The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP March 30, 2004 , 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 _/ FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Special City Council Workshop Miscellaneous Items Tuesday, March 30, 2004 Conference Room A & B 1. Call to Order -7:00 p.m. 2. A ward Bid Pkgs. 1, 2 & 3/Community Center - Administra/ion 3. Acknowledge Community Center Ice Arena Manager Position - Administration ,-) 4. Consider YMCA Lease Agreement - Administration/Finance 5. Discuss Community Policing Initiatives (Council Goal) - Sheriff's Office 6. Consider Draft Sanitary Sewer Study/Phasing Plan Revision/04-1 - Engineering/Planning 7. Discuss Access Issues for Sophie's Manor - Planning/Engineering 8. Discuss Road Improvement Policy- Engineering/Planning/Finance 9. Discuss New Standard Street Section (Continued) - Engineering 10, Schedule Council 2004-05 Goal Setting Workshop -Administration 11. Consider Public Facility Use/Security Policy - Administra/ion 12. Other Business 13. Adjournment ,_/' Sl\NDbVE~ @ ,~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.C1.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Award Bid Packages 1,2 and 3 - Community Center Project DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION Bid opening was held on March 25, 2004 for bid package 3, Bid package 3 consisted of 35 separate categories, A bid tabulation report is attached for Council review, DISCUSSION Bids were tabulated by RJM Construction at the conclusion of the bid opening with a resulting project budget overage of $2,375,639, At this point, the construction manager will be analyzing "J the bids and staff will be meeting to discuss the bids prior to the Council workshop, Given the extent of the bid variances from the project estimates, it is difficult to contemplate that the facility could absorb an additional $2-4 million in reductions. With the full use of the project contingency of $633,151, this number drops to approximately $1,742,488 in negative project variances, Council has several choices at this point in the project In light of the partnership with the YMCA, these choices will obviously need to be explored in a collaborative manner. 1. The Council could reject the bids and re-bid the project in the fall of this year. It is doubtful that steel prices will drop significantly, as it is extremely difficult to predict national or global trends. Council should be aware that while several bid categories were affected by increases in steel prices ($2,116,371), other bid categories also exceeded design estimates ($504,408) and there were two un-awarded items from Bid Package #1 ($205,000). The construction manager will explain the unawarded items at the Council workshop. In addition, design and construction fees show an increase due to changes in the project scope ($219,744). This analysis is unaudited, but is a fairly accurate administrative summary of the increased costs. 2. The Council could proceed with the award of the project and direct staff to explore the impact this additional cost would have on the "bottom line" tax impact to City taxpayers and the capacity of the YMCA to absorb their proportionate share of these additional costs. I have asked the Finance Department to prepare updated financial Performas , , ) reflecting the bid prices received on March 25, 2004. In addition, the Performas will take into account various levels of capital campaign proceeds. , , 3. Council could direct that the facility be substantially redesigned, reducing square footage ',--_/ and/or eliminating certain design elements of the project. For example, the field house could be eliminated or reduced substantially in size. Council should be advised that the project has already gone through three (3) separate rounds of value engineering. Further reductions would affect design quality, materials and aesthetic aspects of the facility. 4. The project could be retained as is, and Council could debate the merits of putting the project out to a voter referendum. Council members have expressed concerns in the past regarding exceeding a baseline project budget of $16.5 million. The total project cost as it stands now is approximately $19 million, if the full contingency is absorbed. 5. The project could be tabled until further notice. Council should be aware that the City has already expended approximately $984,097 for consultant services, capital campaign and miscellaneous expenses. In addition, if the project were tabled costs incurred for capital campaign expenses would also have to be considered as a separate expense. Further, the City has also expended a non-recoverable expense of $80, 000 for shop drawings for steel and pre-cast, outstanding costs for a legal survey, engineering invoices for the abatement application and fiscal consulting invoices yet to be received. It is important to note that these options are presented for Council deliberation only. Staff is not making any recommendations at this point until further review and discussion has been held with the project principals and the YMCA. ACTION REQUIRED '\ ,) Council should be advised that the bid holding period for bid package #1 will run out in the beginning of April, 2004. Consequently, a decision cannot be deferred without losing the favorable bids received on the structural steel and pre-cast concrete. , , 'J ~G~ Bid Summarv Analvsis l!I ~ % Steel Related Overages ($2,116,371) C/1 6J~ Non-Steel Related Overages ($504,408) Items Under Budget $669,884 j/:J.~/o1 "s Unawarded ($205,000) " _---"""""Total Budget Variance ($2.155,895) Construction Fee ($63,856) (U,,~) Architectural Fee $ (155,888) Reconciliation ($2,375,639) Contingency $ 633,151 Total Budget Variance (} ,742,488 Bid Summary Proiect: Andover/YMCA Community Center Plans Estimate Actual Location: Andover Minnesota Conceptual No: Bid Package Summary DsgnlDevlp Date: March 25. 2004 SQFT I 134,839 Low DD (Over)/Under EST. SF ACT. SF DESCRIPTION N'otes Bid Estimate BnMet COST COST Bid Category 3A - Building Cast-In-Place Concrete Concrete and Masonry $ 2,096,000 $ 1.604,450 1$491,550 $11.90 $15.54 15A - Plumbing and Pipin.g Systems $ 1,257,000 $ 851,329 1$405,671 $6,31 $9,32 15B - HV AC and Controls Systems $ 1,845,000 $ 1,499,371 ($345,629 $11.12 $13,68 16A - Electrical and Technology $ 1.488,000 $ 1,239,471 1$248.529 $9.19 $11.04 8C - Aluminum Entrances/Storefronts $ 797,075 $ 583,038 1$214,037 $4.32 $5,91 7 A - Metal Wall Panels $ 348.932 $ 139,135 1$209,797 $1.03 $2,59 Steel Unawarded $ 185.000 1$185,000 $0,00 $1.37 9A - Plaster and Gypsumboard $ 417,000 $ 282.564 1$134,436 $2,10 $3.09 lOA - Soecialtv Materials $ 162,995 $ 70,939 1$92,056 $0,53 $1.21 6A - Carpentry and Specialties $ 269,800 $ 182.940 1$86,860 $1.36 $2,00 5B - Steel Materials $ 248,000 $ 171,000 ($77,000 $1.27 $1.84 6B - Structrual Wood Systems $ 256.400 $ 190,000 1$66.400 $1.41 $1.90 9B - Ceramic Tile $ 198.191 $ 156,000 ($42,191 $1.16 $1.47 A - Food Service Eauioment $ 93,680 $ 53,380 1$40,300 $040 $0,69 , J- Acoustical Ceilin.gs $ 93,000 $ 53,497 1$39,503 $040 $0,69 8E - Metal SkyliQhts $ 125.250 $ 92,557 1$32,693 $0,69 $0,93 8D - Translucent Wall Assemblies $ 94,184 $ 63,881 1$30,303 $047 $0.70 9F - Paintin.g $ 199,000 $ 180,975 1$18,025 $1.34 $1.48 88 - Overhead Doors $ 44,030 $ 29,543 1$14,487 $0,22 $0,33 6C - Interior Architectural Woodwork $ 81,834 $ 72,071 ($9,763 $0.53 $0,61 11 C - Dasher Boards $ 118,994 $ 110,000 1$8,994 $0.82 $0,88 13C - Ice Rink Refrigeration Systems $ 414,980 $ 410,000 1$4,980 $304 $308 14A -Hydraulic Elevators $ 46,360 $ 41,771 1$4,589 $031 $0.34 7B - EPDM RoofinQ/Sheetmetal $ 482,700 $ 480.914 1$1,786 $3,57 $3,58 I DC - Ooerable Panel Partitions $ 7,800 $ 6.600 1$1,200 $0,05 $0,06 2B - Landscape & Irrigation $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $0 $0,70 $0,70 4A - Unit Masonrv $ - $0 $0,00 $0,00 12A - Window Blinds $ 8,500 $ 8.500 $0 $0,06 $0,06 13A - Sauna $ 13.000 $ 13,000 $0 $0,10 $010 9E - Resilient and Carpet Flooring $ 60,938 $ 66,180 $5,242 $049 $045 9D - Sports/Wood Flooring $ 227,465 $ 232,810 $5,345 $1.73 $1.69 lOB - SiQnaQe $ 3,494 $ 10,000 $6,506 $0,07 $003 15C - Fire Sorinkler Systems $ 205,485 $ 235,000 $29,515 $1.74 $1.52 SA - Structural Steel Joists and Decking $ 570,000 $ 616.800 $46,800 $4,57 $4.23 I I B - Recreational Equipment $ 41,000 $ 102,108 $61,108 $0,76 $0,30 12B - Telescooing Stands $ 22,426 $ 84,498 $62,072 $0.63 $0,17 8A - Door and Hardware Materials $ 113,953 $ 177,455 $63,502 $1.32 $0,85 3B - Precast Concrete $ 1,315,973 $ 1,427,075 $111,102 $1058 $9,76 2A - Earthwork, Utilities, Paving $ 896,696 $ 1,035,388 $138,692 $7,68 $6,65 ] 3B - Swimming Pools/SpaslEQuipment $ 1,110.000 $ 1,250,000 $140,000 $9,27 $8.23 -I- Precast Unawarded $ 20,000 $ 120,000 $0,15 General Conditions $ 627,400 $ 627,400 $0 $465 $4,65 Insurance $ 93,000 $ 93.000 $0 $0,69 $0.69 Construction Fee $ 638,230 $ 574,374 1$63,856 $4,26 $4,73 $ - $ - $0 $0,00 $0,00 rons/rue/ion Cost $17,433.765 $15,214,014 -$2,219,751 $112.83 $129.29 ,~ AndoverfYMCA Community Center March 25, 2004 Page 2 Page 2 IOwner Costs Notes DD Estimate $/SF $/SF _I Pe~its/SAC/Wac $ 81,354 $ 81,354 $ - $0,60 $0,60 ting and Inspections $ 43,500 $ 43,500 $ - $0,32 $0,32 , .\'ner Furniture and Fixtures $ 37,700 $ 37,700 $ - $0,28 $0,28 Zamboni $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ - $0,67 $0.67 Owner Security $ 60.000 $ 60,000 $ - $0.44 $0.44 Owner Phone and Data CablinQ' $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ - $012 $0,12 Relocated Softball Field Lighting $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $0,89 $0,89 Owner Signage $ 7.500 $ 7,500 $ - $0.06 $0,06 Totals I $ 456,054 S 456.054 SO.OO $3.38 $3.38 Design Fees Notes DD Estimate $/SF $/SF Architectural Desi!!n Fees $ 1,046,026 $ 890,138 $ (155,888 $6,60 $7,76 Totals $ 1,046,026 S 890,138 $ (155,888) $6.60 $7.76 Project Summary DD Estimate $/SF $/S~' Construction Costs $ 17,433,765 $ 15,214,014 $ (2,219,751 $112.83 $129.29 Owner Costs $ 456,054 $ 456,054 $ - $3.38 $3,38 Design Fees $ 1,046,026 $ 890,138 $ 1\ 55,888 $660 $7,76 Contingency $ 633,151 $ 633,151 $ - $470 $4,70 Project Total $ 19,568,996 $ 17,193,357 $ (2,375,639) $127.51 $145.13 CLARIFICATIONS $ (2,375,639) \. -.../ \ \. ) CITY OF ANDOVER Contract 1 Project Tracking , ! .J 3/26/2004 Contract/Limit Contract Paid To Vendor Coding Amount Adjustments Date Retainage Balance 02-27 Andover Community Center RJM Construction, Inc. 420.49250.406 550,730.00 121,552.91 429,177.09 Saterbak & Assoc 98,676.78 Byrne & Associates 31,348.10 Ehlers & Assoc 4,275.00 RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. 6,875.00 Rozeboom Miller Architects 420.49250.301 888,145.00 20,643.18 680,958.21 227,829.97 Bonestroo, Rosene etal 485.68 STS Consultants 5,821.25 Springsted Inc. 4,059.76 payroil 5,552.17 Misc - Fund 420 23,990.08 Misc - Fund 101 502.36 984,097.30 '" ./ \ ,) Sl\.NDbVE~ @ , / 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acknowledge Ice Arena Manager Position/Start Date DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION With the anticipated construction of the new Community Center Ice Arena scheduled for opening in mid October, 2004, the need to recruit and hire an Ice Arena Manager by no later than July 1, 2004 becomes critical to meeting a number of operational requirements. DISCUSSION Council was recently apprised of the need to hire an Ice Arena Manager with at least 90 days of operational lead-time. Staff has had several contacts with involved residents and has already '- ) received numerous inquiries regarding scheduling ice time. In preparation for the mid-October opening date, the Ice Arena Manager will be very busy with interviewing and hiring part-time and seasonal staff, preparing operating policies and guidelines, scheduling ice time for team and public use, meeting with local hockey groups and school district skating/hockey representatives, overseeing the ice arena opening schedule/facility shakedown, attending to myriad details affecting ice arena operations and meeting with potential advertisers, as time permits. In staff s view, the minimum amount of time necessary to ensure the successful opening of this facility is 90 days, With that timetable in mind, staff would anticipate beginning the recruitment process by April 15, 2004, with the Ice Arena Manager beginning no later July I, 2004. Staff has prepared a job description for Council acknowledgement and identified an appropriate compensation range for the position. This position was previously identified in the Community Center Business Plan recently adopted by Council. Supporting materials have been attached to this staff memorandum. BUDGET IMP ACT Funding for this position would be appropriated initially through the lease revenue bond issued for the facility, and upon commencement of the facility through operating revenues. These initial staffing costs were anticipated in the bond issue. \ '- / ACTION REQUIRED J Council acknowledgement of the attached job description and approval to begin the process leading to the appointment of the Ice Arena Manager effective July 1, 2004. An appointment recommendation will be forwarded to Council by the second meeting in June 2004, '- / I " - . I CITY OF ANDOVER POSITION DESCRIPTION , '\ j Position Title: Ice Arena Manager -' Department: Community Center Accountable To: City Administrator Status: Exempt PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF POSITION: Under the general direction of the City Administrator, plans, organizes, implements and coordinates programs for the Community Center Ice Arena. Promotes full utilization of the facility to maximize revenue generating potential with the objective of operating the facility on a sound financial basis. Establishes and reviews standards, prepares annual operating budget, oversees facility maintenance, prepares and enforces policies and procedures for all phases of operation. Provide effective, efficient and excellent customer services to all city clients and the public. SUPERVISION EXERCISED: Exercises supervision over maintenance personnel and seasonal staff. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (Other Duties as assigned) . Manages and schedules ice time to assure availability to various skating interests in a fair, impartial and equitable manner. . Develops innovative use of slack ice time to generate broad community interest in the , facility . Directs ongoing promotional and public relations programs with the goal of securing advertising revenue streams for the facility. . Develops publicity and information through brochures, news releases and flyers with the goals of promoting and attracting interest in the use ofthe facility . Ensures timely response to customer concerns in a professional and empathetic manner . Develops good relationships with youth athletic association boards, and local high school teams. . Develops "learn" to skate and figure skating programs during normal ice season and explores and implements alternate uses of facility during the off season. . Plans, directs and oversees the complete maintenance operation and functioning of the Ice Arena. . Prepares, directs and implements a maintenance program to assure that the ice and the facility which houses it are in optimum condition, assuring safety and enjoyment to users. . Manages purchases of materials to conform to budgetary constraints. . Performs maintenance and operations functions as needed. . Schedules activities and supervises personnel for the Ice Arena to provide adequate staff coverage at all times. . Trains and supervises the clerical, maintenance and program staff. . Develops and maintains a schedule for personnel which maximizes service but assures , efficient use of resources. I '\ . - -' . Effectively uses personnel to assure the safety and enjoyment of users and assures that the facility is used properly. . Develops and implements employee safety training programs with emphasis on accident , prevention, handling hazardous chemicals, and first aid education. ,. . Establishes procedures and policies for program registration; develops and monitors procedures for verifying and tracking ice usage by constituents. . Ability to work cooperatively with other users of the facility to promote harmonious and productive working relationships. . Advises the City Administrator on all significant matters affecting the operation of the facility under his/her control; Strives to continually enhance the productivity and performance of the facility. . Exhibits a leadership style that is committed to organizational values of integrity, building credibility, team-work, professionalism, civility, performance-oriented and achievement driven; a willingness to challenge the status quo by being open to new ideas, creative solutions and innovation. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: . A college degree in Recreation, Management, Business Administration or related field (a combination of education and experience may be substituted for a four-year degree). . Minimum of three to five years successful experience in a supervisory level position for a Parks and Recreation Department, Ice Arena and/or Recreation Facility. NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: . Considerable knowledge of facility management (special emphasis regarding ice arena), , administrative practices, operation and customer relations. , . Work related experience in setting priorities, directing, training, supervising and , -' evaluating others. . Skill in personnel practices. . Ability to communicate clearly and effectively orally and in writing. . Knowledge of the development and implementation of a customer relations program. . Ability to develop and maintain positive working relationships with public and private agencies affiliated with the facility. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: None. PHYSICAL DEMANDS: The physical demands that are described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit and talk or hear. The employee is regularly required to walk; use hands to finger, handle, or feel objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 100 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the , ability to adjust focus. , ) - -' 2 WORK ENVIRONMENT: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations , may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. '-~ SELECTION GUIDELINES: Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job related tests may be required. The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position. The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change. Date: Approval: City Administrator , ./ 8/03 ,~ 3 " ./ '," , ~ III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c::i c::i 0 0 c::i 0 c::i c::i CO '<t 0 <0 N CO '<t 0 0> CO f'-._ ll) '<t N_ ...... 0 ro 0 N '<t cD co 0 N ..~I '<t ll) ll) ll) ll) ll) <0 <0 . .... ~ .E '0 ~ CO COu. :0 .... e: .E 0 'w c::;::; :!: I I I I I I I e: o CO 0 .- Q) ~ a. - .... !/l 'w al l!! 8.0:: C) CO') , ) 0 ~ (i) 0 0 0 >- 0::: N Q) Q)'O > - e: 0- 0 i::'CO '0 o CO a.. e: !/l e: W CO .- Q) l- e: ~ .... 0 Q)<( rn 'w a.Q) 0::: .~ ::l U !/l- W Q) CO"': > a. e: e: ::l .- Q) 0 I/) Q) E C CI U1:: rn e: e: CO Z 'S; Q) a. <( I- 0 'C Q) , z > 8,0 0 .5 x e: e: Q) 0 0- w:.;:::; 0 .... CO M "" CO Q) 'w Q) .... III II) 0 >.u Q) M Q) a. ~o:: CI 1 I ro l! .c ..l,i::"'O - '- 0::: 'c co en o e: ell C ::. Q) e: Z _ co ~ 0 Q) w ClQ) .... N CO') '<t II) CD co .... 0 Q) !/l :::iE I g. Ig. 0. 0. 0. 0. C) e: co Q)~ ell t: co Q) i= .... .... .. .~ ell ell ell ell 0 <( .cCO - - - - - - ~ .~ <( 1-0- :I: en en en en en en en .... Z u <( u:: :!: ::i <( z <( 0 ::::l Z i= a w 0::: Q. :::iE it: ::::l c:( u :::iE ,-J w en z () w ~ c ::2:en"US::S::3'ImOIJJIJJ~ ) :- -< -. Q) < 0 Q) 0 cO";::;: '. 8035'Q.!!l~<gg30 g: 5' 0 !!!. CO G) :;' ::> ~~. ccS.OG)..,en ::0=::> -<!Cl.:T::>..,o ~ro(C 7\ 0 < -. 8" Dl<CO Cl.::> COI en CO cO' :T - en {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl\ ~ ./>../>.U1./>.U1./>.0>./>.U1./>.U1./>. <OO>OOJ./>../>.OOOJ-..JON .~ "'-.J-c.o-N~ ~ (o-oo~ (00, ~c.o-1r.OOJNOc.o.t::.~-..JO :I>-~~~~99!'>~?>~9 ~ooooooooooo OJooooooooooo (fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl(fl~ 0> 0> 01 0> 0>U1-..JU10>-..J0>U1 NOOO>OU1O>./>.OJNU1W Co""-.JW-Nt0~""-.t. ~ -N-f\.lOO 0>-..JNOJO./>.00>-..JNU10 OJOJ./>.WO><OOOJOU1NO mOOOOOOOOOOO ./>.00000000000 wwwwwwwwww~~ ./>.U1./>.U1./>.0>./>.U1./>.U1./>.1ll O>OOJ./>../>.OOOJ-..JON::l -.......<.o-N--tr. --tr. <0'0'0 ~-CDtn l),I '_ J $mg~~g~~OJOjglD I I I I I I I I I I I ... (J){J'}~ffi-ffi.y)ffiffiffi-ffi{J'} .00>0>0>U1-..JU10>-..J0>U1 -..J 0_0> 0.U1 O>./>. OJ.N U1 W -..- 1\.)- ......ll.- - - N- - OJWCON~......ll.-Jr.NNOO ~Wg<og&lClU1~g {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl {fl ::> ; WW~ w./>.wo <O./>.<O ...... ex> VJ :J -""'-"'w "N:"''WCD -..JNO OJ 0 0 <0 OJ , -..JOO , , , , U1{fl{fl {fl {fl , ~WN W 0> (fl Cn<O~ <OO./>. . . ./>. m. U1 00_ ......ll.8~ U10<O moo m ./>. NNN......NNOJ-" ~ NI-a """"""~,, ",,-1 _-I -I -I -I -I -I :T -I -I-I=Ti ~ " -I "U -I -I -s::- 00 0 ::o~ n ~Dl)> 00 <' co - 0 )> ::> .s:: 03 o' Q g 3 .., Dl 0 -0 3 )> m G) 3 co(C ::>co-o co c .., !:!:WtD Q) _-, CD .., ::> co o .., ::l Dl -. ::> s::-IW ~-.< ::>Cl.... Dl co Ul tC m ~. go s:: ,,::> .., () 0 ~s:: -:T::> en co Dl " en en~ ::> =:Dl (ii' en c co Dl !:!:::J a: c -0 .., (C co Dl -0 co s:: co Ul(C I :< .., s::!!l 0 Dl -. ::> (C - ,~ c en Dl .., ~ en -Q (Q co co 0' s:: ~-.., co (C )>() G) .'" .., 0 Dl )> ~ =l .., n S'\NDbVE~ 0J \ '-~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: YMCA Lease Agreement DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION YMCA representatives and City staff have met on several occasions to discuss and refine the lease agreement. The agreement has also been reviewed by the City attorney and the YMCA attorney for related legal elements. DISCUSSION A draft lease agreement will be available for distribution at the Council workshop. Based on '\ discussions we have had with the YMCA, it is safe to say that there a no unresolved lease '--' agreement issues remaining at this time. Issues raised by the Council have been incorporated in the document and the lease does include an opportunity to review concession operations with the following language: "The Landlord and Tenant agree to conduct a profit-loss review after the first two years of concession operations to refine marketing strategies and pursue operating efficiencies with the stated goals of optimizing concession revenue generating capacities, meeting customer expectations and minimizing food service delivery costs." One additional change was made to the lease agreement affecting the percentage split between the City and the YMCA due to the inclusion of the Andover High School Team rooms. Council may recall that the high school team rooms were added to the budget on January 20, 2004 in the budgeted amount of $188,357, for a total project cost of $17,193,357. This amount needs to be added to the City's side of the project budget and will be recovered through a separate sub- lease between the City and the School District. As this change only affects the City's side of the construction cost, the percentage was revised to account for this change. The new percentage split for the City will change from 51.74% to 52.27%, a .53% increase; the YMCA percentage will decrease by a corresponding percentage from 48.26% to 47.73%, a .53% decrease. Again, this slight change in percentage, and the actual construction cost of $188,357, will be recovered from the school district through a sub-lease. The revised percentage split has been reviewed with the Finance Director and he concurs with the appropriateness of the recalculation. This issue was raised during the lease agreement discussions by the YMCA in terms of how the school district would be leasing their portion of the facility. '\ 0 Council should be aware that there are three intrinsic lease documents. A "Ground" Lease ,) between the City and the EDA. A "Prime" Lease between the EDA and the City providing for the construction and lease-back of the facility to the City. And finally, a "Sub-Lease" that is currently being negotiated between the City and the YMCA to lease a portion of the facility to the YMCA. This is the document that is currently undergoing final review by the City and the YMCA. The prime lease represents the City's obligation to the EDA as the bond issuer to identify and commit revenue streams for repayment of the debt issued by the EDA. The ground lease represents the document that leases the use of the land to the EDA to construct the facility. In terms of execution, the lease agreement will have to go through several additional reviews by bond counsel and will not need to be executed until the bonds are scheduled for closing in the first week of May, 2004. Effectively, the substance of the lease agreement received by the Council will remain unaltered, with the exception of legal or bond counsel changes necessary to make the bonds compliant with industry requirements. ACTION REOUIRED Provide preliminary approval to the "Sub-Lease" document establishing the terms and conditions of a facility lease to the YMCA and, which represents the YMCA's financial obligation to the City for the term of the lease. The lease will run concurrently with the fiscal obligations of the 30-year Lease Revenue Bond and provides for lease renewals to the YMCA consistent with the terms established under the previously approved Memorandum of Understanding. " Upon approval by the City Council, the Sub-Lease will be presented to the YMCA Board of ~ j Directors for their approval. \ \..) ~NDbVE~ @ , , \.~) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Community Policing Initiatives - 2003-04 Council Goal DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION During the 2003-04 Council goal-setting session, Council articulated the implementation of additional community policing initiatives for the Anoka County Sheriffs Office as a medium priority. During the last twelve months, the Sheriffs Office has been involved with a number of significant community policing events and activities. DISCUSSION , In response to this Council goal, my office has met with Captain Jenkins to identify activities \~ j that would lead to greater visibility, higher levels of interaction with businesses and residents and -- the creation of more programming for the City's public cable channel. The attached report summarizes the activities the Sheriffs Department has been involved with over the last year and highlights an impressive list of accomplishments, achievements and community involvement. Captain Jenkins will be in attendance at the Council workshop to address any additional questions or observations the Council may have on these activities. In terms of the Council goal relative to community policing initiatives, additional suggestions by Council on community policing activities are welcome and would be most appreciated. ACTION REOUIRED Council review and discussion of the attached report. Cc: Sheriff Bruce Andersohn, Anoka County \ Captain Dave Jenkins, Anoka County \ - ) , \ Office of the Sheriff \J Anoka County Sheriff Bruce Andersohn 325 East Main Slreet, Anoka. MN 55303-2489 (763}323-5000 Fax (763}422-7503 Report for the City of Andover Projects Accomplished in 2003 Vision for 2004 Crime Watch Programs Neighborhood Watch Groups - In 2003, the Anoka County Sheriffs Office Crime Prevention stafffocused on increasing the number of Neighborhood Watch Groups (NWG) in the City of Andover. During 2002 Andover residents were slow to commit to starting a NWG. Our office decided to contact residents in the community that had contacted us in the past year and expressed concerns in their neighborhoods. We also extended an invitation to residents who had hosted National Night Out parties as potential block club leaders. Through this campaign, we were able to establish seven new groups in the city of Andover. ~J National Night Out - National Night Out (NNO) is a designated evening the first Tuesday of August, where we ask neighbors to turn on their outside lights and spend the evening with their neighbors. This evening provides the opportunity for neighbors to get to know each other, show criminals that neighborhoods are organized and will not tolerate crime, and it also gives our office the opportunity to meet residents and hear their concerns. Our command staff paired with city leaders and visited the block parties. This year the City of Andover tripled its number of parties for National Night Out and was selected as a National Award Winner for its outstanding participation. In addition to the main event on August 5th, our office also hosted a bike rodeo in association with Grace Lutheran Church, conducted an enforcement wave to educate residents on theft from vehicles and hosted a color contest for the kids. Business Education Alcohol Compliance Training - The Anoka County Sheriffs Office has historically been involved in conducting alcohol compliance checks at local liquor retail businesses. This year we decided to pro actively improve the results of those compliance checks by educating area business owners and their staff on compliance checks and Minnesota laws pertaining to the serving and selling of alcohol. Our office paired up with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division, to develop the class that was hosted in February, 2002. Twenty-five of the 39 retailers in our service area attended the training. , '-) Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer \ When the first rounds of compliance checks were held after the training class, there was a , / substantial increase in the number of businesses that passed the checks. The final round of checks for 2003 resulted in all liquor retailers in our jurisdiction a passing grade. In addition to the education piece of this project, our office also purchased an age identification system that we loan out to liquor establishments, and encourage them to purchase their own after realizing the value of the system. Bank Robbery Training - The Anoka County Sheriffs Office, in conjunction with the Coon Rapids Police Department, hosted a seminar to educate financial institutions on how to work as partners with law enforcement to prevent robbery. This type of crime is progressively increasing in Anoka County and we wanted to take a pro- active approach to dealing with it. Through training and sharing of information, we felt we could prevent robberies and increase the safety of bank personnel and customers in the event of a robbery. We also educated bank management and employees on the type of information we need to help us successfully investigate and prosecute people who commit these crimes. All but one bank in the sheriffs office jurisdiction attended the training, Child Safety Activities Safety Camp - Safety Camp in 2003 was the best attended yet. We hosted 123 campers June 17 & 18 at Sunshine Park in Andover. In 2003 we faced a new challenge, '_/ having to raise a substantial amount of funds to support the camp. We decided to do a direct mail piece asking local businesses in the cities of Andover and Ham Lake to support the camp. Our requests were answered and we raised over $3700. In 2004 we need to raise $4000 and we plan on making substantial changes to the programming of Safety Camp. Keeping camp fresh, new, and current with injury and safety trends will be one of our biggest challenges in the years to come. Bike Rodeo - In coordination with National Night Out celebrations, the Anoka County Sheriffs Office hosted a bike rodeo at Grace Lutheran Church. A bike safety lecture was given and the children had the opportunity to take their bikes through a safety course. At the end ofthe day, Rich Weiber, a stunt bike professional, was hired by Grace Lutheran church to come and perform for the kids at the bike rodeo. Rich delivered a great message on the need for bike helmets, as well as an anti-drug message. Home Alone Presentations - Our office receives many requests to come out and talk to kids on a variety of topics. One topic we felt we should address is staying home alone. We developed the curriculum for kids between the ages of eight and 12 and present this program at church groups, community education classes, and scouts. Family Safety Activities Bike Helmet Fittings - In 2003 the Anoka County Sheriffs Office, in conjunction with the Anoka County Chapter of Minnesota Safe Kids, hosted a bike \. / helmet sale and fitting event. The event was hosted in the City of Ramsey; Andover \ residents were invited to attend through flyers that went home from school and articles in "--/ the city newsletter and the Anoka County Union. We distributed over 100 helmets at the event and fit approximately 75 pre-owned helmets. The sheriff's office will be hosting a bike helmet clinic in Andover on May 25, 2004, at Fire Station #1. Child Passenger Safety Education - Four out of five car seats are installed improperly and car cashes are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 0- 12. Theses statistics prompted the sheriff's office to educate residents on child passenger safety issues. A curriculum was developed and we routinely visit Mom Clubs, child care centers, and church groups to educate parents. In 2003 the sheriff's office did over 100 one-on-one checks with parents to check their child safety seat. Car Seat Clinics - The Anoka County Sheriff's Office in conjunction with the Anoka County Chapter of Minnesota Safe Kids host car seat clinics monthly around Anoka County. In 2003 we hosted two events at the Andover Fire Station. We invite Andover residents to make an appointment by running articles in the newsletter, sending flyers out to child care centers, and medical clinics. In 2003 Safe Kids checked over 1,000 seats for Anoka County residents. Sellior Safety Activities Project EZ Help Cell Phone - The EZ Help Cell Phone project was a large undertaking that started in 2002 with planning, and implemented in the community in , 2003. For this project our office collected cell phones from members in the community \.. ) and sent them to the Telephone Pioneers for refurbishing. Once the phones were refurbished we invited senior citizens in the county to attend classes to educate them on maintaining and using the cell phones to call 91 L We have distributed over 1200 phones and the cell phone project received a national award "People Who Care - Health and Human Services' honor from New Outlook. Senior Surveys - To help law enforcement get a better understanding of what services and education senior citizens would like from us, our office conducted a survey asking them just that. More than 200 seniors filled out the survey and shared their concerns. The number one concern on the list was "lack oftransportation", this can be addressed by forwarding survey results on to the Anoka Traveler. However, two through five were identity theft, going out after dark, robbery, and vandalism. Through TRIAD we developed an Identity Theft course and presented it to seniors in Anoka County. In 2004 we are looking to educate seniors on starting Neighborhood Watch groups hoping that will help address some of the other fears. TRIAD Education - Identity Theft - Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in America. Senior citizens are one of the most vulnerable groups to become a victim of identity theft. This year the sheriff's office hosted classes for seniors educating them on identity theft, giving them suggestions to help prevent them from becoming a victim, and encouraging them to report identity crimes to police. We made presentations to local , church groups, civic clubs, as well as to organized senior centers. '. / I Are You Okay - The Anoka County Sheriffs Office continues to promote the _ J Are You Okay program. This program was designed for seniors and disabled residents in Anoka County. Residents sign up to receive a telephone call from our office every morning. If the phone isn't answered, a second attempt to call will be made within a half-hour. If the phone continues to ring, or is continually busy, our office will be alerted and contact the emergency contact on the participants form. If the emergency contact says the resident should be home, an officer is sent out to "check the welfare" of the person. In 2003, a woman in Coon Rapids was found unconscious in her kitchen when an officer arrived to check her welfare, Being she was discovered, she was able to get the appropriate medical attention and is fine. Commullity Awarelless County Fair - The sheriffs office hosted a booth at the Anoka County Fair this year that featured all of our divisions and their responsibilities to the citizens of Anoka County. This booth was a great success and many people stopped by to visit. While we had the opportunity, we also used our time at the fair to educate parents about leaving kids in cars and the danger that is associated with that. Law Enforcement Memorial Service - Each year our office sponsors the Law Enforcement Memorial Service during Police Week in May. Commissioner Rich Stanek from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety was the guest speaker in 2003. . '\ Award Recognition Ceremony - Once a year the sheriffs office hosts a ,j recognition ceremony for staff that exceeds the highest levels of standards set by our office. In 2003 our ceremony was held in May and seven Office Commendations, along with two Citizen Awards were presented. These ceremonies are viewed as a viable means to show appreciation to the community, reinforce collective cooperation, and culminate relationships. Chaplain Program - The Anoka County Sheriffs Office saw a need for a Chaplain Program. Chaplains assist our office by being on the scene and helping families deal with the loss of a loved one. They may also accompany officers on death notification calls. The chaplains will assist the family in contacting relatives, notifying the family's clergy, and provide grief counseling. To start the program the sheriffs office notified all organized faith establishments in our jurisdiction, inviting them to become a chaplain. Those who were interested attended a training sessions. We currently have twelve members in the Chaplain Program providing services to all of Anoka County. Youth First - Youth First is a community partnership dedicated to raising great kids in the Andover, Anoka and Ramsey area. The mission of Youth First is to cooperatively create a community vision for positive youth and to promote asset building, so our children make positive choices and be successful in life. During 2003, the Crime Prevention Coordinator was assigned to the Northwest Anoka County Community , Consortium which guides Youth First and the Neighbors Helping Neighbors (NHN) -,-_./ F , program. In 2004 our goal is to bring programs to Andover, provided by NHN, that meet . \ .: the needs of the community. Andover Web site - During 2003 the sheriffs office worked with the City of Andover to get information out on Andover's web site about the sheriffs office. We were able to give internet users information on forming a Crime Watch Group, Operation ill, Child Passenger Safety, News and Events, and curfew information. For 2004 we are working on a section titled "Laws You Should Know" that spells out for residents' laws about street parking, animals, posting of signs, and pretty much any need to know ordinance. Andover Newsletter Articles - The sheriffs office has an opportunity to put an article in the Andover newsletter. We generally try to educate residents about topics relevant to them. Some of the things we have covered are: Identity Theft, Winter Weather Hazards, Theft From Vehicles, Ice Safety, Methamphetamine Labs, Conceal Carry Laws and so forth. Theft from Vehicle Enforcement Wave - Part of National Night Out is to educate the public on preventing themselves from becoming a victim. In Andover, we have received many calls regarding theft from vehicles. Our office implemented an enforcement wave, to make residents aware that they could be a potential victim of theft. Reserve deputies patrolled large parking lots checking for valuables that were in plain \ view in the car or for unlocked doors. If they found such a car, the Reserves left a '~j/ "citation" on the windshield alerting the driver to the fact that they could be a victim of theft. These "citations" also contained helpful information about preventing this type of crime. By providing proactive services, such as this, we believe that a heightened level of awareness exists among citizens. Community Service The sheriffs office encourages its employees to support the community in which they work and live. We offer opportunities throughout the year for employees to get involved. One charity that we support is Special Olympics. The sheriffs office participates in the Torch Run each year. Our staff runs the leg through Anoka County and our Reserve Deputies volunteer to escort the runners through the course. During the holidays, we also raise funds for the ACBC Food Shelfby hosting an annual Chili Challenge. Employees make a large pot of chili and county staff tastes each of the entries and votes for their favorite one. The winner gets a trophy and bragging rights until next year's competition. We also collect cash and toys for the Toys for Joy program in Anoka County and ring bells for the Salvation Army. Meth Lab Ordinance - With the rise in methamphetamine labs being discovered, the sheriffs office worked with the City of Andover to draft an ordinance dealing with the discovery ofmeth labs on properties in the city. The sheriffs office also hosted an education seminar for council members on methamphetamine, how it is manufactured, and the hazards it imposes. ) '- ) Goals in 2004 . Continue the projects listed above. . Increase the number of Crime Watch Groups. . Develop a formal Business Watch program. . Develop communication vehicles, beyond the city newsletter, with Andover residents about safety programs and educational information. . Develop a personal safety curriculum for teens and adults. . Raise seat belt use awareness among teenagers. . Raise booster seat use among 4 - 8 year olds. . Produce a cable show highlighting the responsibilities of the sheriffs office, to assist in communicating with our community. , \.~ J , 0 @ / , ) 5'\NDbVE~ ~'-~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Erar, City Administratof FROM: David D. Berkowitz, City Engineerv'D~ uA- Will Neumeister, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Consider Draft Sanitary Sewer Study/Phasing Plan Revisions/04-1- EngineeringIPlanning DATE: March 30, 2004 ~J INTRODUCTION TKDA, along with staff input, have prepared a draft sanitary sewer report that identifies different scenarios to serve the east side of Andover with sanitary sewer. Included with this item is a draft copy of the report for your review which will be discussed in detail. DISCUSSION The draft report evaluates 5 different trunk sewer line scenarios that have been carefully analyzed to meet development demands, pipe capacity requirements and strategic short and long term planning. The report also details the scenarios previously discussed at the February 24, 2004 Council Workshop, which are the Crosstown Boulevard, Prairie Road, 150th Lane and the Xeon Street alternative. One new alternative is included and that is an extension to the Prairie Road which would leave the city with an option to divert flows in the future if capacity issues arise. Representatives from TKDA will present the report findings and answer questions. The findings show that the Prairie Road alternative is the recommended alternative because it is economical and meets the downstream pipe capacities by taking advantage of pipes that are currently and will be in the future under utilized. This alternative also allows the city flexibility when it comes to development density. Once an alternative is selected the engineering and planning departments will work with finance to determine a trunk sanitary sewer area charge (per acre) along with a sanitary sewer connection charge (per unit) to fund these trunk improvements. Also the departments will begin the process of , , proposing revisions to the Comprehensive Plan sewer staging. 'J G:\DATA\STAFFiRHONDAAIAGENDAIITEMS\2004\033004\Consider Draft San. Sewer Study 04-l.doc Mayor and Council Members ,,) March 30, 2004 Page 20f2 ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to review the draft sanitary sewer report, listen to the TKDA representatives presentation by TKDA, discuss the alternatives presented and recommend an alternative to continue with the cost analysis and proposing revisions to the sewer staging plan. Respectfully submitted, ~Q, (jjiM ~~ David D. Berkowitz Will Neumeister \ \.~ Attachments: Draft copy of the Sanitary Sewer Report \ , ) G:\DA T AIST AFFlRHONDAAIAGENDA IITEMS\2004\0330041Consider Draft San. Sewer Study 04-1.doc (2) ) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.C1.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Erar, City Administrator~ FROM: David Berkowitz, City Engineer~ Will Neumeister, Community Development Director wJ..,-- SUBJECT: Discuss Access Issues for Sophie's Manor DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION The City staff have been in contact with the developer of Sophie's Manor to resolve where an access to Crosstown Boulevard should be located to be able to meet the intent of the Transportation Plan as well as the Anoka County access spacing guidelines and minimize the impact on adjacent properties (i.e. Hines, Harstad, property on south side of Crosstown). The purpose of this report is to summarize what the primary issues are and obtain Council direction. At the time this item was prepared for the Planning Commission, it was indicated that Figures 11 and 22 of the City's Transportation Plan shows a collector roadway to be extended through Sophie's Manor ~ ) and ultimately to Andover Boulevard. This route was identified to relieve congestion at intersections along Hanson Boulevard and 161't Avenue. This was to allow interior north/south access through developments between these two roadways on an appropriately designed collector street. It would be safe to assume that the Transportation Plan is calling for a full-movement intersection of a collector street where it intersects a street like Crosstown Boulevard (a "B" Minor Arterial). Staff feels that the local street network would be adversely affected if a new access to Crosstown Boulevard is not created. Avocet Street was not designed as a collector street. As a result, there is not enough right-of-way to provide the typical left and right turn lanes at the intersection with Crosstown Boulevard. Also, there are driveways and an intersection with l53rd Lane that is too close to the intersection with Crosstown Boulevard. Six connections to the arterial roadways serve the north and west ends of the existing housing developments north of Crosstown. It could be speculated that the daily traffic from a good portion of the Woodland Oaks and Red Pine Fields housing developments (upwards of 300 - 400 homes from that area) would choose to drive south and that would enable them to utilize only a single access point (Avocet Street). This situation was to be avoided with the Transportation Plan's new collector street intersecting with Crosstown Boulevard. The existence of the BNSF Railroad Tracks has created a need for a new north-south roadway that would enable the future homeowners to make a choice and also not affect the existing homeowners on Avocet Street. DISCUSSION There are a number of key issues to consider when making a decision, that include the following: \ \J 1. The City Comprehensive Plan requires an access off of Crosstown Boulevard. 2. Anoka County Highway Department's position is that no access to Crosstown Boulevard is currently recommended. /' 3. Funding of improvement. Staffs position is that the improvements must be paid for by the development. 4. If no access is granted or pursued, traffic would exit through Avocet in an established neighborhood. There is an explanation of the complexities of the design issues attached to this report, that has been done to avoid confusing the key issues with those details. Plat Approval Process The developer of the plat of "Sophie's Manor" has graciously agreed to put the plat approval on hold until the Council has time to hear these various issues and concerns and have time to make a proper judgement on where the intersection would best be placed. The developer has also agreed to extend the time period for the City to complete the preliminary plat review until April 6, 2004 to allow the Council time to make an informed decision. ACTION REOUESTED The Council is asked to review the information and provide direction to staff regarding the access from "Sophie's Manor" to Crosstown Boulevard. \ Respectfully Submitted, '--~ ~O~ ' \ / Jltti( MIu1~~ ~ David D. Berkowitz Will Neumeister Attachments Anoka County Highway Department Letters (Feb, 17,2004 and January 24,2004) Transportation Plan Functional Classifications (Figure 11 -- Transportation Plan) Transportation Plan Crosstown Improvement Concept (Figure 22 -- Transportation Plan) Location Map Preliminary Plat Cul-De-Sac Scenario (on Gordon Hines property) Scenario showing Wintergreen Street extended to Crosstown Blvd. Aerial Photograph Planning Commission Minutes (Jan. 27, 2004) Cc: Mike Quigley, Penta Management Group, 1875 Commercial Blvd., Andover, MN 55304 Paul Harstad, Eichi, Inc., 2195 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton, MN 55112 Gordon Hines, 3920 Lakeland Avenue No., Robbinsdale, MN 55422 \ , ) -2-- Complexities of Design City staff have been working with both the developer and Anoka County Highway Department i (ACHD) to determine where a full-movement intersection would be allowed along Crosstown ,_.J Boulevard. It can be assumed also that where the intersection should be placed will be determined by MnDOT and Anoka County Highway Department criteria to safely design left and right turn lanes and "speed to 1" tapers for the through lanes. There are a variety of factors that create complications to what the proper answer should be, including the following: . Distance to both Avocet Street and the BNSF railroad tracks (need 1,100 from RR tracks and at least 900 from Avocet Street for back-to-back turn lanes). . Sophie's Wetland (on the outlot) . Anoka County views this segment of Crosstown Boulevard as a rural section (full movement intersections allowed only at half mile distances). . Largest property owner along the south side of Crosstown Boulevard has a difficult situation to work with regarding the preferred full-movement intersection location. This is because the location that works for the County safety considerations may need to involve a small property with a home on it that he does not currently own and could create a major obstacle to when the property can be developed (e.g. effectively denying access or putting him in a position he is at the mercy of that property owner regarding the price of the parcel). . Gordon Hines Property \ The Planning Commission discussion of the issues as well as the letters from Anoka County .... I 0- , Highway Department are attached that give their perspective on what should be done. As you can see, this is a rather complex issue. To choose the connection at Wintergreen Street as shown on the preliminary plat will still bring the short term traffic from this new development through the development known as "Chesterton Commons" on Avocet Street. However, the location is considered, by the staff, to be the best with a longer term view because it keeps the opportunity alive that the full-movement intersection on Crosstown Boulevard may be able to be achieved if the County would make this section of Crosstown Boulevard an urbanizing section. The distance to Avocet (900 feet) is very possibly something that could get a variance and be able to achieve back-to-back left turn lanes for a full-movement at both streets. It is not known whether a variance from the County would be granted, because staff has not given a design to the County to review. The County requested that the City submit a drawing and they would review and provide comments. The County has indicated that they are quite content with no intersection on Crosstown, and if an intersection were approved, they would prefer a right-in/right-out intersection. That would also make an access for the property on the south side of Crosstown also a right- in/right-out. Either one of these is not considered acceptable by City staff as it does not fit with the City's Transportation Plan. .... -' ) -3- COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD; N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 862~4200 FAX (763) 862-4201 j'. l\ECE\VEO January 24, 2004 Jt\N 27 2004 Courtney Bednarz -. .., City of Andover -- 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW ~'f..".:, ",,~. Andover, MN-'-55304 - ,~., . :.,. . :;.' ~ ~ ,. RE: Preliminary Plat Sophie's Manor Dear Cour1ney: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for Sophie's Manor, located north of CR 18 (Crosstown Blvd.) and west of the BNSF Railroad within the City of Andover, and I offer the following comments: An additional 27 feet of right-of-way north of CRl8 will be required for future reconstruction purposes '--) (60 feet totalright-of-wiry width north of CR 18 right-of-way centerline). As submitted this plat would not introduce any new street connections on the. county highway system, which is acceptable to this department. However, subsequent correspondence received from the City of Andover indicates that while there is the plan/desire to have a future connection from this plat to CR 18 at Wintergreen St NW, this property is not owned by the current developer and consequently, would not likely develop at the same time as this plat based on current information. Informal discussions with City of Andover staff indicate that the city believes that significant issues would be raised by neighboring residents in the adjacent developments should this plat be approved to move forward without its own separate outlet to the county highway system. As a result, the city has asked this department to consider a temporary access point to CR 18, to be located somewhere within Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 of Block 3 of the plat submitted. The city has indicated that if approved, this access would be temporary in nature, and they would commit to its removal once a permanent access could be established on the Wintergreen St NW alignment. As a part of evaluating this request for a temporary access to CR 18 as well as the proposed future connection of Wintergreen St NW to CR 18, it should be noted: 1. There are no current plans or funding secured to reconstruct this section of CR 18; 2. This route is classified as a B Minor Arterial, and consequently is currently ineligible to receive federal funding; 3. Access spacing on B Minor Arterials is to be Yz mile or greater; 4. There are severe pre-existing deficiencies in the NW quadrant of the BNSF railroad crossing on CR 18. (Improvements can be made through clearing and/or grading by Developer as well as by building setbacks established by the city through the approval process for this plat); 5. Decision sight distance for CR 18 vehicles approaching the BNSF railroad crossing is 'J approximately 500ft; -'1- Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer Courtney Bednarz .~ ~ j Preliminary Plat Sophie's Manor January 26, 2004 Page Two 6. While the Wintergreen St NW alignment appears to be at an acceptable location in relation to the decision sight distance area for vehicles traveling on CR 18 approaching the BNSF railroad crossing, it is not in compliance with the access spacing guidelines for this route due to the proximity of existing local intersections; 7. This plat contains 46 single family lots (Plus 1 outlot with an undefined use) and can be expected to add approximately 460 new trips to the surrounding county highway system; 8. There are no turn lanes present nor any proposed to be constructed in conjunction with this plat on CR 18 at any oft..1.e affected roadway connections (Vale St NW/CSAH 20, CR l8/Avocet St NW, CR l8/future Wintergreen StNW), Based upon our current. procedure for the incorporation of roadway improvements on the county highway system in conjunction with adjacent plat development for traffic safety purposes, the lack of any secured funding for any potential reconstruction of CR 18, and the size of this development (46 single family residential lots), the construction ofleft and right turn lanes on the county highway system at the affected access points is warranted for this development. Since there is not a finn commitment from the city or the developer as to a dermed location for a temporary access to CR 18 as an interim measure to a connection at the Wintergreen St NW alignment, nor a dermed period of time that this temporary connection would '. remain inplace, it is not possible at this time to determine what requirements this department would have "- . ) for turn lane construction on CR 18 at a temporary access location, nor the other affected access locations. Since there is no secured funding on the horizon (5-10 years ::1:) for a reconstruction project on this route, and plans for new development projects along CR 18 are increasing significantly and are imminent, it is obvious that turn lane construction on CR 18 will need to be a part of each development proposal as they are approved., or traffic safety for all road users will be negatively affected, At this point I would suggest that before this plat be approved for development, additional discussions between city and county staff take place to further derme and evaluate the current development proposals affecting the CR 18 corridor as a whole, in an effort to ensure that value-based decisions can be made regarding access spacing within the developments and development-driven turn lane construction that is to consequently take place on the county highway system. Please note that it is our recommendation that the proposed Wintergreen St NW south of 155th Ave NW should be a cul-de-sac with no direct connection to CR 18, all access for this plat be made via existing local roadways (Avocet Street NW in the Chesterton Commons Plat to the west of CR 18, and Vale St NW through the Red Pine Fields Plat north to CSAH 20), and no temporary connection be made to CR 18 for this plat. To address the safety issues associated with the turning maneuvers at both of these intersections, right turn lanes and bypass lanes should be constructed at both locations (CSAH 20N ale St NW and CR 18/ Avocet St NW - concept plan attached). All lots within this plat will have direct access available via the local roadways, and the right of access along CR 18 (including Lot B) shall be dedicated to Anoka County. Any existing access/driveways/field entrances onto CR 18 within the boundaries of this plat shall be removed in conjunction with this development and the CR 18 ditch restored to match the existing grade/slopes. Grading plans and drainage calculations will be required to be submitted and reviewed by this department , for this development ($150.00 engineering plan review fee). The post-develop rate of runoff to the county ,J highway system must not exceed the pre-developedrate runoff for the 10-year critical design stonn. Additional engineering plan review fees may apply pending the decisions by this department for turn lane construction on the county highway system in conjunction with this plat. .- -~- Courtney Bednarz \ Preliminary Plat Sophie's Manor ) January 26,2004 Page Three It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures, The City and/or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic nOlse. A permit for work within County Right-of-Way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. (Access permits = $150.00/each; Work within ROW permits = $llO.OO/each) License Permit Bonding, methods of construction, design details, work zone traffic control, restoration requirements and follow-up inspections are typical elements of the permitting process. Contact Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator, or Josie Scott, Permit Teclmician, for further information regarding the permit process. Installation of any necessary permanent traffic control devices within the County Right-ofWay associated with this proposed development will be coordinated, installed, and maintained by the Anoka County Highway Department as part of the permit process. , Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to . ~. ) set up a meeting to discuss the issues associated with this plat. Sincerely, c!Jkd7~ Jane K. Rose Traffic Engineering Manager xc: CR18/PLATS/2003 Mike Kelly, Chief Right-of-Way Agent Larry Hoium, County Surveyor Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator Josie Scott, Permit Technician Tom Hornsby, Traffic Services Supervisor - Signs , ) -6- tJll:::.'.L" c.~ .4;......;;1 M~ '-'U '''''''' UJ 1 ., .;,tIC..Jf-'...JC;:J~.J ,..........-"'-' ....= ~ ~ ~ COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division \. \ HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ) 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.w., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304-4005 (763) 862-4200 FAX (763) 862-4201 I Februmy 17, 2004 I I Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW I Andover, MN 55304 , I RE: Revised. PrelimiIwy Plat Sophie's Manor I Dear Courtney: We have met infonnally with City of Andover staff and reviewed the revisions you have asked us to consider regarding the preliminary plat for Sophie's Manor,located north ofCR IS (Crosstown Blvd.) and west of the BNSF Railroad within the City of Andover. We continue to stand behind our comments '- flom our previous letter regarding this plat dated JanuaI)' 24, 2004 and I offer the fonowing comments . ) regarding the ehanges to the plat, which you asked us to consider: \. J The existing intersections and those proposed within the City of Andover's Transportation Plan along this section of CR 18 do not meet current ACHD access spacing guidelines. The proximity of the BNSF railroad crossing on CR 18 compounds the access spacing issue, and it becomes more difficult to find a balance between access spacing issues and providing public safety for road users. We would allow a roadway cODnection from this plat as a secondary intersection, either at the Wmtergreen St NW alignment or at the location provided by the City of Andover in follow-up correspondence (between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3). provided that a right turn lane on CR 18 is constructed in conjunction with this new secondaJ)' access point, and it be configured as a secondazy access point (right turn in/righttum out access point). Additionally, if the secondaly access location is chosen by the City to be constructed between Lots 3 and 4 of Block. 3, provisions shall be made by the City to provide for the future access from Outlot B and the entire area south of the Wllltergrcen St NW alignment to be made entirely onto Wintergreen 5t NW with no ctirect access from these parcels onro CR 18. lfthe City of Andover is unable to Come to agreement regarding these terms for additional access from this plat ODto CR 13, then additional discussions will need to take place involving the County Engineer before this plat moves fOlWllrd. Please note that in our follow. up review of this plat, we DOted that the City of Andover indicates it should pursue a grade separated crossing of tho BNSF railroad and CR 18, in the City Transportation PIan. If this is the case, the City sbould consider securing additional right of way along CR I B in conjunction with this plat. Depending on the configuration of the future grade separation (CR 18 over the BNSF railroad or CR 18 under the BNSF railroad) a 175ft-200ft right of way corridor sbould be antioipated. Additionally, the City may wish to consider the impacts associated , with embankments and consider making some grade adjll5tments for the adjacent properties. If a , '--' , Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer FEE 17 2004 13:04 -7- 763,862 4201 PAGE. 132 '-"-" .I""~ .J...::,.....:;J M1""'-"V"f '-U MWl J.Jr""1 .., ':I'.(bS~::Jt1':fG~ NlJ.438 003 i I Courtney Bednan. ! \ February 15,2004 \ j Revised - Preliminary Plat I Sophie's Manor Page 2 secondary access point onto CR 18 is constructed for this plat, construction of a grade separation at the BNSF railroad may require complete closure of the access point in the future. While we axe not requiring the turn lane construction OIl CRl8 at Avocet St. NW and on CSAH 20 at Vale St NW in conjunction with this plat as a part of our permit process as these intersections are I beyond the physical boundaries of this plat, it is still our recommendation that these improvements be ! made as a part of this development All ather comments regarding this plat remain unchanged from our 112412004 correspondence. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to set up a meeting to discuss the ongoing issues associated with this plat ' ~~ Jane K. Rose ,- Traffic Engineering Manager \ '- ) cc: CRl BIPLA TS/2oo3 Mike Kelly, ChIef~ght-or-Way Agent Larry Hoium, CoLll1ty Surveyor Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator Josie Scott, Permit Technician Tom Hornsby, Traffic Services Supervisor- Signs Andy Witter, Construction Services Engineer -' ) -8 ___ FFH 17 :::>c'lV\d 1,:Vl<; ,..;..-.., ~-.. A-"'-". --- -- Sophie's Manor \ I' l.w 'I / e 161STAVE ~ L \- ...~i I ~ - = \; I )...\;::i!/.!.I _ .... \ ..../~ ~ -. - ~ V :-O!I./u/~ -, ~ ,"" F - ~ _ > "nHLN ___... .....~e "il' _ I "'" -- .!"III~--~ t----\11. ~.~\! $ - 'IllIG _ ,- VE...-.......~ I~~ '" ! ~..." "- . ~ I, = w'" ,;::(~i;;; ~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ "<oW I -;;;- ~~ \ - "-_._~~ -----,--~-;;;"~ .~~ I ~IT- ,- -'- ~ taN ~ T __ ,"" ~ ~ ,\~~L--- ..; := ~ t_ ,- _t!lNll ~ ~ ::l: , ~ iD r:= '-,_I~Zl:'.t ~ '\.'iI ~,. ,_-L ~ ~~ ~ -- -- -".? "". \\"1 .." .. ,'I'I'i.J'I~ ~~ r"'" I;;;; ~~" ',. -.l~' i _ j I " ".,. ", ..~ ~ ""! ~ ~ II T - !!~ '_ B I - ~ y,_ '\ _ \..-..~ ,I I!/i! il!!i I1II ~ -. .- )i:i w ~ ~_ . UI7S =lii~~ ~! ~ _ 'SlIt ~'.~ it U nlf;;; I'::::~-'- -~" __ i!iJ~~ ,_ _ ,/ '1- T t_ ~~_,_ UID '" ,,1!j- ~~ / , ~ \ \i I H lor"'" ! j ; - .- ,'''::.." ~..., .... .. ~ 'A ~ ~ r- ~ iI ,- ,." --Is. '~e "7~~....l-f.;- ~ ! ~~ ~~~ ~ 'j ._ ~,~ '1Ill, 1M = "'",._ =_'-'0 UI1 iii 15111 5 ',"","" =iiiIiiAiii ~ ':;",~ j ~ ~ ~~v~ .~ ~ J __- '-;'t: Ig,! j ~ "\ ~~~~~ <.* __ ;f-"'- ~8~ ~ . '!; ~~... , ! ,.. ~ ~ ~-. E m l f, .. - ".--::. " . ,,", ..... . ~ i $. ')' /#,............~.p ff7:z..... UlOIl a:: ~.~~';: '~-fJ'l// - _~E '< $." '~'j,"" >--::~ \\ ~JV _! ! i Ij,T -;,' 'I -._ ; ,# "''!!; ;; ?- :..L 'if I., I ~" !.1'-/8/'[~ ~/L,,'" -:::::::-;/~Di .- - .. ....::.... \ ~r~2'~i~i!H~.i ,~~~luliHU ~ / .. I ~ I '!!'.... w .~- ! f . ?::I!"r \ ':-- rm-f",'H'"-1;;;;;' ._ ~ _ "'-'-~'. '!;;I ,,""t=( ).OC~e'ii ='-= I .f--- / ;;;- r~ "' $ U&G r;; ,- .lII7I'..-Ul.. 1553 ~ UN ._ ~ ~ =- I '---:'/~,~ -..::- .- 1_F '!I!I"'''I-=~ Il.- _ ~ I ~ or, ~._........ ~ ,_ 1IllHJ"__=- ,.. ~ h~~,,../:~ f~~ffi~ _<~~j~~~_ '" 15!3t::l ~ '--t-N':":::::f_ztstas ~,.... .I, ~"'~ ~~:;-~.~,::-~ ~~~~ ~. 1M'" '"""" '. '" 'j.. ,Q,,".; ~~ ~"'j= ." - ~~ '.I", ~:"';; ;;.t~ i ~:~&...,..roo ~~..,~~~ ,01' I "'THLN .... .. .>~;;~ I. &.'" ",:\ . '" iI> ~ ~ / ...<If. .t ::! i I'. \.... ./'\, :\ ,,~ "~- _ - ~\ ~ '" "-l: t.. ~~ I' '\ ,\.'\ 't.~ ~, tSI _ .. .;; ;; .."-~.. .". .<10 , B Ii;: -~ i I: :i.'~ I'. \, ~-#. ~'^::. ..:\ ,...,. .." ..,., oF_ ~ ~ . iO' ~ I'. ,.. Iii 154THAVE J'. .... ...~~\. 0;" ~<~!Ii !I~ ~- "'." roo' ~ ~ _ \ \ W~ili I P ~ "~ i _ "-1'1-. _s ~~ ! 1 -....< i ,,. . i 'I n Ii ~ * \ ~ ... - i\ "''' i #" ~ g .. .. . . "" '" ,I ",,,," '" '... , ....;p-/ -.. :.'V ~-.. <<' ~.... ,'. ""'. ..('~ ,,~ ~, $' ". I ~':~. I." ..:......".1.. ',' '~"'~p ~1' ~ , ,fi'"/ ," ~..~ " ,,,;.' <>."" .,.,4> ,~,... J , "~." " ~,.<~ ~.". \ ::.~ ,::.~. ." ."",'. .,.01-, ..l'~'''''~\Io,flC111'''/'. ~." 1 ,~,. .f/ofl. t;--->< N ..j W~E Project Location Map Andover"Planning -1-- I , -- ) , SOPHIE'( A.. PRELIMl F AJE COMP -17}- / , ) , ~/ / '. ..' r ;~~ ." ~~ -:- ~ _ _ - i:~ r ~'<~- " . ,-. ..~ :.., .N( ~.:tJo~ / i :~ p' ~ ' -...-< -.: d i, . .. \--- T - - - ---- . 1_;;;::;;:::::::::)0 " - . - . :; ~ . ~ 1 ~ ! 3 .; . ~ . I ~ I . , . . - I I -"/(1- .... '" '" r: ,.., ,," . .... ..... .- ~ .0 u : ': :~" I::: ~ ~ 0;;;) ~ l.;J. · i:a.] .S U) _ i:l ' ,0" ~ ::>>- . y "'" . "'-' tJ:l ,., ' '\ ~ ~ I::: a '" '" DO ~ .... C\J ~ ;~ o~ !5..HIII '" ""1:::0::: ." . /~ _ i .. ;> ;:! ! _ ;;;;:'\0 9. " 0 . ~ ' ~ r.- .S CIl E 1.1 CI) """"l _ ,,""""l -+-.I I 1"1 ~ e' ~ ' ,.1". '"i:l "1 " I h .S' _ .. n ,~ ~ 0 ^' i:l ~ .'" Ill. ~~ ,,~ "n .. -, - '-' ~ ,. '=' " ~ '- "H ~.P "'"... 0 - 10 E'-< ~ ~ · ~. 0 ."" CIl ., .~ .il ~ [\,. '. ~ CI) ~ ::s~~ 0 CI) ~ <<:"l8 ~ ~ :;j' ~ ~t:5 1 iIl ~~ I-- :I: ~ 11)1- ' j} ill l:J I r' r.. \~ I I.I ~ r ~ ~~.,' 1 \. -j~vTfj,iH :'" ~.'.. ~ II ~ i -.J-Ij. \~ ( " " iI. ~. ~ r '1 ~ r~~- \ I t:: l!9,. ",I- I - ci~ -"ito~ U (r L/ I'OV H ~o.ffi ---cD ~ ffi " 1 ll" L..j ~ ~~ ~_ ., ~,', 8 /0"''' I ~ ~ _J' ' ~ B------. -- ----:.~ I ""'l" I, II / r 'r-' ~___:-1 ~ ~ ,D - I' . - ____....-_..JI ... ~.. . ..' - --~-~~~ '-/ l I '1 !f&D~b~'fFt(~-!fl ~ I '~J .,' ~ IMN P^18 uOSU"H T-rlc.:::.,- '- rfs;p- i? t . ' z _ l ~ I- · ------1.-- ..", ... :,.J n rT ! t:F~ I -r: "n. _It'...." >> _ u>-U;<' P/, Jii--J i · \J. 7b;.~ '" IT ~ F : ~h.f~~ II~" .,"Q/\ f -{ ~ I~ I uj b.. /~'g\ 9- '[U9fP W<-t- t::~\ Xi"~ ~ ".---.~~.--.:' ,-;'''':~I~~~ ~ ~ llu r---'''' ' -. tr ...J \-= r---J --i,:... ~I~ \-- i)JI , , 'c:' _J~'_U ,\:::...1.; , ,." - ~ >- =<:: __I;: '-I ,"" , I U ~ ~ M.r~l~ ) ~ 11' f- J- '-' : ,..Jll: i 10 C i ~..:~~pp9~~e "" <( h.-, H^N~8 ,~" unol:l I ) "-- ,: ~ '-' _ I- f-' I P I l() I j rU ~ /l-o, . ,. T r: -"/ ~ '<;51 _ ?<dt - r;, ~ : l..:- 'I '"" ~".'": z T ~ !l "\..L 'will').) ~ . -r--I 'q ~ <:;~' AJ . ,{ . "",,' 4 , . ~(LL IV'I'U~,,-~f1-J~)' .:, 1P 1tLF~m '=l: -C ~ T T ~ ~ e- ,-.1. ~ d.._ J:J IT 4 "'------ . , I, ~,(jj(iT ,~~~.. 8= ': U ~'" ~N MN9^VllL ",UD ---l~~ l- f' ~. _ ~j: ,,---~ lTIe "";1 ~"l 'T \~ c:e ~ ~ ,l(, ~ ~--:E ~ lL _ _ I; ~ 2. Z I . 8 '" .' '. .I.l f---: - -< ' z :~'samjtlij1ir~ ~ '1 j , -~ s: J-- 1: -, .' - '0jl,' .~ T ,........ / ~-S ' T ~ ~...,~, I ~I..j" ~ <v c:-'y~1 ~ "I~ ~ ~~ -~~/?~I'~ Zf~~Q~, ,_.fta~ ~\ 10 <{ V;> '} ('''''lV. 1- ..... .. . - -(1- t '0 +' 0 Q) "" Q) 01- .... '0 ~c.. 0 C\l Q) :g:w I c () wU (f) ....JZ :JO OU CCI- ZZ w N$:;E 0 ~~tl Ow 0 .....l!l N ~ Q) ~.~ ~ WI->~a5~g~ (/) 0 5~c::~0ll e:::: (/) e:::: co ex: oq;: oq;: ~ :J 0 a. ~=~i t9~:;E an tLUI-4 w Z ~z :5z :59 w9 o tJ ~ tJ ~w :r:w U) I- Ul -/2.- I ; I , . ~' ,/" I.!'" / '! 10'? KE-f1::A"~- / .) /v1v!r -C:;oc.rt=i-\- / / I i ':11'1 Sl'DF /1',Ilj OF- ~ 1\ \'l'Cw / ! ! !i II; 0 sSro",,p / . i i ii: ; gLv"D . , ! ji~ i ; , I ! I',! , ' ", " , _'I' , 2 Ii : , ' . I -----' i I!' , ., , ,_o~ ..J I" , --., ,- ., . -- - ' " _! _ I ,ipi! - , '" I' , I ;, II i , ,I'. " [' 1 ' , ., ' "" . , ,. '0" . ,,,' II --6' ' r ! ' 'Ii /AY ' ,I.- , v ' 'I" , ,p , , I I i j i ;, I I I' I I :' :' , II" '" , I:'; :~< : i! I ;~. '.) ~'l o /_.Ir) . I I "<J- I 1 '; ~ i<t: j 1 - h\!II( ~III: .... . '. .}.... . i I : n,lllj . = I' kC ' " , 11'\ I ' r-t=1/11 ~ . I ~ 1:5 /1,.1 \ .. ~ !- ~: j (? r:i I t 1_,Gill ~irl;1 ; 110' I i --..II ili ? ;Y1 ~'l Pi ,,-_I -:1 ~ _I';' :.; I-:)~~!~ ~. Im!~il j, I I~l I ~ I" . I I' . l;~ . : /' I ' _, . , ' I ' , ' , ' I ' / i _' II , I' , ,"" .iI" I / ";.:. '''' " , , ,i' I ' .' " " .. ' , , . ' ,I " 1 / ,"'w,,'" -" , , ..I' I, ! I ! " , " ' . ,I 11'1 .." 1.. / . j / I \ ,I I'" ,I ' I ~' 0 ' ' ,'" ,,' ' . ,1' " . ." ",'" /_' I. ' " I,., "" ,_ _, _ y- , .,,- f I' .. I '0 .. / /! - - ~ I IH - -I i I I /:-- ,/ /, --i __ - - [,,, ,'I: , ' '\ ' ' [I ' /i ,~. / L, /-, /". -=-".'\' i--- -- I i ,I /'-. '; /' / I' , ; "j' ,Ii ' ' · , . ,,' ( , ' , ' / (_ / - fg_ 1 · , '-- -' I I ' _.. I ! I j ___ I - __ _ i : I j I' ; 1 ,I { , , I ~ ...",::::'f:-- /'i~-- :t-, _ ,,: f Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 27,2004 Page 2 \ , / t times and conditions have changed due to the fact that properties to the north and west ye developed at urban densities and municipal utilities are now available to serve the subjec roperty. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. d items 3 and 4 with the Planning Commission. Motion by Greenwald, seco ed by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-na O-absent vote. Public input is discussed in the next item. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to close public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Motion by Greenwald seconded by Gamache, to recommend to City Council approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and con . ions have changed. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 17, City Council meeting. /' )11 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SOPHIE'S MANOR, A SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1021 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat of 46 urban lots on approximately 34 acres. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated staff is recommending a temporary access onto Crosstown Boulevard. He stated they received comments from the County Highway Department and they are not in favor of a new access to Crosstown Boulevard. He stated the city staff will continue to discuss this with the County. Mr. Bednarz stated there are also a couple of outlots on the plat and staff is asking that one be combined with adjacent property and the other be preserved for future development. Mr. Bednarz stated there were two other items. One being an existing row of evergreen trees along Crosstown Boulevard. The City requires an extra ten feet of lot depth for screening from the roadways. There is an opportunity to save the existing row of trees. \ The last item is that Lot 1, Block 1 has a lot depth sli~htly less than the required one / hundred and thirty feet, due in part to location of 1551 Avenue right-of-way and the -/~- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting , Minutes -January 27, 2004 Page 3 \ '- ) south property line of the development. If Lot 1, Block 1 is to be developed, it will need a variance to lot depth. Mr. Bednarz stated if a permanent or temporary access would not be a condition of approval as part of this plat then staff would not recommend this being approved because it would be a conflict with the city's transportation plan. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the property, not part of this proposal is zoned right now. Mr. Bednarz stated it was zoned R-l. Mr. Bednarz summarized the letter from the County Highway Department with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache stated the letter from the County stated lots 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in block 3, wouldn't this access be too close to the Railroad tracks. Mr. Bednarz stated one of the things in the County letter is the distance for people to respond to something that is happening on the road in time from the rail road track and they are calling that out as five hundred feet and lot 5 would be about 660 feet and should be adequate distance there and there would also be about a quarter mile between that access and Avocet Street over to the south and west. '. Commissioner Greenwald asked what temporary meant in a situation like that. Mr. / I Bednarz stated it would remain until another access would be developed. Commissioner Gamache asked what would become of the temporary access. Mr. Bednarz stated the street could be removed and the street easement would be vacated and they could recover a lot. Commissioner Greenwald stated if they looked at the project location map, it was pretty obvious that the City was thinking those two roads would connect and that there would be some kind of access other than Avocet. Mr. Bednarz agreed. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if they have talked about closing Avocet because it is not up to the design they would need for access.. Mr. Bednarz stated he would not characterize that it is under designed for what it is intended for because it was designed for local street access. He stated they will need multiple connections that serve the south end of the development. Commissioner Greenwald asked once the property next to this is developed, will the temporary road be closed. Mr. Bednarz stated they could put a condition on this property that this would have to occur. Commissioner Jasper asked why they should build a temporary road when they could move the road west and make it a permanent road, why wait for the possibility of the piece to the south to develop later. Mr. Bednarz stated it is something they could look at but where they move it to is an important consideration. He showed on the map the location of an existing house and a wetland on the south side of Crosstown Blvd. ./ -k- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 27,2004 Page 4 '\ ~~- ) Commissioner Jasper stated this is a collector road and all of the lots will have driveways facing the road and wondered if this was contrary to the development standards. Mr. Bednarz stated there would need to be a variance to allow lots to front on a collector street. Commissioner Jasper stated Wintergreen as proposed on the plat, ifit went south to the area that is not part of this development, would it require the removal of the existing structure and garage on the other property. Mr. Bednarz stated the garage would not meet the setback requirements but the house would. Commissioner Kirchoff stated looking at Wintergreen; he wondered why it was proposed to come up to Crosstown but not at a right angle, is it because of the house. Mr. Mike Quigley, representing the development company, stated the road was designed specifically for the spot to correspond with the property directly to the south. The County is not recommending any access to Crosstown. He stated a temporary road is costly and the County is not in favor of this and they have designed this plat at the request of staff to save the trees along Crosstown because there are large mature pine trees there and the drainage is designed to keep all of the trees. He stated all the trees on lot 5 will need to be clear cut and most of the trees on lots 4 and 6 would need to be removed for site lines if the temporary road were installed. '\ Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. ~ ' / Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Ms. Linda Price, 15661 Yellow Pine, stated her property is adjacent to the proposed zoning change and she had two concerns. The first was ifthere was an access street from Crosstown into the section, which would make their subdivision a thru street for people trying to beat the train. Once the street is put in, people will try to cut through if they see the train. She foresees people using this as a thru street. Her second concern is having houses built on railroad tracks and how this will affect the market value. Mr. Bednarz explained the transportation plan to the residents. Mr. Doug Box, 15675 Yellow Pine, stated his backyard backs up to the wetlands. His concern is if they are planning on filling in a substantial amount of wetlands, he is concerned with his backyard flooding. He has fears that if they fill in any part of the wetlands, it will raise the water level and flood his property. Mr. Bednarz stated his lot was designed to accommodate two one hundred year floods and he did not see there being a problem with flooding. He stated it would not be uncommon for water to back up into the yard where there is a drainage and utility easement on the back part of his yard. Mr. Box stated his concern is within the last hundred years, the wetland has not been filled in. Mr. Quigley stated along the lots that shows some fill, there is minimal amount of fill. Behind the lots will be a substantial storm water pond for the water to go to. \ Mr. Pear Mulberg, 244 173rd Avenue NW, asked what is the process that would happen / from here on that would determine what the County will allow. Chairperson Daninger -17- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 27,2004 Page 5 "- ) stated they take recommendations from the County as well as trying to work with the County and they look at the plat as a whole and try to look at angles and speeds of the street and how it benefits everyone. Commissioner Jasper asked what happens if the Commission recommends the temporary access and the County does not want it. Mr. Bednarz stated the City has plat authority, the County has the ability to review the plats and comment but the City has the ability to approve the plat. Mr. Joe LeGuard, asked what Mr. Bednarz meant by routing traffic around the rail road tracks. Mr. Bednarz stated ifthere is an access to Crosstown Boulevard as part of this development, the local transportation network is improved. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Casey asked if the property owner where the proposed Wintergreen would go through was at the meeting. Mr. Bednarz stated the owner is in Florida for the winter and he did speak to him last week. He stated the property is for sale but they were not able to come to terms with the developer. , '. Chairperson Daninger asked what the homes values will be. Mr. Quigley stated the value . .../ of the homes will be equivalent to the homes in the area. Mr. Quigley showed on the map where the pond will be in the development and stated it was designed to back two hundred year events and will be dry most of the time. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would not be in favor of this if they had to put in a temporary road because he does not want to see all the trees destroyed. Commissioner Gamache agreed and stated if the property next to this is for sale, he suggested the developer come to terms with the property owner and purchase the property and make the permanent connection. Commissioner Greenwald stated that under the conditions of this preliminary plat, he would not vote for it right now until he had further explanation on how they are going to do that connection to Crosstown. He stated that there is no question that people north of there will be using that in coming out onto Crosstown. Chairperson Daninger stated the County is recommending no access. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he could understand their reasons for not wanting access but this is an area they have identified that will want a collector street and the street needs to continue past Crosstown and the County does not have any plans at the present time to upgrade Crosstown. He would hate to see a temporary go in and he thought they could make a deal with the proposed connection on Wintergreen. He stated he supported a connection to Crosstown but he did not want a temporary street. ) -/1- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting , Minutes - January 27, 2004 1 Page 6 / Commissioner Greenwald stated they need to have a detailed comprehensive plan that is well thought out so they do not get into this situation. Discussion ensued in regards to the proposed temporary road connection. Chairperson Daninger asked how everyone felt about driveways on collector streets. Commissioner Gamache stated there is nothing they could do unless they do not develop the land. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not think it was too severe to put driveways on this arterial street. He stated they have had to do this on a few developments when no other options exist. Commissioner Casey stated they are only stuck with two options. Either give up lot five as a permanent and cutting out the trees or going to the other piece of property probably at a higher price. He stated they have to have access to Crosstown. Commissioner Jasper stated if this is redone, it seems that the road could on the northern part of this development, be run along the wetland edge with cul-de-sac's off and get nearly as many lots if they put the road along the wetland edge and put cul-de-sac's off to the west but they will still have on the south side of this ten or twelve lots that have to front the collector street so it does not solve the collector street problem. \ Commissioner Greenwald thought they should all agree there should be an access but he , / needs a more definitive information and he would like to either table this or deny this. He would be more prone to table this until they could get more information. Chairperson Daninger stated they did not have enough information to approve this but he wondered if they should table this or deny it. He thought they should move this forward to the City Council with a recommendation because the only things they have problems with are the road going through and the street as a collector. Commissioner Jasper stated if Wintergreen is not put where the developer wants it, the land will be landlocked. That creates a problem for the owner at 1155 and complicates this. Commissioner Greenwald stated they could make a motion for approval with the condition for access onto Crosstown Boulevard or they could make a motion to not approve it until there is more information because he would like more of a straight answer as to where the road will be. Commissioner Vatne stated his vote will be to deny because he thinks that getting this straightened out where the road will be is too significant to have in front of them and to approve with a condition. He thought it needed to be ironed out first. ') / _fa (- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting . Minutes - January 27, 2004 Page 6 ] / Commissioner Greenwald stated they need to have a detailed comprehensive plan that is well thought out so they do not get into this situation. Discussion ensued in regards to the proposed temporary road connection. Chairperson Daninger asked how everyone felt about driveways on collector streets. Commissioner Gamache stated there is nothing they could do unless they do not develop the land. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not think it was too severe to put driveways on this arterial street. He stated they have had to do this on a few developments when no other options exist. Commissioner Casey stated they are only stuck with two options. Either give up lot five as a permanent and cutting out the trees or going to the other piece of property probably at a higher price. He stated they have to have access to Crosstown. Commissioner Jasper stated if this is redone, it seems that the road could on the northern part of this development, be run along the wetland edge with cul-de-sac's off and get nearly as many lots if they put the road along the wetland edge and put cul-de-sac's off to the west but they will still have on the south side of this ten or twelve lots that have to front the collector street so it does not solve the collector street problem. , Commissioner Greenwald thought they should all agree there should be an access but he i / needs a more definitive information and he would like to either table this or deny this. He would be more prone to table this until they could get more information. Chairperson Daninger stated they did not have enough information to approve this but he wondered if they should table this or deny it. He thought they should move this forward to the City Council with a recommendation because the only things they have problems with are the road going through and the street as a collector. Commissioner Jasper stated if Wintergreen is not put where the developer wants it, the land will be landlocked. That creates a problem for the owner at 1155 and complicates this. Commissioner Greenwald stated they could make a motion for approval with the condition for access onto Crosstown Boulevard or they could make a motion to not approve it until there is more information because he would like more ofa straight answer as to where the road will be. Commissioner Vatne stated his vote will be to deny because he thinks that getting this straightened out where the road will be is too significant to have in front of them and to approve with a condition. He thought it needed to be ironed out first. \ / -zo- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting .. Minutes - January 27, 2004 Page 7 ') j Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council denial of the preliminary plat because of the unknown of the access or continuation of the feeder street. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 17,2004 City Council meeting. Commissioner Greenwald left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. BLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY 1DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 13309 JAY STREET NW. explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for a 4-lot ubdivision. Mr. Cross disc sed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Gam he asked where the driveway is. Mr. Cross stated it extends out onto Jay Street. He st d there would have to be a variance for every property that would have a driveway 0 t onto 133'd. Commissioner Gamache asked why the one lot "- needed to be widened out t one hundred feet. Mr. Cross stated because the ninety foot / width on comer lots applies 0 to comer lots that back into one another and this one would not do that to the north 0 't. Commissioner Jasper thought only of the lots were fronting on 133,d. Mr. Cross stated the applicant indicated that this uld be the minimum. Mr. Ernest Rousseau stated currently his dri way fronted onto Jay Street so they could leave the existing driveway in and cover the fro t two lots with the existing driveway. He stated this would allow only two driveways on 133'd. Mr. Rousseau stated it would be a shared driveway. Mr. Bednarz stated staffwou not advise that situation. Mr. Rousseau stated they would like to seek a variance to p t four driveways onto 133'd. Commissioner Vatne stated on the revised engineering sket plan, there was a proposal to get by the driveways out to the collector street and treat it . h a driveway that runs along the northern section where the homes would have drivewa access off of that. He thought it was compared to one of the recent developments off of unty Road 9, City View Fanus. Mr. Cross stated the Engineering Department offered t t as a suggestion to help the project go through as a way to work around the problem of a ess to 133rd, it was done successfully in City View Fanus so Engineering brought this fo ard as a suggestion. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this would be a private street. r. Cross stated it would. " i , / -2./"" ~j,q~/o~___SH()W'NG WItJ'rER6J<.f;e}.J ec-r-cNPEP ~. ~WKr::}Jfvp. \ --.J ~ .J -------"". ~ 1 if I 1 1 I " t 1 J \ i , j , --- "- , ) ~cy. , 8oF-f70N "~- <l;V 1\o\}l~ HINes P~e€.1ZTY 4.J {; "t--o HO()$e ON- -rH~ PtzO~ , '-J \ -z:z..- ! ! .--r I , [ \. )1 -: I '- \ ~I ^ ! ~ lIt 11 ~~ I I J I I , \ I : \j :' l\ I ,/_ \ 1/ , \ \ I I I I' ( \ 'I' I : 1 \ : I I , ) II \ I " ". 11/,1,1',1 I II ~ I , I I I ! I I~ I I ! I I I ( ! I rT , /; , , 1/ I I I I I I f... / - , / I / I I II --- I I -- I / I / . /'1--.. ___ / , I /1, A. 12...;.-<"A (, ~ . . "_mll,,~- '- J i -~~_~~~8_t//j&,,=_ _".~" etVlf!4 GJ___ , I i i -Z-S - 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: j,hn Em<, City Admini'trat'~ FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Finance Directo David Berkowitz, City Engineer 1JD3 uti-. Will Neumeister, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Discuss Road Improvement Policy - Finance/Planning/Engineering DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION The need to discuss a road improvement policy for the City is becoming ever more important as new demands on the city and county road network require upgrades to intersections and widening of roads. This report will attempt to explain the issues that arise and explain how the City staff would recommend establishing new policy to allow the City to charge developers for \ their pro-rated share. '. .. DISCUSSION Three departments have collaborated in preparing this report to the Council. Therefore it will attempt to explain the collective view of these departments. City staff have done a survey of surrounding communities in Anoka County and that information is attached. The survey found that no cities in Anoka County currently have a "Trunk Road Fee". Some cities indicated that when a plat is being reviewed, they determine what improvements are required and either make the developer construct the improvement, or establish what the cost would be, and let the developer make a payment in lieu of making the improvement. The City Attorney's Office was consulted on the legal aspects of establishing a "Trunk Road Fee" as was talked about at a previous workshop. The City Attorney will be present at the workshop to provide comment and advice. They have completed research on the establishment of "impact fees" since some communities have tried that approach (see attached Supreme Court decision, case of Country Joe v. City of Eagan. The Court concluded that the connection charge was an unlawful tax. Some of the discussion from the Court case gives us some direction on how to properly establish a "Trunk Road Fee". The funding of needed roadway improvements was seen by the Court as something that cities can assess. The assessment process is one of three ways (absent State and Federal funding) , that the City can try to pay for the needed improvements. The three ways would be to levy enough taxes, assess the benefiting property, or possibly create a "Trunk Road Fee". If there is no support for the latter option then the City is left with the first two to choose from. ~,J We will try to briefly explain what a "Trunk Road Fee" is and how it would be used. First, staff feels that a detailed study of what improvements are needed (both in the short term and the ultimate design) should be conducted, similar to the City's park dedication study. Then, when developments came in for approval that require upgrades to the trunk roads, then the City could charge a "Trunk Road" fee. That money would be used to fund the both the short term needed roadway improvements as well as a portion of the long term improvements. To be able to do this, both the detailed study and then appropriate accounting of the collected money would be needed. That being said, the "nexus test" would be able to be met, which is ultimately what the Courts look for to sustain whether this is a fee that a City can charge. It is important to note that the collected money would not be co-mingled with other money of the City. Then as these improvements came forward, the "Trunk Road Fee" money would be used to pay for the specific improvements that were identified as being needed as outlined in the aforementioned detailed study. Having new developments pay for all or even a portion of the needed roadway improvements has been hampered by a lack of a City policy and/or an ordinance that establishes this as a development requirement. Such an ordinance would need to indicate that roadway improvements that are directly attributable to the new traffic from the development must be paid for by the new development (on a proportionate basis). Each Development Pays/or Needed Roadway Improvements If the Council is not comfortable with the concepts outlined above and raising taxes, the ,,) remaining option is to make the new development pay for all needed roadway improvements at the time of plat recording. A report and resolution would need to indicate that a requirement of approval would be that either the developer must make the necessary improvements or an amount equal to the cost of the improvements be paid prior to the release of the plat for recording. This method is utilized in neighboring cities and seems to work. In this option, the city again needs to account for money in a fund that will be used only for the specific improvement project when ultimately built. The improvement may not be done right away as other new developments will need to come forward before there is enough money collected and the project is formally authorized by either the City or County. In some cases, the County may require the improvement be made at the time of construction or a County permit may not be issued. Capital Improvement Plans / Grant Applications The City plans for their portion of major future roadway improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The County also uses their CIP to plan for where the dollars will be spent on the County roadway system. There are a number of improvements that show up in the County plan as "unfunded" and that makes it rather difficult to determine if or when there will be any improvement to a road that needs upgrading. The demands are greater than the available money and they continually work at prioritizing where their money will be spent. Staff would recommend participation in joint grant applications with the County for Federal Grant funds (i,e. HES or ISTEA grants). This would be mutually beneficial and help get new roadway improvements sooner than they would otherwise occur. An example of this would be . \. the section of Hanson Boulevard between Bunker and Andover Boulevards. There will need to -,~ -2. - be significant upgrades of this roadway over the next few years and both the City and County could benefit if grants could be obtained to aid in the funding for the needed improvements. " It is important to identify projects in the County's CIP or any publicly adopted plans to assist in , the federal funding approval. County funds are used to offset portions of projects that are not '-J covered by federal funds. The next application round is August of 2005. These federal funds will be available for construction projects in the years of2009-2010. Agencies have the option to advance fund these projects after the federal funds are granted. ACTION REQUESTED Council is asked to review the information and discuss whether there is a need to establish either an ordinance or a policy that would create a 'Trunk Road Fee". Also, discuss whether the City staff should be working with the County on joint grant applications for roadways like Hanson Boulevard or Crosstown Boulevard. Respectfully submitted, - kd4'A/~~ Q~0.~ Will Neumeister Attachment Survey from Surrounding Communities "J Cc: Byron Westlund, Woodland Development, 13632 Van Buren St.NE, Ham Lake, MN 55304 Mike Quigley, Penta Management Group, 1875 Commercial Blvd., Andover, MN 55304 , '-~ -3- \ -J 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or major County development projects_ Please answer the following questions and return this form via email to isevald{al,ci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3'd. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest. CITY: RN-t~"( CONTACT PERSON: ~~~ PHONE: 1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) is requesting or requiring for plats that impact County roads? We make the developer responsible for the related costs, 2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required or requested by the ACHD for new plats? These costs are treated as part of the development costs. 3. If there is an infill development not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such as turning/bypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded (i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)? We haven't encountered this particular situation \ 4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects? We have '- ) used a Public Improvement Revolving fund which receives its revenues from a number of sources including; special assessments, interest earnings, and year end surpluses in the general fund. 5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road improvements? Not at this point. 6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road improvement policy? We will still continue to pass on costs to developer where appropriate. 7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements? The last county road project was the extension ofCR 116 in the mid 1990's. At that time the city was responsible for the right-of way acquisition costs and the cost of a trail that we requested be added to the project. 8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain. Certainly the development pressure in our city is greater than the county's five capital improvement plan allows. 9. How do you get County participation for projects? We keep our county commissioner appraised of our needs. We have also participated in the development of corridor studies. These studies assist in obtaining regional and federal funding. ) -+- 10. Do you have any County road intersections that do not follow County spacing guidelines? If so, please identify. Some of the intersections of city streets with county roads do not meet the county standard of 660 feet. However, our new developments should not have a problem conforming. Please respond bv Wednesdav. March 3. 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your assistance. '\ '-J 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or major County development projects. Please answer the following questions and return this form via em ail to isevald(tll,ci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3'd. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest. CITY: ,tv..l OK A. CONTACT PERSON: C.~A.\b b';l.A "-( PHONE: (7lP3) S7ls;>- 276\ 1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) is requesting or requiring for plats that impact County roads? The developer pays 100%. 2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required or requested by the ACHD for new plats? Same as # 1. 3. If there is an in fill development not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such as turninglbypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded (i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)? Sometimes, developer pays '\ 4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects? ,-j As part ofthe budget process - General Fund or Street Renewal Fund 5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road improvements? No 6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road improvement policy? No 7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements? 8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain. A little 9. How do you get County participation for projects? We haven't yet. 10. Do you have any County road intersections that do not follow County spacing guidelines? If so, please identify. No Please respond bv Wednesday. March 3. 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your assistance. , , I - ./ -5'- C I T Y 0 F NDOVE , , -j 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US This survey is being sent to larger communities within Anoka County. The intent is to acquire a better understanding of how different communities fund County road improvements associated with new plats and/or major County development projects. Please answer the following questions and return this form via email to isevald!iilci.andover.mn.us by Wednesday, March 3rd. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and interest. CITY: Blaine CONTACT PERSON: Chuck Lenthe or Jean Keely PHONE: 785-6188 or 785-6171 1. How does your city fund County road improvements that the Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) is requesting or requiring for plats that impact County roads? Haven't really gotten to this issue. In one case, we agreed to act as applicant for Federal funds - but if not approved, then how is project funded. Expectation: Larger segments of roadway need upgrade, not just because of one or two developments, but due to development all over. Therefore, county road upgrade should be accomplished colabratively. Currently, Anoka County cost participation requirements are more than reasonable. We need to start expecting a larger burdon to be asked of Cities. 2. How does your City fund short-term improvements such as turn lanes and bypass lanes that are required or requested by the ACHD for new plats? Developer obligation - could even extend to signal improvements. \ '- / 3. If there is an infill development not adjacent to a County road, does your city require improvements such as turninglbypass lanes to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, how is this improvement funded (i.e. developer pays, property assessments, etc.)? If the impact can be attributed to the infill development - the developer should be asked to pay. 4. How does your City fund long-term projects such as County road full reconstruction projects? We generally use our off system MSA. However, our account is empty and we're going to have to look to other alternatives. On some occasions, we also assess, but usually is a small amount and since most access is discouraged except for local/collector roads. 5. Has your City considered some type of area wide assessment or transportation fee to fund County road improvements? No. 6. Does your City have any plans to change your current procedure regarding the new County road improvement policy? No 7. What is your City's cost share percentage when it comes to County road improvements? 10% plus or minus. 8. In your opinion, is the County system way behind the needs of your City? Please explain. No, though I \ can't explaine why, the county has accomplished a number of project in Blaine. \ J -6- 9. How do you get County participation for projects? See above ../ 10. Do you have any County road intersections that do not follow County spacing guidelines? If so, please identify. Of course. What they have been requiring is a traffic study to show that reduced spacing is still workable. However, we need to look to various factors that suggest amendment is appropriate, i.e. is a major wetland impacting spacing or existing collector that can't be reasonable relocated. Please respond bv Wednesdav. March 3. 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Berkowitz at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your assistance. \ '- " ; \. -'7- Mar-04-04 08: 11 am From-CITY OF COON RAPIDS ENG-PLANINSP +7637676573 T-447 P.OZl02 H31 , . ~ ~ . . C/JoN RAf?OS , ) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW.. ANOOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 75&Q1oo FAA (763) 755-8923. VMW.CIANDOYER.MN.US This survey is being sent to Isrger communities within Anob County. The inlent is to acquire a better understanding ofhow different communities fund County road improvements assoc:iat<:d with new plats and/or major County dcvc:lopmc:nt projects. Please allSlftr tbe following q\ll!lltiODS ODd return tbis form via emaU to l.e""ldlilci.lIndover.mn.us byWed.aesday, March 3"". If you have any questions, please C()lltact Dave Berkowitz, City Engineer at (763) 767-5133. Thank you for your time and intere9t aTY: C:..~o... i."fiJs CONTACfPERSON: D,,~ V~t.L,J:,~ I c..+-y 1!"51...~ , PHONE: ., 1.'7- t.~Io-5" L How docs your city fund COQDty road Improvements that the ADou COlDUY HIghway Department (ACHD) Is requesting or requiring Cor plats that Impact OIUDty roads? ...,- -. ,..,........... ~ ~ .e-J. ~,'/....... ~ -<J.)..A'Ia.:....'i>>t "'''\~'I'P~IO ~) tV..4I.J,J..lSl.... "'...A-~l4A-.......ISI...., e..-h,......\ ._~\.........."~ p~ 1....s.J ~SA~ ... auc.Ss-.l ec-........~..t s,...... -t. ~ l1,o....I..~ 2- How does your City fund short-term improvements such as t\lJ'lllane. and bypass laDes that are required or Nqutsted by theACHD forncw plats? s.~:l ~s,~ oMSA ~s - ~ll' t-& _A~ st JAv~......1t- "'... ........... \J.....~ <;~k - ~~l" I ""- J. If there is lID. io.fiU developme1lt not adJaCtlnt to a COlUlty road, does YOlD' dty require improvements 3uch Illl turnin~byplIss Jane3 to be constructed per ACHD requests? If so, bow Is this improvemenr fWlded (Le. developer pays, property assoumentJ, etc.)? c.-'t f.r..t4U. olIWo ~tt. . 4ft" '~1 ........ c....1: ..,...t.l - '" - " , ~.I,.&. v~~ --~,.,-..t' - no '004~I+- . - 4. Ho,," does your City fund long-tenn projects such as COWIty rolld IIill recollstruction projects? .4~~"s: .I'oh<-y 'l..d-" e..J..o.~ oW "Alto""'; f~..u:l..c ".,..,. "...- J'~ ...L<<..' l.. ~ sJ....J... lis.. I'lc;J. ~. S. Ibs your CIty conslde>red SOlne type of area wide assessme>nt or transportation fee to fund County road improvanents? nD 6- Doels YOll/' CII)' have 8D,y plans to change ytllD' ClUTont procedw-e regarding the Dew ColUlly road improvement policy? rlO 7. Wbat is your City's cost sbare perecDtago when it comes to County road Improvements? ~fA 5f4-lh G..... t..&;.~.. 1!..:':1 ,-. foJlc.y [le. n'h .J~/I()O,<...:..t..II./IDO:~Ch...~/i+It$)' 8- lD your opinion, ;s tbe County system way behind the needs or your City? Please explain. 4', ~"lj ."W~\\~ we, W'-.lJ l','f(ooo ~"" "I~.u.l". J ~ +- J~wJ.I,....s .....,l ...... "11.t.1 "'- .ft. c..- ~I~s 'wJ \ftW A,..JU. I...:t Cl,,~......u..;, s~ h 4M....~I~. · 9. How do you get County participation ror projects? -"....."- ~ "'~.~oA-lt. (Tk.;L ~t.';toI;~d"M.i) c.~ ,~.t II...., I;l/I.. +-...W ~s--f) 10. Do you bave any COIIDty road iDtersectlo1lS that do Mf funo,," OIunty spadDg guidelines? If so, p1ellSC identify. b'~~S ......J. 4 $ 1='.\tJ' ,$(..J I .4I,.:JIIJ'.l.. 61..;, c,..,.c.J l~t!,J..J, ~ .......~ ll"~~~ p.;..fs - el-l-l Sh...a.+lO 40"'1 {'JOLjC"J..c.. :J:'I-ls J;UI~ k I........... s+-......J..,..IJ 1.. YIu..... 414.'". .JI.;.A- ;,."..".1 ........v y.....$ a~o. '--" MAR 04 2004 08:22 -lJ'- +7637676573 PAGE. 02 LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates 2140 FOURTIl AVENUE NORTIl :,J ugal Assistant ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI1. UVEGES PHONE (763) 427-8877 BARRY A. SULLIVAN HOLLY G. PROVO FAX (763) 421-4213 E-MAIL HawkLawl@aol.com RECEIVED February 26, 2004 FEB 2 7 2004 Mr. Will Neumeister CITY OF ANDOVER City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: "Trunk Road Fees" Dear Will: I have started my research on the issues which we discussed in the above-referenced 0 matter. The starting point will be the Supreme Court's decision regarding supposed impact fees in the Country Joe case. Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 560 N. W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997). A copy of that decision is enclosed herewith for your consideration. That case dealt with road unit connection charges imposed as a condition of approving building permits. The Court concluded that the connection charge was an unlawful tax. The issues are a little different from the ones we discussed, but as I said, it is a good starting point. '0 -9- RlES COUNTRY JOE, INC. v. CITY OF EAGAN Minn. 681 I CI.. as 560 N.W.2d 681 (Mlnn. 1997) as condition of issuance of building permits fl COUNTRY JOE, INC., et within its borders was proportionate to need t , .~; a!., Respondents, created by development upon which burden i~ of payment fell to qualify charge as "impact ' .~ I i ~l v. fee," even if such fees were authorized; city ..,1 r: . j\ CITY OF EAGAN, petitioner, Appellant. ignored its own consulting engineers' recom- . i t~i No. C8-95-2289. mendation that connection charge be periodi- ~ cally updated to account for changes in costs, 'ifJ , ~l Supreme Court of Minnesota. revenue projections, or patterns of develop- 1;'; March 6, 1997. ment. ,.j See publication Words and Phrases " !{j for other judicial constructions and def- ,:] brought action initions. I ; Building contractors ' ,I '. t city, challenging legality of road unit 4. Taxation <;;:>1 t,; I eannection charge imposed by city as condi- Zoning and Planning e=>382.4 , '. on of issuance of building permits. The Road unit connection charge imposed by i . triet Court, Dakota County, Thomas M. city as condition of issuance of building per- d -I . urphy, J., granted summary judgment for mits was unlawful "tax," rather than regula- , "ty, and contractors appealed. The Court of tory or license fee authorized under city's I iPpea1s, 548 N.W.2d 281, reversed and re- general welfare powers; there was already ded. City appealed. The Supreme separate building permit fee covering regula- Court, Keith, C.J., held that: (1) connection tory costs, plain language of resolution enact- wz; able to pursue :Charge was not valid exercise of city's implied ing charge indicated that it was expressly ., lhunicipal planning authority under Munici- intended to raise revenue, and revenues col- lad killed Abelseth, .nsufficient foundation' jiaJ Planning Act; (2) connection charge was lected were not earmarked for projects ne- ~ murder to allow "ot "impact fee"; and (3) connection charge cessitated by new development, but funded ral evidence, exclusioif .:was unlawful tax. all major street construction, as well as re- It error. v' Affinned. pairs of existing streets. M.S.A. ~ 412.221, u court and hold that tIi8 - subd. 32. ::e that Harris physi. l: See publication Words and Phrases ...' ! ; properly admitted ~ '~L Municipal Corporations <;;:>57, 59 for other judicial constructions and def- i Uted purpose of exp . As limited statutory creation, statutory initions. , ~ city has no inherent powers beyond those j. :ampletely changed ~ 5. Zoning and Planning e=>382.4 J; " given at Harris's 1..l!xpressly conferred by statute or implied as Statute recognizing city's authority to I 'OIrlude that the a '.necessary in aid of those powers which have impose "other special taxes authorized by \: d secret code written. ~en expressly conferred. M.S.A. ~ 410.015. law" did not authorize road unit connection ... Vzzquez while he was. 2. Zoning and Planning e=>382,4 charge imposed as condition of issuance of I ecmse this evidence .,. building permits. M.S.A. ~ 412.251, subd. Iftjudicial, and not, Authority to impose road unit connection 11. dence. Finally, we 'charge as condition of issuance of building [ ~mence tending to P Permits could not be implied from city's mu- 6. Zoning and Planning e=>743 i was properly exclud . iUcipal planning authority under Municipal Claim by amicus curiae that building I ~cient evidence co ,flanning Act; legislature had specifically pro- contractors waived right to challenge road 1 f actual crime at issue' ~~ed funding mechanism for road improve- unit connection charge by failing to challenge " I ~ents, and thus, no funding mechanism had charge at earlier date would not be ad- i .to be implied to effectuate legislative grant of dressed on review, as issue was neither i I )Jl' \ authority to undertake road improvements. reached by trial court nor raised by party ~.A. ~~ 412.221, subd. 6, 429.021, subd. ' ; 0 before appellate court. l:.t ;.;1(1), 462.351. I ~ ~r: Syl./.alnJ.s by the Court :1 3. Zoning and Planning <;;:>382.4 .\ ~ There was insufficient evidence that A statutory city lacks express or implied j ,!" toad unit connection charge imposed by city authority to impose a road unit connection i i -10- j I , 682 J\Tlinn. 560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER., 2d SERIES ( charge as a condition to issuance of building connection charge. The court of appeals re. The original plan r~ '\ permits within it.!', borders. versed, concluding that the charge was unau. ~~7Cbarge "be :e\~ewed ,,~. 'J thorized either by statute or case Ja..;. J "fised every :J years ill ( Country Joe, Inc. 1'. City of Eagan, 548 ~~.' SgDificant ~anges ill ,~ Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P., Clifford M. KW.2d 281, 284 (1I'Iinn.App.1996). We at- .>. e proiectJons or c:;~ c"'ellu . Greene, John M. Baker, Minneapolis, Shel- finn. '? znent pattern_within tI. don, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, James ~~J 'DeCember 19/9, th.e Cl~ F. Sheldon, Michael G. Dougherty, Apple On February 14, 1978, the Eagan city 'L"!05t.S of constructJon ;: Valley, for Appellant. council adopted a resolution imposing a road ~;,,: addition of pedestriar. ' Thomas H. Goodman, Gerald S. Duffy, unit connection charge payable as a condition j"? 'j;!reet design. As a , Wood R. Foster, Jr., Anthony J. Gleekel, to issuance of all building permits within the .~: . creased the road uni: . III .. Siegel. Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P A. Minne- city.] Tne resolution stated that its purpOSe .~,? single family reSlOe~. apolis, for Respondents. was to provide "an equitable source of fund- i' : Except for annual ir:: ing for major county 2nd city street construe- . . j inl1ationary index. ti" Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, PA, tion · . · in order to accommodate new ~> updated since this L~' Roger N. Knutson, Eagan, amicus curiae. development and tr2ffic generated from fu- . ,~: The inflation-adjustec Heard, considered and decided by the ture anticipated residential, commercial and ;; - familY residence had :: industrial construction · . .... .~ tial $75 to $410 at th~ court en banco filed in 1994. The charge was prompted by ~ study COil- On appeal, the city c: OPINION ducted b~' the city's consulting engineers in aition of a road uni, ~ KEITH, Chief Justice. 1977, which projected a shortfall of $1.11 .. ')a\\ful exercise of its ; million in funds available to finance major Minnesota law. Tne 2 This case requires us to decide whether street construction in the city through the authority to finance re, the City of Eagan may lawfully impose a year 2000. The consulting engineers pro- '" : be implied !rom seve: road unit connection charge as ~ condition of posed that the city make up this shortfall by .;:: ~ the city's municipal pl,,: issuance of al] building permits ,,~thin its imposing a road unit connection charge, pat- .' . . Minn.Stal ch. 462; :: bord ers. The cit~. adopted su~h a charge in terned after the water and sewer connection Impose an "impact fee .. ~J 1978 for the purpose of funding major street charges already imposed by the city pursu. Improvements, as ClL.'Te improvements. The respondents, home ant to state law. Set J\Tlinn.Stat. S 444.075, lllcrou, other states; ,,: building contra~tors, challenged the city's au- subd. 3 (1996). Cllllect regulatory anc thority to impose such a charge and sought a The ~ity deposits road unit connection III its !(eneral welfarE refund of all charges collected within the six- i ' Stat s 41~.221. subd. 3; year statute of limitations. They also sought charges collected into a Major Street Fund "'",,- .~:; :', class certiiication on behalf of themselves account, along with other sources of road ..t I. and all others subjected to the charge. On funds.2 Funds are not earmarked for any croso-motions for summary judgment, the parti~ular project and the city does not at- parties entered into a stipulation calling for tempt to link e),:penditures to any particular the district court to initially consider onl:,' the funding source. In addition to major street question of the city's authority to impose the construction costs, mis~ellaneous charges charge. After a hea..-Jng, the district court such as sealcoating and the purchase of Big- concluded that the city had the authority nal lights are occasionally paid out of !be . ;~, under its polic~ powers to impose a road unit a~count. :;',1' ~,.-~,1"~ 1. The resolution resolved in part; basis or ponion thereof v:ith t~ree resi~.Jt~ 3. That tht' following unit connection charges rial units per acre and a mimmum of .hr't be required to be paid at the time of acquisition residential equivalent unit conn~:i':f~ of future building permits in the Cir:': charge. f-...:,:\~" -' a. For single family, double bungalow and , ... . . t~~~ townhouse residential building unit..,--S:75 ~. THe CIty 5 Fmance DIrector testified tha ." ......;-_. . per unit. unit con~cction charge~ collected are c~~.:.;~ b, For multioh.' famih' residential unit!'--SOlff of the normal residential unit connc:tion glee with the city's "ad valorem taX lev)., ...:~,~" charge. special assessment collections. interest ~. ~ c. Fa:- commercial and industrial building and other misceIlaneolli revenue sources III ~~ t..1ajor Street Fund. i!.' permits-amount determined on an acreage . = --11- .~J HIES COUNTRY JOE. INC. v. CITY OF EAGA1" Minn. 683 Cite as 560 N.W':d 681 (Minn. 1997) The court of appeals re- The oiginal plan recommended that the the legislature's intent to confer broad plan- hat the charge was unau_ charge "be reviewerl annually and totally re- ning authority on cities: "It is the purpose of . statute or case law vised ever,' 5 years in order to adjust for any sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide munici- c City of Eagan, 548 significant changes in constrUction costs, rev- palities, in a single body of law, "ith the :\1Jnrd.pp.1996). We af- enue projections or changes in the develop- necessary powers and a uniform procedure ment pattern within the City of Eagan." In for adequately conducting and implementing December 1979, the city revised its estimated municipal planning." Minn.Stat. ~ 462.351. '. 1978. the Eagan citv costs of constrUction upward to include the The city asserts that the road unit connection esolution imposing a road addition or' pedestrian walkways to the city's charge is merely an example of its lawful ~ge payable as a condition street design. As a consequence. the city exercise of the broad planning authority con- illding permits within the increased the road unit connection charge for ferred upon it under the act. In stated that its purpose a single family resilience from $75 to $185. The city relies on our decisions in two ec;tritable source of fund- Except :'or annual increases based on an municipal planning cases in support of its '; ::nd city street construc- inflationary inde:'{. the plan has not been assertion. In Naegele 01ddoor Adver. Co. t'. er to accommodate new updated since this initial revision of 1979. 'Village of Minnetonka, we upheld an ordi- :-::fic generated from fu- The inflation-adjusted charge for a single nance adopted by the village requiring adver- sicemial. commercial and family residence had increased from the ini- tisers to phase out billboards located in ex- ~o:: "" ". *:' tial $75 to ::;.no at the time this lawsuit was clusively residential zones. 281 Minn. 492. }l"Jtr.pted by a study con- tiled in 1994. 505, 162 N.W.2d 206, 215 (1968). We con- s ~::sulting engineers in On appeal, the city contends that the impo- cluded that while no statute expressly autho- 'c:i!i ~ shortfall of $1.11 sition or a road unit connection charge is a rized such an ordinance, the power to do so ';0 ":0 to firiance major lawful exercise of its implied powers under must necessarily be implied to effectuate the , ". Minnesota law. The city suggests that the village's express statutory authority to create ::.... j cIty through the authority to finance road improvements can e.."{clusively residential districts. f d. at 504. : ::';~::''1g engineers pro- be implied from several sources, including 162 NW.2d at 215. :::'<""2 :.!p this shortfc.ll by :..:: .:--:,:,_,ection charge. pat- the city's municipal planning authority under In Almquist v. Tawn of Marshan, we up- ":'== ::.::d seVier connection Minn.Stat. en. 4G2; the implied power to held the town's adoption of a zoning morato- '.; :52': ':Jy the city pursu- impose an "impact fee" to fund infrastructure rium against a landowner's contention that, ,'c, :r:.'1n.Stat. ~ 444.075. improvements. as currently recognized in nu- by expressly extending the authority to merous other states; and the city's power to adopt such a moratorium to county boards collect regulatory and license fees pursuant while remaining silent on the power or mu- ,:5 ::2.d unit connection to its general welfare powers under Minn. nicipalities to adopt similar moratoria, the .:::: :: ;,Iajor Street Fund Stat. Ii 412~1. suhd. 32. legislature evinced an intent to withhold the .::. :::::'2~ sources of road authority from municipalities. 308 Minn. 52. , .:::: ~armarked for any 1. 64,245 N.W.2d 819, 825 (1976). We rejected ~: ::~: city does not at- [1,2] The city of Eagan is a "statutory the negative inference urged by the lando\\'Il- :: _.'::=3 to any particular city," meaning it is a municipal corporation er, noting that, among other arguments, "an '. ~:::::on to major street that has not adopted a home rule charter as equally persuasive argument may be made =:ellaneous charges provided for under Minnesota law. See that the legislature . . . simply assumed . ~:: ::~e purchase of 5ig-- Minn.Stat. ~nO.015. Ai; a limited statutory that municipalities had inherent power to ..:::::.::.:::; paid out or the creation, the city has no inherent powers enact such ordinances." fd. Thus, the city beyond those "expressly conferred by statute urges that after Almquist, absent an explicit - ':::,";.::' with three residen. or implied as necessary in aid of those pow- expression of a contrarj purpose by the leg- _.-; :..::..:. a minimum of onC' ers which have been expressly conferred." islature, cities are presumptively endowed - ---" unit connection Mangold Midwest Co. v. 'Village of Richfield, with broad municipal planning powers-in- 274 Minn. :W7, ~7, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820 cluding the power to finance municipal im- ::~ ;::.r testified that road (1966). We first consider the city's conten- provements-subject only to the limitations tion that the road unit connection charge is a of good faith and nondiscrimination. fd. at _-:=. ; :ilected are commin- valid exercise of its implied municipal plan- 65,245 NW.2d at 826. \rem tax levv. some' \ I. - . .. ning authority under Minn.Stat. ch. 462, the Relying on Almquist, the city contends ..:. _~S. mterest earrungs = _ _ -:'..enue sources in the Municipal Planning Act. The policy state- that the court of appeals erred in concluding rnent introducing the act clearly e.."qlresses that the legislature's failure to e."qllicitly au- -/2- -- 684 Minn. 560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 1 ) thorize the road unit connection charge in the connection charge, see Minn.Stat. ~ 441.075 ,< tax statute was an "explicit eA-pression" of its subd. 3, it failed to provide such authorizatio~ intent to withhold such authority. Country for a road charge. That this lack of express - Joe, 548 N.W.2d at 284. To the contrary, the statutory authorization was not the result of :. 1 city asserts that not only is the construction legislative oversight is evidenced by statUUl. I of roads to meet new development needs ry provisions eA-pressly establishing special reasonably related to the welfare of its citi- assessments as the mechanism by which tit. I zens, see Minn.Stat. ~ 412.221, subd. 32, but ies are empowered to finance road improve- I also the implied authority to finance such ments. See Minn.Stat. ~~ 429.021, suM i construction can be derived from the Munici- 1(1), 412.221, subd. 6. pal Planning Act, see iei. ~ 462.351, as well The Virginia court's decision in Tidewater paym~= as from the city's authority to make public is thus readily distinguishable.3 In Tidewat- . asse5~: ~ - improvements under Minn.Stat. ~ 429.021, er, the court noted that the Virginia legisla_ a b!lli"-' = subd. 1 and Minn.Stat. ~ 412.221, subd. 6. ture provided no funding mechanism at all or plz: ;::::-- Finally, the city cites a Virginia case in for the water project which it had authorized. ' p==: -=- = arguing that the "authority to finance public 241 Va. at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526. In COD- reguia:o ?" =- activity is implicit in [the] authority to under- trast, the Minnesota legislature has specifi. and p:-:- -== =- .::: l1 take it[.]" In Tidewater Ass'n of Home- cally provided a funding mechanism for road and S~ ..:=..- builders, Inc. v. City of Firginia Beru;h, the improvements; therefore, no funding mecha- · leviec :. = .=:.- Virginia Supreme Court rejected the conten- nism need be implied to effectuate the legis- faciJi:j' - - [ ~-::. ~ =- .......: tion of an association of contractors that stat- lative grant of authority to undertake road new C~~ L utory authorization for a $200 million water improvements. Cf Naegele, 281 Minn. at . in 21:. ~-=-~ project alone was insufficient and that "the 503-D4, 162 N.W.2d at 215 (holding that the the n~: ~ -= financing mechanism or fee chosen by the power to amortize nonconforming uses must ed b;.-:.~ .--== City must be authorized separately · · '." necessarily be implied in face of legislative Brian W. ~-== _ - 241 Va. 114, 118, 400 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1991). silence in order to effectuate the village's Impact F" - .' The court noted, eA-press power to create residential zones); 1991 Zon:', : In order to exercise the duty and au- Almquis~ 308 Minn. at 63-65, 245 N.W.2d at 264 (Kell:1~":' ~ -: = thority to provide a water system then, the 82&-26 (holding that the power to adopt a Comme=.= =' corresponding ability to pa;y for the system zoning moratorium may be implied to effec- must exist. We agree with the trial court tuate the town's zoning powers despite the differs fro=. . =- .:. : I that the ability to finance the cost of pro- legislature's silence on whether cities, as well levied a.; ..~----- " viding this service is inherent in the au- as counties, possessed such authority). Ac- dered. " j ~ :. _- -=- . thority to provide it, and the specific mech- cordingl;y, we conclude that the authority to key to th~ ~=.:=:- _. : anism chosen by the City to finance the impose a road unit connection charge cannot the amou:.: ~ _ . project need not be defined by statute. be implied from the city's municipal planning the cost c: --- lei. at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526. authority. See Mangold, 274 Minn. at 357, cessitatec ~ :.. ~- ~ versel~'. ", == _--:: We agree that Naegele and Almquist 143 N.W.2d at 820. service; ~~:.:,c- ~ -'-"=- broadly defiEe a ci:;y's ability to plan for the al reven:E :-.=.0: = use of property \\ithin its borders. That the II. tax." k =_ -== Municipal Planning Act expressly confers [3] The city next contends that the court broad municipal planning powers on cities of appeals erred in rejecting case law from 4. See Au" =_ - - does not necessarily imply that the legisla- other jurisdictions approving of similar . Comm 'f: ..- ~-=- charges as "impact fees." Impact fees have 880 (197~ - ture similarly intended to confer broad ft- of COCI(' _ ._-. - - nancing powers under the act. In fact, the been lauded by local governments in recent... 09951: C.-_ legislature's actions support the opposite con- vears as a welcome means to "shift a portion?;; 189 Kar. :-- - _ sifie<!J-rrr...-_ clusion, Although the legislature €lI.-pressly ~f the cost of providing capital facilities to~(- Md. 45, ,- provided for the sewer and water charges serve new growth from the general tax base ;~' ford CO"",, - _.-:.- after which the city patterned its road unit to the new development generating the de- ii ed On 0:;1.:.- ~:.._ (1994); .'.-__ _ '. 3. As an initial matter, Tidewater did not involve provide<! for under Virginia law. 241 Va. at 118, :~: Aldem,,,,, -- - road impact fees of the type enacted by the Cit)' 400 S.E.2d at 526. (977); i,,_ - . ,- of Eagan, which coincidentally were specifically Townsiz:.= - - -/~- _.J S COUNTRY JOE. INC. v. CITY OF EAGAN Minn. 685 Cite as 560 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997) ,fi:m.Stat. S 444.075 wand for the facilities." Martin L. Leitner guished from special assessments: "The pri- , le such authorizatio~ & Susan P. Schoettle, A Sl~rvey of State mary difference is that special assessments , this lack of express Impact Fee Enabling Legislation, in Exac- represent a measure of the benefit of public VlI5 not the result of tiO'ns, Impact Fees and Dedications: Shap- improvements on new or existing develop- : ,videnced by statuto- ing Land-Use Developm,ent and Funding ment, whereas impact fees typically measure establishing special Infrastructure in the Dolan Era 60 (Robert the cost of the demand or need for public umtism by which cit- H. Freilich & David W. Bushek eds., 1995). facilities as a result of new development ;'i naI!Ice road improve- An impact fee has been defined as a form only." Id. at 267 (emphasis added). ; . is 429.021, subd. of development exaction that is: The contractors argue that impact fees are . in the form of a predetermined money lawful only if such fees are authorized, or lerision in Tidewater payment; appropriately limited, by state enabling legis- ;h%ble.3 In Tidewat- . assessed as a condition to the issuance of lation. They cite a number of cases from tile Vrrginia legisla- a building permit, an occupancy permit other jurisdictions in support of their conten- Ig mechanism at all or plat approval; tion that it "is well-settled that impact fees, iell it had authorized. . pursuant to local government powers to such as the Road Unit Connection Charge, ~ :.!ll at 526. In con- regulate new growth and development are illegal \\ithout specific enabling legisla- jSature has specifi- and provide for adequate public facilities tion." 4 They also point to the failure of a bill . mechanism for road and senices; proposing an impact fee in a recent session e, no funding mecha- . levied to fund large-scale, off-site public as evidence that the Minnesota legislature effectuate the legis- facilities and services necessary to serve has not endorsed the concept of impact fees. y to undertake road new development; See H.F. 988, 79th Leg. (Minn.1995) (a bill to egele. 281 Minn. at . in an amount which is proportionate to amend s 462.358 of the Municipal Planning ~:ui '. ding that the Act to authorize school impact fees). Jm. ...illg uses must the need for the public facilities generat- ed by new development. The city responds by citing a number of 'It face of legislative Brian W. Blaesser & Christine M. Kentopp, decisions from other states that allegedly ecmate the village's e residential zones); Impact Fees: The "Second Generation," in uphold the imposition of impact fees without ~5, 245 N.w.2d at 1991 Zoning and Planning Handbook 255, express statutory enabling legislation! e power to adopt a 264 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 1991). We conclude, however, that we need not IE implied to effec- Commentators suggest that an impact fee reach the issue of whether impact fees are powers despite the differs from a tax in that an impact fee is authorized in Minnesota in order to pass on -hether cities, as well levied as "compensation for the services ren- the validity of the road unit connection ueh authority). Ac- dered." Id. at 266 (citation omitted). Thus, charge imposed by the city. By definition, 1l2t the authority to key to the concept of a true impact fee is that an impact fee must be "in an amount which is ~n charge cannot the amount assessed a developer must reflect proportionate to the need for the public facil- s municipal planning the cost of infrastructure improvements ne- ities generated by new development." Blaes- l. 274 Minn. at 357, cessitated by the development itself. Con- ser & Kentopp at 264. In this case, however, versely, "a charge having no relation to the the city essentially ignored its own consulting services rendered, assessed to pro\ide gener- engineers' recommendation that the road al revenue rather than compensation, is a unit connection charge be periodically updat- ,tends that the court tax." Id. Impact fees have also been distin- ed to account for changes in costs, revenue cling case law from 4. See Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning Hillis Hames, Inc. v. Snahomish County. 97 1ruving of similar Camm'n af Danbury, 160 Conn. 109, 273 A.2d Wash.2d 804. 650 P.2d 193 (I982). ., Impact fees have 880 (1970); IdahO' Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. City of Caeur d'Alene, 126 Idaho 740. 890 P.2d 326 7ernrnents in recent (1995); Caranada Dev. Co. v. City of McPhersan. 5. See Associated Hame Builders of Greater E. Bay. lS to "shift a portion 189 Kan. 174, 368 P .2d 51 (1962); Eastern Diver- Inc. v. City af Walnut Creek. 4 Ca1.3d 633, 94 CaI.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606 (1971); Cantractors Clpital facilities to sified Properties, Inc. v. Montgome~' County, 319 & Builders Ass'n v. City af Dunedin, 329 So.2d Md. 45, 570 A.2d 850 (1990); Wielevski v. Har- I be general tax base ford Caunty, 98 Md.App. 721, 635 A.2d 43, vacat- 314 (Fla.1976); Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Town- V' "lting the de- ed an ather grounds, 335 Md. 225. 642 A.2d 1357 ship af Halmdel, 121 N.J. 550. 583 A.2d 277 " , J (1994); Middlesex & Boston St. Ry. v. Baard of (1990); Tidewater Ass'n af Homebuilders, 1m:. v. i 1 ~:- 241 Va. at 118. Aldennen, 371 Mass. 849, 359 N.E.2d 1279 City af Virginia Beach, 241 Va. 114, 400 S.E.2d (1977); New Jersev Builders Ass'n v. Bernards 523 (1991). Township. 108 N.i 223, 528 A.2d 555 (1987); ! -/1-- 686 Minn. 560 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES projections, or patterns of development. indicates that it was enacted "for the Pllrpose f 412.251 specifie.; ::.z. : "' \.J Thus, for the period in question, there is of funding oversizing of major streets- as . thorized to levy == : insufficient evidence that the charge was pro- well as to provide "an equitable source of' purposes as ''pr.O\~:~=: portionate to the need created by the devel- funding" for such development and was, thus, , lIlent to the public. _::- opment upon which the burden of payment expressly intended to raise revenue. We'.: "for the support 0: , = fell. Accordingly, we reserve the issue of agree. .. conclude there is no= whether impact fees are authorized under We conclude that the charge is a revenue: " . gesting the autho~ Minnesota law, but reject the city's canten- measure, benefiting the public in generaJ,r . siJIlilar to a road un:: ~= tion that the road unit connection charge Minn.Stat. S 412.25: ~l draws its authorization as such a fee. and is not an authorized exercise of the city's';.' 11 of Minn.Stat. ! ~ J police powers. In reaching this conclusion,~. catch-all provisior~ :-~" ~.I III. we find it significant that revenues collec!l!d" ' . thority to impose "0::'';: from the road unit connection charge are noC ~'i [4] The city's final argument is that the eannarked in any way to fund projects De-: : rized by law," we cor:::::: J'( ; preceding analysis t;: : :;: court of appeals erred in concluding that the cessitated by new development, but instead ~ j. road unit connection charge is an unlawful fund all major street construction, as wellaa tion charge is nor ~: . " Minn.Stat. S 412.25:':': ti tax.6 The city argues that the charge is not repairs of existing streets. Because it is not:.: Tt , conclude that the rOl<: = ~'\ a tax and suggests that the charge isautho- a purely regulatory or license fee but instead; cannot find validity ~"" '_II rized as a regulatory or license fee under its a revenue measure, the road unit connection .. "taxation.7 ';;1 general welfare powers. See Minn.Stat. charge is a tax which must draw its authori-l ...:; ;.; S 412.221, subd. 32. zation, if at all, from the city's powers or} ;.::1 Ft~ We have consistently rejected the argu- taxation. Aceord Eastern Diversified, 319~?o ment that the general police power extends Md. at 54-55, 570 A.2d at 854-55 (determin-~" ~ :-:'1 ing that a road improvement impact fee was } o E[ntt..;:- ~,.j to permit revenue raising measures by mu- S' ... ~ ~'i T :".1 a tax because "[n]othing. . . suggests that,;' .'"1 nicipalities. When it has been apparent that tii , ~-. . . . [the] fees are charged solely on the.,;' k\ a city's true motivation was to raise reve- a~~r basis of service provided to the property ;'", ~" nue-and not merely to recover the costs of -.. f::J regulation-we have disregarded the fee la- owner, or to defray expenses of the develop., p. ment regulatory process"); Hillis Homes, 97:~i r:. bel attached by a municipality and held that Wash. 2d at 808, 650 P.2d at 194-95 (hOlding~ ~,' In the Matter of ~ ....., the charge in question was in fact a ta.~ See G. (NMKi :!o:' ,i; .~ that park assessments, "although character-:. ~;... ,- State v. Labo's Direct Serv., 232 Minn. 175, :Ml_ ized by the Counties as fees · · · are taxesr- . ... No. 0.-:'- tl, 182.44 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1950) (striking down ':i'. rather than fees" because the ordinance..' - a fee on gasoline pumps as "a tax for the ~~. purpose of producing more revenue for the were designed to raise revenue); I dalw Bldg. ~ Supreme Co:=-: : :i municipality"); Barron v. City of Minne- Ccrntractors, 126 Idaho at 743, 890 P.2d at:, M~:_ , apolis, 212 Minn. 566, 570, 4 N.W.2d 622, 624 329 (concluding that development impact fee ~ 4. , not limited geographically or to improve-, il (1942) (invalidating a license fee after con- ments to be used solely by those creating tile ~ J c1uding that "[w]hat the city council sought to ., new development was a tax and not a f~ ~ accomplish, and did accomplish, was the en- ,: Wielepsk~ 98 Md.App. at 730, 635 A2d ,i!- ~-: actment of a revenue measure"). , 47-48 (taking judicial notice of the fact . ,I ,j The contractors assert that the road unit "improvements to public roads benefit !hi ] connection charge cannot find validity "under public in general, not only the bord '. :, the cloak of the citis police power" for two property owners" in concluding that fee , .~. Because we conclu:.-: :: :I reasons: first, there is already a separate an illegal tax).,i tioD charge is un::!-- " building permit fee which covers the purely i_ law. we need not r~ 'T regulatory costs of building permit issuance [5, 6] The taxing authority afforded, lDent that the char.. ~ =- 1 and enforcement; and second, the plain lan- nicipalities under state law is delineatec! '!ngwithoutjust co';:'= guage of the resolution enacting the charge Minn.Stat. S 412.251. Although Ie raises the additio= = '1h.e court of appeal; ~<= 6. The court of appeals did not expressly state Cuy of Crvstal, the co= that the basis of its opinion was that the charge to ~ha!le~ge the rea: = was an unlawful tax. However, the coun did g to challenge ~, ::. state, "A decision of this court upholding a road 421 N.W.2d 39::1.: unit connection charge would, we believe. direct. . denied (Minn. lli: . -/~- 3 MATl'ER OF WELFARE OF G.M. Minn. 687 Clt...S60 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. 1997) 412251 specifies that municipalities are au- Court, Tomljanovich, J., held that: (1) infor- orized to levy taxes for such far-reaching mation provided by unknown infonnant pro- urposes as "provid[ing] musical entertain- vided officers with reasonable suspicion to JIlent to the public," "for band purposes," and conduct investigative stop of juvenile; (2) ~or the support of a municipal forest," we warrantless seizure and search of pouch from nclude there is nothing in the statute sug- juvenile was not justified under plain view ting the authority to impose anything doctrine; (3) officers had probable cause to to a road unit connection charge. See arrest juvenile for possession of cocaine such . Won.Stat. ~ 412.251. JUthough paragraph that seizure and search of pouch was valid -11 of Minn.Stat. ~ 412251 operates as a seizure and search incident to arrest; and (4) catch-all provision, recognizing a city's au- juvenile's confessions made during custodial thority to impose "other special taxes autho- interrogation were voluntary and admissible. _ rized by law," we conclude on the basis of our Affirmed. ,:preceding analysis that the road unit connec- i .tion charge is not so "authorized by law." . ~ ~ '. ,Minn.Stat. ~ 412.251(11). Accordingly, we 1. Criminal Law =1134(3),1158(4) ;, conclude that the road unit connection charge cannot find validity under the city's power of When reviewing legality of search or - taxation.7 seizure, appellate court will not reverse trial court's findings unless clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 2. Criminal Law =1139 Supreme Court reviews de novo a trial court's detennination of reasonable suspicion as it relates to Terr7j stops and probable cause as it relates to warrantless searches. V.S.CA Const.Amend. 4. In the Matter of the WELFARE OF G. (NMN) M., a/kIa W.M. 3. Arrest <1?63.5(4) No. C9-9&-812. Stop is lawful if officer articulates a par- ticularized and objective basis for suspecting Supreme Court of Minnesota. particular persons stopped of criminal activi- March 13, 1997. ty. V.S.CA Const.Amend. 4. 4. Arrest 0=63.5(4) Juvenile was adjudicated delinquent in Infonnation necessary to support inves- the District Court, Clay County, Kathleen A. tigative stop need not be based on officer's , ~ . Weir, J., for controlled substance crimes. personal observations, rather, police can base , '; Juvenile appealed, and the Court of Appeals, investigative stop on infonnant's tip if it has ,~ . Forsberg, Acting J., 542 N.W.2d 54, af- sufficient indicia of reliability. V.S.CA . ; _firmed. Juvenile appealed. The Supreme Const.Amend. 4. 7. Because we conclude that the road unit con- because this issue was neither reached by the nectioD charge is unauthorized under Minnesota district court nor raised by a party before this law, we need not reach the contractor's argu~ court. we likewise decline to address it on re- ~ent that the charge is an unconstitutional uk. view. See Thayer v. American Fin. Advisers. Inc.. lDg without just compensation. The amicus curi- 322 N.W.2d 599, 604 (Minn.1982) (declining to ae raises the additional argument that, based on consider an issue not "considered by the trial the court of appeals decision in Crystal Green v. court in deciding the matter before it"); State v. City of Crystal, the contractors waived their right Applebaums Mkts., Inc., 259 Minn. 209, 216, 106 to challenge the road unit connection charge by N.W.2d 896, 901 (I960) (holding that amicus failing to challenge the charge at an earlier dale. curiae may not raise the issue of the constitution- See 421 NW.2d 393 (Minn.App.1988), pet. for ality of a statute when the issue was not raised by rev. denied (Minn. May 25, 1988). However, any party to the action). -/6- LOCAL CONTROL , Street Utility Authority ,~ The street utility proposal, an initiative developed by the League in partnership with the City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Public lil10rks Association, would provide cities with a much-needed tool for preserving infrastructure. By Anne Finn ews headlines seldom mention local street Eligible projects that would qualifY include: maintenance. Unlike highway congestion . Seal coats and light rail funding, topics like street . Overlays reconstruction. seal-coats, and overlays . Reconstructions are not the stuff of riveting conversations . Pavement, gravel base, and sub-grade or policy debates. Yet, most Minnesotans maintenance and reconstruction i depend on some portion of the more than . Curb/gutter and drainage improvements ! 19,000 miles of city-owned streets to "The street ublity would . Sidewalks access local businesses, schools, and other parts . Boulevard restoration of the transportation system. For city officials, allow cities to use trip . Striping and signs pavement management represents a significant generation data to establish The bill draft contains provisions requiring , ) responsibility and a major budget challenge. public hearings, dedication of street utility funds '-_/ The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)-in a fee program for street to projects outlined in a five-year capital improve- partnership with the City Engineers Association reconstruction, maintenance, ment plan, and an appeals process for property of Minnesota (CEAM) and the Minnesota Public owners. Works Association (MPW A)-is promoting a and facility upgrades such as The concept has worked well in other states. legislative initiative that would give cities a fund- traffic signals and turn lanes." In fact, an Oregon law closely resembles the ing tool to meet street maintenance challenges. Minnesota initiative. According to Oregon city The initiative, termed the "street utility," is engineers who have implemented the street utility, modeled after the current storm water utility it has proven to be a useful tool and a minimal statute (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444). The expense to property owners. street utility would allow cities to use trip genera- The St. Paul-based Transportation Policy tion data to establish a fee program for street Institute, a non-profit research and educational reconstruction, maintenance, and facility upgrades organization, has developed models of how the such as traffic signals and turn lanes. street utility could be implemented in cities of How would the street utility work? various sizes and in different regions of Minne- sota. (See sidebar for a comparison of Currendy the state partially funds only 2,818 miles cities' monthly fees for selected classes.) of city streets, leaving nearly 16,000 miles of city streets without any state support. The street The need for city street utility authority utility would enable cities to bill property own- The street utility concept has been driven ers for street maintenance based on usage. Using by anecdotal and research-based information. widely-accepted trip generation rates published As League Board members and staff traveled in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation throughout the state during the fall 2003 Regional Manual, cities could, by ordinance, adopt fee Meetings, we heard consistendy from city officials schedules to fund maintenance and replacement that budget challenges had increased the need to of non-Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. defer maintenance and capital improvements. i' A street utility would provide a voluntary Specifically, League members talked about hold- mechanism that cities could implement to ing off on scheduled street maintenance projects ) dedicate funding for a number of projects such as seal coating and overlays. , (activities such as snowplowing and aesthetic What we heard from city officials is not streets cape amenities would not be eligible). inconsistent with the findings of the 2003 report Funding Street Construction and Maintenance in 8 MINNESOTA C I TIE S - Minnesota's Cities, produced by the Transportation shorter life-cycle. Worse, the longer maintenance \ Policy InstItute and funded by the League, is deferred, the more expensive the repairs. Minor " ) CEAM, MPW A, and the Minnesota Department problems such as cracking become major structural of TransportatIon (Mn/DOT). The report assessed issues when ignored. the condition of the current MSA and non-MSA city street system, and outlined existing funding What can you do? mechanisms and their limitations. Similar findings Your help is critical to this legislative effort. To are identified in the League's State of the Cities learn about the concept and to work towards Report 2004, released on March 3 and available secunng street utility authority for cities, access on the LMC web site at: www.hnnc.org. the information and resources included in the To summarize the findings of the Transporta- League's Street Utility Action Toolkit, available tion Policy Institute study, the majority of online in the Legislative section of the LMC funding for city streets--even among cities eligible web site at: www.lmnc.org. to receive MSA-comes primarily from local Resources included in the toolkit include: resources: property taxes, special assessments, and - A resolution in support of street utility authority bonding. Each of these local funding sources has that your city council can consider. unique limitations. As a result, funding has not "Please take time to - A list of Minnesota cities that have adopted kept up with needs. In fact, most large and small k I' I t the resolution. .. di ma eyour egJsaorsaware A f h bill h L . . CitIes are not spen ng enough on roadway capital - copy 0 t e t e eague is promotmg. improvements to maintain a 50-year life cycle. of the street funding needs - Three PowerPoint presentations from the Current trends are likely to exacerbate the in your city and to voice 2004 City Engineers Association of Minnesota funding shortage. According the Funding Street ' Conference held Feb. 5. Construction and Mai,ltenance in Minnesota's Cities YOlr support for street - The January 2003, Funding Street Construction Report: u!ilityauthoritybyexplainin" and Maintenance in Minnesota's Cities Study. _ City road and bridge infrastructure is aging. ...,. Please take tIme to make your legislators _ Traffic volumes are increasing. the pOSItive II1Ipacl it could aware of the street funding needs in your city, _ Growth in city population and new housing have on your community." and to voice your support for street utility author- is steadily increasing, placing greater demands ity by explaining the positive impact it could on city and residential street systems. have on your community. Legislative directories \ _ Truck movement is increasing significantly. and contact information can be found on the \. ) .' Minnesota State Legislature web site at: www. . The consequences of domg nothmg . leg.state.mn.us. If your council adopts a resolu- Despite growmg needs, the Mim.'~sota Legislature tion supporting the League's efforts, please has been reluctant to make. additIonal funding forward copies to your legislators and to LMC mecharusms available to Cities. MSA has not Intergovernmental Relations Representative changed dramatIcally, and CitIes have not secured Anne Finn at the League offices. I" any new authority to raise more dollars locally. . While deferring maintenance may seem like a logical short-term solution, it creates immense Anne Finn is intergovernmental relations representative fiscal challenges for the future. Streets that are with the League of Minnesota Cities. E-mail: not mamtamed on-schedule mvariably have a afinn@lmnc.org. Phone: (651) 281-1263. &~~O:;"" " _, I....~" > :"~"''''-'' . _ _ -.0- ~,- ....~J;!!T:lr:E..E.~Ti:'UtTJI,I,?Lr~:::~.EE.S:".BY tAN.D':.iJ~E ,.:N 'SIX' M"NN,ESO'T'~A. C"iTIES '- " This chart was prepared using actual need and land use data from six Minnesota cities. It provides models of what street utility fees would look like if implemented. Source: <tAn Assessment of the Street Utility Fee in Six Minnesota Cities," Matt Shands, Transportation Policy . ) Itlstitute, Presentation to ~,_ City Engineers Association of Minnesota, Feb. 5, 2004. MARCH 2004 MINNESOTA CITIES 9 @ ~ Sl\NDbVE~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Erar, City Administrat~ FROM: David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss New Standard Street Section (Continued) - Engineering DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting that the City Council discuss and approve increasing the standard pavement section used for streets constructed in new urban and rural developments. DISCUSSION This item has been continued from the February 17 and the March 1, 2004 City Council meeting. ~ ) This was also discussed at the March 11th Public Works Committee meeting and Options 2 and 3 generated the most discussion in terms of cost, constructability and life-cycle. The Council requested that staff evaluate the cost differences between various street sections. Attached is a cost estimate increase per lot along with a schematic of four different street sections (Pavement Section Analysis). Options 3 and 4 meet the issues that staff presented at previous meetings. Option 3 reduces the cost per lot increase over the previously recommend section (Option 4). ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to approve implementation of Option 3 (3" bituminous and 6 W' class 5 aggregate base) or Option 4 (3" bituminous and 6 Yz" class 5 aggregate base) for newly constructed urban and rural developments. Respectfully submitted, ~(). David D. Berkowitz Attachments: Pavement section Analysis/ Standard street section list from other cities City Council meeting minutes from February 17 and March 1,2004. '\ ./ cc: Byron Westlund, Woodland Development Corp. Mike Quigley, 116 LLC I [ ~ I ,1 I .' I -:' 8 ~ 1 l ') , ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ! " \ 1 C I ! ~ \,' 1 , \:, " . l) ~'.., ~'0-.. 'L r ", '. ;) ",: .."'- ... \,:. \.'. , " <\~ ~." '. ' , ' "~ ". ...., \: ~ ~ ,,:,' ~ .\..... ~ .. \\- ~ . fl -.0 " \\\.. ~, ~ ~ " \~ ,,< '" '" ,.... '... '. ' . '.~". "" I:: ':j I" ....:: ... .... \" , , '. '-.. ............ \1\ ... -I 't '1\ ..j '" ~ ..... J ... -l \-.. .... ~ t- >J ") .. ~'j! ;;, 1:4 " .", '-S ~ <-', ..... LI -", ". . ~ I.ro '" ~\ ~ ..... -::i- I'" '" ~" .... , ~ * v: , - -;- " -\1 ~I '.. ~:... ~4 \n ~ '" "" \J\ '1'- N ... '" -t -> .,c " -..... ... ...:.. . ........... --- ~ ... -::l N. ......... ~ do o.-2l ~ l-, '::l ? ~ I C'\\ l'- .J ~ -'tA "" " It ...... n '" , - ~ -so I 3. - , ~ lrJ -~ t: J - -- -- :2:2 :2:2 0 .2.2 .2.2 ~ \J - ~ l~ ~~ lit t " , c..c.. ...... \n ~ lil@888 @~ ~@8@lil I/)_N ~88lillil al "..,. ~888lil ~~lll ~lil88lil :g_N \1) m..,o 0<1> MOO ~ cONlllmo Nt? (i~~mRi moiai (i~~RiRi g..;eft (il'illimm Ri..;eft (i<rillioim ocrm.,a ~ !;;l&bi;o'" I/)t- "'I/lml&o -..,.. m_~i ",l&bil&l:l .., t- ",f::bi;ol:l ~~:l - ... .. ON'" COlOO)l()O "'...... .. N-cith....,: lig"':;i~ li::r.... ('t)-ci""l-m~ Mci~~-r--: - -... &ig"'~~ "':<<'i"- 0 - - IX) N ~~ '<ten '<t I/) .... en en 10... "'.... (OC!) 10N ~.... 0 ....... ... ~ ...... ... ~ ...... ... - 61? ~ ~ 4R' ~fFt Ut~ ... ... ... ~f;48~~ ~ ffl~8~~ .l!l GI 1ll1;j8~~ .l!lGl mNOOO .l!lGl mNoao ~ :: GI o .. ~i (")100....... o .. ('1)100.......- U cri~-r=....:....: w.q:.,...:.,...:..,.: -:I <ria"':"':"': w~..,.:....:......: ;:m cri..q:....:.....:.,...: -:I 'i: ~ ut.....- ;0 (")M.......... ~j ('l') ut ...... .- (I') ('t)u:t..-.- ('t)('l')....-.- ~B 0.. ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~j ...... ...... - - '2 /I) ;:) ~ I/J I/J .. .. .. ~ c c c c c .l!l U) mg en U) .l!l U) (f)~ U) en .~ tJ) ",g U) U) 42 U)U)gu)0 42 U)U)g;U)m 0 'c CC"'6] 'c c c cu c c: c: c c n:s c c c: c c co c c c: ceca c c n: ::l .9.9Cl_ ::l .sSe>S.s ::l .9.9Cl.9.9 ::l .9.9Cl.9.9 ::l .9.9Cl.9.a $' ~ :2:2lOlEl16 $' :2:2:e1616 $' lOlOlOcom $' R:2:e@o +> IOOIO@'" c: c: c: C :e:e/,-Ng c: '" ::~m~ '" ~~b>~(t) '" ~C:mfrl(t) '" ............m~N '" ~~h;~~ :> :> :> :> :> O. 0 0 0 0 .. .l!l .l!l ~ .l!l 't;; '" '" '" 0 - 0 - 8 - 8 - 8 - U U 'It 'It 'It 'It 'It I1J .. .. .. .. ..~ ..~ ..~ ..~ ..~ ., I/J ~~ 88 ., I/J ~~ ~8 ., .. ~~ 88 ., .. ~~ ~8 ., .. ~8 88 J2-fi J2~ J2-fi J2~ c: ., ~-fi .Il C ~~ -i'd .Il g ~- -il'i .Il c ~- ulN .2 g -- ..,fN .- c rN -il'i F<::' F<::' F<::' F<::' F<::' '" '" '" '" ::l ., ~~~~~ ., ~~~gg ~> ~~~~g ., ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~> ~> ~> ~> ]!~ ]!~ -If) -/I) -/I) ......~~~~ ~......~~M .l'I~ ~~~~M .l'I~ ~~~~~ ~- ~~~~fJ 0 0 0 0 l- I- l- I- I- '" '" '" .. '" ., ., ., ., ~> ~> N ~> N ~> l?l <> N l?l 0 lil 0 .(1) ~ '(1) '(1) <') . If) ~ '(1) <') 'tl~ 'tl~ <') 'tl~ <') 'tl~ 'tl~ <') 'tl ::t ::t ::t ::t <( - - - - "" 'tl 1! 'tl 1! .0 c: c: fi'tle <') ii2 <') :E~ <') :E_ <') :E_ <') '" '" '" "iI" 00 1l!C 00 .!;:- l'i .0 ~ l'i 1l~ l'i .0 ~ l'i N .~ ii .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ t 8 t ~ t ~ t 8 .&e .&e j~ j4? .Me -e~ j! -e~ 18 -e~ -e~ 0 -e~ :g ~ - - ~ - il 0 :> :> .u U I- U ~ U . '" .., '" I- '" '" '" ., ,..: ., . ., ., ., ~> 8fH!~~ , ~> ~~~~o .. ~> ~~~~o ~~ ~~~~~ ~s:- ~~~~~ ~ :a . .,). 8(1) ~mmmm U/I) - U/I) 0(1) U/I) ~~ .. ~~ Olmmm :a ~~ ~~ IDOlO)Q)O) ~~ mO)O)Q)Q) I- .............................. :s .............- ...... .. -.................. -..................- ......---- :> U :> :> :> :> :> . /I) ~ /I) U /I) /I) /I) ... <D 'tl 1iI . 0101 c 0101 'tl 0101 0101 0101 on n:n: :> n:n: c a::n: n:n: n:n: .., :s IJ) .. ::l::l ::l::l ... ::l::l ~ ::l::l j! ::l::l (j) .. 00 i3 00 00 00 00 .. u.u. u.u. i3 u.u. u.u. 0 u.u. ~ i3 00 N 00 00 I- 00 I- 00 . . . <( ., ::;;::;; s ::;;::;; N ::;;::;; ... ::;;:i1 .., ::;;:i1 00 ~ 00 5 00 eft 00 eft 00 ~. :l:!' 1=1= 1=1:: ! 1-1:: . 1::1:: . 1=1:: 01 .., 1-0 on on z . 00 00 .., gm .. 00 .. 00 .., 0101 .. 0101 0101 0101 .. .. .. 0 !i ~~ '" ~~ .. ~~ .. w~ '" ~~ i= i3 .. i3 i3 I1J 0 '" 1:;9 i3 )( 0 .. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ gj w U mw .., mw mw .., mw <D ~lM GI <(01 ..; <(01 in <(01 <D <(01 ..r ~ IJ) U) n:~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ " ~~ ~~ m n:~ ~~ ii ..r ..r ..r '" ..... m m ~. ww ffi i u ~~~~~ Z 0000 Z (1)/1) Z 00(1) . ;'fjz (1)/1) Z 'ii ~o~<(<( ~o~<(<( ~o~<(<( ... w . 12- 12- C. ~@~~~ >. t!. z mOl z mOl z mOl :E I- !=!=8101O ... != !=8 1010 N !=!=8101O M !=!=8101O .., !=!=8lOlO 1ii - W c mm~~~ c mm~~~ c [J)[ll~~~ c mm~~~ c alal~~~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 E !iH~~~~ "" E ~~~~~ .. E ~~~~~ = E ogo~~ .. E ~~~~~ :s ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ~r:1~00 ... ~ 0.. 0 NNI-OO 0 1-00 0 1-00 0 0 NI-UU \ / \ \ " ) ; '-..J / . . 2/26/2004 , Minnesota Communities Tvoical Residential Pavement Sections ) Current Andover: 2.5" Bituminous (I" wear, 1.5" base) 4" Class 5 Aggregate Base 6.5" Total Section Crookston: 4" Bituminous (2" wear, 2" base) 6" Class 5 Aggregate Base 10" Total Section (on 30" Granular subgrade correction) Duluth: 3.5" Bituminous (2" wear, 1.5" base) 8.5" Class 5 Aggregate Base 12" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction wi fabric) Eden Prairie: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base 11.5" Total Section Farmington: 3.5" Bituminous (2" wear, 1.5" base) 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base (100%crushed limestone or recycle) \ 11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction) '. ) Forest Lake: 4" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2.5" base) 10" Class 5 Aggregate Base 14" Total Section (on 20" Granular subgrade correction) Grand Rapids: 4" Bituminous (1" wear, 3" base) 6" Class 5 Aggregate Base 10" Total Section LakeviUe: 3" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 6" Class 5 Aggregate Base 9" Total Section (on 24"-36" Granular subgrade correction) Maplewood: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base 11.5" Total Section (on 24" Granular subgrade correction) Plymouth: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base 11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction wi tile) -oj File: H:!EngineeringIMiscellaneousIPavement Management/Typical Pavement Sections.doc . . 2/26/2004 I '---/ River Falls: 3." Bituminous (1.5" wear, 1.5" base) 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base 11.5" Total Section (on 12" Granular subgrade correction) South St. Paul: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 6" Class 5 Aggregate Base 9.5" Total Section (12" Granular subgrade correction as needed) Winona: 4" Bituminous 8" Class 5 Aggregate Base 12" Total Section (6" Breaker Run subgrade correction as needed) " " ~ , , ) File: H:/EngineeringIMiscellaneouslPavement Management/Typical Pavement Sections.doc , Surrounding Communities Typical Pavement Sections "-) Current Andover: 2.5" Bituminous (1" wear, 1.5" base) 4" Class 5 Ag:gregate Base 6.5" Total Section Anoka: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 6" Class 5 Ag~egate Base 9.5" Total Section Blaine: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 5" Class 5 Aggregate Base 8.5" Total Section Coon Rapids: 2" Bituminous (2" wear, 1 lift) '\ 4" Class 5 Aggregate Base ' 6" Total Section ~ ' ) Ham Lake: 3" Bituminous (1" wear, 2" base) 4" Class 5 Aggregate Base 7" Total Section Oak Grove: 3" Bituminous (I" wear, 2" base) 6" Class 5 Ag~egate Base 9" Total Section Ramsey: 3.5" Bituminous (1.5" wear, 2" base) 4" Class 5 Aggregate Base 7.5" Total Section St. Francis: 3" Bituminous (1" wear, 2" base) 5" Class 5 Aggregate Base 8" Total Section .......-/ -, , ) Regular Andover City Council Meeting . --../ Minutes - February 17, 2004 Page 14 DISCUSS NEW STANDARD STREET SECTION City Engineer Berkowitz explained the City staff is requesting the City Council discuss and approve increasing the standard pavement section used for streets constructed in new urban and rural developments. Councilmember Trude asked if they have looked at the cost implications. Mr. Berkowitz stated it would increase the assessments $800 to $1,000 per lot. Councilmember Trude stated for the additional assessment they would have twenty-five years more street life. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was correct. Mr. Berkowitz showed picture of streets and curbs settling and discussed maintenance that would need to be done. Councilmember Trude asked if they have to go to this extent. She stated she looked at other cities and no other city is building to this standard. Discussion ensued in regard to what other cities are doing and the reasons why they need to "- change the standard. - ~ J Councilmember Trude stated they are adding to the bituminous as well. Mr. Berkowitz stated a lot of communities have gone from a five ton to a seven-ton design. Discussion ensued in regard to the expense this would impose on the developers and residents. Commissioner Jacobson stated he needed more information before he approved this. MA YOR/COUNCIL INPUT (Skateboard Park) - Councilmember Trude stated she has had some people contact her regarding the skateboard park and comments that were made at the Park Commission meeting. She stated the end of year report stated all of the problems were worked out and there were not any issues or complaints, The issue now is where they are going to put the skateboard park. She thought they could put a request in the newsletter on where the equipment could be put. She felt bad that the kids helped raise money for this and now there is not a place to put it. Mr. Erar stated they could look at additional locations and bring the information back to the Council. He stated they are looking at relocating the rink to Prairie Knoll Park. Councilmember Knight stated it would be nice if it were placed in the general area so people would not need to drive to it. (Workshop-Community Cen/er Issues) - Councilmember Jacobson stated they have a workshop ! scheduled for next Tuesday and in their packets they received a letter from the YMCA and as he "--_/ . . I Regular Andover City Council Mee/ing 'J Minutes - February 17, 2004 Page 15 read that he had some very grave concerns about some of the things that were in there. He thought they needed to, as a group, discuss some of the issues that were in the letter and what their response will be. He thought they should do this right away. His suggestion would be to move the meeting to another night so all Councilmembers could be at the meeting. He would like to meet on Monday night, February 23rd, if possible. He thought the letter from the YMCA was quite substantial and should be on its own agenda. Councilmember Orttel asked if Wednesday would be good because he had an issue with Monday. Councilmember Knight stated he would not be available after Monday. The Council discussed scheduling a special workshop to discuss YMCA matters. Council decision was to meet on Friday February 20, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Osbeck, Recording Secretary \ \. ) - \ j . > -. ) Regular Andover City Council Meeting '~ ../ Minutes - March 1, 2004 Page 8 to change the policy and would this open it up to other groups in the City. Councilmember Orttel stated to him it is an issue of public safety and some of the students in the city go to other schools and do they donate to other schools. Councilmember Orttel thought they should check with other cities to see what they do. Mr. Erar stated in other cities there is not a rule, some choose to give and some choose not to give. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Trude, to have the policy amended to have the expenditure come from the gambling tax money for this year and future years until the policy is amended. Mr. Dickinson stated they would come back to the Council with an amendment for approval. Motion approved unanimously. DISCUSS NEW STANDARD STREET SECTION City Engineer Berkowitz explained City staff is requesting that the City Council discuss and approve increasing the standard pavement section used for street construction in new urban and rural \ developments. '. / Councilmember Jacobson stated he looked at the list to see what other cities have a thicker lay down then they do. He wondered if in the search they found other cities that were the same or less and not listed. Mr. Berkowitz stated through the research, the only other city they found with less was the City of Coon Rapids. Mr. Erar thought Mr. Berkowitz should be commended for his initiative to bring the information to the Council. Mayor Gamache stated they currently have a 2.5 inch bituminous with a four inch class five aggregate base for a total of 6.5 and Coon Rapids is the only one that is less than that and they are at 6. What has been suggested by staff is to move to a 3.5 bituminous with a 6 inch class five aggregate base which puts it at 9.5 which is similar to Anoka. Mr. Berkowitz stated when looking at the survey, they also asked for the "R" value of the sub grade in other communities. A lot of the communities not only have a thick section of bituminous and class five, they also do granular sub grade correction. It is somewhat comparable to Andover's drainage. Mayor Gamache asked ifthey would adopt this when it would go into effect. Mr. Berkowitz stated it would go in effect for all new projects moving forward and the only exception would be the Crosstown Meadows Development approved at this meeting. He stated they sent this through to the developer for his review with the explanation that they were moving this forward for discussion and possible approval. The developer reviewed the document and did not have any issue with that so the first development would be Crosstown Meadows and then every other development where they have not gone through the feasibility stage. , ! ~-' \ Regular Andover City Council Meeting , - Minutes - March 1, 2004 Page 9 Mayor Gamache stated the real reason to do this is to make the roads better and for an extended life. Mr. Berkowitz stated this was correct. It would be extending the life of the road from twenty-five years to fifty years. Councilmember Jacobson asked ifthe depth of both the class five and bituminous are an average or a minimum. Mr. Berkowitz stated if would be set as a minimum. Councilmember Jacobson stated the only negative they received was from Woodland Development who was not in favor of this. He wondered if they received any other feedback from other developers who were not in favor of this. Mr. Berkowitz stated he had a discussion with Mr. Mike Quigley and he did not have a chance to put a written response together but he did voice some concern with increasing the section. Councilmember Jacobson asked by increasing this, what the increase in cost would amount to. Mr. Berkowitz stated it would increase the cost ofa lot by $800.00 to $1,000.00. Councilmember Orttel wondered if they should have different standards for different road types in the City, depending on how much they are traveled. \ Councilmember Jacobson asked in regard to the concrete curb, with the increase in depth, would '.J there also be an increase in depth for concrete curb as well. Mr. Berkowitz stated the curb would stay the same as before. Councilmember Trude asked ifMnDOT had anything to say regarding their soils in general. Mr. Berkowitz stated the city has an "R" value of 50 to 70 and they have exceptional drainage sub grade soils but in looking at the survey, other cities are doing correction to their soils. Councilmember Trude asked if this is the only way to address the issue of road restrictions. Mr. Berkowitz stated this would allow heavier trucks to use the roads year round. Motion by Jacobson to approve implementation of a 9 \1," minimum pavement section (3 Y2" bituminous and 6" class 5 aggregate base) for newly constructed urban and rural developments for projects that are constructed after January 1,2005. Motion failed for lack of second. Councilmember Trude wondered if it would be just as cost effective to go to the standard Blaine did, the 3 \I, inch bituminous and have the base be five inches instead of six. Mr. Berkowitz stated this would reduce this under the curb to one inch which would be pretty thin. Councilmember Trude stated she cannot make a financial decision like this without knowing. Mayor Gamache asked if they reduced the class five by one inch, does it make a big difference in the ) cost. Mr. Berkowitz by reducing it an inch, it may reduce the cost $100.00 per lot. ~.~ . . . ,~ Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - March 1, 2004 Page 10 Councilmember Trude stated she would like to get more input and move this item to a Council workshop. She would like to get feedback from Blaine. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trude, to table this item until the March Workshop. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Gamache suggested they offer Mr. Berkowitz their ideas as to what they are looking for. He stated Oak Grove almost has the exact amount as Andover and he wondered if this was because Oak Grove's soil was the same and maybe Blaine had different soil types and he thought Mr. Berkowitz could talk about the different costs of what they could estimate. Councilmember Orttel asked if the industrial areas in the city were built to a nine ton load. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was correct. SCHEDULE MARCH CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to Schedule a City Council Workshop for Tuesday, March ,.J 30,2004 at 7:00 p.m with the addition of the Street Standard. Councilmember Trude stated she noticed there was some research being done by the League of Minnesota Cities on a transit type of fee and she wondered if staff could give them an update on this at the workshop. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEASE/FUN FEST City Administrator Erar stated in light of the impending construction activity for the new Andover YMCA Community Center, the use of the large soccer field located directly due west of the City Hall tennis courts and outdoor skating rink will be unavailable for Fun Fest activities. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the attached agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MA YOR/COUNCIL INPUT (Fiscal Disparities Packet) - Councilmember Orttel stated he received a manila packet with a good fiscal disparities report from AMM and worth reading. Councilmember Trude thought the report was from North Metro Mayors Association. Mayor Gamache agreed it was. ) '-../ 5'\NDbVE~ @ , '.J 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilrnembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Schedule Council 2004-05 Goal-Setting Workshop DATE: March 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION Council is requested to schedule a Goal-Setting Workshop for purposes of evaluating outcomes of Council goals that were established last April 2003, and providing new direction to City staff regarding Council goals for 2004-05. This workshop is a strategic planning session and a critical Council-staff communications element for identifying, evaluating and discussing upcoming community challenges the City may face over the next 12 months. DISCUSSION ,~ As part of this process, individual Council members are respectfully requested to identify and submit their thoughts and priorities on proposed goals for the upcoming 12 months. These goals may take the form of policy initiatives, projects, ordinances and other items of general Council interest. Similarly, the management team will also be identifying and submitting goals for Council consideration as part of this process. In light of the substantial work projects already in place, each department director has been asked to submit no more than one goal for each respective department. In terms of providing staff with adequate time to research Council items, it is requested that Council members submit their issues for review and research to my office by Monday, April 12, 2004. This will allow staff the time to develop background information on the item, identify pertinent issues for Council discussion and prepare a list of possible action items for full Council deliberation. The opportunity to review Council goals prior to the actual Goal-Setting Session is crucial to effectively identifying issues for review and discussion. Last year, Council held a separate workshop on Council goals to review, discuss, prioritize and vote on items that would ultimately be advanced by staff throughout the course of the next 12 months. This workshop would also offer Council the opportunity to reVIew City accomplishments, evaluate outcomes of 2002-03 Council goals and provide staff with further direction on any outstanding issues or items. , '--/' Staff would propose a separate workshop for Council consideration beginning at 4:00 pm to .~ 10:00 pm with dinner. Last year, the Council expressed a desire to only meet with the City Administrator. City administration would respectfully suggest including department directors for this year's goal-setting session to offer Council the opportunity to hear from department directors directly. Similar to last year, the second alternative would be to schedule one (1) work session beginning at 6:00 pm and ending at 10:00 pm with dinner and breaks with the City administrator. Dates for a Council Goal-Setting workshop are proposed as follows: Thursday, April 29, 2004 or Thursday, May 6, 2004. ACTION REQUIRED Council is requested to schedule the 2004-05 Goal-Setting Workshop for either Thursday, April 29 or Thursday, May 6. Secondly, Council is requested to determine the format of the workshop in terms of staff participation. Respectfully submitted, tE, , '. ) \ '-. / .I C I T Y o F (!!) NDOVE . '\ 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and City Council CC: John Erar, City Administrato~r{V FROM: Vicki V olk, City Clerk SUBJECT: Consider Public Facility Use/Security Policy DATE: March 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION City Hall is available for groups to use for meetings either during the day or in the evemng. , DISCUSSION , 0 We currently have 16 groups that have key deposits with the city because they use City Hall for meetings on an on-going basis. From July 2003 through March 2004 City Hall has been used 138 times by these groups (the count does not include Council, Planning Commission, Park Commission, Community Center meetings, equestrian council, neighborhood meetings, etc.) Quite often the front doors have been left unlocked after one of these meetings even though everyone who uses a key gets instructions on how to lock the doors. This also occurs when a group uses City Hall over a weekend which means the doors are left unlocked over the weekend, Staff is concerned about the possibility of vandalism and/or theft from the building when the doors are left unlocked. (On one occasion a huge hole was made in the wall of one of the restrooms.) Therefore, a policy has been written that would be given to anyone using City Hall notifying them that they may be liable for any damages and/or theft of public property. A copy of the policy is attached for your review and consideration. Also attached is the Meeting Room Policy that is given to everyone using a room at City Hall. ,.) ACTION REQUIRED ~~ Council is requested to consider adopting the Public Facility Use/Security Policy. Respectfully submitted, ILL'd;/b Vicki V olk City Clerk '. , ' ''-../ ,-) \ '...,/ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Public Facility Security Policy As a key holder, you are responsible for securing the building once you've entered the premises. After you have unlocked the doors from the outside, the outside lock must be re-Iocked. We strongly recommend that you or someone from your group let meeting participants in and not leave the doors unlocked. Individuals who are not a part of your group/organization are not allowed in the city building after business hours which are Monday - Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. unless they are attending a publicly conducted meeting i.e. councilor commission meetings or unless they have also scheduled a meeting. , \ \ .j If you leave the building doors unlocked during your meeting, please be reminded that you may be held personally responsible for any damage that is caused from individuals entering the building even if they are not with your group/organization. As the key holder, you are personally responsible for ensuring that the door is properly closed and locked and that all members of your group have left the building. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in safeguarding city hall and public property contained within. Leaving the building improperly secured may result in liability to you and/or your organization for damages and/or theft of public property. Please help us ensure the security of our public assets. If you have any questions, please contact Victoria Volk, City Clerk at 763-755-5100. cc: Jim Dickinson, Risk Manager 'I '- j , l '.~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US CITY HALL MEETING ROOM POLICY Andover City Hall has available five (5) meeting rooms that may be scheduled for use. Scheduling of Andover City Hall meeting facilities will be coordinated through the City Hall Receptionist during regular business hours. Business hours are Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m,-4:30 p.m., excluding holidays. 1. RESERVATIONS/SCHEDULING OF CITY HALL MEETING ROOMS. Reservations can only be accepted from a resident of the City or a business, school or ! civic/association group located within or serving the City. ., I Reservations may not be. transferred or sublet to anyone other than the person/organization making the reservations. Cancellation of reservations should be made at least 24 hours in advance. Any person reserving a meeting room must have a photo identification or MN Driver's license, and a telephone contact number. The City of Andover reserves the right to reschedule any and all reservations. If a meeting reservation is rescheduled due to a room conflict, the City will contact the person making the reservation at least 24 hours in advance. 2. PRIORITY OF USE. Any event directly related to the operation of the city (i. e. city counci/lboardlcommission meetings) shall have first priority of the meeting rooms. All other meeting room reservations will be taken on a first come, first served basis. , " I G:\DA T A\ST AFf\MHARTNER\VlCKl\MEETINGROOMPOLICY.doc Revised 11/14103 . , 3. DAMAGE DEPOSIT/FEES. '. / A $50.00 refundable key/damage/maintenance deposit is required for meetings scheduled in any of the meeting rooms at Andover City Hall. In addition to the refundable key/damage/maintenance fee, for-profit organizationslbusinesses must pay a $25.00 fee each time a room is scheduled. Those who use the meeting rooms must leave the room in the condition it was in prior to use, tables/chairs are to be returned to the original positions, garbage disposed of properly, and lights turned offwhen the meeting is over. If the room is left in disarray or damage occurs during use, the person/organization reserving the room will not be reimbursed their key/damage/maintenance deposit and may lose the privilege to use the meeting rooms. The City reserves the right to charge meeting fees as may be approved by the City Council. The City of Andover does not assume liability for injury to participants or others involved during the use of City facilities. All organizations must agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Andover against all losses or liability. 4. GENERAL RULES. The person reserving the room shall: A. Supervise the conduct of the members oftheir groups. B. Use only the meeting room approved for use, C. Leave the space used in a clean and orderly fashion. Each group will be '- .- responsible for seeing that the facility is in the same condition when leaving as entering. Pick up any garbage generated during the meeting. D. Assume responsibility of setting up and taking down the tables and chairs used for the meeting. All tables and chairs must be replaced exactly as found and wiped down, if necessary. E. Comply with all city ordinances, Minnesota State Statutes, federal laws, and established rules, which apply to authorized use of Andover City Hall. F. The applicant will be held responsible for locking the building securely and turning off all lights before leaving. G. The group, individual, or organization using Andover City Hall must provide competent adult supervision for the entire time that participants are in the building or on the surrounding grounds. H. The group, individual, or organization using Andover City Hall shall agree to compensate the City of Andover for all damages and theft of facilities, equipment, or other property owned by the city. 1. No food or beverage is allowed in the Council Chambers. J. While telephone usage is available, only local non-toll calls are permitted. K. Office equipment located within City Hall is not available for use by those reserving meeting rooms. Such office equipment includes: fax machines, copy machines, postage meter, computers, overhead projectors, and cable equipment. L. Medical emergencies and/or situations requiring a public safety response should be called in under the 911 emergency communications system. , / M. Vacuum Council Chambers and conference rooms and/or dry mop lunchroom. " G:\DA T A\ST AFf\MHARTNERWICKI\MEETINGROOMPOLICY.doc Revised 3/12104 . 5. ROOM CAPACITY. , " , , . , To conform with Fire Code specifications, the Andover City Hall must limit the capacity ofthe people in the meeting rooms as follows: A. Council Chambers - 130 (occupancy load) B. Conference Room A - 14 (occupancy load) C. Conference Room B - 13 (occupancy load) D. Lobby Conference Room - 8 (occupancy load) E. Lunchroom - 30 (occupancy load) 6. KEYS TO THE FACILITY. The person who reserves the room or another member of the organization can pick up the key from the Andover City Hall Receptionist. The key must be signed-out the day of use of the meeting room, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. Ifmeeting room is used on the weekend, the key must be signed out the business day prior. Before leavin~ the buildin~. please make sure all doors are locked and secured and place the key in the comments box. which is located on the reception desk counter. 7. PROHIBITED - Meeting rooms are provided for resident use to conduct a variety of lawful community meeting activities. The activities listed below are prohibited in governmental facilities. , \ '-9 ~; Persons using City facilities should conduct themselves in an appropriate manner at all times. Disorderly conduct of any kind including horseplay, swearing and/or activities that may result in injury to oneself or others is strictly prohibited. The use of City facilities is limited to meeting activities. Activities such as weddings, private parties, dances etc., are prohibited. If you have a question concerning the type of social activities that may be permitted, please call the City's reception staff. Gambling, wagering or betting of any nature is strictly prohibited. Alcoholic beverages and/or controlled substances of any type are strictly prohibited. Smoking in a public facility is a violation of state law and is prohibited in City facilities. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN THE CANCELLATION OF EXISTING RESERVATIONS AND FORFEITURE OF FUTURE USAGE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER FACILITIES. The City hopes your use of these public facilities is an enjoyable and pleasant experience. If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions on how the City can improve its service to you as a facility user, please contact City Hall offices at 763-755-5100 during normal business hours. , ) . -- / G:\DA T A\ST AFF\MHARTNERWICKI\MEETlNGROOMPOLlCY.doc Revised 11114/03 C I T Y o F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW,CI.ANDOVER,MN,US TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: John Emr, C;ty Adminiruat/f FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer Jim Dickinson, Finance Director SUBJECT: Discuss Access Issues for Sophie's Manor (Supplemental) Discuss Road Improvement Policy (Supplemental) DATE: March 30, 2004 There are two new pieces of information to share with the Council (attached): . The owner ofland located south of Sophie's Manor has sent a letter that explains their concerns over where the access to the development should be located and how it should be paid for. The same letter should also be considered for the item on the Road Improvement Policy discussion. The letter is from the Harstad Companies, dated March 26, 2004. . A letter from Barry Sullivan, City Attorney's Office that provides the attorney's view of establishing either 'Trunk Road Fees" or "Impact Fees". 03/26/2004 15:37 LRW OFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923 NO.611 G'02 Lo.w 0J:1:lc;s OF William G. Hawkins and Associates 2140 FOUlml AVENUE NOJml ugDI.osUI<l1l1$ ANOXA. MINNESOTA 55303 Wn..LIAM G. HAWKJNS TAMMI1. UVEGES PHONE (763) 427-8871 FAX (763) 421-4213 BARRY A. SULLIVAN HOlLY G. PROVO E.MAII. HawlcLawl@aol.com March 26, 2004 Will Neumeister ! CitY Planner , i Andover City Hall I I 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW I I Andover, MN 55304 I Re: Trunk Road Fees Dear Will: You have asked for an opinion regarding the legality of a proposed trunk road fee for I the City of Andover. It Is proposed that this charge would come in the form of an I i amendment to our subdivision ordinance and would establish fees to be collected at I the time of platting, The idea is for the City to determine future necessary roadway I ~ improvements and to impose a fee upon new development that is in an amount proportionate to the impact a new development will have upon the anticipated roadway improvement costs. These are sometimes called "impact fees." The impetus for this proposed trunk road charge .is the fact necessary monies to fund the cost of roadway improvements are not available through the county, through the , I levying of special assessments, or from MSA sources. I I The following is a summary of impact fees under Minnesota law. IMPACT FEES. I Minnesota Appellate Courts have not squarely answered the question of whether , impact fees are allowed under Minnesota law. The Minnesota Supreme Court i discussed the issues in the Country Joe case but ultimately decided that the charge imposed by the City of Eagan in that case was not an impact fee at all but was simply an unlawful tax. Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 560 N. W,2d 681 (Minn. 1997). There are no Minnesota Appellate Court decisions subsequent to Country Joe. I MAR 26 2004 15:59 763 421 4213 PAGE. 02 03/26/2004 15:37 LRW OFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923 ND.611 (;l03 I i Will Neumeister March 26. 2004 Page 2 , , , I What is an impact fee? The first step in the analysis is to determine whether or not a proposed charge in fact constitutes an impact fee. In the Country Joe case, the Minnesota Supreme Court accepted as the definition of a true impact fee as follows: A form of development I exaction that is: I . in the form of a predetermined money payment; . assessed as a condition to the issuance of a building permit, an occupancy permit or plat approval; . pursuant to local government powers to regulate new growth and development and provide for adequate public facilitIes and services; . levy to fund large-scale, off-site public facilities and services necessary to serve new development; . in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the public facilities generated by new development. Country Joe, supra, citing, Blaesser & Kentopp, Impact fees: The "Second Generation," 7997 Zoning and Planning Handbook 255 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 1991 ). The Court in Country Joe stressed the importance of proportionality: ''Thus, key to the concept of a true impact fee is that the amount assessed a developer must reflect the cost of infrastructure improvements necessitated by the development itself. Conversely, 'a charge having no relation to the services rendered, assessed to provide general revenue rather than compensation, is a tax.' " (citation omitted) The lack of proportionality is the factor that was fatal to the City of Eagan's fee in that case. The Court concluded that the fee was simply a general revenue measure and not intended to cover the cost of development. In order for the proposed Andover trunk road fee to qualify as an impact fee, it would need to comply with the above conditions. The most important condition, and the one that is probablv the most difficult to establish, Is the question of proportionality. MAR 26 2004 15:59 763 421 4213 PAGE. 03 03/25/2004 15:37 LRW OFFICE 2140 4TH RVE ~ 7558923 NO.511 GJ04 I . Will Neumeister March 26, 2004 Page 3 i I I lack of proportionality would be fatal as an unauthorized tax. Further, the fee could not be viewed as a general revenue device as this would also be fatal. Consequently, the fees could not be used for ongoing city-wide street maintenance, the fees should not be co-mingled with other funds or accounts, and the fees collected should be directly traceable to a project or projects which were specifically designed to ameliorate the impact caused by the project. Because an impact fee cannot be used as a general revenue measure and cannot be used to maintain existing roads, the City would have to carefully delineate between the traffic burdens caused by past and future development. That is, it is not equitable or proportionate to place the burden for all future road construction costs upon new development as clearly some of the traffic burden is attributable to old or existing development. Consequently, the City must: (1) identify existing transportation deficiencies; (21 assign a reliable traffic impact level to all development; (3) identify transportation needs based on a distinction between new and existing development; and (4) apportion the fees only to those costs of road construction attributable to new development. I would also like to discuss another issue which I think. lies beneath the surface of the Country Joe decision. I believe that implicit in the Supreme Court's discussion of proportionality is the factor of timeliness. While the City may not be required to instantly undertake roadway improvement projects prompted by new development, I believe the courts would expect, at a minimum, that cities utilize the fees collected in a direct, diligent, and prompt manner. I do not think the City would be allowed to "bank" the funds indefinitely waiting to acquire revenue from other sources before undertaking a project, Consequently, any proposed ordinance must specify not only i how the funds collected will be used but also when they will either be used or !, refunded. What legal basis exists for impact fees? This is the question that was partially answered by the Supreme Court in CountTy Joe. What authority does the citY have to impose impact fees in the first place? The Court in Country Joe made it clear that impact fees are not special assessments and consequently, are not authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Second, the Court made clear that the authority to levy an impact fee is not a power which could be implied under the Municipal Planning Act under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462. ; Finally, the Court indicated that an impact fee was not a tax that the City was authorized to levy under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 412, , I , , MAR 26 2004 15:59 753 421 4213 I PAGE. 04 03/26/2004 15:37 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AVE ~ 7558923 NO.611 [;105 . Will Neumeister March 26, 2004 Page 4 The authority to impose impact fees exists, if at all, under the City's general pOlice power, i.e., the power to provide for the general health, safety and welfare. Minnesota Statutes S 4'2.22', Subd. 32 (2002). Theoretically, since the fees would be regulatory in nature, designed to offset the costs of implementing a police power (road safety) and proportionate to the costs Incurred, an impact fee would not be a tax. However, as I said, this is a question which the Court did not answer. CONCLUSION. There is no expressed and recognized legal authority for municipalities to impose impact fees. The Supreme Court in County Joe did not declare impact fees to be unlawful but did indicate that a true impact tee could not be justified as a special assessment, general revenue measure or a tax. Should a municipality adopt a thoughtful and artfully crafted ordinance, it would still be subject to court challenge and an uncertain future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I MAR 26 2004 16:00 763 421 4213 PAGE. 05 ~ Harstad Companies Construction - Real Estate - Development 2195 Silver Lake Road - New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 Office (651) 636-9991 - Fax (651) 636-3422 March 27,2004 RECEIVED MAR 30 2004 Attn: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director CITY OF ANDOVER Planning Department, City of Andover 1685 CrosstO\vn Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Sophie's Manor plat, access issues Dear City of Andover: I represent ownership of33.3 acres south of Crosstown Boulevard adjacent to the proposed Sophie's Manor development. I regret being unable to attend the workshop on March 30 but will be out of town that week. It is my understanding that the purpose of that workshop is to discuss access onto Crosstown Boulevard for Sophie's Manor and for our property to the south. Whatever plan is ultimately selected, it is our opinion that the costs should either be shared by all benefiting parties, or the City should authorize a trunk road fee. First of all, the county is asking the landowners to dedicate additional right-of-way for future improvements to Crosstown, without any compensation. Second, the city is asking the developers on both sides of Crosstown to pay 100% of the costs of the street improvements, even though other landowners will benefit from this proposed access point in the future. Third, the proposed location of the full movement intersection would run the road right through the single family property at 1140 NW Crosstown (on the south side of Crosstown). In practical terms, this would either substantially raise the cost of development to us or deny us access if we refused to pay an above-market price for the property. We would support the creation of a trunk road fee rather than assessments that unfairly allocate costs to the two larger landowners. Since the creation of a full movement intersection and the associated turn lanes along Crosstown Boulevard benefit a wide area of properties, it seems justified to allocate these costs equitably across the entire benefiting area. Our preference therefore is to authorize city staff to create a trunk road fee. Sincerely, 4~.~'.' Martin N. Harstad ..., J 1 I....l r, ANAL YSIS/REPORT LJ J ~ ALTERNATIVE SANITARY SEWER LJ TRUNK EXTENSIONS J (For the Development East of Hanson Boulevard) J l u 'l C I T Y o F J. NDOVE " J "l I, LJ ,...., J J .., CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA J .] Date: March 25, 2004 Comm. No. 12974-01 ....., J TKDA 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza '1 444 Cedar Street I Saint Paul, MN 55101.2140 U ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS (651) 292-4400 J (651) 292-0083 Fax www,tkda,com J ., Ll -, u TKDA SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA ..., MARCH 25, 2004 ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS . PLANNERS c.J ,....." .J ANAL YSIS/REPORT -, l..J ALTERNATIVE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK EXTENSIONS -, (For the Development East of Hanson Boulevard) c.J CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA ....,. 0 COMMISSION NO. 12974-01 -, ..J .., W . t I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. :,,) ...., Ch~B~ L1 ...., License No. 42421 '....J ...., LJ ...., w -, .-1 ., w . , W ~1 , \_, -, i 12974-01 L1 .., cJ ...,. , ;"j ALTERNATIVE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK EXTENSIONS . i (For the Development East of Hanson Boulevard) CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA ;...1 COMMISSION NO. 12974-01 -, TABLE OF CONTENTS '-.i PAGE NO. '1 SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1 '...J SECTION II. INTRODUCTION AND INITIATION OF ANAL YSIS/REPORT..............................2 -1 SECTION III. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................3 ...J A. DEVELOP ABLE AREA............ ............ ........................................................ 3 B. PROJECTED DENSITY AND SEWER FLOW .............................................3 'f -..1 C. EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM CAPACITY ....................................................4 SECTION IV. AL TERNATIVES.................................................................................................. 7 -i A. CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE .............................................7 W B. PRAIRIE ROAD AL TERNA TIVE.................................................................. 9 ..., C. 150TH LANE ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................11 ....J D. XEON STREET ALTERNATIVE................................................................ 12 -/ SECTION V. RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................14 J -, TABLES PAGES w TABLE NO.1 DEVELOPABLE ACRES ......................................................................................3 , TABLE NO.2 TRUNK MAXIMUM THEORETICAL CAPACITY...................................................5 Wi TABLE NO.3 TRUNK AVAILABLE CAPACITY ..........................................................................5 ~ , TABLE NO.4 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE......................................................8 u TABLE NO.5 PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................9 . 1 TABLE NO.6 PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE NO.2 ..............................................................10 0 TABLE NO. 7150TH LANE ALTERNATiVE.............................................................................12 -1 TABLE NO.8 XEON STREET ALTERNATIVE......................................................................... 13 ....J ....., ....J . ~ ....J ...,. LJ ., ii 12974-01 --.J J J FIGURES PAGES l FIGURE NO.1: DEVELOPABLE AREA MAP. ..................... ............ ....... ..... ............................1 d FIGURE NO.2: CROSSTROWN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE............................................. 1 '1 J FIGURE NO.3: PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................1 FIGURE NO. 3A: PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE NO. 2..........................................................1 ~, FIGURE NO.4: 150TH LANE AL TERNATIVE.........................................................................1 I L.J FIGURE NO.5: XEON STREET ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................1 J APPENDIX PAGES ., J CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD TRUNK OPINION OF PROBABLE COST....................................1 SHADOWBROOK TRUNK OPINION OF PROBABLE COST .....................................................1 0, d PRAIRIE ROAD OPINION OF PROBABLE COST......................................................................1 150TH LANE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ..........................................................................1 1 XEON STREET OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ......................................................................1 Ij ! 0 ] ~, w oCr Ll "'1 i LA '1 J -r I W ,..., I U l LJ ~ iii 12974-01 I w .., I cJ ..., ~ II. INTRODUCTION AND INITIATION OF ANAL YSIS/REPORT '1 , ~ The City of Andover's current Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan proposes the following .., four trunk line extension alternatives to serve approximately 1,000 acres of rural land east ...J of Hanson Boulevard and within the 2020 MUSA boundary. 1 . A central trunk line extending from 150th Lane NW to the east and northeast through ~ private property crossing The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company 1 (BNSF), and east to Prairie Road. ...J . A southerly trunk line extending north from the Shadowbrook Development to '\ Andover Boulevard, then west to Prairie Road. L-i . The Crown Point Trunk extending north and east from Coon Creek and the BNSF , \ ..J Railway to the north 2020 MUSA limits west of Butternut Street Extended. . The Bluebird Trunk extending east and north from the Yellow Pine Street and 155th . 'I . j Avenue NW intersection. --. These trunk extensions require significant acquisition of private property and could :.J potentially overload a portion of the existing sanitary sewer trunk system. The purpose of - 1 this Analysis is to provide the City with alternative sanitary sewer trunk extensions to meet I ....' current development demands without overloading the existing system. . 1 0' , 1 ...J , , -.J . 1 '.J - 1 _J ..., ~ .. W .\ 2 12974-01 -1 , j 1 j III. BACKGROUND 1 j A. DEVELOPABLE AREA 1 Table No. 1 summarizes the information used to estimate the number of future units J to be served east of Hanson Boulevard within the 2020 MUSA boundary. The gross " areas were obtained from the Comprehensive Plan, and the net developable acres J were determined by removing the wetland and floodplain areas identified by the City's 1 Sanitary System GIS Map (Figure 1). The total gross area is 1,778 acres; the total net j developable area is 970 acres. , , TABLE NO.1 1 DEVELOPABLE ACRES 1 Camp Plan Unitsl Location Current Units J Gross Area Net Area Acre Rural Area North of Chesterton 88 75 2.45 184 ) South of Winslow Hills 3rd 30 10 2.45 25 I W of RR; Crosstown to Andover 280 160 2.45 392 N of Crosstown; W of RR 240 105 2.45 257 '\ S of Andover, N of Coon Creek 360 120 2.45 294 1 South of Coon Creek 60 25 2.45 61 E of RR, N of Barnes 720 475 2.45 1,164 , Total 1,778 970 2,377 j I , 1 B. PROJECTED DENSITY AND SEWER FLOW 1 The Comprehensive Plan assumed a residential development density of 2.10 units J per gross acre. This number was revised to 2.45 units per net acre for this analysis 1 based on actual development densities from 1995 to 2003 provided by the City. The J additional area and number of units in the rural area north of Chesterton Commons to 1 be served by the Chester Commons lift station was obtained from the Trunk Sanitary ...J Sewer Analysis for Designated Rural Reserve Areas prepared by WSB & Associates, 1 dated November 2003. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that 2,377 units J are to be served. , J 1 I 3 12974-01 J .., ..J i ....J C. EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM CAPACITY -, ,j The area east of Hanson Boulevard is to be served by tributaries to the Bluebird and Coon Creek Trunk Lines. The peak flow capacities of the trunk lines listed in Table ., NO.2 were calculated using Manning's equation. The pipe slopes were obtained from ........\ record drawings and the trunk lines were assumed to be flowing full. A roughness - " coefficient (n) of 0.012 was used for reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), and a roughness u coefficient (n) of 0.010 was used for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. -1 ~ The roughness coefficient for RCP was based on the "Concrete Pipe Design Manual" ..., published by the American Concrete Pipe Association, which recommends an Un" L1 value of 0.012 to 0.013. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) "Manual for Design and Installation of Sanitary - 1 ~ and Storm Sewers" lists a range of Un" values for PVC pipe of 0.011 to 0.015, however, the Un i-Bell PVC Pipe Association recommends an Un" design value of - ) 0.009. A roughness coefficient of 0.010 for PVC pipe was selected for this analysis ~J based on this information and is consistent with the Un" value used in the ...... Comprehensive Plan. :.J .( The peak flow rate represents the highest volume of water received by the sewer on 1..J a daily basis, which typically occurs in the early morning. The peak flow rate is . 1 generally 3 to 4 times higher than the average flow rate in trunk sewers of this size. ..J The average flow rate the trunk can accommodate was estimated by dividing the peak flow by the standard Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES) ~, o...J peaking factors. The standard MCES peaking factors are used to account for daily flow fluctuation and minor inflow/infiltration within allowable pipe leakage standards. - , ~ The number of units that can be served by the trunk line was determined using the -, average daily flow anticipated per unit. This number, based on historical flow rates -...j examined by the City, is 225 gallons per day per unit (gpdu). -1 '-..J ., .J ... LJ -\ 4 12974-01 J 1 J 1 J " , TABLE NO.2 1 TRUNK MAXIMUM THEORETICAL CAPACITY 1 Peak MCES Ave J Location d Slope Flow . Peak . Flow No. n (in) (ftIft) (MGD) Factor (MGDl Units , 12" Bluebird Trunk 12 0.012 0.0022 1.169 3.6 0.325 1 ,444 J 15" Bluebird Trunk 15 0.012 0.0015 1.751 3.4 0.515 2,289 18" Bluebird Trunk 18 0.012 0.0012 2.547 3.3 0.772 3,430 1 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 12 0.010 0.0022 1.403 3.5 0.401 1,782 j 21" Coon Creek Trunk 21 0.010 0.001 4.208 3.0 1.403 6,234 24" Coon Creek Trunk 24 0.012 0.0008 4.478 3.0 1.493 6,634 1 1 1 The available capacities for each respective section of the trunk are shown in Table J No.3. They were determined by removing the capacity utilized by units currently , served by the trunk lines. The number of units served in each respective addition was J provided by the City. ) TABLE NO.3 j TRUNK AVAILABLE CAPACITY \ Location Bluebird Trunk Coon Creek Trunk , " ' , ...' . ' " " .12" 15" 18" ,,12" 21" , "24" .J . , Winslow Hills 2nd Addition 55 1 Winslow Hills 3rd Addition 55 1 Chesterson Commons 220 Chesterson Commons North 88 1 Cambridae 76 I Red Pine/Woodland Oaks 177 1 12" Bluebird Trunk 671 Elementarv School 88 Winslow Hills 3rd Addition 67 1 Oak Bluff 99 , 15" Bluebird Trunk 925 Hartfiel's/Sharon's/Fox Woods 133 j Old Colonv/Creekview 142 1 Shadowbrook 455 12" Coon Creek Trunk 455 j Hills of Bunker Lake 5th 134 Cherrvwood Estates 26 1 Crown Pointe East 169 J 21" Coon Creek Trunk 784 Crown Pointe 49 1 J " S 12974-01 .J 1 J ~ J Bluebird Trunk Coon Creek Trunk Location 12" 15" 18" 12" 21" 24" , Wevbridoe 135 , Foxberry/Jonathon 120 Hills of Bunker Lake 373 1 Anoka County 42 1 Hanson Blvd. Commercial 60 140th Lane NW 11 , Bluebird Trunk 1,200 J Units Served 671 925 1,200 455 784 2,774 Available Capacity 773 1,364 2,230 1,327 5,450 3,860 1 J The sewers with the least available capacity are the 12" RCP east of Bluebird Street '1 on 150th Lane (773 units) and the 12" PVC pipe east of Prairie Road on J 140th Lane (1.327 units). 1 .J ) J , J , J 1 1 , J " j 1 j , j .., .J 1 1 \ 6 12974-01 j -, , ...J . ., ...J IV. ALTERNATIVES --, J Before developing alternative trunk extensions to serve the area east of Hanson Boulevard -, and within the 2020 MUSA boundary, the capacity of the 24" section of the Coon Creek ...J Trunk was examined. According to a memorandum prepared by Short, Elliot, and " Hendrickson (SEH), dated January 24, 2003, a proposed bypass lift station at Hanson ...J Boulevard would alleviate overloading concerns for the existing trunk system in the City of Andover. The memorandum states that 1.99 MGD would be diverted from the Crosstown -, I Trunk to the Bunker Lake Trunk, and the anticipated flow in the Coon Creek Trunk ..J downstream of the lift station would be approximately 2.5 MGD. Therefore, the maximum "\ flow capacity of the Coon Creek Trunk upstream of the lift station is 4.49 MGD. If the 970 -1 acres east of Hanson Boulevard develops at the projected density of 2.45 units per acre, ,.- , the resulting peak flow to the Coon Creek Trunk is 78% of maximum capacity upstream of ..1 the lift station. , 1 ..J A. CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE ....., The Crosstown Boulevard Alternative, illustrated in Figure No.2, consists of the J following: ''\ LJ 1. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Crosstown Boulevard from Yellow Pine Street to Prairie Road. The service area would include the area northwest and . 1 J immediately south of Crosstown Boulevard, and an area east of Prairie Road adjacent to 157th Avenue. --, w 2. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer extending north from Shadowbrook lift station to ~! Andover Boulevard, then west to Prairie Road and north to 149th Lane .j Extended. The service area would include the area east of the BNSF Railway ,-, and south of 155th Avenue Extended, as well as a low area east of Prairie Road '_J which the sewer on Crosstown Boulevard cannot serve by gravity. ..., Lateral lift stations may be required for the areas immediately south and west of the ...J Nordeen Addition (located near the intersection of 156th Avenue and Kumquat '''\ Street) and a small area west of University Avenue and north of 150th Lane. As .J illustrated in Figure No.2, a portion of the service area will be served by the proposed " , trunk extension and a portion of the service area will be served by laterals from ..1 .. 7 12974-01 ...J 1 , J 1 ) existing trunk lines. A majority of the area south of Crosstown Boulevard and west of 1 the BNSF Railway will be served by lateral extensions from the 12" trunk in the 1 Winslow Addition, with the exception of 20 acres to be served by laterals through the 1 Fox Woods Addition. 1 TABLE NO.4 i CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE ) 1 j ) 12" Bluebird Trunk 1,166 1,837 15" Bluebird Trunk 1,166 2,091 1 18" Bluebird Trunk 1,215 2,415 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 1,161 1,616 1 21" Coon Creek Trunk 1,161 1,945 J 24" Coon Creek Trunk 2,377 5,151 , J The advantage of this alternative is that the City can provide sanitary sewer service to I the area along Crosstown Boulevard and 157th Avenue once the 12" Crosstown j Trunk Extension is complete. , J The disadvantage of this Alternative, as shown in Table No.4, is that the projected flow exceeds the theoretical maximum capacity by 27%. This value indicates that , ! there is potential for surcharging the sewer on 150th Lane. Surcharging occurs when the amount of flow exceeds the capacity of pipe. As a result, the water level in the 1 manholes rises until there is sufficient hydraulic head to push the flow through the ) pipe. Problems arise when the water level exceeds the elevation of a residential connect and creates a sewer back-up into the basement. J , The potential for surcharging would depend upon: 1) if the development exceeds the J projected density, 2) the average daily flow per unit exceeds 225 gpdu, or 3) there is I an excess amount of inflow/infiltration into the sewer. The City would need to J implement an aggressive maintenance program to prevent inflow/infiltration and strictly regulate the rate of development for this alternative. ) ~ The Shadowbrook lift station would also require an upgrade to accommodate the 1 future flow rates if the Alternative is implemented. According to the supplement to the J \ 8 12974-01 J --, '..J "1 ~J Shadowbrook Addition Feasibility Report prepared by TKDA, the ultimate design -"\ capacity of the lift station is 1000 units, if the current 3 hp pumps are replaced with 10 '-.J hp pumps. The service area proposed in this altemative comprises 1,161 units in ..., addition to those already served, or a total of 1,616 units. The upgrade required I would consist of a pump upgrade, additional wet well capacity, and possibly a larger '-..J forcemain. ~1 -' The Opinion of Probable Cost for this Alternative is $3,081,796. This includes an ..., estimated cost of $1,060,949 for the 12" Crosstown Trunk Extension and $2,020,847 c.J for the Shadowbrook Trunk Extension. '1 -' B. PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE . 1 The Prairie Road Alternative, illustrated in Figure No.3, consists of the following: -...J 1. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Prairie Road from 140th Lane to Crosstown . 1 '..J Boulevard. -1 2. A trunk lift station on Prairie Road north of Coon Creek. ..J .. This service area would include most of the area east of the BNSF Railway. The area --.J west of the BNSF Railway would be served by lateral lines from the existing sanitary trunk system. Lateral lift stations may be required for the areas immediately south and . 1 d west of the Nordeen Addition and a small area west of University Avenue and north of 150th Lane. -, ..J TABLE NO.5 PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE ) . 1 ::.; ...., " 0'.. k;,;' ,.';' .. ':. ;':'''/';0,"", .-, ~~~ditl.OI1~fU~J~f ' ',;~~dit!~~~j" :, ~rim:.. 1ni~gr:e!~~t; :.<Area, ,.A'c;re.' ,<Umts:,. :'s' d" ;;'~Maxlmum, ...J J [,';.:;..,;;;< "..,' ',':, .,.~~j;g::\;: t> ,~!: t'<rci'aci"": 12" Bluebird Trunk 365 2.45 894 1,565 108% ---, 15" Bluebird Trunk 365 2.45 894 1,819 79% -1 18" Bluebird Trunk 385 2.45 943 2,143 62% 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 0 2.45 0 455 26% , 21" Coon Creek Trunk 585 2.45 1 ,433 2,217 36% .J 24" Coon Creek Trunk 970 2.45 2,377 5,151 78% , u ... 9 12974-01 J .., I ..J , ,I The advantage of this Alternative, as shown in Table No.5, is that the sanitary flow .", from approximately 585 acres of the future development is diverted directly to the ...J 21" sewer on 140th Lane to reduce the peak flow rates anticipated through the " 12" Bluebird and Shadowbrook Trunks. The projected flow still exceeds the I .J theoretical maximum capacity by 8%, but the potential to surcharge the sewer on -, 150th Lane is greatly reduced compared to the Crosstown Boulevard Alternative. A ..J preliminary hydraulic analysis indicated potential backups in the manholes on 150th Lane, but adjacent residences would not be affected due to the depth of the sewer. ..., ....J The disadvantage of this Alternative is that development east of the BNSF Railway - "1 would be dependant upon construction of the Prairie Road Trunk. A trunk lift station ....J would also be required on the north side of Coon Creek. The depth of the lift station ..., would be approximately 35 feet and 5 hp pumps would be required. ....J The Prairie Road Alternative could also provide flexibility to alleviate future capacity , concerns. The piping configuration of this alternative could be modified to allow the _.J City to serve developments in the area east of Crosstown Boulevard and north of . " 157th Avenue through either the trunk on 150th Lane or the trunk on 140th Lane. The I ....J area could be served initially by the lift station on the west side of Crosstown and --, diverted to the south once the Prairie Road Trunk construction is complete (Figure ..J No. 3a). The impact of this flow diversion on the existing trunk system is shown in . , Table 6. _ 1 TABLE NO.6 '1 PRAIRIE ROAD ALTERNATIVE NO.2 ..J '\:;:::;J{;..;.,,' .' '....; ,-~. " .. ,', - 1:-;) .>. ...;.."...... .,....-. c;:", '" ';'; '.'~J7,,..;o,f.;.: ,.,...' : _'_ z~:'.'..:<:':~;;:'.::// '.', ','" .. .....:'..., ?:'Total','. " iL,o.~tio.n ., ' ,: ~ Additional' ; UnitS!. >Additi~~~I: :'.. UnitS' " ',Theoretlcal' , I j:;~~~f~;~![:l~ ~:~t~f' '::;.::.::9~-!~..:T.0 ;\,."-'-.,.:..-.."..,..--.," i"~~!~um',." j.2:kJ'.?~,:>, ~':": ' ,..,..,..' "'; \:~erYed ' ''''iKt ,'. . ,I .,...,. .'.' .,' '-:c..'. .' : :',; '\~};~ :~'.: ~',..:\:- :'-~'. ::.-', :i,_-j-..\.\_, ~f:C'aQaci " . ,.. ~.... .~. - , '. .. ' I 12" Bluebird Trunk 305 2.45 747 1,418 98% ...J 15" Bluebird Trunk 305 2.45 747 1,672 73% 18" Bluebird Trunk 325 2.45 796 1,996 58% 1 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 0 2.45 0 455 26% --.i 21" Coon Creek Trunk 645 2.45 1,580 2,364 38% 24" Coon Creek Trunk 970 2.45 2,377 5,151 78% I ....J 1 W 1 10 12974-01 J 0" ...J .. -....J Prairie Road Alternative No.2 requires approximately 1000 feet of sewer to be 0"\ constructed at a depth greater than 35 feet to serve the area north of 157th Avenue _,.1 by gravity. The disadvantage of this is increased installation cost due to the sewer , ~ depth, but the advantage is the lateral lift stations adjacent to the Nordeen Addition I and University Avenue would not be required. . J , , The Opinion of Probable Cost for the Prairie Road Alternative is $2,683,925, ..J assuming the sewer is installed at a depth to allow serving the area north of .. 157th Avenue by gravity. This includes an estimated cost of $2,433,925 for the ....J 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Prairie Road, and $250,000 for the trunk lift station. 0"\ ....J c. 150TH LANE ALTERNATIVE '., The 150th Lane Alternative, illustrated in Figure No.4, consists of the following: c...J 1. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Crosstown Boulevard from Yellow Pine Street to , Prairie Road. The service area would include the area northwest and J immediately south of Crosstown Boulevard, and an area east of Prairie Road ..., _i adjacent to 157th Avenue. , 1 2. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer extending east from 150th Lane, then northeast o....J through private property and crossing the BNSF Railway to Prairie Road. The o , service area would include the area east of the Winslow Hills 3rd Addition and -1 an area on the east side of the BNSF railway from 156th Avenue extended to .. 146th Lane. ...J Lateral lift stations may be required for the areas immediately south and west of the 'I Nordeen Addition and a small area west of University Avenue and north of '-.l 150th Lane. The area south of Andover Boulevard would be served by lateral lines to 'f the Shadowbrook lift station. A portion of the area east of the Fox Woods Addition '..J would be served through that addition by lateral sewer extensions. f. ...J -, '. .J .. -j -. 11 12974-01 ......J . , -..J , , .....J TABLE NO.7 -, 150TH LANE ALTERNATIVE ,-.1 Total %of , Location Additional Units/ Additional Units Theoretical Area Acre Units Maximum cJ I 'Served Capacity - , 12" Bluebird Trunk 798 2.45 1.955 2,626 182% , 15" Bluebird Trunk 798 2.45 1,955 2,880 126% ~J 18" Bluebird Trunk 818 2.45 2,004 3,204 93% -. 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 152 2.45 372 827 46% 21" Coon Creek Trunk 152 2.45 372 1,156 19% .j 24" Coon Creek Trunk 970 2.45 2,377 5,151 78% '''\ J This is not a viable alternative because of the capacity limitations of the 12" and 15" ''1 portions of the Bluebird Trunk. Replacing the 12" piping on 150th Lane was , ,.1' examined, but considered ineffective due to the potential overloading of the 15" 1 sewer. The cost of this alternative is provided, however, in the event the City ....J considers development limitations based on available sewer capacity. '') J The Opinion of Probable Cost for this Alternative is $1,892,641. This includes an estimated cost of $1,060,949 for the 12" Crosstown Trunk Extension and $831,692 , , for the 12" 150th Lane Trunk Extension. ...J . , D. XEON STREET ALTERNATIVE ',,1 The Xeon Street Alternative, illustrated in Figure No.5, consists of the following: , , ...J 1. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Crosstown Boulevard from Yellow Pine Street to . ." Prairie Road. The service area would include the area northwest and ...1 immediately south of Crosstown Boulevard, and an area east of Prairie Road --, adjacent to 157th Avenue. ...J 2. A 12" gravity sanitary sewer on Andover Boulevard from Bluebird Street to Xeon .. Street, then north on Xeon Street and northeast through private property ....J crossing the BNSF Railway to Prairie Road. The service area would include the , area east of the Winslow Hills 3rd Addition and an area on the east side of the d BNSF railway from 156th Avenue extended to 146th Lane. '1 - I /', 12 12974-01 '-1 - , ...J " , J Lateral lift stations may be required for the areas immediately south and west of the , Nordeen Addition and a small area west of University Avenue and north of J 150th Lane. The area south of Andover Boulevard would be served by lateral lines to , the Shadowbrook lift station. J TABLE NO.8 , XEON STREET ALTERNATIVE _J , %of , Additional Units/ Additional Total Theoretical " Location Area Acre Units Units Maximum ....J , Served Capacity 12" Bluebird Trunk 379 2.45 929 1,600 111% , , 15" Bluebird Trunk 379 2.45 929 1,854 81% ..J 18" Bluebird Trunk 818 2.45 2,004 3,204 93% 12" Shadowbrook Trunk 152 2.45 372 827 46% ., 21" Coon Creek Trunk 152 2.45 372 1,156 19% ,.1 24" Coon Creek Trunk 970 2.45 2,377 5,151 78% 1 ,,j The advantage of this alternative is that the City can provide sanitary sewer service to ~ the area along Crosstown Boulevard and 157th Avenue once the 12" Crosstown _J Trunk Extension is complete. This alternative also eliminates a southerly trunk line , , and the need for new trunk lift stations or trunk lift station upgrades. Similar to the ....J Prairie Road Alternative, the projected flow exceeds the theoretical maximum . , capacity by 11 %, but the potential to surcharge the sewer on 150th Lane is greatly ..J reduced compared to the Crosstown Boulevard Alternative. A preliminary hydraulic -. analysis indicated potential backups in the manholes on 150th Lane, but adjacent ...1 residences would not be affected due to the depth of the sewer. , . The disadvantage of this Alternative is that development in the Xeon Street Trunk l ...J service area will be dependant upon acquisition of property east of the Winslow ., Addition. .....J The Opinion of Probable Cost for this Alternative is $3,048,823. This includes an , 1 ....J estimated cost of $1,060,949 for the 12" Crosstown Trunk Extension and $1,987,874 for the 12" Xeon Street Trunk Extension. -, ....J ~ ....J ", 13 12974-01 -1 " , _.J , ...J v. RECOMMENDATION . , _ 1 The Prairie Road and Xeon Alternatives were determined to be feasible from a sewer 1 capacity standpoint and could be implemented without significant upgrades to the existing ; sanitary sewer trunk system. The capacity limiting sewer was identified as the 12" pipe on J 150th Lane from Bluebird Street to Zilla Street. These two alternatives divert flow from the " ...J 150th Lane sewer to sewers with more available capacity. , The Prairie Road Alternative is recommended for serving the 1,000 acres of rural land east .....J of Hanson Boulevard and within the 2020 MUSA boundary. It is the more economical of , , the two feasible alternatives and provides flexibility to alleviate future capacity concerns. ,--1 The piping configuration of this alternative will allow the City to serve developments in the 1 area east of Crosstown Boulevard and north of 157th Avenue through either the trunk on ....J 150th Lane or the trunk on 140th Lane, depending upon future sewer capacity. , ,,) , J , '\ ....J 1 .1 l ....J , , ....J " ...J -, ,j '1 ....J I ....J .. 14 12974-01 .~ ---~-- ~~---- --- en oc u.J '" .+ '" ~ ~ <( -' c.. ~ CD . N G ~ ..... en w ~ I- ~~ '" :I: CD 0 - U ~ C C ~ OC <( ~ CD <( 8 I: I: I: a: II: c: E ~~ ..... co T"" 'V 0 (C ::::> en Q) T"" N C\I M M 1:: oc ~ .~ - III u.J ~~ Q) - u.J C '" CD {22 '" Q) c. E-t '" 'tJ (/) 222 ! CD CD <0 c Q) C U :> ~ LL 5 '. '" ~~~ Z 0 ~ ~ Cl u.J III c W <( CD CD 0 .;: CD Ul Q) :::: ~ (/) '" (/) 0 CD u'- ..... CD 'tJ a: ...J ~ 50 1lI C) :> 0:: CD OJ "<t .- .. Q ::E '" .... c N Cl(/) Ul .~~ W 0 ~ ~ Q) tj c-(/) CD a N 3: III I: ... we,,-'" 0 :> e Q)1I::zONLO 'x eo ..... C)~ :.;: ...J N 0:: Q. (J) .q CO CO T"" T"" T"" W II) CD CD 1:' .1lI. ~ ;. (1)>> >-":::::0 l~o 1222222- 12.g.gss ~~ ~ 5~~OO 0"':- CI) (J (J ()... ~ .........caca .s:: 0 Q.oo~~ Q,U 1lI 1:'1:' 0 0 1lI" ::Euu~~ ~~ -- BiI \\.- ~ ~ 'IT J I- I I c:. I \ R -II-- '" I- I ~ k ._L _ A \1 -\ ~ >t- , )-- V ~ ~); ---'0-- L-J \\ I tfj '-;n II ~ ~:L- H tl ~~ _ =- -.-dJ;: \ / /- ~~ f-- ---r --l I I H ~I\ .L1Jrtl /' / ;; 7 r:..~ ~ .. I-- 1 ~ /\ '1~~ 1rJ,J' J -, ~ In Jl [P ::T]r-' I 'YI~!1 II }7 n "2:- '-or J 1,;-11 \\~ I c"l~ m ~ ~ '- Ii1r q; ;::.- "\ \ \ ~ . /, , -~~"~~~ L - 11~1 ~~ /, IN'- l\ I~I'? '" -Ix,) ~ I-- -II-- '~ I ~III ~~ ,(-~C II ~ ~ ~ ~' . ' . ~~ ) _I Q) ~' >.l ~ lJ ~ ~ I<. \nm! !: ~" ~ In" Sly r I Ir J~ ~:~ ~ mlll ,~ ~~-.'" " ~>;1C r'\ _ 'c ~ ,T ~- ~ ~ -. -- :III ,) 5i - L.., I P- C . ~~rn ~n l~ I- ~~. I-- W~ : 0_ ~ C::: ~ - = ....J TTIr&~Q[=1 ' n C::: ~ ~ /"1! ~ flt= "- F \1:IJI- "l rrr~- III U A'A,;;; ~ Ifl - ~ r-...J -:;; '(It I-- ~. ~ T I" III ,wm~~ .~P" ii' " T f- j == ~L.-: ~ r V =~~ II [ ~ II - I- >>'_ h- ~I ~ 7'\~J\ ~ - . (:~ IT ,~ .7 _" , ~ ~ ~ ,.., ~~~.lt ~W .L II'UIJI , '= ~ r-? - 1'- ~ r0" n: ~~ rr~ ~ .'",~ 111~ fi-'i !@ ~.. m,1 ~ '-~~t-...j ~ ty1Jl , ~ ~~~ ~:-. ~L _Bj' @ L W i IL..L),:?! T ~ ~I~) I = ~ ~ I i - ~ -' ~ J /E;$~:tiY:;5!C V ~:;;, ' . illiI' ~ - ~ -- 'I !--j ~ ' " ~ . - >- '( - L 1---\'\ L ~ I-- - I r T I --t )" IJ.I~ ,- .--J --' "1 ~ ' I-- - "i '1 I T\'~ ~ I-IL - If T T T VI _ / ~ . - r Ti T~ ' ' r~ ~ "T r- , I" W- -;T ; I). ~ .!llll> ,,/ ~ / U . 1. T ~~r~ - ~ ~ ~ I / ~" : \ I 1 'y r\\' _ c f o..-Q ~ III II II 'III T _J '''. 11~ r-, N III ")1 j':' I~ .,.,.., '-.J - "- 1 ~ j.j // -/ ~ / --! T lLLl\ f- H ^ "T ;;~ ' ~ ..J \1;0' I-- J 1 (T1l. \'I, I .1 T :y f; '" " ~~ % ~ ! I ~ '~~ ~ L'- ~,,," - i ~"~~ I ~ , :=J r k ~ J-U I~ 51-- : ~__ h r I II II . n I ~~ If /\]"~A'lllllrtll 'I.JIL 'J '1"\ T"N. ' .~. -I1tm1=ff In nn Cl r'l ['-1 r-1 II II 1\ 11 r, II II I' I' I' 11 rl II r1 It ~ ~ ~ N ~ en + ~ ;... co ~ ~ ~ co III g Z . "' ~~m ~b~~ ~1l ~ ~ I ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ '1: ~ .~ .. 6 "'" ~ en 1: 222 l: ~ ~ . ~ co en_~ ~ ~Q ~.~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ - i ~ '-I - ~ 1-.... -' Q).... a> Co E-tz U III .. Ol Q) Gl Gl - ~ C 1:' .1:.2:5:5j-.... LL c ~ ~ ~ =: z co Ol~1:""""l:OlNl()CO~ IIl:5 Cl IE UJ ~\ ~ 't:l > en ~ .- .- 0 E ~ ~ ~ N <: "" l: 0 ,....., l: :;::; ~ en ::g ::g ~ ctJ .Q co 0 .C en.' !t ~!t W 5 ~ ~ <:2 (;j <( <( :g is .....19 en 0 3l ~'l.. ~ "'""" ... "'""" aJ 1:.... .... -" -" 't:l 2 <~" 22 Ol en <l:: CO l: IE 0 III ~ ~ ~\ 1ft <( ~ 2 I- ~ g g <( Ole. .) 3: <l:: ~...... 'Clll)O::l Q ..... -,....., ""'" en U) &::...J.......-O .c''"' Q).- c CD ~... ~ W ~ ~ <( ~ 't:l .p .p g 0::: ( en ~ al wC5~ III 5 ~ ::E "'C _ L. ~:=: .... '..co" C (I) ., ......"'" ':t::; .,.,. ~ ~ ...J 0 (;j .2: ~ :g .g .g :J: Ol ~ ti 8. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C!; ~ C\I '- O:::JctlRJX;': :I; ~=.- 0 OOOcc-O ~ r.- 0 " lD .... - .s: .s: 0 Ol' . . 0 .- N x.... '" 't:l't:l "" ~ N -.J. N c:: c: U aJ en en u. en ~ <0 co ~ c: ~ w a. ~ c:; c:; 0 0 " . r_ 3: co 0 <t <t (J (J 0 ~ ~ ~~' ~ ,~O~O ~2222 ~.. 0 ~ OO~~ ~ ii C ~~S~~'~ ~r~.. ~&&~~~~ :wM"I 3I\Y~ 3I\Y~ \. ~ 'I U. :/ . ' I- ) rl t.~ \ 1 \' =1 [\.~~)(12 1- ~_ ;;Ll ( Ni - \. -.--\\ -:::..,~ /\ I- ".t4.) ~"- ~ 1/\ ~ r-, I- 1 I , ~ !AlE: --- I ~ ~. \ ~ I I lr'i ~ ~ 'Y \J\ ~~ _ rt,... \ / '\ ~ - c::: LL -J I ~ _ ,~' [) ~~ O~ \ J: ,. :J1/!1' f a~r ~ I g, ~ _./1 ,/_~ ~ ~ DA~ ~ -. ~ ..h8:~, / ,\, ~~ 1- - -.0 /Y.iSJl ~ ~ J-1" ~ ~ \' 1; ~ I). I' , r- ,~" , . I ,; ,p,. II ~ J [ ~ I~ __~ I - \ '\ _ r." J ct -=--.J't1.I . ~~l~~V::~ ~ :-[lli=: ~' ~\~ 1-. ,-> /V r1 Q t/ ;:.~ ~ '" r-= -I -, '~ j} - 1-1- ~ 'j t;;, . 6 '-' ~ r t- ~" [:;:::::l = '.'-,.'-~':',", crV t1 ",U ~ / I \.. ~'IIII 1V"1~ ~ ~~~~~~&~~" ~, 'J"2,\l~/ ..., -7~ ~~""~:::;;: ~. ,.""to, 7"- I I 1\11, ~ ~~,,'-: , ,,0,", 'It. t ~.~ ~ ~':o.~'-: ~ :-.:., '~:-." a/Iii .t: , ~~,~ ,0" q "~'11 \~~. Lr / - '\ "" ~ ~ ,!~::-'\I-::"""Y'~ h." JJJ ~),l, ,,11111 . --I ,!.~ Q) ~,,~ "~ t: >L ,j X~. ill -rw' . 'II )':o~ ~#l.,\'i] ~ ~ ~+ "\= rr ~ '\t:;" f::' ~ ~ r:', ,I J :~ "i~~1~)? ~. p~ ~X ,\\;\ ,~~ ~~II-1J ~.. I :,f- ... '~'ftl, ~' itfflr i- I0,Y 1:\ ~rx-,-':' r x ~~ ,ZJ. I J.. ~ ..-! ~ " ~: ~ \\~ ~ I- :0 ~ ..J, f-' 1ftN/r1/x N ~ ~ i- I Y ~- '1 ' f::.7J: n/ - ~';j,:-.:" 1\ ~ t~,~ - UE:-Y ':-.: l.....,0tJ-f"1 fI:):(. 1"1":, ::-1 ~~, ~ -: ..... I ~ 1111 V/i ", rm II II I 7\ V f=t =I \ NOS S~ at.18NOSNYH Q"'-IllNOS~ ~jI1l1l11I)~7~~I// ~ ~II c: r r- !/ '-~' ,I/en 0 0,- \ -- ~ / en:- r-./ ~ ~ ~ m - ~ ~ \ r" !j} -, ~ -" III I' >- 6 ~ I r- 0_ ~' ---....... W-J f-' - I-~, ~c:;~ ~' =~ _ 'r~- - ~U- J I .;oo=~ .,: .fl =, ~ -HIDuJ I ~~ '(0)- ~~ -, ~' 11l,ll~ U AQ>!; ---- (' - "-.1- ,= it- ..J - ,..... v ~ '\~ :0 ~I-.- - - I- ;.- ); '>-.... r ~ . )--J ..L!iJ I I I I - r-' I--' l' 1111 J,..,-j L l ,@'/ II I~ t.. \ _ ~~('J..J....L.. I-- -" ,~' >0~ 1\ ~ _f- kif' ~ ~ ~~ V I I- '1~ ~:r IJJ -j""~ w~ III" I 1~ ~ / :j.. "i \'>:,'. (!j ~'rI\~1 '\ 'oI"~ =-~ II - ~ ~~~ ~'~~ ~~~~~. ~ >~ " - ---'I1.~ , 11 - \ ~~1,'~-' ~ ~~~"R~~ " f::f= =~ r.l~ ~ ~~"I". · I ~~ rf' l . ,~~. ~~~~'~~~'~~~-, ~ \ LI!K ~~ ~ &\~~'\ ~~zt'0 ", ~fj'~ ~ ~ ~, .. _ :; ~-,.l __I' ~>' ~ ~ .' I1r '. 'E / I. ..1~0~.~~h. ~ m~ .~~ ~, C 1 rJ Ll II r, II \I rt ~ II II 11 II If 11 r'j \I 11 it '" ~ ffi III i + ~~ ~ c Z ' < m ~bCo~ ~G 8 < NMM=:J ~ ~ """- .- 8 - "I 'Ii f'\\. ~ .- .. ~ ~..., moo ~ 222 Iii ~<( .;;.. <~IIlCIJ E~, ~~ ~.~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 5 - 'i ttj ... ~ .1:-'..$.... ro.Q) g. 0;; ~ ~,.... C~ C1J"5.~j-CI)CI).... ~Ci5 ~ c 8~ t:.......Ji@ O ~ Zlll --'- Nlt)CO~ '" _ CI ~.u "0 ~~Q)5 e..................C\I c:.Q~ c I f'\ \. f'\ \. ~ 5 c: :g en:e co :8 ro -' 0 'i: III Cti ' ..., ...., -.. w 0 2 4: c;; - '- III Ci5':'!' 0 .. fl'\... .... '--0 ~ ~ ~ aJ ~ CI) t- .:,!. ~ :g Cl 2-- 22 Q) Ci5 -= 2 (0 I :!! lE:il ~ "... ..... f'\\. 1ft 4: CI> .2: al 0 ro 4: Ql ~!l: ~ t-"- 'illCIJO III · ,..., V' 00 '" - 0 e -' '0 a. CI) ~ '0 '0 C:-r/)" c: f-<~ ~ == ~ W ~ ~ E c:: j ~ 8 ~ C (/) g>:Jl:Jl '. ~C:6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - C1)'!!!.g..o ~ CI) ~ "" 0 0 :g .. Ol "" .~ "II' -Z .-.", ~ ~ ...J sa ~ _.= III .. )( > co '" c. c. " > >.,' >- -;:::; 2 ~ ..... - co :1;> a ...... & .- 0 0 ~ 0 0 C C -.._ ~ ~ 0 ~ <( ~ J:: - 0 C1)' . . 0 .- N )( ~ ~ I "" 'tl'tl:J:J c:o.... :.J N.... a. 00 III u.. (/) '<I' to CO ~ c: ~ UJ a. a. =:3 <:<:00 '" _ "C CO ,0<1;<1;00 O:;! l ~ ~2222 ~ ... 0 - ~ '0 '0 ~ ~ ~ '5 ..' --=', ,'-.... Cll&:,&:,OO Cll" ~~O~OO~ ~,~... ~OU.a:.a::E~ ,,^v~ "^v"",,,,^,, II J ) 'OC,' ".,' 0_ ~, ~ \.\ ~ -(I U o. ": _I /:'/,"1' j ,J ,~ \. l '\ -\ t--.... ',c u ' e..,/f---" f I~ ~ - ~ - ." - "Q.\ !~_ ,," "0. ~ ' . _' ., - t-J '~ ~ --\~, r- ~> I' I~/.- t-JAl'l ~ I,.Q \\f----o, 7~f. ~ ~ 1, I , I ,', :,.,",. '",' ~/?i\~~ ,.- 'V' I'-.J ,,',', " ",::~, ",.,'".,:"",f,,:;,,'''''''''n:\, '\~I \ ) .-- - ,- -: :,:'tyw-.'l\ '-- ; ~'"', ,,.,\"'.>a 7 \ \ .~, ,,< "'\1'0 \ I \ ~-"'~ ~ ';;',:,' ':..i ~ II~ L~,__I~p~~I ~.., I A ~!Io ('('~~I- ~r~J.~ ,~ / ~J ." "b ""-'" . ',". " , '\ V':j I ~ ,~ ~I",;'" , k:-:i ,,'~,'.,'''', ~ ":,, ,J-;.;. - J' ~ T ' ~, r -'\: 1"'/';/,//', - ',~", .' ,,;" [, : ~.~ _ ,__ '~ ' I ~'It-r_}?tr;.-:-l;/~~I'. (l}'-:,'~,"",i!o~~ /\~, 61-"=,- 1 -'-- L I )?~I:,I' ~ Ii, _ ;;io!.~,~,\,: -, 1. _ : ~ ~ 'S'" ~~... - - ~ - , I = ".\ '"'..... riT ' I I ~:, ~r .1{~l j ~ , ":.,' '!" -B~v:'.: . _" ';':" '? ~ ~ l r 1111 :c.. \ Vf.J...1 " ~, J f ' ," c. ' " F" , <.....J' ~ I- L....J II _ - , UY... 'I' l I, ,W))Jm ~,=. d- " - ,;. .:?.... ~." I I lv' / L~' I ...j ~\~~.~,'.;.~I:; .~~~~:,~,;~1 \!l t---f, - -r, ~~- ,_I~., ~"'~ W~ ;:;~ , I I ~:~ '.\~ < -..., Y.' r- t, .I~ ~ '"d ' ,) LJ. ~LJLJ d<, - "-'" '.'\,'::;,j ~. ~ ':;:" """''''', :",\:'I'xft'l<'< IITr,"'ys.:,\" / CI/')f ..-,,~c .... 1/ 'I' -("'""I" "'''' !~-:/' ~/~/ -, " ' - '/ I ....- ":.. '~IJ 1.1 J. -' , I~~~~ '\, '~'~ ~ r-:..:., '," J,;.",':!l; ""~~I / r,.. \\ ~ - , I t:~~ .~~': ',' ~Q ~ ZN' ~11//A\\ ~{:'=) , ,,' , " r rill II [TIm I ~ ~~S~ 1 ~<~ ~'l/'i\'~\\\ f/VJ:;, , "'~'" <::~'..,,) /"': .."" ~'- [7 :',',', , II ~ '~" '/5.::' ",,,":1/1\:; , X" > " ~" , r-" ~ u.... - ,-,'" , , ' -I')C=! ....'" ~".." ......', .I ...... "II \ ''-;;:. ,a,( .', "'.\ 'T- ., I .tilll\- . ii a;~~~~ ;-..Rt+, I :t /--tJ. ~i >:..y , .~ ~ C:-i.:{ ",,"" ">H' -l. '\::: J:$ ~~,~_ ,rTT\" ,..,' I \' ~ '<: ~ M~,~ ~(~ ~ ~ '/'~~ '-~ ('\1 ~ r2! rM -~~. fL::!2;;//<,. ;<. ;",/q:;. ~,'\; n '"\ ~T\\\'fl ~~'( r- C{ \\,r-r ~~~ ~l;!t!J' f--], 1:' - ~: I ",' /,'" ,,', ,< 0; ,'.", '/ /. -:A:ro/~' '7' ,t:..;. /..:1'~tl J' 'I I ': ' , ' '/.-:,/,',',,' .Co, u ,L__L \~ ~Y'~~'~ J , I,""'~ ~~ iiiiii: " ' /"/,~ ^ ~ 'C ~ .l.""'.Lf:: if-, J~rj.~' 1- -- ~, \:i- ~~ J... "5 \ 'J F! - . . en ~ r-:::I. ' . Cj r /:::, ~ -, ~C '0~ : ' tz:. >>' ut;--: ~ 'I;y ~ l- :r I I I = t::i~' ~,~ '. ,'. ~. - H = - ~.,~~~ · ?l 1l /" ,,'~ I~IIII V/l ~ I' "\ IT R~ \ NOSN u" ,,^18NOSNVH ,,^18NOSHVH U ill ,,^18iiii', '/1- C/ ,~~ t: \ I- ~ '~"(/) 0 r 1-_, ~ - lafi /,/ (/):.... ~,- I~ roro , ~ ~ I- ,.... f- . a. u \ ~ I/} [j I- ,..l I I- '1 >. 0 ~~ t..' ~ -... W -' . - ~ -~ /, I ~ ~t::Jl~il' =~ I--mLTI - ~ I r-liOO- ~-::r/ n = 0. r-:r1--lL1IJITJ I ~-= U-I\\ Ii: a_ 1111'1/.. U == "i"",'Z... / ..... t, ./" \J-1;Ir ~ - t- f- IT - I !J{Y'[......S<-,< Vlltl ~. - ~= S ,UC- ..J r- 1"- ;::J~ ,I... ~~~ r I ~ r \- ~..:u I=- + . ~ I ~"'< -< ~... L :~ ,~ /0. A~ -Hrrrd ~ ; lik - I- W /~ \.J.l!'I t-I p:n I !;--....~':;o: - I- .;::: ~ V' _~':1v. ~ / i):~ t- LlI " 17, k ~~r-- I- ~!J ~ -t~~~ ~~/- ~ t- .] 0..~~ ~.. 1 (,Il, i / ~ '),.,'\.." IIIII1 II ~ ~)~'\,~ V .J ,... ~I~ ,''\.'' .I'" ')- - JI I-- ~~~"~~~~\i~w..~ ~~, ~~~~"~'& -~ ~ ~~...' ~ ~~~~ ~,:~~~~l~B~- U ~ - ~ 0." ~~~ ~ ,~~~' ~~'\S~~~~ - r . ,~*. ~,~._ L ~ ~ ~ .~~~~~~~~~\~. -.11 l1li1 n ~- ~ ~LI" ~~~ ;l1' ~'~~~.~~'~'0~~~.., _~~ I"=: '=il/ ~ ~ ~ ~~?-~f"'':@;~:-''~~~ ~,,~ ~" :....... 0." - ~( \,... ~~'-: '~ ~~,:v; '-' ,''\,~ " ,~~' ~ ~" 1-::-- ! I~ ~ ~~l~."<If-J .", ~ ,.~~ .. ~.C-- C 1 II II II rIll r-, II r-1 1\ II II II II 11 II r"l 11 II ~ ~ N ffi i:i5 -+- ~ co ~ ~ l:::~t\l I ~ n~! · ~! ~ ,... ==I:t: ~ ._ .. <.:l 'i gJm ~ 222 5i ~~ · ~ <~tO~ E c:, ~ ~ .= .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l I ~ i ~ ~ C i6 ~.~.~j Qj~foCo;'" III ~Cii LL. Q IE E-t~ ~,... Z 'C .>< is Q) 6 E ~ ~ ~ C\I <: ,g !l: g>> 0.. ~..... 'i 5 <: 'C m:e co .2 S -' 0 .;: Gl III <Il !t' !t'" W.51 ~ 1-2 <( 15 u is, ... 19 m 'E 0 :: lJ'I. 16 .... .... -- ~ Q) .>< ~ 'C " Q) m :;;) co <:-0 ....,..,. ~ 1ft <( ~ .~ ~ g '* <( ~2222 3: ~:5 f::...... 'om 5:l Q ... ,..... ~'\ '-' rn Q) +-' 0 I-...J"O ._ CD:.::i "0 'C C-U)CD c::: ~.... '-w w:i1 c:: coE c:: ~ 'E 8 a.. , en Ol ~ Q) " wC>",:J ~ .::; Q) 0'- ..... C (/) (/) CIJ .. "''''''c:t .-..", ~,::::: I !? ~ 2:5:a -al 3:X !2 ~ ti 8. 8. <Il ~~~>-:me!; ~ ~ ..... - to '.:;;) > . .... .- 0 0 l> 00<:<: 0..0 ~ ~ 0 ;a <( ~ ..c: - 0 Q)' . . 0 .- C\I X ~ ~ >;;; 'C'C:;;):;;) <:: N C\I... 0.. m III u.. en <t co co ~ c ~ W 0.. 0.. ::J,:e,:eOO '" _ '0 CO 0 00 0'" ~~ ~ .~MO ~2222 ~... 0 ~ OO~~ ~ ~ ~w~w~G) ~ ~I':... ~~~,:e,:e~~ ......----. 3AY~ 3^Y . IX ~ 1/ U II ) _ \ l ~ ~ ~~l t. ~ ~ -\ '1 r ~1---L4' ~ .- I ,J;: ~"Ill _ I I I ~~~~ L 'II '~ - I I I I \~ I' CLJ. _ L'T I .. 1 - ll~ II - ...... , , ~ r. ~ '., [P~ ~ '1:[ ~~J. ! --' .r ~ ' \\ ~ 'r::: ~~ ;ii!! Ii!!! ~ \\ \ ~ I- : __ _iiO!'l _ _ ~. -- ' 7j . ~ - J U .-' f- _ ~ >:LJ I- :: .J .~ - I ~"- l~ ~ ~~ ~ "- <~~~. ~ "'..., l~x~;f:::0 0 _ ' ... "\.L- ~~ II ~ ~ .~'t.':': ~,~ ..., ~.~" , ~ ~ ",~,/?;\:,~' "r5r-,'.>M-'../I'.'.'f~ -::.::: ~'t: ' ;.<}";>// /; , ,<' r)': ~: fIT rr.7U A~ I/O~' ~",,~;: ~,', ..,,;. "k> I,;. ~. p I ~_ ' r~n. ~ ~ ~ D~",,2>--"""'~, ffl,.". "",'.r7'c,'-c-.;( :>I~" s,,_e" '^ f ~ :-.: ;/ / ..>( . :>: ~".;;~-:\;~///~ 0 ,; ofT:>, </ ~ TIT ,.. Q)' ~ ~\ ,>-J ~~~ ~ :tf"/I;;F~ ~.K ~i~ :;' 1TTTT~ " ~ ,1~ '" , .. u<... i.;.;:,~ .111 Ie 'I; ry 'J ('1m f71,t;;t. J.I. rv,. >:/_-~/0-:/<:'/- ,~~/ r ''7: ..-: ~:~ \ \ -: :~: ~/'o; _ _ 0 F0:,/:~",o>:/' ;. ',. , S;,~ ... I/,,>,.A:I I ~ "" j I- = -=:--:: /r/,r//,"/.-/ _ ,/.,j'_- ,,~/-....~~~) , ' ~~;.::;;:,;.;./-0 ~ :J;,;,///;& ' ~ ~ 'K. ~ h; J'h- , . R = . '/::::,/1\\ I ~ J'" IIlo. nil ~ .. 'l ./..()L ~ ~'~ I ,:: ~ n-t:o<..: ~ \\W LJ.j F'!W - 1JoI.' -::"... :;. ~ ~t:: ~y >r '--1'_ '~'= V . .'>; l...J '::IE> I r ...., 1-1 = , ~:mH0~ '- n 11111 iY/i, \, = """" "I ,-, " ,SO' at Cll\18NOSNYH Cll\18NOSNVH ClI\18NOSNYH N""" = '\ " lIlIllllllI 111111/ 1/ ~ ~ \ 1-'" J- C 1/ en 0 l.-- I- _ / en:... re~....., ~ro \ ~ I@ ~ ;;.- III II >- g . I- {J_ :--... W...J · f- )l~ = I-- (/" ~ 0 f:::J ITrT i--- UJa", i---_ - I 'I ~ ~~IIF 0 01- ~ __ a..cJ. ~ ~ r-:r - a:tt7rn I ~/ U--I\\ en -- 1-1- 1/ 1/ .. u A~ 7 '- ~ _ "-~::::::: "J.-l;Ir .f-.- I- ~ ...,:.. '{:( II ...,. ~ ,~ (j'-- ..J :;Jv A ~\f; '~~I- ~ X~" " r, '" I = ~ '. ~', ~ , ""0 ~ _ _ ~" IdI'/ ' ~~ \ /;\ - - -).: IV ' '7 ~?</' yo ~ ). ~ .....6t'X/ ~ /'<. I.>- =::: ,.< ~'~ ,........~lrl ~ ~KSS "\ "",:,\ (j '-# l v..:. ~l :-l"~ , ~ -...;:: - If f- .~ --Y~ =V \ '" I-- ~ (- l ~~ - \ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Ij ~ ~,_=f -I ~ I ~ ~ --.. I III: L m ~ A ~ [1-1) 7 ~ ~ I """-.. ~ I'd :----r._~! w l,...... C'] LJ LI rl LI r-l II 1I r1 11 II II II rr rI II Il II II ~ ~ N ffi '" ~ + ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ CD<ns s_..2 z U) .B.' vOW" ~" 2:.2~ C\I"''''::;) ~ ~ ~2:fl I "f" t'l. , ~ Ql ._ _ CJ ~ (;jCl)2: 222 c ~a: co C'Ci'--m CD <( . Q)C'aCDS~ . ~ ~ -.5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ I ~ i ~~ ~ c c:- .~.22:~oj_.... LL c 2 E:....J~ ~ '* Z '" ~2:~-EcQ)C\lLI)<X)~ CJl 5 Cl Ii: I:""""'UJ N "'C r.n CD en i5 0 E ~ -- T""" N c: ~ cO", "'- 5 -",(I)~E'OE co ,g .fl 0 .;: ~CJl (I) ~ -~!l.. W 0 ~ Q) c ~ 2 ...J ~ i5 i:5 ' , .....fl CI) 0 3l 2'lo.. 1ii -. ~ -. 1ft OJ 2: .~ ~ ~ I- '5 '5 ~ Q) 2'.,'.,)22 ~ (I) E ~ .5 Ii::i: Q t'l., \,J ~CI) 5l ro '" Ql e e 0." Q) E...J ClU) 0 CJl c: ~ CD...J l:: "'C ._.'- ...J "C C - (I) l>> ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ (<. ~.~ ~ (,j ~ ~ a ~ ~., _~......~ ~ ...J 0 '" - CJl ~,5 '0 '0 Q) u; C. (I) >>2:':0.'::::0 ..... C\I ~ <( O:::l 0'" '" >< 3: . S. .- 0 OOOcc Q.O ~ ~ 0 z .... - LO ...l:: ...l:: 0 Q). ill . 0 .- N X '- II.;;. "C "'C ::I::::S t:' N '~ C\I... Q)UOJ~(I)(I)u..en"<O<X)~ c~ W 0.. ::11;1;00"" C co o.q;.q;CJCJ 0'" ~ ^M j O~,tfIl\~O' ~2222 ~... 0 ~ ooJ:!J:! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \UJl~ l ~ f ~. . ~ 55 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1'-- 3/l.VAJ.lSl:l31\lf'l1 3AYA..U~ ~ \ ~ r::l" li _ )'l ~}. ~ ~ . ~ I ~ 1 '1. ~I=w~ .----1-' T'J: ~ 0 - I I ~/;~'<\~ C ~~ . I ~/~ - I I \ 1 I \- LlJ. (tjl\ III I~ :'- I r~ r--- L- - \ l-- .1--" I , I ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ I! ~ ~ f-- n, ~ Y" I ~ ~ IU ~ ~l [" \1 ~ . L.... ~~ h~ .. ,n~' . __ II ~ J - .. 0 ~ _W u --.J1Il'. ~Q.U. RTR-- -~ \\~ _ ...i ~ L' ~\K' i tDJj-- - ~ ~..~) ~ _ "'''''''. ~ ~''TI "I~.\' . ~ 1 ,,= 0 ~ ~ _'.~~'I'~;"";*"::c.~" ~ ~ ~" ~, I~) ~ Il!I/:~ .~"~,' ~~I"- ~\\f:"o: '/>> r..~ '/-L ~\'~" ~" I}/)'f<N ~I III' "." Lli,'> , . 0:~'_' ,~O\\ :..: V / ~ 1"1'<11. ~ ,\,. -f J ~ t-.. fJ 1)0 ~ 'mT .0 III' . j ~ CI) ,,~f~ t:' i;>-.,J \; 1-1 ~ ~ ffi,....... - I.lllI I:: r-;i~ ct:0di . _l< ~ "'1. ~..'"'' - &, 00' ~' M~ r!I J'f.,t -, ~!;. " "'" \('" ~ h' <f.. ~ '21 I ~ = ~~~:& ", ' II LI~~ ~ fl ~ ~"'J' ;"'~:Q , . ,Y ~~0.' ,""' ~(Ag:;~, __ I~~ " ~" ~- ~.,z , y v v I-l. :), - "" lI~< ~ ~ J... I I-'~ K ",N:y rz" , t:;; '.I.y - ~,' &"-: \.).: i'~ .;(:01. 1II1 i:- (:.. !'P J.- " ,~~ ~ I ~ IF , :-; ,~~ '-- ~ / rTT""" r--:a W f--j ~) .",BIl "-J ,~ '"" \7/7 1\ " II II rl >"11/ iT ~7 . ~C::::J, 1\ NOS ~<>""" "^..."''''~ ,,^lll"''''''' l~i~ji;'If/ V ~,,^lll"'~'" r 1--1'- ~ 1m C \ I ~ en 0 Sr 1-1-- ~ / en:.... IF ~ "'" i" ,- ~ ~ \ ~ a I- v i1111 ,I III ' >- 6 g~ L.. D ~ t---.. W -I · - r= ~!i "''' ~ .Q.qp, C)j ~I~ t= ., I-'- EEffJ - ""- ~ II " 111 00,-- =r :II ~ n t= '- ~ ~ I I I /I ll:::l '. ,,-1' /-- ~ ---.l...J ~ .LI....--.- 18NMO.l.SSO~ ~/ ~\\ en I- I-' 1 II ~ U ~ / ---- ~ ../' 'J..-1-:)i f-<)m I- . - I- II - ~= ,S)-...J ~i--2r #.~ ~ I,~ I-- \-- fl \=C ">\ .1' I IIOl I I-- "'*'" r: 'G' ~ '" _ ~ L '"J.. ...~ ~'/ / In;:y~ - f- t-... " :./~ ~ -ItIfT ,,- vv ~ ~/ ~~ =111111 @ I-- '" c-- /iI ~"--~I~~ IIIII I ,l~~ 1/ =_-1=" I II' /!J ~ ~ ~~ ~~>- - II ~ _.~~~~.\,~ .... U) =V\ ~ ~ l~a~'~~~,. (I ~~ - ~d..~~"""~~~~ ,~~ ~\' ~~~ ~ - ::: -~ ~ _'~~~'0:Z~ ~~.,' '~~ ~.~ '- -.J =:: - ~~\~ ~ [@~~.~~~- - = r ' ~.~~'~~~~ ~~~. ~,~ ~ &~~~ ~~'@ ~'S. .)~ ~~ ~~ a II L.. ~ I ~_~~' ~'~l~~~~ ~~ ~.~_.~~ I It. ~ m ~ A _II N- ~".th ~, _~~ . II /! ~\~~.L~~~L'~N~,. ,~, .,.\- " t2 rl II II II II l"l 11 11 I' 11 II I~ II 11 II 1"1 II 11 II C/l CD a: N UJ Ci5 + ~ <ll i= <( ~ t1J ~ a: <l: CD g Z . lD< ~~_~ ~ .~CD vo",c:~ ~(J c:.~ N",,,,:J ~ ~ CD c: X ~ P\\ ~ Jl 222 "~ a'l ~\ ~ ro m e - G) c; · ~ Q)co....se E (j'J ~ ~.= -< ~ ~ j ~ ... i t!j ~ ~ ~ c "~~.~.~~ Oi ~ 5l-.. E-t~ ~ ~ 2:._Q)-O-:l:~I::I: C!:! z ~ ~ Z <ll CDC:(I).!9:;:; Q)Non<Xl~ '" 5 u. C1!E UJ ~ -0 (J'J Q) ~ CIJ ;g E -- -r- -- C'\I c:: ~ .5 0", .... 5 ~ rJ) C,!: -0 co ~ j9 0 ... cuU) Q) ~~ ==!l W (lJo CD 5 ii! 1-2 :.J <l: is, ....Q).!9 (I) 0(,0 = 5!:!'15 1ii ..... 1ft c: ~ CD "" "" 2-'22 (I) <l:: c: ""' ~ <l: 1-__oOQ) j :;: .-..... .- "'..... ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i i ~ (', ~ ~ j Ui ~~ a j ~ v ~ ~""W ...J 0 c;j c: l:l .c c: '0 '0 Q) L..' - a. Q) > > .2:' >- :::: 0 ...... N ... L.. 0 ~ 0 co ra 3: II: S E .!:!2 0 U 0 0 c c Q. 0 ~ ~ 0 " Q) ~ - CD .r:: .r:: Q)' . . 0 .- N X ~ '" '0'0"" l:::' N ~ NO::::: U (lJ X (I) (I) m V <0 <Xl ~ c: ~ W D.. :::Jc;c;oo "'_ <( '" Cll 0 <1;<1;00 0::: 2~ iO~'lID~ 12222 )2- _ o. Hm i! TI. - ,^y""""",,,", '^r"'^' 1/ ~EI" ~ ~ 7 ~ 1{' ~ -J _I\.)~ 7- - ~ - '''~ <f ~, II ~ ~ r g;../~' -- TJ,: ~. r/\ I ~~~~ )' 1/ ~~ ~ '- 1/ ! ~~(\ - \ I I WJJ... i \S -- ,I L 1 ,_.l.. ~ffl lW ~ I g, ~'~ ~~ ~ ~~' pk;J;E LP~ ~- d:: ~ "8'~' 1~ nI I- ,f0."-"; , '~. , \\ ~ T f : 1 ~~ ' .' I ",' ,~,' __ I II \ ~ == . ~ , ' ='1' d=-W--1Lniri ~ '" 11,!}i",',e,",.: ,...~'.'.." F",., 8n ~ "K\\~ J - V,iI' f- ,--,' , 1~~ \\ ,\\VI_I I- :: ..i " .., ~ '_,,:, , ': +~': I e.-'- ~,,~ ~~ , ", ';" ~,~,,~ '- ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ' rrr rr',~ \ ~ I '\.L- ~~I T~~ - 1'0'-<~,*--"'::-'" '~~ I~ &l " !II "- R@%~I~W ,. ~~ ' T;<<;U;: .1 WT(7 .~':~., .,,' ~ L L<'o' ~:r ~, ,,~,,:~"& ~ Yh :I\~~ ': ~~. , %..~ ," .::-;:, , ' r. " , ~ j. .' ,,:,::,__,,~ t-...: f'J- -llIfl ' - ,,~ Q) ~ *"",.v:;;' I' ~ Ii ,_ . -{I- ~ _. 'I~" :::, ~. )II -d' ~ HI=: m 0';-'Q," ,,*. ' ' ':-",'W'X " 'X/' ~ ~ ' , b ~ ,~;~~' ,~' ~'.l ~ t ~ ;" 7 W 2~ . / ,"'~ J , ' r I~ ... ~~:r', ~ ~~ ,~ I. T f'o. ~.Y ~ \\\~ ~ I-l. /::.wx; - N:~', i} ~ ~~ ~ t -f fRJ~ --', ~,,' ~ ',Y--' I-- ~ . ElJ::!/' ~'0-~ ~ '\\ t '--7~ 1', h',"",,, .,C->. 11;,,,,, ~~~ 0d? ~ '" ffiTT sYJ1 1\ '" ,r; oj n r I /f1t=1 1\ a NOS iIiiiiiIIII"''''" ""18 NO~ ""18 NO""" II ) ~7 NO~7" (./ v i ~""18 NO~ I ~ I \ r n-" c::. I": 'J (/) 0 ~ I '- ~/ II / (/):,... re ~.... ~,- ~ ~ \ ~ fl/; J-. V 111\ 1\\' >.n g~ ~ D~ i r--... aT...J · - )JI= f-~ C:J It 1-8 ,D.o",' C . f- 1;; I-- -_ ~~I :11 .;oO..~' ~.ll C= ~ ~~a=wtfJ I ~ ' ~/ (,h../\\ J CJ) e.-- I ~. ~ /111111;':. U ~:'. / ] 0.-/ \J-1--:~~1- ''- _ "" A - ~= ,t= j- ...J He- ~~ I ~ f - ~ ~ r:l.J:c=:.r1nJ = ~ . . Tn~ " T ~ ~ - ~:riLf ~ 1 '" ,/ , ^ ~~~ 1\ ;l;I I---mR . ~:::- j" 7~11i(6(;~ ~ . ~ ~*~ f.1-<' =-,,- . '-~~ ~I~ I . IT'\"8~~,~ / .1 -I,,) ~ i........=:.p-fl\~'>fm"j,,/t~ i IIII II ,l ~~,~ " ('J '? '\ :\1 ~ 1f .~~}.;:~ ~~~~I ~~ =/ \ '" = ~1I1t_~~.-- t -- ~ - ~ ~'\~'~'\~~'~~';'i\.~ '~\'%.~'::8.'.~ >.~~ ~ I- ~ ~ r ,W-- ~mI._ ~U ~ ~ ~.~.'~.I., ~ ,i . ~ ~-..i ~__ _~~' ~~~ ~ ~~~~~.-= 1" ~I/~ 7 ,:.~~.~~~~:~ ~~ ~., _.~\:J- " / , ,~-~~~~ ."~'*~~' ~~,. @~ ~ ~ \Y "t'-- C 1 II II 11 II II 11 l'l l'l 1\ " r-, " r', r-l II r', r-l f==I .., 1 , .J Crosstown Boulevard Trunk Opinion of Probable Cost 1 Sanitary Sewer Analysis East of Hanson Blvd ...J City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 12974-Q1 '1 J Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount , Mobilization LS 1 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 I Clearing and Grubbing Acre 1.50 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,990.82 ..J Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 15016 $ 3.00 $ 45,046.67 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter LF 9020 $ 12.00 $ 108,240.00 '1 Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 5203 $ 10.00 $ 52,028.90 ...J Bituminous Base TON 1982 $ 38.00 $ 75,318.03 Bituminous Wear TON 1487 $ 42.00 $ 62,434.68 '\ 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (14'-16') LF 1550 $ 33.00 $ 51,150.00 ....J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (19'-22') LF 2960 $ 45.00 $ 133,200.00 24" Steel Casing - Jacked LF 150 $ 150.00 $ 22,500.00 -, Granular Pipe Bedding CY 1036 $ 8.00 $ 8,284.44 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Each 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 .....J Std. Sanitary Manhole (0-10' Deep) Each 13 $ 1,900.00 $ 24,700.00 Extra Depth Sanitary Manhole LF 109 $ 100.00 $ 10,900.00 -, 8" DIP LF 250 $ 30.00 $ 7,500.00 ...1 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Sodding SY 7249 $ 3.50 $ 25,371.11 1 Dewatering LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 ...J Subtotal $ 709,664.65 '\ 15% Construction Contingency $ 106,449.70 ....J Subtotal $ 816,114.34 Indirect Costs (30%) $ 244,834.30 , , Subtotal $ 1,060,948.65 ....J Easement Acquisition $ - -, Crosstown Boulevard Trunk Estimated Project Cost $ 1,060,948.65 ......J Shadowbrook Trunk Project Cost $ 2,020,847.00 -, , Crosstown Boulevard Alternative $ 3,081,795.65 ....J -, ....J -, ...J -. ....J -, ....J ....., '-1 " , j 1 J Shadowbrook Trunk Opinion of Probable Cost 1 Sanitary Sewer Analysis East of Hanson Blvd ...J City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 12974-01 " J Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing Acre 2.4 $ 4,000.00 $ 9,449.04 ...J Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 28194 $ 3.00 $ 84,583.33 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter LF 7800 $ 12.00 $ 93,600.00 " Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 9769 $ 10.00 $ 97,693.75 J Bituminous Base TON 3722 $ 38.00 $ 141,423.33 Bituminous Wear TON 2791 $ 42.00 $ 117,232.50 , , 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (11 '_14') LF 600 $ 30.00 $ 18,000.00 ...J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (14'-17') LF 800 $ 35.00 $ 28,000.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (17'-20') LF 1400 $ 40.00 $ 56,000.00 .. 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (20'_23') LF 1100 $ 45.00 $ 49,500.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (23'-26') LF 500 $ 50.00 $ 25,000.00 _J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (26'-29') LF 800 $ 55.00 $ 44,000.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (32'-35') LF 1200 $ 65.00 $ 78,000.00 .. 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (35'-38') LF 1700 $ 80.00 $ 136,000.00 _J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (39'-41') LF 500 $ 100.00 $ 50,000.00 24" Steel Casing - Jacked LF 150 $ 150.00 $ 22,500.00 .. Granular Pipe Bedding CY 1944 $ 8.00 $ 15,555.56 , _J Lift Station Upgrade LS 1 $ 100,000,00 $ 100,000.00 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Each 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 , , Std. Sanitary Manhole (0-10' Deep) Each 18 $ 1,900.00 $ 34,200.00 , Extra Depth Sanitary Manhole LF 326 $ 100.00 $ 32,600.00 ...J Temporary Water Service LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 , , Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 _1 Seeding Acre 2.2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,400.00 Dewatering LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 .. Subtotal $ 1,351,737.51 ...J 15% Construction Contingency $ 202,760.63 Subtotal $ 1,554,498.13 .. Indirect Costs (30%) $ 466,349.44 ...J Subtotal $ 2,020,847.57 .. Easement Acquisition $ - c..J Shadowbrook Trunk Estimated Project Cost $ 2,020,847.57 --, Crosstown Boulevard Trunk Project Cost $ 1,060,949.00 ....J Crosstown Boulevard Alternative $ 3,081,796.57 -. -....J .. ....J ...., '--1 1 ..J 1 j Prairie Road Trunk Opinion of Probable Cost 1 Sanitary Sewer Analysis East of Hanson Blvd J City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 12974.Q1 , j Unit Quantity Item Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing Acre 3.7 $ 4,000.00 $ 14,719.93 ....I Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 36894 $ 3.00 $ 110,683.33 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter LF 6200 $ 12.00 $ 74,400.00 'l Remove Watermain LF 1300 $ 5.00 $ 6,500.00 , .J Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 12784 $ 10.00 $ 127,839.25 Bituminous Base TON 4870 $ 38.00 $ 185,062.53 '1 Bituminous Wear TON 3653 $ 42.00 $ 153,407.10 , 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (17'-20') LF 3750 $ 40.00 $ 150,000.00 ...1 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (20'-23') LF 1200 $ 45.00 $ 54,000.00 -.., 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (23'-26') LF 2670 $ 50.00 $ 133,500.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (26'-29') LF 1200 $ 55.00 $ 66,000.00 .J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (32'-35') LF 1300 $ 65.00 $ 84,500.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (35'-38') LF 800 $ 80.00 $ 64,000.00 ' , 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (38'-41 ') LF 380 $ 100.00 $ 38,000.00 ....I 24" Steel Casing - Jacked LF 150 $ 150.00 $ 22,500.00 Granular Pipe Bedding CY 2544 $ 8.00 $ 20,355.56 1 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Each 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 ,,j Std. Sanitary Manhole (0-10' Deep) Each 30 $ 1,900.00 $ 57,000.00 Extra Depth Sanitary Manhole LF 429 $ 100.00 $ 42,900.00 '1 Lift Station LS 1 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 .....J 8" DIP LF 1300 $ 30.00 $ 39,000.00 8" Gate Valve Each 1 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 '1 Hydrant Each 3 $ 1,700.00 $ 5,100.00 ..J Reconnnect Water Service Each 10 $ 250.00 $ 2,500.00 1" Water Service LF 300 $ 10.00 $ 3,000.00 Temporary Water Service LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 .. Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 -.J Seeding Acre 3.7 $ 2,000.00 $ 7,400.00 Dewatering LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 .. 0 Subtotal $ 1,795,267.70 15% Construction Contingency $ 269,290.15 "1 Subtotal $ 2,064,557.85 .J Indirect Costs (30%) $ 619,367.36 Subtotal $ 2,683,925.21 .. Easement Acquisition $ - .....J Total Estimated Project Cost $ 2,683,925.21 " , --.J .. c..J .. ..J ~ , j , j 150th Lane Trunk Opinion of Probable Cost 1 Sanitary Sewer Analysis East of Hanson Blvd J City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 12974-01 1 j Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 , Clearing and Grubbing Acre 1.0 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 j Curb and Gutter LF 6200 $ 8.00 $ 49,600.00 Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 3461 $ 10.00 $ 34.611.50 , Bituminous Base TON 1319 $ 30.00 $ 39,556.00 _J Bituminous Wear TON 989 $ 30.00 $ 29,667.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (11'-14') LF 1200 $ 30.00 $ 36,000.00 1 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (17'-20') LF 1450 $ 40.00 $ 58,000.00 ....J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (26'-29') LF 300 $ 55.00 $ 16,500.00 24" Steel Casing - Jacked LF 150 $ 100.00 $ 15,000.00 '-' Granular Pipe Bedding CY 689 $ 8.00 $ 5,511.11 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Each 1 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00 , j Std. Sanitary Manhole (0-10' Deep) Each 9 $ 1,900.00 $ 17,100.00 Extra Depth Sanitary Manhole LF 57 $ 100.00 $ 5,700.00 , Temporary Water Service LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 J Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Seeding Acre 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 1 Dewatering LS 1 $ 25.000.00 $ 25,000.00 ..J Subtotal $ 385,245.61 ...., 15% Construction Contingency $ 57,786.84 .....J Subtotal $ 443,032.45 Indirect Costs (30%) $ 132.909.74 . , Subtotal $ 575,942.19 ..J Easement Acquisition SF 204600 $ 1.25 $ 255,750.00 ...., 150th Lane Trunk Estimated Project Cost $ 831,692.19 ....J Crosstown Boulevard Trunk Project Cost $ 1,060,949.00 ~ .....J 150th Lane Alternative $ 1,892,641.19 .. .....J -, .....J '-' .....J ..., .....J ..., d , ..J 1 j Xeon Street Trunk Opinion of Probable Cost , 1 Sanitary Sewer Analysis East of Hanson Blvd _J City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 12974-01 , . j Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing Acre 5.3 $ 4,000.00 $ 21,200.00 ..J Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 13533 $ 3.00 $ 40,599.00 Remove Curb and Gutter LF 8400 $ 4.00 $ 33,600.00 1 Curb and Gutter LF 15200 $ 8.00 $ 121,600.00 J Remove Watermain LF 1300 $ 5.00 $ 6,500.00 Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 8485 $ 10.00 $ 84,854.00 , 1 Bituminous Base TON 3233 $ 38.00 $ 122,836.27 ..J Bituminous Wear TON 2424 $ 42.00 $ 101,824.80 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (11 '-14') LF 1200 $ 30.00 $ 36,000.00 -, 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (17'-20') LF 1300 $ 40.00 $ 52.000.00 , 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (20'-23') LF 3150 $ 45.00 $ 141,750.00 ..J 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (23'.26') LF 600 $ 50.00 $ 30,000.00 12" PVC Sanitary Sewer (26'-29') LF 1200 $ 55.00 $ 66,000.00 ' , 24" Steel Casing - Jacked LF 150 $ 150.00 $ 22,500.00 .J Granular Pipe Bedding CY 1689 $ 8.00 $ 13,511.11 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Each 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 1 Std. Sanitary Manhole (0-10' Deep) Each 19 $ 1,900.00 $ 36,100.00 ..J Extra Depth Sanitary Manhole LF 195 $ 100.00 $ 19,500.00 8" DIP LF 1300 $ 30.00 $ 39,000.00 -, 8" Gate Valve Each 2 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 ..J Hydrant Each 3 $ 1,700.00 $ 5,100.00 Reconnnect Water Service Each 20 $ 250.00 $ 5,000.00 . , 1" Water Service LF 600 $ 10.00 $ 6,000.00 Temporary Water Service LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 ..J Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Sodding SY 4840 $ 3.50 $ 16,940.00 -, Seeding Acre 4.3 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,600.00 .....J Dewatering LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 '1 Subtotal $ 1,144,815.18 ..J 15% Construction Contingency $ 171,722.28 Subtotal $ 1,316,537.45 .. Indirect Costs (30%) $ 394,961.24 .....J Subtotal $ 1,711,498.69 -, Easement Acquisition SF 221100 $ 1.25 $ 276,375.00 LJ Xeon Street Trunk Estimated Project Cost $ 1,987,873.69 .. Crosstown Boulevard Trunk Project Cost $ 1,060,949.00 ..J Xeon Street Alternative $ 3,048,822.69 .. L.J .. ....J