HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Packet 1-28-15CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
Regular Meeting of the City Council
City Hall
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
AGENDA
January 28, 2015
A. CALL TO ORDER:
B. ROLL CALL: LINDSTROM ____ HARRIS ____ BROWN THUNDER ____
LONG ____ MERCER-TAYLOR ____
STAFF PRESENT: FISCHER ____
C. PRESENTATIONS:
1. Jerry Hrmotka – NYFS Presentation
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 14, 2014
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
F. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. General Disbursements through 1/20/2015: $80,552.65
Payroll through 1/15/2015: $12,990.51
2. Approval of City Licenses
3. 2015 – 2016 Forester Contract
4. Approval of 2015-2016 Tree Trimming and Removal Contractor
5. Approval of 2015 EAB Program – Tree Replacement Contract
6. Approval of Feasibility Report for 2015 PMP
G: POLICY ITEMS:
H. INFORMATION/ANNOUNCEMENTS:
I. COMMUNITY FORUM:
J. ADJOURNMENT:
BLANK PAGE
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
Regular Meeting of the City Council
City Hall
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
MINUTES
January 14, 2015
A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL: LINDSTROM _X__ HARRIS _X__ BROWN THUNDER _X__
LONG _X__ MERCER-TAYLOR __X_
STAFF PRESENT: FISCHER _X__
C. PRESENTATIONS:
1. Recognition of Rick Talbot’s Service to the Cable Commission
Mayor Lindstrom and Cor Wilson, Executive Director of the Cable Commission,
thanked Rick for his service and presented him with a plaque of appreciation. Rick
thanked them for the award and made a few comments about his 20 year on the
Commission.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 10, 2014 Approved
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
F. CONSENT AGENDA: Long, Approved 5-0
1. General Disbursements through 1/8/2015: $174,368.87
Payroll through 12/31/2014: $28,388.86
2. Approval of City Licenses
3. Designating Official Depositories for 2015
4. Review Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy
5. Review and Adopt Council Standing Rules
6. Appoint Acting Mayor
7. Commission Appointments and Reappointments
8. Mileage Reimbursement Rate for 2015
9. Approval of 2015 Fee Schedule
10. Appointment of Fire Department Officers
11. Approval of Webcasting Services
G: POLICY ITEMS:
H. INFORMATION/ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Pam Harris:
- Wished everyone a Happy New Year
Chuck Long:
- Announced Winterfest will be happening January 25th, from 1-4pm at Community
Park. Smoosh races will be held!
Pete Lindstrom:
- Announced the Neighborhood Commission Annual Meeting is January 20th, 7:00pm
at City Hall.
I. COMMUNITY FORUM:
David Murphy – Falcon Heights Citizen & Planning Commission addressed the Council on the
organized trash collection.
J. ADJOURNMENT: 7:29pm
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item General Disbursements and Payroll
Description
General Disbursements through 1/20/2015: $80,552.65
Payroll through 1/15/2015: $12,990.51
Budget Impact
Attachment(s) General Disbursements and Payroll
Action(s)
Requested
Staff recommends that the Falcon Heights City Council approve general
disbursements and payroll.
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F1
Attachment General Disbursements and Payroll
Submitted By Roland Olson, Finance Director
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item Approval of City Licenses
Description
The following individuals have applied for a Municipal Business License for 2015.
Staff has received the necessary documents for licensure.
1. Essential Sessions Studios LLC
2. Golden Tailor
The following individual has applied for a Tree Trimming/Treating/Removal
Contractor’s License for 2015. Staff has received the necessary documents for
licensure.
1. Hoffman & McNamara
2. Vineland Tree Care
The following individuals have applied for a Refuse/Recycler’s License for 2015.
Staff has received the necessary documents for licensure.
1. Gene’s Disposal Service Inc
The following individuals have applied for a Home Occupation License for 2015.
Staff has received the necessary documents for licensure.
1. Pamela M. Harris PLLC
2. The Touch –Up Artist, Inc
The following individuals have applied for a Restaurant License, On Sale Liquor
License and Sunday Sales License for 2015. Staff has received necessary documents
for licensure.
1. Stout’s Pub
.
Budget Impact N/A
Attachment(s) N/A
Action(s)
Requested
Staff recommends that the Falcon Heights City Council approve the 2015 City
License Applications.
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F2
Attachment N/A
Submitted By Tim Sandvik, Deputy Clerk
BLANK PAGE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item 2015-2016 Forester Contract
Description
For the past 7 years, Andy Hovland, d/b/a Branch and Bough, has served as the
City’s Contract Forester. His services have been very well received by residents and
staff alike. He has been very instrumental in the Emerald Ash Borer mitigation
program as well as assisting residents in evaluating trees on their own private
property.
Staff recommends that the City continue working with Andy as the City Forester
and that the attached 2 year agreement be approved.
Budget Impact Funds for this service are allocated in the 2015 operating budget and are anticipated
to be allocated in the 2016 operating budget as well. The hourly rate for this
Agreement is consistent with other contract foresters and with what Mr. Hovland
has billed the City in 2013-2014. Furthermore, it is anticipated that much of his time
will be covered under grant funding that has been secured.
Attachment(s) Professional Services Agreement
Action(s)
Requested
Staff recommends that the Falcon Heights City Council adopt the attached 2015-
2016 Forestry Services Agreement/Contract with Andy Hovland, d/b/a Branch
and Bough, for consultant forester services in 2015 & 2016.
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F3
Attachment 2015-2016 Forestry Contract
Submitted By Bart Fischer, City Administrator
131455v02
RNK:r05/14/2008 1
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this _________ day of ___________________, 2015,
between the CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"),
and ANDREW HOVLAND d/b/a Branch and Bough ("Consultant").
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS HEREIN
CONTAINED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to
as the "Contract Documents", all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the
contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein:
A. This Agreement.
2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT. The Consultant, a certified tree
inspector, shall provide the services, and perform the work in accordance with the Contract
Documents and applicable state law, Minn. Stat. 18G.16, and Rules, Minnesota Rules
Chapter 1505, concerning shade tree disease control programs.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. The City shall pay the Consultant $50 per
hourly basis in accordance with the attached plus mileage based upon the IRS deduction
rate.
4. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign, sublet, or transfer any interest or
obligation in this Contract without the prior written consent of the other party, and then only
upon such terms and conditions as both parties may agree to and set forth in writing.
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The term of this Agreement shall be from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016.
6. PAYMENT. The City will make periodic payment to the Consultant as the
work is completed. Such payment shall be made not later than thirty (30) days after
invoicing by the Consultant.
7. PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONSULTANTS. Pursuant to Minnesota
Statute § 471.25, Subdivision 4a, the Consultant must pay any subconsultant within ten
(10) days of the Consultant’s receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services
provided by the subconsultant. The Consultant must pay interest of one and one-half
percent (1½ %) per month or any part of a month to subconsultant on any undisputed
amount not paid on time to the subconsultant. The minimum monthly interest penalty
payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of
less than $100.00, the Consultant shall pay the actual penalty due to the subconsultant. A
subconsultant who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Consultant
131455v02
RNK:r05/14/2008 2
shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees, incurred in
bringing the action.
8. WORKER’S COMPENSATION. The Consultant shall obtain and maintain
for the duration of this Contract, statutory Worker’s Compensation Insurance and
Employer’s Liability Insurance as required under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
9. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY. Consultant shall obtain the
following minimum insurance coverage and maintain it at all times throughout the life of the
Contract, with the City included as an additional name insured:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate, products and
completed operations
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate
Contractual Liability (identifying the contract):
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury, with Employment Exclusion deleted:
$1,000,000 aggregate
Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non-owned, hired):
Bodily Injury: $100,000 each occurrence
$50,000 each accident
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
10. DATA PRACTICES/RECORDS
A. All data created, collected, received, maintained, or disseminated for
any purpose in the course of this Contract is governed by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state statute, or any state rules
adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy.
B. All books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and
practices of the Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, relative to this Contract are
subject to examination by the City.
131455v02
RNK:r05/14/2008 3
11. WARRANTY. The Consultant shall exercise the same degrees of care,
skill, and diligence in the performance of the Services as is ordinarily possessed and
exercised by a certified tree inspector under similar circumstances
12. INDEMNITY. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold the City
harmless from any claim made by third parties as a result of the services performed by it.
In addition, the Consultant shall reimburse the City for any cost of reasonable attorney's
fees it may incur as a result of any such claims.
13. WAIVER. In the particular event that either party shall at any time or times
waive any breach of this Contract by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of
any other or any succeeding breach of this Contract by either party, whether of the same
or any other covenant, condition, or obligation.
14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains the Consultant as
an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The
Consultant is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as
provided herein. Consultant shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of
performing the work. Consultant shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and
incidentals necessary for Consultant's performance under this Agreement. City and
Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that
Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner employees of
the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for
Consultant's own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment
compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such
payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation.
15. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
16. SEVERABILITY. If any term or condition of this Contract is found to be or
become unenforceable or invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions, terms, and
conditions of this Contract, unless such invalid or unenforceable provision, term, or
condition renders this Contract impossible to perform. Such remaining terms and
conditions of the Contract shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to
operate as the parties' entire contract.
17 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract represents the entire agreement of
the parties and is a final, complete, and all inclusive statement of the terms thereof, and
supersedes and terminates any prior agreement(s), understandings, or written or verbal
representations made between the parties with respect thereto.
131455v02
RNK:r05/14/2008 4
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
BY: ____________________________ ____________________________
Peter Lindstrom, Mayor Andrew Hovland
d/b/a Branch and Bough
AND ___________________________
Bart Fischer, City Administrator
BLANK PAGE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item Approve 2015-2016 Tree Trimming and Removal Contractor
Description
Every 2 years, the City of Falcon Heights selects a company to serve as our tree
trimming and removal contractor. St. Croix Tree Service, Inc was the selected
contractor in 2013-2014. City staff, including the Forester, has been very satisfied
with their overall removal and trimming service, performance and competitive
prices.
Attached is the 2015-2016 Tree Trimming and Removal Agreement with Natures
Trees, Inc,/dba St. Croix.
Budget Impact Funds have been allocated in the 2015 Budget and are anticipated to be allocated in
the 2016 Budget. EAB grant funds have been secured for 2015 for this service.
Attachment(s) Tree Trimming & Removal Agreement
Action(s)
Requested
Staff recommends that the Falcon Heights City Council select Natures Trees,
Inc,/dba St. Croix as the City’s tree trimming and removal contractor for 2015-2016
and authorize the Mayor and appropriate staff to execute any related documents.
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F4
Attachment Tree Trimming & Removal Agreement
Submitted By Bart Fischer, City Administrator
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item Approve 2015 EAB Program-Tree Replacement Contract
Description
Over the past several years, the City has been conducting its Emerald Ash Borer
(EAB) remediation program. Due to the fact that the EAB was detected within City
limits on the U of M campus and at the recommendation of the City Forester,
boulevard ash trees have been removed and replaced with a more diverse forest
variety. The City has received grant dollars from the DNR for this program.
The DNR has informed the City that they would like the EAB program to be
completed by the end of June of this year. Due to this, the City will be taking a
more aggressive approach to the removal and replacement of boulevard ash. In the
past, the City has used the same contractor for removal, trimming and replanting of
trees-St. Croix Tree Services. After discussions with the Forester and St. Croix, it
was determined that it would be better to have a separate contractor complete the
re-planting services. This is mainly due to the volume and timing of the removal
and re-plantings.
Staff and the Forester are recommending entering into a 2015 Ash Replacement
Program-Tree Planting contract with Hoffman & McNamara Co. As a reference,
they are the planting contractor for the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and their
prices are very competitive especially in comparison to what St. Croix has charged
in the past.
Budget Impact EAB grant funds have been secured for 2015 for this service.
Attachment(s) 2015 EAB Program-Tree Replacement Contract
Action(s)
Requested
Staff recommends that the Falcon Heights City Council enter into a 2015 Ash
Replacement Program-Tree Planting Contract with Hoffman & McNamara Co. and
authorize the Mayor and appropriate staff to execute any related documents.
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F5
Attachment 2015 EAB Program-Tree Replacement
Contract
Submitted By Bart Fischer, City Administrator
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Families, Fields and Fair
__________________________
The City That Soars!
Item Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for the 2015 Pavement
Management Project
Description
On September 10, 2014, and December 10, 2014, the City Council adopted
resolutions #14-16 and #14-24 authorizing the preparation of a feasibility study for
the improvements to the streets included in the 2015 Pavement Management Project
(PMP). The following streets have been identified to be considered for
improvements in 2015:
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue (shared street
with Roseville)
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Crawford
Avenue
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Larpenteur
Avenue (BP gas station)
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue
In accordance with City Council direction, a feasibility report has been prepared
that details the proposed design, neighborhood impact, and estimated cost of the
proposed 2015 PMP. Copies of the completed feasibility report are attached. The
next step in the process is for the Council to accept the feasibility report and to
schedule a public hearing.
A resolution receiving the feasibility report and ordering the public hearing for
February 25, 2015, is attached. A portion of the 2015 PMP is proposed to be
assessed. The approval of the attached resolution is required for the Minnesota
Chapter 429 Assessment Process.
Budget Impact This project has the following financial implications for the city and property
owners along the streets being considered for maintenance:
Assessments levied in accordance with the City’s assessment policy.
Use of Municipal State Aid (MSA) and street infrastructure funds to pay the
City’s portion of the project.
Expenditure of utility fund dollars to pay for repairs needed to the existing
utility system.
Attachment(s) Feasibility Report; Resolution 15-02
Action(s)
Requested
Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for the 2015 Pavement
Management Project
Meeting Date January 28, 2015
Agenda Item Consent F6
Attachment Feasibility Report, Resolution 15-02
Submitted By Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 5
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 7
GENERAL COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 7
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 8
A. Street Design .................................................................................................................... 8
B. Pathway .......................................................................................................................... 10
C. Utility Conditions ............................................................................................................ 10
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 13
GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 13
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 13
A. Street Improvements ...................................................................................................... 13
B. Pathway .......................................................................................................................... 15
C. Utility Improvements ...................................................................................................... 15
D. Permits ............................................................................................................................ 17
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROPOSED FUNDING ............................................................................................... 18
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................... 21
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 22
EXHIBIT A: LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................................... 23
EXHIBIT B: ASSESSMENT PARCELS ................................................................................................................ 25
EXHIBIT C: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ................................................................................................ 29
EXHIBIT D: SOIL BORING LOGS ...................................................................................................................... 33
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
2
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
3
January 28, 2015
Honorable City Council
City of Falcon Heights
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113‐5594
RE: 2015 Pavement Management Project
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
At the council meeting on September 10, 2014 and December 10, 2014, the City Council authorized
the preparation of a feasibility study for the improvements to the streets included in the 2015
Pavement Management Project. This study considers proposed improvements to the following
streets:
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue (shared street with
Roseville)
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Crawford Avenue
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue (BP
gas station)
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue
As a part of the study for this area, the various public utilities have been analyzed regarding
As a part of the study for this area, the various public utilities have been analyzed regarding their
capacity and structural integrity. Necessary utility improvements have then been recommended
where appropriate.
In accordance with the City Council request, this study has been completed. It is my
recommendation that the projects as proposed in this study are feasible.
Sincerely,
Kristine Giga, P. E.
Civil Engineer
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
4
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
5
INTRODUCTION
On September 10, 2014, and December 10, 2014, the City Council adopted resolutions #14‐16 and #14‐24
authorizing the preparation of a feasibility study for the improvements to the streets included in the 2015
Pavement Management Project.
This report consists of a detailed investigation of the streets proposed for improvements, listed below. A
map showing the street locations can be found in Appendix A:
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue (shared street with Roseville)
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Crawford Avenue
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue (BP gas
station)
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue
The proposed project involves street reclamation, mill and overlay, spot curb replacement and any necessary
utility repairs. As has been discussed during development of the CIP, the City Council has expressed the
desire to complete maintenance on City streets that, if neglected for too long, would need to be
reconstructed. The proposed 2015 PMP achieves this, while also maintaining a neighborhood approach. The
neighborhood approach minimizes the inconveniences residents experience due to construction.
The proposed project also includes improvements to the pathway on Roselawn Avenue using the
reclamation process.
Utility improvements for the project include the repair of selected sanitary manholes, storm sewer manholes
and catch basins. The watermain system is owned and operated by St. Paul Regional Water Services, who
have not identified any needed improvements at this time.
The total project cost is estimated to be $1,100,968, which includes contingencies and overhead costs.
Funding for the project will be provided through assessments from the benefitting properties, sanitary sewer
utility funds, surface water management utility funds, street infrastructure funds, and Municipal State Aid
(MSA) funds.
It is expected that if these improvements are approved, the work will be completed during the 2015
construction season. The project was initiated by council/staff as part of the City’s Pavement Management
Program. As outlined by state law, projects initiated by council/staff require a 4/5 vote by the City Council
for approval.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
6
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An informational meeting was held on December 16, 2014, for residents who live within the proposed 2015
PMP project. The meeting lasted approximately two hours. Meeting notices were sent out about two weeks
in advance to the adjacent 74 property owners. Approximately 14 people attended, representing 11
properties. The meeting was an open house format, where staff was available to discuss the City’s Pavement
Management Program, the roadways being proposed for improvement, and the City’s Assessment Policy.
Most of the questions City staff received pertained to the timing and necessity of the improvements, the
scope of the project, the proposed project schedule, and traffic volumes.
On January 8, 2015, City staff also met with the Falcon Heights United Church of Christ to discuss the project
and the church’s preliminary assessment. Most of the questions were similar to those at the open house,
and pertained to the timing and necessity of the improvements, the scope of the project, the proposed
project schedule, and the assessment policy as it relates to tax‐exempt parcels.
Residents will also have an opportunity to provide comment at the public hearing, scheduled for February
25, 2015.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
7
EXISTING CONDITIONS
General Comments
Falcon Heights’ pavement management system utilizes a pavement condition index (PCI) rating of 0 to 100.
This rating is based on surficial pavement observations. Street condition ratings are divided into three
categories: “adequate” (66 to100), “marginal” (36 to 65) and “problem” (0 to 35). Generally, the indices
correspond to a level of most cost effective improvement as follows: problem = pavement reconstruction;
marginal = asphalt overlay; and adequate = sealcoat and/or crack sealing. This rating system assists in
prioritizing roadway improvements and projecting costs for use in the City’s pavement management and
capital improvements plan.
Studies conducted by a number of agencies indicate that as pavement conditions decrease, the cost for the
appropriate method of repair can quadruple. A graph of a typical case taken from the American Public
Works Association, The Hole Story, is shown in the following figure.
The 2013 street ratings, compiled by GoodPointe Technology, are listed in the table below, as well as the
previous ratings from 2010. Using GoodPointe Technology’s pavement management software, ratings can be
projected based on the observed street condition and anticipated deterioration of the road. These estimated
2015 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) values have also been listed.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
8
Street
2010
Rating
2013
Rating
Est. 2015
Rating
2015
Category
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue 75 62 Marginal
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Crawford Avenue
to Garden Avenue
69 56 48 Marginal
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Garden Avenue to
Ruggles Street
67 63 55 Marginal
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Ruggles Street to
Roselawn Avenue
79 79 73 Adequate
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Larpenteur Avenue
(BP gas station) to Garden Avenue
72 52 44 Marginal
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Garden Avenue to
Roselawn Avenue
74 39 30 Marginal/
Problem
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Asbury Street 72 64 57 Marginal
Garden Avenue, from Asbury Street to Arona Street 73 17 10 Problem
Garden Avenue, from Arona Street to Simpson Street 68 23 12 Problem
Garden Avenue, from Simpson Street to Pascal Street 67 33 23 Problem
Garden Avenue, from Pascal Street to Holton Street 43 7 5 Problem
Garden Avenue, from Holton Street to Albert Street 69 18 10 Problem
Garden Avenue, from Albert Street to Hamline Avenue 75 70 63 Adequate/
Marginal
Actual levels of street improvements are determined by obtaining soil borings and a comprehensive
geotechnical evaluation report. Soil borings have been obtained and are included in the appendix of this
report. City staff has reviewed the soil boring results and have verified that the recommended
improvements as described are appropriate.
The project areas include single family, town homes, commercial and tax‐exempt properties. The
neighborhoods are fully developed. All of the streets are delineated with concrete curb and gutter. Roselawn
Avenue has an existing bituminous trail on the south side of the street. There are no publicly owned
concrete sidewalks in the project area.
Special Considerations
A. Street Design
The streets within the proposed project vary from 28 feet to 42 feet in width. The right of way width
for the streets vary; Garden Avenue falls within a 60‐foot right‐of‐way, Roselawn Avenue right‐of‐
way varies from 63 to 76 feet, and the East and West Snelling Service Drives vary from 33 to 49.5
feet.
1. Roselawn Avenue (Fairview Avenue to Snelling Avenue)
In 1991, following direction from the Minnesota Legislature, Ramsey County completed a
study that reviewed the jurisdiction of all roadways within Ramsey County. Upon
completion of this study, Ramsey County began a program whereby a number of roadways
switched jurisdiction between State, County and local municipalities. In 2004, Roselawn
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
9
Avenue changed jurisdiction from Ramsey County to the City of Roseville and the City of
Falcon Heights, as this street falls on the border of the two cities.
When the roadway was under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County, it consistently ranked low
among their priorities since the traffic volume is relatively small when compared to other
County roads. The average annual daily traffic (AADT) for this segment is 3,050 vehicles per
day (2013 counts.) For many years, this roadway only received minor maintenance.
Roselawn Avenue is a 36‐foot wide collector street, which widens to 48 feet at both Snelling
and Fairview. Residential properties are located on the north (Roseville) side of the street.
The University of Minnesota Agricultural fields and one residential property abut the south
(Falcon Heights) side of the street.
Parking is allowed on the north side of the street; parking is restricted on the south side of
the street.
The pavements show signs of distress, such as transverse and longitudinal cracking, block
cracking, and some potholes. This segment of Roselawn Avenue was overlaid in 2000 by
Ramsey County. Additional maintenance that has occurred includes patching, crack sealing
and seal coating. The current average Pavement Condition Index for this roadway is 62;
this rating is considered marginal and is recommended for rehabilitation.
2. East Snelling Service Drive (Crawford Avenue to Roselawn Avenue) and West
Snelling Service Drive (Larpenteur Avenue‐BP Gas Station to Roselawn Avenue)
The streets were originally constructed by Mn/DOT in the mid‐1980s as the Snelling Avenue
Frontage Roads, and were turned back to the City in 1993. They serve as service drives,
providing access to Trunk Highway 51/Snelling Avenue, as well as homes fronting the roads.
Since these roads were built by Mn/DOT as frontage roads, the pavement is designed for
higher traffic volumes and heavier vehicles. The existing pavement thickness varies from 9
to 10 inches.
The West Snelling Service Drive is 28‐feet wide. Parking is restricted on both sides of the
street on the West Snelling Service Drive.
The East Snelling Service Drive is 28‐feet wide. Parking is allowed on the east side of the
East Snelling Service Drive, except for during the State Fair, when no parking is allowed.
The pavements show signs of distress, such as transverse cracking, and pavement
delamination, which leads to potholes. There is evidence of previous and ongoing
maintenance, including patching, crack sealing and seal coating. The current average
Pavement Condition Index for this roadway is 50; this rating is considered marginal and is
recommended for rehabilitation.
3. Garden Avenue (Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue)
Garden Avenue was originally reconstructed in two phases. The first phase of construction
occurred in the 1980s, when Garden Avenue was constructed from Snelling Avenue to 100
feet east of the intersection of Holton Street. The second phase, from 100 feet east of
Holton Street to Hamline Avenue, was constructed in 1999.
Garden is 36 feet wide from Snelling Avenue to 100 feet east of Holton Street. East of this
point, Garden begins to widen, and from Albert to Hamline, the street width is 42 feet.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
10
Garden is classified as a local street, with an AADT of 700 vehicles per day from Snelling to
Albert, and 1,100 vehicles per day from Albert to Hamline.
The table below lists the parking restrictions on Garden Avenue:
Garden Avenue segment North side South side
Snelling Ave to Pascal St Parking is allowed No parking during State Fair
Pascal St to Holton St No parking or stopping 8 am to
5 pm on weekdays
No parking this side of street
Holton St to Albert St No parking any time No parking or stopping 8 am
to 5 pm on weekdays
Albert St to Hamline Ave Parking is allowed east of the
crosswalk
Parking is allowed
The pavement on Garden Avenue shows signs of distress, such as transverse and
longitudinal cracking, moderate to severe alligator cracking and areas of settlement.
Previous maintenance includes patching, crack sealing and seal coating. While some
segments of Garden have fewer deficiencies than others, the average PCI for the entire
street is 26. This rating is considered problem and is recommended for rehabilitation.
B. Pathway
1. Roselawn Avenue
There is an existing 8‐foot wide bituminous trail located on the south side of Roselawn. This
pathway was constructed in the early 1980s. The pavement surface shows signs of severe
oxidation, as can be seen by the exposed pavement aggregates. Cracking is visible along the
entire path, with vegetation growing in the more severe cracks. The pavement has served
its useful life and is recommended for rehabilitation.
2. Garden Avenue
Currently there is no sidewalk along Garden Avenue. This street is used by students walking
to Falcon Heights Elementary School. Parents of students have expressed an interest in
safer pedestrian facilities along Garden Avenue. Potential improvements are discussed later
in this report.
C. Utility Conditions
City utilities located within the project limits include storm sewer, water, and sanitary sewer. A
summary of the City’s utilities are listed below. Private utilities include gas, electric, cable television,
and telephone.
1. Water System
St. Paul Water Utility maintains the water system in Falcon Heights. They have not identified
any needed improvements within the project area at this time.
2. Sanitary Sewer System
The existing conditions for the sanitary sewer system were obtained from City as‐built
drawings and televised recordings, which are a part of the City’s routine maintenance
practices. City staff also inspected all sanitary sewer manholes within the project limits to
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
11
determine if maintenance should be performed in conjunction with the street improvement
project. The recommended manhole and pipe maintenance is discussed later in this report.
The following is a table of the existing sanitary sewer with information on pipe size, pipe
material, and any problems noted from the televising. The sanitary sewer was constructed
in the late 1950’s.
Street
Pipe Size, Material, Comments
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview
Avenue No pipe along Roselawn
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Crawford
Avenue to Garden Avenue 8” clay
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Garden
Avenue to Ruggles Street 8” clay
East Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Ruggles
Street to Roselawn Avenue 8” clay
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Larpenteur
Avenue (BP gas station) to Garden Avenue 8” clay and concrete
West Snelling Avenue Service Drive, from Garden
Avenue to Roselawn Avenue 8” clay and PVC (plastic)
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Pascal
Street No pipe along this segment
Garden Avenue, from Pascal Street to Holton Street 8” clay
Garden Avenue, from Holton Street to Albert Street 8” clay
Garden Avenue, from Albert Street to Hamline
Avenue 8” clay
3. Storm Sewer System/ Drainage
The storm sewer systems within the project area are located in two watershed districts.
Roselawn Avenue and the Snelling Avenue Service Drives are a part of the Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD.) Garden Avenue falls within the Capitol Region Watershed
District (CRWD.)
Most street drainage is overland with some storm sewer conveyance. Generally, drainage is
channeled along the edges of the streets and relies on the curb and gutter to keep the
drainage impounded. Some of the streets have concrete valley gutters through
intersections to aid the flow of storm water.
The existing storm sewer is generally in adequate condition. Some of the existing structures
are old, block constructed structures that have deteriorated and reached the end of their
useful life. There are also areas within the project that have poor drainage due to
inadequate crown on the street. These streets are relatively flat; any changes in pavement
elevation, such as settlements, potholes, etc., from freeze‐thaw cycles have also inhibited
proper drainage on the streets.
Roselawn Avenue has a history of flooding during heavier rain events. Temporary street
flooding at locations along the entire segment of the roadway, but particularly at the low
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
12
points near the intersection of Mid Oaks Lane and at the east end, approaching Snelling
Avenue. The existing catch basins are old, “low‐profile” structures, which do not have a
typical catch basin grate allowing water to flow into the structure. The inlet capacity for
these structures is restricted to a horizontal opening, which requires water to turn into the
inlet, versus falling through a typical surface mounted grate. The low profiles structures
also have approximately 4 times less inlet capacity than a new typical catch basin grate.
Upgrades to the existing drainage system are recommended for properly managing storm
drainage from the roadway. The recommended storm drainage system improvements are
discussed later in this report.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
13
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
General Comments
Staff evaluated all of the streets listed in this report and compared visual observations to the projected 2015
PCI values calculated by the GoodPointe software. The estimated 2015 PCI values are in line with what staff
observed in the field. Some of the values may appear to be artificially low, however, the types and frequency
of the distresses can be seen in the segments, which validate the general condition of the street (marginal or
problem.)
Roselawn Avenue and Garden Avenue are designated on the City’s Municipal State Aid System (MSAS.) If
MSA dollars are to be used, these roadways must be maintained in accordance with MSA roadway
standards. Falcon Heights is considered a certified complete city, which means all designated MSA roads
within the City have been constructed to meet MSA standards. This means that the City is allowed to use
MSA funding on all city streets, whether or not they are designated as MSA roads.
Typically, designated State Aid streets that are rehabilitated must meet a 9‐ton design. However, streets
with average daily traffic volumes less than 5,000 vehicles per day may be built to meet a 7‐ton design. The
average daily traffic on Roselawn and Garden is 3,050 and 700‐1,100 vehicles per day, respectively.
All of the improved roadways will maintain their existing widths. By preserving the existing curb lines along
the roadways, the new vertical alignments will match the in‐place alignments. The streets have segments of
curb and gutter which have sunk, are deteriorated or have been damaged; spot curb replacement is
proposed as needed on each of the streets. Necessary corrections to the roadway subgrade will be made in
areas exhibiting more severe signs of distress or if poor soils are discovered prior to placing the bituminous
pavement. Recommended pavement designs for each street are discussed in the following sections.
No changes to parking are proposed on Roselawn Avenue or on either of the Snelling Avenue Service Drives.
Proposed parking restrictions on Garden Avenue are discussed in the following sections of this report.
During construction, staff will work with any property owners who wish to make driveway improvements
outside of the areas necessary for the street project. The cost of any private driveway improvements is the
property owner’s responsibility.
If driveways are impacted for spot curb removal or more extensive pavement/subgrade corrections, the
removed portion of the driveway will be replaced in‐kind with asphalt or concrete. Any sod that is damaged
as a result of the project will be replaced.
Special Considerations
All items in this section of the report have been presented and discussed with the residents during the public
involvement process.
A. Street Improvements
1. Roselawn Avenue (Fairview Avenue to Snelling Avenue)
Based on the existing conditions as previously outlined and as shown in the soil borings, City
staff recommends that Roselawn Avenue be improved with a bituminous reclamation.
Bituminous reclamation (or reclaim) involves grinding the existing asphalt surface and
underlying aggregate base together, which creates a new uniform roadway base material. Some
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
14
of the reclaimed material is then removed in order to meet the existing curb and gutter grades.
The new base will be graded and compacted in preparation for 4‐inches of new bituminous
pavement. This recommended improvement will meet the City’s and State Aid’s minimum
standards for reconditioning this roadway.
2. East Snelling Service Drive (Crawford Avenue to Roselawn Avenue) and West
Snelling Service Drive (Larpenteur Avenue‐BP Gas Station to Roselawn Avenue)
Due to the depth of the existing asphalt on the Snelling Avenue Service Drives, staff
recommends that these segments be milled and overlaid. The top 2.5 inches of the existing
pavement will be milled off. Any deficiencies noted in the pavement below will corrected, any
larger cracks are routed and sealed, and then 3 inches of new bituminous pavement will be
paved over the underlying existing pavement section.
3. Garden Avenue (Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue)
Based on the existing conditions as previously outlined and as shown in the soil borings, City
staff recommends that Garden Avenue be improved with a bituminous reclamation. Bituminous
reclamation (or reclaim) involves grinding the existing asphalt surface and underlying aggregate
base together, which creates a new uniform roadway base material. Some of the reclaimed
material is then removed in order to meet the existing curb and gutter grades. If any unsuitable
material is encountered during construction, it will be removed and replaced with reclaimed
material. The new base will be graded and compacted in preparation for 4‐inches of new
bituminous pavement. This recommended improvement will meet the City’s and State Aid’s
minimum standards for reconditioning this roadway.
Garden Avenue is 36 feet wide from Snelling to Holton, and currently allows parking on both
sides of the street. State Aid standards require a minimum street width of 38 feet for parking to
be allowed on both sides. As a result, staff is recommending changes to parking restrictions to
meet the State Aid standards. Staff is recommending an 8‐foot wide parking lane on the south
side of the street, two 11‐foot wide drive lanes, and a 6‐foot shoulder on the north side of the
street. The north side of the street would be posted no parking any time. Recommended
parking changes from the existing condition are shown in italics in the table below. These
changes will also facilitate a walking lane, which will be discussed in the next section of the
report. This change in parking would need to be formalized and adopted by City Council
resolution.
No change in parking or lane configuration is proposed from Holton to Hamline. The wider
street width allows for parking on both sides of the street.
Garden Avenue segment North side South side
Snelling Ave to Pascal St No parking any time No parking during State Fair
Pascal St to Holton St No parking any time No parking this side of street
Holton St to Albert St No parking any time No parking or stopping 8 am
to 5 pm on weekdays
Albert St to Hamline Ave Parking is allowed east of the
crosswalk
Parking is allowed
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
15
B. Pathway
1. Roselawn Avenue
The recommended improvement to the Roselawn pathway is to reclaim the existing
pavement. No major grade changes are proposed; minor grading will occur to ensure
positive drainage on the pathway. The pathway will be repaved with 2.5 inches of new
pavement.
2. Garden Avenue
The construction of a sidewalk on Garden Avenue was discussed in 2007, when the city
considered applying for a Safe Routes to School Grant. This project did not move forward,
due to negative resident feedback, as well as right‐of‐way needs and significant impacts to
driveways.
Staff’s proposal to restrict parking on the north side of Garden Avenue from Snelling to
Holton would provide a 6‐foot wide shoulder that could be utilized by bicyclists and
pedestrians. During final design, staff will investigate striping that would better delineate
the shoulder and be more noticeable to drivers. Since Garden Avenue is a designated MSA
street, any proposed striping plan would need to be approved by State Aid.
C. Utility Improvements
Existing manholes, gate valves, and other similar structures will be adjusted and repaired as
necessary as part of this project. The cost of underground utility improvements will be excluded
from the assessable portion of the project and financed by the appropriate utility funds.
City staff will coordinate with private utility owners such as gas, electric, cable television, and
telephone throughout the construction project.
1. Water System
City staff has contacted St. Paul Water Utility (SPWU) regarding the proposed 2015 project area.
Initial comments from SPWU indicate that the existing watermain within the project area does
not have a history of watermain breaks, and no improvements are scheduled. If any needed
improvements or repairs are identified during final design, City staff will work with SPWU to
incorporate the needed maintenance into the plans and specifications.
2. Sanitary Sewer System
The recommended sanitary sewer system improvements are relatively minor and include
maintenance on all manholes. Manhole castings will be replaced with new, standard sized
castings with concealed pick holes and chimney seals to reduce the potential for inflow and
infiltration.
All of the pipe segments within the project have been televised and inspected. The pipe within
the project area is in sufficient operating condition, however, staff is currently in the process of
obtaining bids for a sanitary sewer main lining project. The clay pipe is over 50 years old, and is
susceptible to root intrusion and cracking, which can cause infiltration. Cured‐in‐place pipe
lining is effective at eliminating infiltration and provides the structural integrity of a new pipe.
Lining is also a trenchless technology, which minimizes the need for excavation and major
disruption to the project area.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
16
3. Storm Sewer System and Water Quality
Public Works has identified several catch basins in need of replacement. The structures have
deteriorated to a point where it is more cost effective to replace the structure than it is to repair
the existing structure. On Roselawn Avenue, the existing catch basins also lack inlet capacity.
The new structures that will be installed will have grates that will allow more water to flow into
the structure more quickly. Temporary street flooding will still occur in larger rain events, but
the flooding will subside more quickly with the improved inlet capacity.
Areas identified with poor drainage will be analyzed in more detail during final design. Specific
locations identified during the field survey were at intersections with existing concrete valley
gutters, which are intended to guide runoff along the gutter line through the intersection to
reach the intended catch basin. However, since the pavement has heaved or sunk around the
concrete, the valley gutters are ineffective. These will be removed and replaced as needed, in
conjunction with additional improvements. Potential improvements to these areas include
extending storm sewer and installing new catch basins, or modifying the street grade to
improve the drainage flow towards existing catch basins.
Because the proposed project is considered rehabilitation, and not reconstruction, the project is
exempt from watershed requirements for water quality, and permits should not be required,
other than for erosion control.
a. Erosion Control
As part of the project plans and specifications, staff is required to prepare a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the purposes of enforcing erosion and sediment
control rules. The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control methods that will be
implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bio‐rolls, erosion control blanket, and
other best management practices will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet
protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during
construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces
throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Exposed soils and aggregate material
will be watered as needed as a dust‐control measure. An erosion and sediment control plan
sheet and storm water pollution prevention plan will be created during the design phase of
this project. Immediate turf establishment in areas of soil disturbance will be required such
as placing seed and erosion control blanket. After street and utility work is completed, sod
will be placed as the permanent turf establishment in all disturbed areas. The City, in
coordination with the watershed district, will closely monitor all erosion and sediment
control measures throughout the construction process. The selected contractor will be
required to install all preventative measures and maintain them as required by the City,
CRWD, MPCA, and other regulatory agencies.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
17
D. Permits
Permits may be required from the following agencies for the proposed project:
Agency Required Permit
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) NPDES Erosion & Storm water
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Storm water/Erosion control
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Storm water/Erosion control
Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT)
Right‐of‐way Permit
Ramsey County Right‐of‐way Permit
During final design for the project, City staff will confirm and coordinate with each of the
agencies as needed to ensure all requirements are met.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
18
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROPOSED FUNDING
Proposed project costs for the 2015 PMP Improvement Project (including bituminous streets, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, and restoration) are summarized below. The cost estimate is based on recent construction
projects of similar character and assumes that the proposed improvements would begin in 2015. Actual
costs will be determined through competitive bids following final design for the project. Therefore the actual
costs will be dependent upon the market conditions that exist at the time of the bidding.
Estimated
Cost* MSA
Street
Infrastructure
Funds
Assessments
Sanitary
Sewer
Fund
Storm Sewer
Fund
Street
Improvements** $911,834.67 $150,000.00 $328,470.81 $433,363.86 $0 $0
Pathway
Improvements $96,976.48 $0 $96,976.48 $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewer
Improvements** $88,605.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,605.97
Sanitary Sewer
Improvements $3,550.37 $0 $0 $0 $3,550.37 $0
Total $ 1,100,967.49 $150,000.00 $425,447.29 $433,363.86 $3,550.37 $88,605.97
*Includes 17% Engineering
**Costs for Roselawn are factored at 50% of the total estimated cost of construction; Roseville will
pay the other 50%
The proposed project is eligible for assessments according to the City of Falcon Heights Assessment Policy.
Per City Policy, a portion of the street improvements will be assessed to the benefitting properties. Along
with assessments, street costs will be financed through the Street Infrastructure Fund and Municipal State
Aid. Typically, only roads that have been added to the City’s Municipal State Aid system (MSA) are eligible for
funding through the City’s portion of state gas tax revenues. However, the City of Falcon Heights has a
Certified Municipal State Aid Street system. As a result, the City can use MSA funds to pay for the City’s
portion of the project costs.
Pathway improvements can be assessed per the Assessment Policy. However, given that the Roselawn
pathway is an existing facility, staff recommends not assessing property owners. This would be consistent
with past practice; the City has not assessed for sidewalk replacement in the Northome neighborhood.
Utility improvements will be funded from the appropriate infrastructure fund, and are not assessable.
Assessments will be levied to the benefitting properties as outlined in Minnesota State Statute Chapter 429
and the City’s Assessment Policy, which is summarized below. The assessed amount is levied on a front
footage basis.
Assuming this project is completed by fall 2015, the final assessment amount would be determined following
an assessment hearing in the fall of 2015 and a thorough review of the proposed assessments by the
Council.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
19
The following City of Falcon Heights assessment policies are being followed:
Corner lots assessed 100% long, 0% short side
If the property being assessed is a non‐single family residential parcel, both sides will be
assessed.
Questwood Townhomes access their private street off of the West Snelling Service Drive. The
frontage on the service drive that is owned by the townhome association is being divided by the
number of townhomes within the association. Each unit is proposed to be assessed an
equivalent amount.
Mill & Overlay and Reclaim Assessment Rates:
o Residential ‐ 40% of project cost
o Commercial and Multi‐Unit Residential ‐ 60% of project cost
o Tax‐exempt‐ 100% of project cost
The following deviations/differences from the City of Falcon Heights assessment policies are being
recommended:
The three longest long‐sides in the City are located within the proposed project: 227.08 feet on
Roselawn Avenue and 295.40 feet on Garden Avenue. Staff recommends the footage for these
parcels be adjusted to the longest front footage on the project, which is 176 feet on the West
Snelling Service Drive.
The University of Minnesota owned properties on Roselawn are tax‐exempt parcels, and have
been included in the preliminary assessment roll as such. The University, however, has provided
the City with statutory information that indicates University property is not subject to
assessments. The University Real Estate division has indicated that they are willing to consider a
payment in lieu of assessment. Staff expects that if a payment is offered, it may not be the full
amount that a typical tax‐exempt parcel would pay in assessments. This may result in a higher
City cost, which could be offset by using additional State Aid funds. Staff is continuing
conversations with the University and will update the City Council as information becomes
available.
All frontage along both sides of Snelling Avenue Service Drives were used to determine the per
foot assessment rate for the mill and overlay. Mn/DOT is not subject to assessments for the
frontage along Trunk Highway 51/Snelling Avenue. State Aid funds can be used to offset this
additional City cost.
The tables below list the breakdown of costs for the reclaim streets (Garden Avenue and Roselawn
Avenue), and mill and overlay streets (East and West Snelling Service Drives,) along with the frontage
and per foot rates based on percentage. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the end of this
report.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
20
Assessment Summary‐ Reclaim
Estimated total reclaim construction cost $562,515.60
Total Frontage 6,821.51 ft
Total Assessable Frontage 6,217.47 ft
Preliminary assessment rate:
100% of project cost/ foot $82.46
60% of project cost/ foot $49.48
40% of project cost/ foot $32.98
Assessment Summary‐ Mill and Overlay
Estimated total mill and overlay construction cost $341,263.65
Total Frontage 9,096.92 ft
Total Assessable Frontage 3,839.52 ft
Preliminary assessment rate:
60% of project cost/ foot $22.51
40% of project cost/ foot $15.01
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
21
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
If the City Council approves the project for construction the following is the recommended schedule for this
project.
City Council Receives Feasibility Report and Orders the Public
Improvement Hearing
January 28, 2015
Conduct Public Improvement Hearing and Order Preparation of
Plans and Specifications
February 25, 2015
City Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Orders Ad for Bids March 2015
Anticipated Bid Opening April 2015
City Council Accepts Bids and Awards the Construction Contract April 2015
Begin Construction May 2015
Complete Construction August 2015
City Council Conducts the Assessment Hearing September 2015
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
22
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
A. All portions of the project proposed are feasible.
B. Estimated project cost‐ $1,100,968
(cost includes 17% engineering)
The following is a summary of the recommendations discussed in this report.
A. Construct the project in 2015.
B. Construct the project as proposed in this report, with the following recommendations for
Garden Avenue:
1. Reconfigure Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Holton Street, to two 11‐foot wide
drive lanes, and 8‐foot parking lane and a 6‐foot wide shoulder to be designated as a
bike/pedestrian lane. Restrict parking on the north side of the street from Snelling to Holton.
C. Reconstruct the existing bituminous pathway on Roselawn Avenue.
D. Construct storm sewer improvements as described to address drainage concerns within the
project limits.
E. Fund the street construction with Municipal State Aid, street infrastructure funds, utility funds,
and assessments as detailed in this report.
F. Schedule a public hearing on Wednesday, February 25, 2015.
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
23
Exhibit A: Location Map
CommunityPark
CurtisField
GrovePark
University of MinnesotaGolf Course
LARPENTEUR AVE W
I N T E R C A M P U S T R A N S I T W
C L E V E L A N D A V E N
A R O N A S T
U N D E R W O O D S T N
G O R T N E R A V E
COMMONWEALTH AVE
F R Y S T
S N E L L I N G A V E N
S N E L L I N G A V E N
L I N D I G S T
C O S G R O V E S T N
BUFORD PL
S N E L L I N G A V E N
C L E V E L A N D A V E N
C L E V E L A N D A V E N
S N E L L I N G D R
D A N E L M E R W A Y
F I E L D A V E
F A I R V I E W A V E
C O F F M A N S T
FOLWELL AVE
E C K L E S A V E
DAN PATCH AVE
CRAWFORD AVE
S A I N T M A R Y S S T
M O O R E S T
LEE AVE
S T E V E N S S T N
B
U
F
O
R
D
C
I
R
MAPLE CT
L I G G E T T S T N
AUTUMN ST
FITCH AVE
L I N D I G A V E
C L O U G H S T N
QUESTWOOD DR
FIFIELD PL
B U R T O N S T
V
I
N
C
E
N
T
S
T
MAPLE KNOLL DR
HOLLYWOOD CT
C O S G R O V E S T
CARTER AVE N
S N E L L I N G A V E N
CALIFORNIA AVE W
MURPHY AVE
P R I O R A V E N
B O Y D A V E
GARDEN AVE
HENDON AVE
SUMMER ST S H E L D O N S T
CARTER AVE
FOLWELL AVE
F I F I E L D S T
A L B E R T S T N
P R I O R A V E N
H O W E L L S T N
T A T U M S T
F A I R V I E W A V E N
U
P
P
E
R
B
U
F
O
R
D CIR
BUFORD AVE
R A N D A L L A V E W
MINNESOTA AVE W
N E L S O N S T N
JUDSON AVE W
LARPENTEUR AVE W
C O O P E R S T N
U N D E R W O O D S T N WRIGHT AVE W
RANDALL AVE W
HOYT AVE W
GARDEN AVEGARDENAVE GARDEN AVEASBURY S T
S I M P S O N S T
RUGGLES ST
P A S C A L S T N
H O L T O N S T
A L B E R T S T N
H O L T O N S T
A R O N A S T
A L B E R T S T N
P A S C A L S T NIDAHO AVE W IDAHO AVE W
HOYT AVE W HOYT AVE W
IOWA AVE WIOWA AVE W
H A M L I N E A V E N
ROSELAWN AVE W
LARPENTEUR AVE WLARPENTEUR AVE W
M A P L E C T
ROSELAWN AVE W
H A M L I N E A V E N
JUDSON AVE W
K N A P P S T
GIBBS AVE
F I F I E L D A V ECOMMONWEALTH AVE
G O R T N E R A V E
BUFORD AVEBUFORD C I R
DUDLEY AVE
ROSELAWN AVE W
F U L H A M S T
N O R T H R O P A V E
C O F F M A N S T
F U L H A M S T
HOYT AVE W
F O LWEL L AV E
P R I O R A V E N
Prepared by:City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentDecember 8, 2014
mapdoc: 2015PMP.mxdmap: 2015PMP.pdf
Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/02/14)* City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentFor further information regarding the contents of this map contact:City of Roseville, Engineering Department,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN
DISCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Proposed 2015 PMPFH 15-07
´
0 250 500 750 1,000Feet
2015, Mill & Overlay
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
25
Exhibit B: Assessment Parcels
F A I R V I E W A V E N
GARDEN AVE
QUESTWOOD DR
ROSELAWN AVE WROSELAWN AVE WROSELAWN AVE W
1859
1865
1875
1905
1893
1592
1889
1907
1885
1911
1 6 0 3
1 6 6 5
1 6 5 5
1 6 4 5
1 6 3 5
1 6 1 5
15971625
1 6 0 9
1 6 3 3
1 6 1 7
1 6 4 9
1 6 4 1
1673
1 6 2 5
1 6 0 9
1 6 0 1
1 6 5 7
1665
24 2387
1941
33 20
1 7 3 9
1796
22
1 7 4 5
1946 89
1940 91 98
25
1 7 0 5
1 7 1 5
1 7 2 5
1 7 3 1
1 7 4 9
19
1 8 0 9
1813 1589
15 18
10093 14 1011
1 8 0 5
1 7 9 5
1 7 8 5
1 7 7 5
1 7 6 3
315.54'1426'574.51'227.08'
5 4 '
6 0 '
9 0 '
9 0 '
6 0 '
6 0 '
1 2 0 '
1 2 0 '
1 7 5 .4 7 '
8 0 .5 8 '
PIN: 162923430003 PIN: 162923430001 PIN: 162923410012
S N E L L I N G A V E N
Prepared by:City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentDecember 10, 2014 mapdoc: 2015PMP_Assessments.mxdmap: 2015PMP_Assessment.pdf
Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/02/14)* City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentFor further information regarding the contents of this map contact:City of Roseville, Engineering Department,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN
DISCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Proposed 2015 PMP Assessments- Garden AveFH 15-07 ´
0 50 100 150 200Feet
Assessable Parcels
Single Family Residential with Short Side Adjacent to Project, not Assessed
100'Assessable Frontage
A R O N A S T
F R Y S T
A S B U R Y S T
RUGGLES ST
S A I N T M A R Y S S T
MAPLE KNOLL DR
S N E L L I N G A V E N
S N E L L I N G A V E N
F R Y S T
S A I N T M A R Y S S T
F R Y S T
GARDEN AVE
GARDEN AVE GARDEN AVE
QUESTWOOD DR
A S B U R Y S T
A R O N A S T
A S B U R Y S T
A R O N A S T
CRAWFORD AVE
A R O N A S T
LARPENTEUR AVE W
ROSELAWN AVE WROSELAWN AVE W
LARPENTEUR AVE W
1601 1533-15571639
1859
1865
1875
1611
1900
1757
1746
1769
1729
1747
1710
17751776
1756
1728
1766
1720
1734 1735
1700
1905
1893
19101592
1 6 0 7
1776
1745
1691
1911
1775
1755
186718681867
1879
1892
1900 1901
1765
1725
1
5
9
2
1735
1604
1879 18821889
1766
1907
1756
1746
1885
1726
1736
1911
1791
1 9 1 1
1856
1864
1711
1713
1 6 0 3
1 8 7 7
1 8 7 0
1 8 8 5
1 8 8 0
1 9 1 0
1703
1777
1730
1740
1633
1 6 6 5
1 6 1 8
1887 1888
1893 1892
1700
1 6 1 0
1626
1653
1718
1615
1789
1646
1 6 2 8
1 6 5 5
1710
1 6 4 2
1 6 4 5
1656
1 5 1 1
1872
1 6 3 5
1876
1880
1887
1901
1893
1905
1915
1900
1908
1914
1 6 1 5
1 5 4 6
1 8 1 0
1 8 2 6
1 8 4 0
1 8 5 0
1 8 6 0
1 8 0 1
1 8 0 0
1 7 2 0
1 7 3 0
1 7 4 6
1 7 6 0
1 7 7 0
1 7 8 0
1 8 3 1
1771
1 5 0 4
1 5 0 6
1 5 1 0
1 5 1 61700
1765
1802 1803
1 7 2 5
1 7 3 5
1802 1803
1 5 2 2
1824
18111809
1745174417451744
1755175417551750
175917581758
176517641764
177117701770
177717761776
178517841784
179117901790
1795179417951794
1817181618171816
182518251824
182918291830
1835183418351834
1841184018411840
1847184618471846
185318541853
185918581859
186518641865
1811
1 5 2 6
1 8 5 1
1 5 3 2
1 5 3 8
1828
1 5 4 0
18101808
1732
1759
1 6 8 8
1717171817151539
1725172417251724
173117291728
17351731
174117411738
1597
1643
1 6 2 5
1591
1659
16161636
1654
1 6 0 9
1660
1 7 5 1
1 7 6 1
1 7 7 1
1 7 7 5
1 7 1 7
1 8 2 1
1 8 6 1
1 8 4 1
1 4 9 9
1 5 0 3
1 6 3 3
1 6 1 7
1 6 4 9
1 6 4 1
1673
1 6 2 5
1 6 0 9
1 6 0 1
1 6 5 7
1665
1 7 0 3 -1 7 1 1
574.51'227.08'
5 4 '
6 0 '
9 0 '
9 0 '
6 0 '
6 0 '
1 2 0 '
1 2 0 '
1 7 5 .4 7 '
8 0 .5 8 '
9 6 .8 '
9 6 .8 '
9 6 .8 '
9 6 .8 '
9 6 .8 '
9 6 .8 '
2 9 0 .4 '
1 5 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
65'1 1 7 .9 4 '
1 2 1 .1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 4 8 .5 3 '
1 4 8 .5 3 '
1 4 8 .5 4 '
1 4 8 .5 4 '
133.53'133.53'
133.55'133.55'133.55'133.55'
133.53'133.53'
Prepared by:City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentDecember 15, 2014
mapdoc: 2015PMP_Assessments.mxdmap: 2015PMP_Assessment.pdf
Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/02/14)* City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentFor further information regarding the contents of this map contact:City of Roseville, Engineering Department,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MNDISCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Proposed 2015 PMP Assessments- Snelling AveFH 15-07 ´
0 40 80 120 160Feet
100'Assessable Frontage
Assessable ParcelsSingle Family with Rear Lot Frontage,not AssessedSingle Family Residential with Short Side Adjacent to Project, not Assessed
A R O N A S T
GARDEN AVE
H O L T O N S T
A S B U R Y S T
S I M P S O N S T
RUGGLES ST RUGGLES AVE
S N E L L I N G A V E N
S N E L L I N G A V E N
S H E L D O N S T
A L B E R T S T N
GARDEN AVE GARDEN AVE
A S B U R Y S T
A R O N A S T
S I M P S O N S T
RUGGLES ST
P A S C A L S T N
P A S C A L S T N
H O L T O N S T
A L B E R T S T N
H O L T O N S T
H A M L I N E A V E N1393
1840
1795
1757
1794
1800
1763
1771
1750
1758
1764
1770
1788
17751776
17811780
178917971803
186718681867 1868
1879
1892
188118791882
1806
1880
1888
1791
1856
1864
1 8 7 7
1 8 7 0
1 8 8 5
1 8 8 0
1777
1852
1811
1870
1878
1884
1864
1887 1888
1869
1877
1883
1863
1883
1807
1849
1821
1827
1835
1843
1869
1789
1818
18351840
18431848
18491852
18571860
1864 1865
1872 1869
1878 1877
18811884
18711872
1876
1880
1873
1887
1877
1863
1 8 1 0
1884
1865
1871
1877
1883
1 8 2 6
1 8 4 0
1 8 5 0
1 8 6 0
1870
1878
1776
1 8 0 1
1 8 0 0
1864
1 7 6 0
1 7 7 0
1 7 8 0
1795
1 8 3 1
1800
1796
1765
1816
1874
1771
1844
1834
1824
1753
1765
1771
1868
1825
1830
1754
1802 1803
1880
1775
1802 1803 1801
1781
1820
1802
1824
1803
1811
175717531754
17571758
17651764
17711770
1776 1775
1791
1784 1783
1790
1811
1791
1756
1 8 0 9
1886
17541755175417551750
1758175917581758
1764176517641764
1770177117701770
1776177717761776
1784178517841784
1790179117901790
1795 1794179417951794
18161817
1755
181618171816
1824182518251824
18281829
1759
18291830
18341835183418351834
184018411840
1765
18411840
18461847184618471846
185218531854
1771
1853
1858185918581859
1782
186418651864
1775
1865
1785
1791
1795
1811
1817
1835
1841
1847
1853
1859
1865
1766
1 8 5 1
1770
1850
1828
1810
1864
18101808 1810
1829
1790
1759
1 7 5 1
1 7 6 1
1 7 7 1
1 7 7 5
1 8 2 1
1 8 6 1
1 8 4 1
H
A
M
L
I
N
E
A
V
E
N
H
A
M
L
I
N
E
A
V
E
N
1830
1778 - 1780
1770 - 1772
1760 - 1762
1754 - 1756
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
1 1 5 '
65'1 1 7 .9 4 '
1 2 1 .1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 1 9 '
1 4 8 .5 3 '
1 4 8 .5 3 '
133.53'133.53'
133.55'133.55'133.55'133.55'
133.53'133.53'133.53'
133.55'133.20'
133.18'
268.94'
134.48'134.48'132.94'
132.98'135.98'295.40'295.40'
167'664.84'
Prepared by:City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentDecember 15, 2014 mapdoc: 2015PMP_Assessments.mxdmap: 2015PMP_Assessment.pdf
Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/02/14)* City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentFor further information regarding the contents of this map contact:City of Roseville, Engineering Department,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN
DISCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Proposed 2015 PMP Assessments- Garden AveFH 15-07 ´
0 50 100 150 200Feet
Assessable Parcels
Single Family Residential with Short Side Adjacent to Project, not Assessed
100'Assessable Frontage
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
29
Exhibit C: Preliminary Assessment Roll
40
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
40
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
60
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
60
%
4
9
.
4
8
$
10
0
%
3
7
.
5
1
$
10
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
Pa
r
c
e
l
I
D
S
i
t
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
i
t
e
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
e
Z
I
P
Fr
o
n
t
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
ra
t
e
%
Pe
r
fo
o
t
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
s
RE
C
L
A
I
M
15
2
9
2
3
3
1
0
0
5
9
1
8
0
6
Pa
s
c
a
l
St
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
1
0
1
3
4
.
4
8
1
3
4
.
4
8
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
3
5
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
1
0
0
6
0
1
8
1
1
Ho
l
t
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
2
3
1
3
4
.
4
8
1
3
4
.
4
8
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
11
,
0
8
9
.
2
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
1
0
0
7
9
1
8
1
0
Ho
l
t
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
3
2
1
3
2
.
9
4
1
3
2
.
9
4
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
3
8
4
.
3
6
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
0
7
Ha
m
l
i
n
e
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
3
0
1
6
7
.
0
0
1
6
7
.
0
0
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
5,
5
0
7
.
6
6
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
1
0
1
0
8
1
3
9
3
Ga
r
d
e
n
Av
e
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
5
2
6
6
4
.
8
4
6
6
4
.
8
4
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
54
,
8
2
2
.
7
1
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
3
1
8
0
9
As
b
u
r
y
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
4
2
7
8
.
5
3
0
.
0
0
‐
$
sh
o
r
t
si
d
e
,
no assessment
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
4
1
8
1
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
7
8
.
5
3
0
.
0
0
‐
$
sh
o
r
t
si
d
e
,
no assessment
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
6
8
1
8
1
1
Ar
o
n
a
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
3
8
1
3
3
.
5
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
3
.
8
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
6
9
1
8
0
8
As
b
u
r
y
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
4
1
1
3
3
.
5
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
3
.
8
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
8
7
1
8
1
1
Si
m
p
s
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
4
4
1
3
3
.
5
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
3
.
8
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
8
8
1
8
1
0
Ar
o
n
a
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
3
7
1
3
3
.
5
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
3
.
8
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
1
0
7
1
8
1
1
Pa
s
c
a
l
St
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
5
0
1
3
3
.
1
8
1
3
3
.
1
8
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
3
9
2
.
2
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
1
0
8
1
8
1
0
Si
m
p
s
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐61
4
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
1
3
3
.
5
3
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
3
.
8
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
8
0
3
Pa
s
c
a
l
St
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
6
0
1
3
3
.
2
0
1
3
3
.
2
0
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
3
9
2
.
9
4
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
3
0
1
8
0
2
Si
m
p
s
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
6
1
1
3
3
.
5
5
1
3
3
.
5
5
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
4
.
4
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
3
1
1
8
0
3
Si
m
p
s
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
5
7
1
3
3
.
5
5
1
3
3
.
5
5
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
4
.
4
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
5
9
1
8
0
2
Ar
o
n
a
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
4
8
1
3
3
.
5
5
1
3
3
.
5
5
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
4
.
4
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
6
0
1
8
0
3
Ar
o
n
a
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
4
7
1
3
3
.
5
5
1
3
3
.
5
5
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
4
.
4
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
8
8
1
8
0
2
As
b
u
r
y
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
5
0
1
3
3
.
5
5
1
3
3
.
5
5
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
0
4
.
4
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
8
9
1
8
0
1
As
b
u
r
y
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
4
9
7
8
.
5
5
0
.
0
0
‐
$
sh
o
r
t
si
d
e
,
no assessment
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
9
0
1
8
0
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
7
8
.
5
5
0
.
0
0
‐
$
sh
o
r
t
si
d
e
,
no assessment
15
2
9
2
3
3
4
0
0
0
1
1
8
0
3
Ha
m
l
i
n
e
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
2
1
2
9
5
.
4
0
1
7
6
.
0
0
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
5,
8
0
4
.
4
8
$
re
d
u
c
e
d
lo
n
g
side
15
2
9
2
3
3
4
0
0
4
4
1
8
0
0
Al
b
e
r
t
St
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
1
1
2
9
5
.
4
0
1
7
6
.
0
0
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
5,
8
0
4
.
4
8
$
re
d
u
c
e
d
lo
n
g
side
15
2
9
2
3
3
4
0
0
4
5
1
8
0
1
Al
b
e
r
t
St
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
1
0
1
3
5
.
9
8
1
3
5
.
9
8
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
4
8
4
.
6
2
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
4
0
0
8
1
1
8
0
0
Ho
l
t
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
2
4
1
3
2
.
9
8
1
3
2
.
9
8
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
4,
3
8
5
.
6
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
4
0
0
8
2
1
7
9
5
Ho
l
t
o
n
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
2
3
2
6
8
.
9
4
2
6
8
.
9
4
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
22
,
1
7
6
.
7
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
5
9
2
Ro
s
e
l
a
w
n
Av
e
WF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
1
9
2
2
7
.
0
8
1
7
6
.
0
0
4
0
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
5,
8
0
4
.
4
8
$
re
d
u
c
e
d
lo
n
g
side
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
1
2
0
Un
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
5
7
4
.
5
1
5
7
4
.
5
1
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
47
,
3
7
4
.
0
9
$
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
of Minnesota
16
2
9
2
3
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
Un
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
4
2
6
.
0
0
1
4
2
6
.
0
0
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
11
7
,
5
8
7
.
9
6
$
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
of Minnesota
16
2
9
2
3
4
3
0
0
0
3
0
Un
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
3
1
5
.
5
4
3
1
5
.
5
4
1
0
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
26
,
0
1
9
.
4
3
$
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
of Minnesota
Mi
l
l
an
d
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
:
R
e
c
l
a
i
m
:
40
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
40
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
60
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
60
%
4
9
.
4
8
$
10
0
%
3
7
.
5
1
$
10
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
Pa
r
c
e
l
I
D
S
i
t
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
i
t
e
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
e
Z
I
P
Fr
o
n
t
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
ra
t
e
%
Pe
r
fo
o
t
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
s
Mi
l
l
an
d
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
:
R
e
c
l
a
i
m
:
MI
L
L
& OV
E
R
L
A
Y
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
4
4
1
8
7
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
4
8
.
5
3
1
4
8
.
5
3
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
2,
2
2
9
.
4
4
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
4
5
1
8
8
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
4
8
.
5
3
1
4
8
.
5
3
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
2,
2
2
9
.
4
4
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
4
6
1
9
0
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
4
8
.
5
4
1
4
8
.
5
4
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
2,
2
2
9
.
5
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
4
7
1
9
1
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
4
8
.
5
4
1
4
8
.
5
4
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
2,
2
2
9
.
5
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
4
1
8
1
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
2
1
.
1
9
1
2
1
.
1
9
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
8
1
9
.
0
6
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
5
1
8
2
6
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
9
.
0
0
1
1
9
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
8
6
.
1
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
6
1
8
4
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
9
.
0
0
1
1
9
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
8
6
.
1
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
7
1
8
5
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
9
.
0
0
1
1
9
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
8
6
.
1
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
2
0
0
5
8
1
8
6
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
9
.
0
0
1
1
9
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
8
6
.
1
9
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
9
0
1
8
0
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
7
.
9
4
1
1
7
.
9
4
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
7
0
.
2
8
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
9
1
1
7
8
9
As
b
u
r
y
St
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐62
4
9
6
5
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
‐
$
th
r
o
u
g
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
no assessment
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
0
9
9
1
7
2
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
0
1
7
3
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
1
1
7
4
6
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
3
4
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
2
1
7
6
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
3
1
7
7
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
15
2
9
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
4
1
7
8
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
1
1
5
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
7
2
6
.
1
5
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
5
9
2
Ro
s
e
l
a
w
n
Av
e
WF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
1
9
8
0
.
6
5
0
.
0
0
‐
$
sh
o
r
t
si
d
e
,
no assessment
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
2
1
9
1
1
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
5
4
.
0
0
5
4
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
81
0
.
5
4
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
3
1
9
0
7
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
6
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
90
0
.
6
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
4
1
9
0
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
9
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
3
5
0
.
9
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
7
1
8
8
9
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
6
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
90
0
.
6
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
8
1
8
8
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
6
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
90
0
.
6
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
9
1
8
7
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
1
2
0
.
0
0
1
2
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
8
0
1
.
2
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
1
0
1
8
6
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
7
1
2
0
.
0
0
1
2
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
8
0
1
.
2
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
2
0
1
6
0
3
Ga
r
d
e
n
Av
e
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
3
2
2
7
.
5
6
0
.
0
0
‐
$
th
r
o
u
g
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
no assessment
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
2
1
1
5
9
7
Ga
r
d
e
n
Av
e
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
3
2
1
3
8
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
‐
$
th
r
o
u
g
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
no assessment
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
2
2
1
5
9
1
Ga
r
d
e
n
Av
e
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
3
2
1
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
‐
$
th
r
o
u
g
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
no assessment
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
2
9
1
8
9
3
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
5
6
9
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
3
5
0
.
9
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
0
1
8
5
9
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
7
1
7
5
.
4
7
1
7
5
.
4
7
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
2,
6
3
3
.
8
0
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
3
1
6
7
3
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
4
1
6
6
5
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
5
1
6
5
7
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
6
1
6
4
9
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
7
1
6
4
1
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
8
1
6
3
3
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
4
9
1
6
2
5
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
5
0
1
6
1
7
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
5
1
1
6
0
9
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
5
2
1
6
0
1
Qu
e
s
t
w
o
o
d
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐56
0
0
8
.
0
5
8
8
.
0
5
8
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
18
1
.
3
9
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
1
0
0
5
4
0
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
80
.
5
8
to
t
a
l
footage for Questwood
40
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
40
%
3
2
.
9
8
$
60
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
60
%
4
9
.
4
8
$
10
0
%
3
7
.
5
1
$
10
0
%
8
2
.
4
6
$
Pa
r
c
e
l
I
D
S
i
t
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
i
t
e
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
e
Z
I
P
Fr
o
n
t
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
Fo
o
t
a
g
e
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
ra
t
e
%
Pe
r
fo
o
t
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
s
Mi
l
l
an
d
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
:
R
e
c
l
a
i
m
:
MI
L
L
& OV
E
R
L
A
Y
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
0
1
1
5
9
2
Ma
p
l
e
Kn
o
l
l
Dr
F
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
3
3
1
9
6
.
2
0
0
.
0
0
‐
$
th
r
o
u
g
h
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
,
no assessment
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
5
9
1
7
7
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
0
1
7
6
9
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
1
1
7
5
7
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
2
1
7
4
7
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
3
1
7
3
5
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
4
1
7
2
9
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
9
6
.
8
0
9
6
.
8
0
4
0
%
1
5
.
0
1
$
1,
4
5
2
.
9
7
$
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
6
7
1
6
9
1
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
1
5
5
.
0
0
5
9
.
0
0
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
1,
3
2
8
.
0
9
$
no
t
al
l
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
impacted by road project
16
2
9
2
3
4
4
0
0
7
3
1
7
0
1
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Av
e
NF
a
l
c
o
n
He
i
g
h
t
s
MN
55
1
1
3
‐57
2
5
2
9
0
.
4
0
2
9
0
.
4
0
6
0
%
2
2
.
5
1
$
6,
5
3
6
.
9
0
$
Ea
s
t
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
2
1
2
1
.
3
3
0
.
0
0
‐
$
Tr
u
n
k
Hig
h
w
a
y
51
We
s
t
Sn
e
l
l
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
24
3
2
.
6
6
0
.
0
0
‐
$
Tr
u
n
k
Hig
h
w
a
y
51
2015 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Report
33
Exhibit D: Soil Boring Logs
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
January 28, 2015
No. 15-02
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions of the Council adopted September 10, 2014, and December
10, 2014, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of
the following streets:
Roselawn Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue
East Snelling Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to Crawford Avenue
West Snelling Service Drive, from Roselawn Avenue to BP gas station
Garden Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Hamline Avenue
and this report was received by the Council on January 28, 2015, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in
connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for
affected parcels.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Falcon Heights,
Minnesota:
1. The council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and
the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,100,968.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 25th day of February,
2015 in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the City Administrator shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moved by: Approved by: ________________________
Peter Lindstrom
Mayor
January 28, 2015
LINDSTROM ____ In Favor Attested by: ________________________
LONG Bart Fischer
HARRIS ____ Against City Administrator
BROWN THUNDER January 28, 2015
MERCER-TAYLOR