
14577
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
1,286.90
14578
Johnson Borthers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Wine
133.32
14579
NRC Corporation - Ribbons for register
105.33
14580
H 6 H Industries - Light bulbs
207.65
14581
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine
1,349.54
14582
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
1,307.49
14583
Quality Wine 6 SPirits Co. - Liquor
5,710.09
14584
Griggs, Cooper 6 CO. - Liquor
2,196.02
14585
PERA - Payroll Deductions
179.56
14586
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal o MEdicare W/H
573.09
14587
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
2,918.87
14588
Griggs, Cooper d CO. - Liquor
5,846.93
14589
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine
682.05
14590
Shamrock Supply Co. - Misc. supplies
297.01
14591
M{Qus Foods - Supplies
14.45
14592
Viking Coca Cola Co. - Pop
646.55
14593
Day Distributing Co. - Beer
975.10
14594
NSP - Utilities
972.57
14595
Dahlheimer Distributing Co. - Beer 6 mist. supplies
23.098.10
14596
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer
18,566.70
14597
:horpe Distributing Co. - Beer
12,505.90
14598
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
1.75
14599
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
2,184.65
14600
Kolles Sanitation - Carbage pickup
141.00
14601
MOM Radio - Advertising
114.00
14602
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Can liners
157.40
14603
Ron's Ice Co. - Ice
1,035.14
14604
KRWC Radio Station - Advertising
81.00
14605
Monticello Times - Advertising
109.00
14606
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco Co. - Misc. supplies
790.74
14607
Seven-up Bottling Co. - Pop
190.15
14608
Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges
531.29
14609
Ashwill Ceramic Tile Co. -.Repairs in entry
100.00
14610
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Pop
359.50
14611
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for 2nd half of Juno
5,410.32
14612
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone charges
72.53
14613
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
417.11
14614
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
2,116.70
14615
Glass Hut - Repairs
36.00
14616
St. Cloud Fire Equipment - Maint. of fire extinguisher
7.00
14617
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
1,435.82
14618
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for July
10,651.41
14619
Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. - Insurance premium
728.18
14620
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor
1,984.83
14621
MN. Municipal Beverage Association - Annual Membership Dues
310.00
14622
'ohnson Brothers - Liquor
776.37
14623
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
250.00
14624
PERA - Insurance premium
9.00
14625
LIQUOR FUND
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST 1989
AMOUNT
CH -
1 -NO., /
Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll W/H for August
236.91
14626
PERA - Payroll Deductions
183.10
14627
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal S Medicare W/H
601.39
14628
Wright County State Bank - Investments - C.D. Purchase
75,000.00
14629
McDowall Co. - Maint. of equipment
115.02
14630
Griggs, Cooper d Company - Liquor
3,734.29
14631
Ed Phillips & Sons Co. - Liquor
2,064.72
14632
Quality Wine & Spirits Co. - Liquor
2,072.01
14633
Johnson Brothers - Liquor
682.68
14634
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
267.09
14635
Gruys, Johnson d Associates - Computer charges for July
110.00
14636
Payroll for July 3,993.65
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR AUGUST 1203,364.02
J
K
GENERAL FUND A.%IOUNT CHECK N
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST - 1989
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV, Watercraft 6 Snowmobile Req.
285.00
28233
E.H. Renner 6 Sons - Final Payment- WeLl @4
6,621.54
28234
U.S. Postmaster - Postage
500.00
28235
Merri Jo Nesland - Recycling prize
25.00
28236
Larry Spivak - Recycling prize
50.00
28237
Midway Industrial Supply Co. - Airless gun
193.00
28238
011ie Koropchak - Travel Expense
21.25
28239
Lindberg Paints - Wall paper, etc - Remodeling Council Chambers
1,072.00
28240
Moody's Investors Service - Professional services - G.O. Bonds
2,000.00
28241
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Paper ToweLs - Library
39.38
28242
Phillips 66 Co. - Gas
32.83
28243
Elk River Refrigeration - Repairs - Old Fire Hall
37.50
28244
Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
72.07
28245
Patty Salzwedel - Reimbursement for Dog Food - Animal Control
254.72
28246
Dyna Systems - Small tools
540.05
28247
Olson 6 Sons Electric Co. - Parts 6 Labor
1,527.36
28248
Central Eyewear - Glasses - Fire Dept.
25.00
28249
Brenteson Construction Co. - Professional Services
695.00
28250
Compressor Services - Repairs - WWTP
3,672.22
28251
Braun Engineering 6 Testing - Professional Services
1,368.15
28252
Mobil Oil Co. - Gas
142.69
28253
Elk River Vet. Clinic - Animal Control Services
13.50
28254
Lindberg Paints - Staining Council Chambers
493.74
28255
?Inotics Recycling Ccnfcrence - Re.!s:ri t!cn Fee - John Simola
158.00
28256
'erry Hermes - Library Cleaning Contract
227.50
28257
..uto Owners Insurance - Insurance premium
61.00
28258
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage Contract Payment for July
7,915.30
28259
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV, Watercraft 6 Snowmobile Reg.
139.00
28260
Moon Motors - Parts
10.00
28261
Feedrito Controls - Supplies - Water Dcp t.
1,388.81
28262
N.S.P. - Overhead Electric Service - Water Dept.
1,915.00
28263
Water Products Co. - Supplies - Water Dept.
1,006.26
28264
Audio Communications - Radio Repairs
98.95
28265
Patty Salzvedel - Animal Control Contract 6 Adoptions
497.00
28266
Wright County Highway Dept. - Payment - Cty Rd. 39 6 75 Frontage Rd.
42,107.22
28267
Holmes 6 Graven - Professional Services
614.60
28268
Jim Ennis Cabinets - Map Shelves - City tinll
108.00
28269
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Control Services
70.00
28270
Cathy Shuman - Mileage Expense
36.48
28271
Adopt -A -Pat, Inc. - Animal Control Services
150.00
28272
Wilma Hayes - Info Center Salary
117.00
28273
Janette Leerssen - Info Center Salary
94.90
28274
USM - Engineering Services
33,336.78
28275
Crysteel Dist. Inc. - Balance on snow plow
1,003.10
28276
Holiday Gas - Gas - Fire Dept.
14.18
28277
Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repairs
86.00
• 28278
Wayne LaBree - Rimbursement for Classes - Fire Dept.
39.00
28279
Preusse Cleaning Service - Cleaning Contract - City Hall 6 Fire Dept.
450.00
28280
Y.M.C.A of Mple. - Monthly contract payment
625.00
28281
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft. Snowmobile b' ATV Reg.
205.00
28282
ERA - Payroll Ddductions
1.592.14
28283
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
5,274.11
28284
Burschville Const. - Sanitary Sewer, Waeermain 6 Appt. Work
5,524.09
28285
GENERAL FUND A,NOUNT
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST - 1989
Corrow Sanitation - Add'1 land fill charges
2,422.50
Al Corrow - Reimbursement for weight slips
28.50
Wright County Auditor - Printing labels
45.22
Nancy Lukach - Recycling prize
75.00
Polka Dot Recycling - Recycling payment
1,114,47
U.S. Postmaster - Certified Blight Letters
30.40
U.S. Postmaster - Certified Blight Letters
22.20
Norwest Investments - Computer Payment - August
2,407.61
Professional Services Group - WWTP Contract Payment
22,401.27
Midwest Gas - Utilities
55.80
U.S. Postmaster - Certified Blight Letters
20.80
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft 6 Snowmobile Reg.
134,00
Monticello Fire Dept. - Firemen's Wages
1,999.32
Ben Franklin - Supplies
26.84
Springsted, Inc. - Bond Issuance Fees
17,103.66
U.S. Postmaster - Certified Blight Letters
16.00
Jerry Hermes - Library Cleaning Contract
227.50
Patty Salzwedel - Animal Control Contract S Adoptions
473.00
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Insurance premium
6,645.58
NSP - Utilities
8,845.88
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone Charges
1.092.42
Earl F. Anderson 6 Assoc. - Signs
722.65
Barco Products - Supplies
295.75
DiawuuJ vugei PaiuLS - SLrneL idiul
14.II1,
Century Labs - Soap - Shop S Garage
90.82
Dehn's Tree Co. - Tree removal
1,525.00
Omann Brothers - Sand 6 Gravel
602.14
Buffalo Bituminous - Payment 112 -Road Imp. b Appt. work b Sand
27,019.22
Ed Lane - Reimbursement for repairs to driveway
6.99
Communication Auditors - Pager repairs - Fire Dept.
154.36
St. Cloud Fire Equipment - Serive fire extinguishers
129.00
Direct Safety Co. - Supplies
99,2.9
A T d T Info Systems - Fire Phone Charges
3.96
Gopher State One -Call Inc. - Professional services
95.00
Schluender Const. - Supplies - Water Dept.'
120.73
Smith 6 Hayes - Legal fees
1.219.90
P b H Warehouse - Supplies - Park Dept.
610.86
Unitog Rental - Uniform rental
141.49
Business Development Service, Inc. - HRA Professional Services
2,625.75
Monticello Rotary - Dues - 011ie Koropchak
205.00
Simonson Lumber Co. - Supplies
17.29
Coast to Coast - Supplies
348.55
L 6 S Tool Co. - Sharpened wood cutter blades
30.00
Royal Tire of Monticello - Repairs
6.50
National Bushing 6 Parte Co. - Supplies
17.00
Safety-Kleen Corp. - Mnint. of equipment
63.00
Zack's Industrial Cleaning Supply - Cleaning supplies
61.92
Moon Motors - Parts
42.45
Harry's Auto Supply - Parte 6 Supplies
87.42
Security Locksmiths - New Keys and Repairs at City Hall
107.50
Yonak Landfill, Inc. - Dump charges
52.50
Sentry System - Fire Alarm Lease - Fire Dept.
126.00
Northern Oxygen Service, Inc. - Supplies - Fire Dept.
12.30
GENERAL FUND AIM 0UNT CHECK N
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST - 1989
Turnquist Paper Co. - Paper Towels - City Hall
135.33
28339
First Trust Center - Bond Fees
662.75
28340
Quality LAwn 6 Maintenance Co. -Moving
75.00
28341
Scherer Sanitation -Latrine Rental
62.00
28342
Monticello Printing - Office supplies
27.80
28343
Monticello Offfice Products - Office supplies
379.33
28344
Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Sheriff's contract payment - Aug.
12,049.14
28345
Maus Foods - Supplies
64.10
28346
Voss Electric - Bulbs
152.50
28347
Unocal - Gas
39.97
28348
Copy Duplicating Products - Copy machine mice. at Library
36.00
28349
Adam's Pest Control - Pes t controL at City Hall
50.00
7.8350
Creative Floral d Boutique - Flowers - Wolfe Funeral
40.60
28351
Local 1149 - Union Dues
144.00
28352
Lindberg Painting -Painting Council Chambers
952.37
28353
Sorbus - Maint. of computer printers
1,173.00
28354
MPELRA - Reg. Fee for Conference - R. Wolfsteller
95.00
28355
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Can Liners for City Hall
149.88
28356
Pitney Bowes - Postage machine rental
59.25
28357
League of MN. Cities - Annual Dues
1.590.00
28358
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
70.04
28359
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Deductions
210.16
28360
R!r.k Wnifereller - Mileage allowance
300.00
29761
'ERA - Insurance premium
27.00
28362
-nnette Luerssen - Info Center Salary
79.30
28363
Wilma Hayes - Infor Center Salary
101.40
28364
U.S. Postmaster - Certified Blight Letters
14.40
28365
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft, Snowmobile b ATV. reg.
228.00
28366
Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll W/H for August
1. 740.23
28367
i.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll W/H
568.88
28368
Wright County State Bank - FICA. Federal 6 Medicare W/H
S. 170.57
28369
PERA - Payroll Deductions
1,573.96
28370
Jeff O'Neill - Mileage expense
253.75
28371
Wright County Stace Bank - Investments - G.D. Purchase
325.000.00
28372
McDowall Company - Repairs
2.417.94
28373
Marco Products - 2 copy machines, maint. agreement 6 copy paper
11.726.00
28374
Operation Impact - Subcription - Water Dept.
400.00
28375
Feedrice Controls - Supplies - Water Dept.
3.014.94
28376
Davis Water Equipment- Supplies- Water Dept,
472.97
28377
Dchn's Tree Co. - Tree removal
1.555.00
28378
Stove's Elk River Nursery - Shrubs - Maint. Bldg.
69.60
28379
Monticello TW linrdwnre - Battering - recycling
89.66
28380
Ziegler, Inc. - Parts
46.74
28381
Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repnirn - Old Firs Hall 6 Maint. Bldg.
515.69
18382
Fair's Garden Center - Suppl'ies
189.90
28383
Direct Safety Co. -Supplies - Water Dept.
8.96
28383
Al 6 Julie Nelson -Newspaper subcription
13.75
28385
Nalson 011 Co. - Gas
2.095.46
28386
1 M 011 Co. - Gas
17.43
28387
onticello Timos - Legal Publications
1.361.73
28388
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CASH DISBURSEMENTS -- AUGUST -- 1989
U.S. Postmaster - Postage for HRA
125.00
Fair's Garden Center - Shurbs - Maint. Bldg.
307.01
Gruys, Johnson d Associates - Computer charges
290.00
Olive Koropchak - Mileage expense
31.50
Moores Excavating - Digging at Old Ford Garage
137.50
Olson S Sons - Repairs 6 parts
1,496.83
Taylor Land Surveyors - Surveying - Chelsea Road Project
415.00
Nu Tech Environmental Corp. - Supplies - WWPP
1,181.08
Elk River Veterinary Clinic - Animal Control Services
13.50
Mobil - Gas
280.57
Holmes 6 Graven - Professional Services
4,000.00
Mn. Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft, snowmobile b ATV reg.
89.00
Allied Blacktop - Seal Coating Project
30.976.08
Quintin Lanners - Land Purchase
500.00
Reed's Sales and Services - Supplies - Park Dept.
42.88
Nott Co. - Supplies - Water Dept.
81.69
Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
95.47
Dehn's Tree Co. - Tree removal
465.00
Holiday Gas - Gas
12.35
University of Minnesota - Reg. Fee for Jeff O'Neill
90.00
Direct Safety Co. - Supplies
57.22
Water Products Co. - Meters, etc. - Water Dept.
1,288.49
Viking Pipe Service Co. - Televising sewer lines
320.00
Quality Lawn 2Iaintanznce Co. - Mowing
'S
Region 7E AAA - Reg. Fee for Karen Hansen
35.00
Schluender Const. - Digging
357.50
Schillewaert Landscaping - Tree Removal
3,275.00
July Payroll 30,521.57
TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS FOR AUGUST 680,898.05