The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-04-2019 Council PacketCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, February 4, 2019 Community Room 6:00 P.M. 1. Repair of Judicial Ditch 3, Phil Belfiori (RCWD) 2. 49 & J Redevelopment, Mike Grochala, Terri Heaton (Springsted), Lyngblomsten 3. Review Public Works Facility Concept Plans - Oertel Architects, Rick DeGardner 4. Recreation Complex Discussion, Rick DeGardner 5. Methods of Financing Public Facilities, Terri Heaton (Springsted, Inc.) 6. PermitWorks/Laserfiche Integration Project, Sarah Cotton 7. Emerald Ash Borer Update, Marty Asleson 8. Sale of Wetland Bank Credits, Michael Grochala 9. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 10. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson 11. Comprehensive Plan Update/Schedule, Michael Grochala 12. Review Regular Agenda 13. Adjourn WS — Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Request from RCWD to Repair Judicial Ditch 3 Background The Rice Creek Watershed District needs municipal approval to repair Anoka - Washington Judicial Ditch 3. The ditch is located at Clearwater Creek. A map is attached with the approximate location. A resolution consenting to RCWD's request was included on the November 26 agenda, but the Council wanted more details about the project. RCWD Administrator Phil Belfiori and RCWD Engineer Chris Otterness will be present to give an overview of the project and to answer questions. Attachments Letter from Rice Creek Watershed District Location Map for Judicial Ditch 3 Resolution No. 18-170 Requested Council Direction Inclusion of Resolution No. 18-170 on the February 11 agenda, approving RCWD's request to repair Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch 3. RCWD orr,�RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT November 14, 2018 City of Lino Lakes c/o Jeff Karlson, Administrator 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Municipal Concurrence under Statutes Section 103D.621 for Repair of Anoka - Washington Judicial Ditch 3 Dear Mayors and Council, The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the Drainage Authority for Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch (AWJD 3) which traverses portions of your Cities. The RCWD Board is considering a repair of AWJD 3 to be completed in 2019-20. As part of its management of public drainage systems, the RCWD Board utilizes authorities given in statutes chapters 103E, 103B and 103D. AWJD 3, in particular, is designated for management as a part of the RCWD's trunk conveyance system. As part of the trunk system, costs on AWJD 3 are paid from general taxes throughout the RCWD — rather than benefitted lands assessment as traditionally required under statutes chapter 103E. The authority of the RCWD to manage AWJD 3 as part of the trunk system requires municipal concurrent under statutes section 103D.621, subd. 4. The RCWD Board requests your concurrence in order to facilitate prompt repair of AWJD 3. Please consider the attached resolution. If you have questions, please direct them to our administrator, Phil Belfiori, at (763) 398-3071. For the Board of Managers, Sincerely, Patricia Preiner Board President 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #6-1 I Blaine, MN 55449 I T: 763-398-307o I F: 763-398-3088 I www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Michael J. Bradley Barbara A. Haake Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Location Map of Anoka -Washington JD #3 W AVE N .41 M1 VaAOI x 0 0 0 — — 0 - 2 Let th •J ••••11111 0 / V r r-- 1 / au NdlUdp 4 \ m 0 0 VAP r -4 x • • I \ \ i • 2 0 /3H tl3ddfl a 2 Ul 0 \ \\- HARROW AVE N 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 18-170 RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT'S REQUEST TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS FOR ANOKA-WASHINGTON JUDICIAL DITCH 3 UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 103D WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the drainage authority for Anoka - Washington Judicial Ditch 3 (the "Drainage System"); and WHEREAS, RCWD is proceeding on a petition to repair the Drainage System; WHEREAS, the RCWD Engineer is preparing a repair report recommending a repair option that balances the drainage function of the Drainage System with ecological concerns in the watershed; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 103D.621, subd. 4, grants RCWD the authority to undertake proceedings related to the Drainage System in accordance with the Watershed Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D) rather than the Drainage Code (Minnesota Statues, Chapter 103E), subject to concurrence by city councils and town boards where the Drainage System is located; and WHEREAS, RCWD has requested concurrence from the City of Lino Lakes to conduct the necessary proceedings related to the Drainage System under the Watershed Law rather than the Drainage Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of conducting proceedings under the Watershed Law is to provide consistent management of all drainage systems under RCWD management, comprehensive wetland management, and appropriate administration of resource management plans; and WHEREAS, conducting the proceedings under the Watershed Law will facilitate flexibility in financing the recommended repair option. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the City consents to RCWD's request to conduct proceedings for Anoka -Washington Judicial Ditch 3 under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this l lth day of February 2019. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk WS — Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: 49 & J Redevelopment - Lyngblomsten Background Staff has been working with Lyngblomsten, a senior care provider, regarding construction of a senior community in the northwest quadrant of the Hodgson Road (CSAH 49) and County Road J (Ash Street) intersection. The concept plan for the development was previously reviewed by City Advisory Boards and the City Council in 2018. Lyngblomsten has submitted a formal application for preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) development stage plan approvals. A public hearing scheduled for the February 13, 2019 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The intersection of 49 & J is a major gateway into the city and has been a high priority redevelopment objective over the past 20 years. The site has been the focus of several proposed commercial/residential development proposals. However it has proven to be a challenge for development/redevelopment due to a number of factors including: • lack of public utilities • inadequate transportation infrastructure • multiple property owners/businesses • meeting neighborhood/community expectations • development timing Over the past six months Lyngblomsten has been working to overcome these challenges, as well as address comments received from residents, advisory boards, and the City Council. Lyngblomsten has incorporated the 4 corner properties into the site plan, obtaining purchase options on each. They have also been working with Anoka and Ramsey County Highway Departments to address some of the existing traffic concerns. While still under review, the overall plan has addressed a number of long standing city goals for the area. As part of the development process Lyngblomsten has inquired about opportunities for financial assistance, citing both extraordinary public improvement and land assembly costs. While no formal application has been received at this time, staff believes there is merit in having a preliminary discussion regarding any proposed assistance. As with any financial assistance request the City would work with Springsted to examine conformance with the City's Business Subsidy Policy. Any proposed assistance will be evaluated to determine need, and satisfaction of economic development goals including but not limited to: • tax base diversification and creation, • job creation, • public improvement benefits • satisfaction of city redevelopment objectives. Assistance for redevelopment of the area has been contemplated for a number of years. The 49 & J master plan (2007) identified the possible use of financial assistance for redevelopment of the area. In 2016 the City entered into a predevelopment agreement with the owner of the 49 Club property. This agreement preserved the opportunity to establish a tax increment district as part of the site building demolition completed in that same year. The City's last Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district was completed in 2015 as part of the Distribution Alternatives facility along the 35E Corridor. Terry Heaton, from Springsted will be present to discuss process and available tools for assistance. Representatives from Lyngblomsten will be present to discuss the project and its anticipated benefits. Requested Council Direction None required. Discussion only. Attachments 1. Proposed Site Plan 2. 3D Model of Site 3. Business Subsidy Policy 4. Springsted Memo, dated February 4, 2019 •• 3 • 4 • 6 8 9 • 10 • A V \ B C D E F C 4AT/LINE GARDEN AREA , WETLAND 1 7 EXITING 2YR HWL = 899.65 PROFIIDSED 2YR HWL = 899.67 / EXISTING 10YR HWL = 900.13 PROPOSED 10YR HWL = 900.0911 EXISTING 100YR HWL = 900.52 PROPOSED 100YR HWL = 900.35€ '{s. NORTHWESTNP&RKING 5 TOTAL ST ZS ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 0 LOT 10 \L 9'X20• STALLS (TYP) / D412 LOT 11 LOT 13 LOT 12 X % X % Y Y X i= X X % Y i= X=%��'-x x " X��Yr X-. 11 It 1 I I I 1 LOT 14 LOT 3 J I LOT 2 ,:., ��I��i%7�� / % / ,,0,-, / L!/1Ii��/ PAVEME/HEAVY TY/:0" / ' j / / ■■ 1� A / / 11� I!� 'I! _ MI■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■Ic■, / / j .+}I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NI■■■■■■ ■■■■■■'■�� 1■■I ■■■ r / / ■■■ ■■ ■■■ -, IL.1\ 1■■I ■■■ 1 j ■■■ ■■ ■■■ '\IEL MEI I INN MN MN INN INC! I ; �_ 1 IMMI LOT 16 ; ■ .I MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT BHCIVSE PARKING TOTAL STALLS ACCESSIB STALLS REQUIRED CCESSIBLE ALLS PROVIDED = HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT O A PR NORTHEAST PARKING 6 TOTAL STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 0 LOT 15 4" PAINT STRIPE @ 3' O.C. WITH WORDS "NO PARKING" (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL (TYP) CLUB REFER TO A FOR LA DIMENSIONS LAYOUT 9 20 S LL (TYP) B612 7L \1L r `■■■■■■1.0•10X- ■■■■■■pr _\�1•— HOUSE gbh- -"WNW AND AI AI `1111\- \\. jr i PROVOSED PI OPERSY LINE / / / / PROPOSED ERTY LINE B612 CONCRETE ENTRANCE SED RTY LINE RETAINING WALL 6612 II IL 11 / 1,/, 4 ,, /, 1: \/ / / • / ie \/ / /:;e1;1 / HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT r LOT 17 CONCRETE ENTRANCE STALLS (TYP) 45° PARKING (TYPICAL) STALLS (TYP) PROP ROP SED RTY LI MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT LOT 18 STALLS (TYP) MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT 4" WHITE PAINT STRIPE MAIN BUILDING REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL FOR LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS RETAINING WALL CONCRETE ENTRANCE B612 \\\S\ LOT 20 MAIN PARKING PROPOSED PERTY LINE °41.$0 PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYPICAL) , B612 78 TOTAL STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 4 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 7 STALLS (TYP) P ACCESSIBLE PROP Y LINE SIGN (TYP) 4" PAINT STRIPE @ 3' 0.C. WITH WORDS "NO PARKING" (TYP) ACCESBIBLE SYMBOL (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL (TYP) RESTAUR NT PARKING 47 TOT ACCESSIBLE ST ACCESSIBLE ST L STALLS LLS REQUIRED = 2 LLS PROVIDED = 3 SIOUTH PARKING 76 TOTAL STALLS PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW (TYPICAL) PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE 9'X20' STALLS (TYP) RESTAURANT REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL FOR LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS ACCESSIBLE SIGN (TYP) 0.C. WITH WORDS "NO PARKING" (TYP) PAINTED DI CTIONAL ARRO (TYPICAL) 0.C. WITH WORDS "NO PARKING" (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SIGN (TYP) ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL (TYP) OPOSED PROP .RTY LINE HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET C1.21, SITE PLAN NORTH, FOR NOTES. 2. REFER TO SHEET C1.31, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NORTH, FOR GENERAL NOTES. SITE STATISTICS: NORTHEAST PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 6 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 0 NORTHWEST PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 5 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 0 CLUBHOUSE PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 14 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 2 RESTAURANT PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 47 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 2 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 3 SOUTH PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 76 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 4 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 4 MAIN PARKING TOTAL STALLS = 78 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED = 4 ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 7 SIGNAGE KEY NOTES VISITOR PARKING (30"x30") MnMUTCD R5-1 (30"x30") SIMILAR TO MnMUTCD R7-5 LEGEND • • 01 6_ REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM) PROPOSED CONCRETE WALK 47 PROPOSED CONCRETE SLAB PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN SIGNAGE KEY NOTE PROPOSED BOLLARD PAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL PROPOSED MANHOLE (MH) PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB) PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION (FES) PROPOSED HYDRANT (HYD) PROPOSED GATE VALVE (GV) PROPOSED POST INDICATOR VALVE (PIV) PROPOSED FLAGPOLE - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED LIGHT POLE - REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS PROPERTY LINE LYNGBLOMSTEN SENIOR COMMUNITIES HODGSON ROAD LINO LAKES, MN 55014 LYNGBLOMSTEN 1415 ALMOND AVE W ST. PAUL, MN 55108 WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, MN 55101 ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, 1X10111/ INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • SITE PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD • SUITE 200 • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA DAVID A. REY Registration Number 40180 Date XXXX Revisions Description Date Num Comm: XXX Date: XXXX Drawn: BJD North SITE PLAN OVERALL 7-77° C1.20 CITY OF LINO LAKES LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA (Revised June 13, 2016) Section 1. Purpose; Statutory Compliance 1.01 The purpose of this document is to establish the criteria to be considered by the City of Lino Lakes (the "City") and the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") in processing, evaluating and reviewing requests for business subsidies. It is the intent of the City and the EDA in adopting these revised criteria to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidy Act"). The City and the EDA hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Business Subsidy Act for application in the criteria. 1.02. Business subsidy criteria were adopted by the City on July 23, 2001, revised on June 23, 2003 and are hereby further revised. The Board of the EDA adopted the revised business subsidy criteria on the date hereof. The City and the EDA have the option to amend these criteria again in the future if doing so is determined necessary or appropriate. Amendments to these criteria are subject to the public hearing requirements of the Business Subsidy Act. 1.03. These criteria are intended to set specific minimum requirements which recipients must meet to be eligible to receive business subsidies. Neither the City nor the EDA will adopt business subsidy criteria on a case by case basis. 1.04. In accordance with the Business Subsidy Act, all business subsidy requests must comply with the Business Subsidy Act and other applicable Minnesota statutes. The City's and the EDA's ability to grant business subsidies is subject to the limitations established in the Business Subsidy Act. Section 2. Goals, Objectives, and Requirements 2.01 It is the City's and the EDA's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: (a) Projects must be consistent with City's comprehensive plan and any other similar plan or guide for development of the community. (b) Business subsidies will not be provided to projects which have the financial feasibility to proceed without a public subsidy. 2.02 When applying for a business subsidy, potential recipients will be required to provide such studies, reports, appraisals, financial information or other data as may be requested by the City or the EDA prior to consideration of a request for a business subsidy. 479195v2 2.03 Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the recipient must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test, if applicable, and any TIF policy adopted by the City or the EDA. The recipient will be required to provide all documentation necessary for the City or the EDA to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Business Subsidy Act. 2.04 Recipients will be required to enter into an agreement with the City or the EDA which is consistent with statutory requirements and which contains measurable, specific and tangible goals. The agreement must include a commitment to remain in business in Lino Lakes for a minimum of five years after the benefit date (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act, benefit date means the date the item or work paid for with the business subsidy is placed in service), unless waived by the City or the EDA, and a requirement to comply with the specific job and wage goals established for the project, if any. Section 3. Business Subsidy Criteria 3.01 The City and the EDA recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or to establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The City and the EDA may modify these criteria from time to time and reserves the right to evaluate each project on its individual merits. The City and the EDA may deviate from these criteria by documenting in writing the reason for the deviation and attaching a copy of the document to its next annual report to the Minnesota state agency charged with administration thereof. 3.02 The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: (a) Public purpose. A business subsidy must meet a public purpose, including but not limited to increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be considered a public purpose if the loss of jobs is specific and demonstrable. (b) Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole rounds for granting a subsidy, the City and the EDA believe it is a necessary condition for any subsidy. (c) Jobs and Wages. In instances in which job creation is determined to be a goal, the City and the EDA will review all of the unique circumstances surrounding the proposed development to determine how many jobs should be required in exchange for the proposed subsidy. If job creation is determined to be one of the main goals of a proposed development, it is the City's and the EDA's intent that the recipient create the maximum number of livable wage jobs at the site, with no fewer than 5 jobs. This may include jobs to be retained but only if retention is specific and demonstrable. The job and wage goal must be attained within two years of the benefit date (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act). The City and the EDA may, after a 479195v2 public hearing, extend for up to one year the period for meeting the job and wage goal. Qualifying jobs are those which pay, at a minimum, 110 percent of the federal minimum wage, plus benefits. Any deviation from the established wage level must be documented in conformity with the requirements set forth in the Business Subsidy Act. If the City or the EDA, following a public hearing, determines that job creation or retention is not part of the public purpose of the subsidy, the wage and job goal may be set at zero. (d) Economic Development. Projects should promote one or more of the following: 1. Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; 2. Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development within an area; 3. Increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast growing or other desirable businesses to locate or expand within the community; 4. Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; 5. Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; 6. Promote additional or spin-off development within the community; 7. Development of safe and affordable housing; or 8. Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. Section 4. Compliance and Reporting Requirements 5.01 Any subsidy granted by the City or the EDA will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing if necessary. 5.02 It will be necessary for both the recipient and the City or the EDA to comply with reporting and monitoring requirements of the Business Subsidy Act. 5.03 A recipient may be authorized to move from the City within five years of the benefit date (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) only if, after a public hearing, the City or EDA approves the request to move. The City or EDA may discontinue the subsidy if the recipient moves from the City. 479195v2 la Springsted MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Sarah Cotton, Finance Director Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Tel: 651-223-3000 Fax: 651-223-3002 www.springsted.com FROM: Mikaela Huot, Vice President/Consultant DATE: February 4, 2019 SUBJECT: Proposed Financing for Lyngblomsten Senior Care Campus Development The City of Lino Lakes has been approached by Lyngblomsten to construct a senior care campus on property near County Road J and Hwy 49. The project would include approximately 20 detached townhomes and 198-unit continuum of care building with 100 independent living, 50 assisted living and 48 skilled care units, as well as an approximate 4500 square foot restaurant. The developer has also proposed to acquire the properties on the corner of County Road J and Hwy 49 for future redevelopment opportuntiies that may include retail/office buildings. There are anticipated to be extraordinary public improvement costs associated with development of the project site and the developer has indicated public assistance will be necessary to assist with financing a portion of those costs. Tax abatement and tax increment financing have been identified as possible financing tools to assist with providing financial assistance, subject to determining there is a gap and what the amount is. A proposed financing plan could include the establishment of a tax abatement area or a housing tax increment financing (TIF) district. A tax abatement is approved by each separate taxing entity and may include only the City's share of taxes. Tax increment is approved by the City and includes all taxing entities incremental taxes from the new project. In order to qualify as a housing district, one of two tests need to be met: 1) at least 20% of the units are occupied by persons with incomes no greater than 50% of the area median income or 2) at least 40% of the units are occupied by persons with incomes no greater than 60% of the area median income. Income limitations are based on monthly/annual salaries, not including assets. Tax increment should reduce the term of assistance, as opposed to tax abatement. Tax increment from a housing district can only be used solely to finance the cost of housing projects as defined in sections 469.174, subdivision 11, and 469.1761. The cost of public improvements directly related to the housing projects and the allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the cost of a housing project Assuming the project as proposed would qualify as a housing TIF district, the developer will submit an application for financial assistance with supporting financial information to the City that includes sources and uses for the entire project, including acquisition of the site to be occupied by the senior care campus, the commercial redevelopment properties, construction and other related costs and all required public improvements. The public improvements include off -site road and infrastructure improvements, as well as on -site infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, utilities and streets/sidewalks. The developer has indicated the project as proposed with the extraordinary costs for the additional property acquisition and infrastructure improvements is not feasible without assistance. Should the Council choose to proceed, next steps would include the developer applying for financial assistance followed by City staff, Springsted, and Kennedy & Graven reviewing the request and determining that the project meets the requirements of a housing district and justify the need for assistance. In addition, it will be determined that 1) the project does need financial assistance and 2) if so, an appropriate level of assistance to finance a portion of the identified extraordinary project costs that would allow it to proceed. This information would come back before Council at a later date once the additional financial information has been submitted by the developer and reviewed for reasonableness to provide a recommendation on a proposed financial assistance package. Thanks for the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Lino Lakes. Please contact me at 651-223-3036 or mhuot@springsted.com with any questions or additional discussion. WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Review Public Works Facility Concept Plans - Oertel Architects Background The City Council and staff have been discussing the need for the eventual replacement of our Public Works Facility (built in 1971) since a space needs analysis was conducted in 2011. More recently, a Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study was completed by CNH Architects in April, 2017 (Addendum to Public Works Facility Study was submitted October, 2017). The Public Works Facility was also discussed during the February, 2018 and May, 2018 work sessions. The City Council expressed concerns with the scope and costs of a new public works facility outlined in the CNH Study. Oertel Architects was retained to reevaluate our needs and prepare options that are more cost effective. Mr. Jeff Oertel from Oertel Architects will be present at Monday's work session to present some concept plans, projected costs, and answer questions. Requested Council Direction For informational purposes. Attachments ❖ Oertel Architects - Lino Lakes Public Works Concepts (4) ❖ Public Works Facility Follow-up Staff Report - May 7, 2018 Work Session ❖ Public Works Facility Renovation & Expansion Staff Report - February 5, 2018 Work Session ❖ CNH Architects Addendum - October 30, 2017 ❖ CNH Architects Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study - April 2017 / l� t it:._ %i' i , ` v, �i -- i . 4 iE 1 _463111.1 MAIN STREET REMOVALS 1" 40'-0" Main 51 AVERAGE COST/SF: COST BREAKDOWN: FLEET BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: $120/SF VEHICLE STORAGE: $3,000,000 WARM STORAGE: OFFICE: $160/SF STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75,000 LARGE (14) STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75/SF VEH. MAINT.: $960,000 MEDIUM (24) OFFICE (RENO): $50/SF SITE PREP: $525,000 SMALL (12.5) VEHICLE MAINT: $160/SF TOTAL HARD CONSTRUCTION COLD STORAGE: SITE: $12/SF (BUILDING) COST: PLOW EQUIPMENT (32) MISC. EQUIPMENT (38) STAFF BREAKDOWN: $4—$4.5 MILLION TRAILERS (9) (VARIES DEPENDENT ON FULL—TIME: (15)/(19) EQUIPMENT/FINISHES SEASONAL: (10)/(13) INCLUDED) M iordsiiiiii,hiiku114 4 ,,tor / I I I I I I i I'� III II li ICI II Ir 1'rli� 1111 I1 JJ�►J�- W.H. 11441 1 1 I lu yl14, 11 1 BRINE i qua_ Main St i Ir 11 I 1 SALT N 11111, i 1 YAPPI (3) NEW VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING BYPASS/ FLEX (16 STAFF AREA GEN. I1 BALL FIELD gmegriga NEW VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (PHASE 1 OR 2) EMPLOYEE PARKING ACCESS n'd CONTROL- ‘:41111rali o i FUTURE OFFICE EXPANSION EMPLOYEE PARKING FUEL ISLAND ' EMPLOYEE EXISTING PARKING PW OFFICE TING NIOR NTER as i• PROPOSED 1"= 40'-0" • 1 I PRIMARY VEHICLE ENTRY PUBLIC PARKING STORM WATER POND NAN 0 PROPOSED AREA BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: 25,300 SQUARE FEET STAFF AREA MEZZANINE: 1,000 SQUARE FEET VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: 6,000 SQUARE FEET 10101 mil 11 Mei (AN • OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 Saint Clair Avenue ST. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.oertelarchitects.com PROJECT NAME: LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SITE AND FACILITY STUDY CITY HALL PARK LINO LAKES, MN PROJECT NUMBER: 18-33 DATE OF ISSUE: FALL 2018 DRAWN BY: TRS CHECKED BY: JLO, TRS REVISIONS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH IS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION SHEET NAME: PROPOSED EXPANSION SHEET NO: OP.A-3.1 REMOVALS 1" 40'—O" / / // / 7 / �/ 1 / / / •get. alb•niniour 1 Main St 14111119. 0 A1111111111111111111111111111111111 .16 MAIN STREET r 1. 1J1_11l 1.1111LI HUI. IJ111JL11 1111111111111 1111111111111 • r H AVERAGE COST/SF: COST BREAKDOWN: FLEET BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: $120/SF VEHICLE STORAGE: $3,000,000 WARM STORAGE: OFFICE: $160/SF STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75,000 LARGE (14) STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75/SF VEH. MAINTENANCE: $960,000 MEDIUM (24) OFFICE (RENO): $50/SF OFFICE: $880,000 SMALL (12.5) VEHICLE MAINT: $160/SF SITE PREP: $700,000 COLD STORAGE: SITE: $12/SF (BUILDING) TOTAL HARD CONSTRUCTION PLOW EQUIPMENT (32) COST: MISC. EQUIPMENT (38) STAFF BREAKDOWN: TRAILERS (9) $5.5-$6 MILLION FULL-TIME: (15)/(19) (VARIES DEPENDENT ON SEASONAL: (10)/(13) EQUIPMENT/FINISHES INCLUDED) .In IIIII 04101 • 1MI P GROUND 111 arn•N -711r PROPOSED 111= 40'—O" i 1'i 11‘r71 1 l W.H. I 1 BRINE r BALL FIELD IIi1, +''�II '' ' it ';j „`i 1 11 I �II 11 11-- 1 II = 1 111111111'---- Ill I III. I I III SALT '1' R rk, C0 0011[IL.001!. 1 — - IIIII 1F (9) WASH BAY YARD STORAGE NEW FUEL ISLAND 4 iL jori NEW VEHICLE MAINTENANCE TAi +4:Imola IIIIIIIIIIIIll ,, 1 11II EXISTING SIN IOR CENTER 1:1 ■11 III II1III 1 m 11�1111 i1,111I I111 EMPLOYEE PARKING BYPASS/ FLEX STAFF AREA NEW OFFICE AREA PUBLIC PARKING STORM WATER POND 0 IMPOUNIi m 1 JACCESSC NTROL 1 iliMill PROPOSED AREA BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: 25,300 SQUARE FEET STAFF AREA MEZZANINE: 1,000 SQUARE FEET VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: 6,000 SQUARE FEET OFFICE: 5,500 SQUARE FEET (AN • OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 Saint Clair Avenue ST. Paul, Minnesota 55105 (651)696-5186 Tel (651)696-5188 Fax www.oertelarchitects.com PROJECT NAME: LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SITE AND FACILITY STUDY CITY HALL PARK LINO LAKES, MN PROJECT NUMBER: 18-33 DATE OF ISSUE: FALL 2018 DRAWN BY: TRS CHECKED BY: JLO, TRS REVISIONS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION SHEET NAME: PROPOSED EXPANSION SHEET NO: OP.A-3.2 PLOTTED: 10-19-2018 FILE NAME: 18-33 Exansion0pt1on2.dwg so L 1.1 REMOVALS 1" 40'-O" t9 '�� per. 114 0 i Main St - 1 somp•P---ammilM '1 • 4 • 1 MAIN STREET z .11 PIP AVERAGE COST/SF: COST BREAKDOWN: FLEET BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: $120/SF VEHICLE STORAGE: $3,000,000 WARM STORAGE: OFFICE: $160/SF STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75,000 LARGE (14) STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75/SF VEH. MAINT.: $960,000 MEDIUM (24) OFFICE (RENO): $50/SF SITE PREP: $525,000 SMALL (12.5) VEHICLE MAINT: $160/SF TOTAL HARD CONSTRUCTION COLD STORAGE: SITE: $12/SF (BUILDING) COST: PLOW EQUIPMENT (32) MISC. EQUIPMENT (38) STAFF BREAKDOWN: $4-$4.5 MILLION TRAILERS (9) (VARIES DEPENDENT ON FULL-TIME: (15)/(19) EQUIPMENT/FINISHES SEASONAL: (1 0)/(1 3) INCLUDED) 1 If i 1. p1 � iIPIMNlI■P•�„I' i i PLA GROUN ik W.H. 7 01P— I' N N Oho r BRINE 'dIh I !NMI NW VEHICLE ti J Mi4INTENP1NCE (PHASE 1 9R 2) SALT 1 '1 iillilii L BALL FIELD _ANIL ft w PROPOSED 1" 4II Main St i gthal 11111110 1 1111111111111 1111111111 IP 3) EXPANSION VAULT L 11 YARD STORAGEP Itmlbe (9) NEW VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING WASH BAY • • 11111111111111111111111111111 .4111111111111.. BYPASS/ FLEX AR A gear a. EMPLOYEE PARKING EXISTING PW OFFICE FUEL ISLAND EXISTING CENTER ni ot moo inso id "111•11•Millillikir° Ur - IMPOUND I- ACCESS I CONTROL • • PRIMARY VEHICLE ENTRY 111 PUBLIC PARKING I STORM WATER POND • 11 111 110.1114 1111 0.7 411 14. mm ANN PROPOSED AREA BREAKDOWN7 VEHICLE STORAGE: 25,300 SQUARE FEET STAFF AREA MEZZANINE: 1,000 SQUARE FEET VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: 6,000 SQUARE FEET (AN • OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 Saint Clair Avenue ST. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.oertelarchitects.com PROJECT NAME: LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SITE AND FACILITY STUDY CITY HALL PARK LINO LAKES, MN PROJECT NUMBER: 18-33 DATE OF ISSUE: FALL 2018 DRAWN BY: TRS CHECKED BY: JLO, TRS REVISIONS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION SHEET NAME: PROPOSED EXPANSION SHEET NO: OP.A-4.1 L Ir ASP' i / / / //i / � / / // // / / i • ��Main St INF f REMOVALS 111= 40'-O" PLOTTED: 10-19-2018 FILE NAME: 18-33 Exansion0pt1on2.dwg c9p • • N 7 \\ • 1 4 J1111111111L MAIN STREET 41. k 1 1's 11-1 l itti11tt1 111 {tt Y1 itt 1 rl J AVERAGE COST/SF: COST BREAKDOWN: FLEET BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: $120/SF VEHICLE STORAGE: $3,000,000 WARM STORAGE: OFFICE: $160/SF STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75,000 LARGE (14) STAFF AREA/MEZZ: $75/SF VEH. MAINT.: $960,000 MEDIUM (24) OFFICE (RENO): $50/SF OFFICE: $880,000 SMALL (12.5) VEHICLE MAINT: $160/SF SITE PREP: $700,000 COLD STORAGE: SITE: $12/SF (BUILDING) TOTAL HARD CONSTRUCTION PLOW EQUIPMENT (32) COST: MISC. EQUIPMENT (38) STAFF BREAKDOWN: TRAILERS (9) $5.5-$6 MILLION FULL-TIME: (15)/(19) (VARIES DEPENDENT ON SEASONAL: (10)/(13) EQUIPMENT/FINISHES INCLUDED) 44 1 1 4 p N 1.9 •ow ir* PIP PROPOSED 111= 401011 r BRINE 1 STAFF AREA N 4V VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BALL FIELD TOWER NEW OFFICE AREA VAULT YARD STORAGE NEW FUEL ISLAND EXISTING S:INIOR C:NTER WASH BAY EMPLOYEE PARKING BYPASS/ FLEX PUBLIC PARKING 1 STORM WATER POND PRIMARY VEHICLE FNTRY PROPOSED AREA BREAKDOWN: VEHICLE STORAGE: 25,300 SQUARE FEET STAFF AREA MEZZANINE: 1,000 SQUARE FEET VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: 6,000 SQUARE FEET OFFICE: 5,500 SQUARE FEET Ilk i (AN • OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 Saint Clair Avenue ST. Paul, Minnesota 55105 (651)696-5186 Tel (651)696-5188 Fax www.oertelarchitects.com PROJECT NAME: LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SITE AND FACILITY STUDY CITY HALL PARK LINO LAKES, MN PROJECT NUMBER: 18-33 DATE OF ISSUE: FALL 2018 DRAWN BY: TRS CHECKED BY: JLO, TRS REVISIONS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SIGNATURE DATE REGISTRATION SHEET NAME: PROPOSED EXPANSION SHEET NO: OP.A-4.2 WS — Item 14 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 14 Date: May 7, 2018 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Public Works Facility Follow-up Background This item was discussed at the February work session and was also included on the March 5th work session agenda, but was tabled. During the February work session, the City Council directed staff to provide the following information, which is attached: • Cost breakdown of Hugo Public Works facility • Plans and specifications for the Hugo Public Works Facility • An estimate of how large a building is needed to store the city's vehicles and equipment Requested Council Direction This information is provided for further discussion. Attachments A. City of Hugo Public Works Facility Fund Breakdown, (2004-2005) B. Plans and Specifications for the Hugo Public Works Facility - Title Sheet (T1) and Site Layout (C1), February 2, 2004 C. Inside Storage Analysis for the City's vehicles and equipment CITY OF HUGO PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT BALANCE BALANCE 2005 PROJECTED DESCRIPTION 12/3112004 12131/2005 ACTIVITY BUDGET 417-000.000-010.100 Cash 417-000.000-010.450 ;Accrued Interest Receivable 417-000.000-120.200 Accounts Payable 417-000.000-120.600 ,Contracts Payable 417-000.000-253.000 Fund Balance REVENUES 417-362.000-362.100 Interest Earnings 417-392.000-392.030 Transfer from Water & Sewer Utility Fund 417-393.000-393.100 Bond Proceeds $ 539,056.14 $ $ 2,779.91 $ $ /326,000.96) $ $ (98,035.60)l $ $ 117,799.49 1 $ - $ (539.056.14)1 $ - $ (2,779.91)1 $ - 1 $ 326.000.96 1 $ $ 98,035.60 ', $ 1 $ (117,799.49)': $ $ 9,126.60 I $ 9,816.35 $ $ - 1 $ 62,439.78 $ $ 2,473,787.53 1 $ 2,473,787.53 I $ 2,482,914.13 $ 2,546,043.66 1 $ 63,129.53 $ 2,546,043.66 6B9.75 ! $ 9,816.35 62,439.78 $ 62,439.78 - 1 $ 2,473,787.53 EXPENDITURES Engineering Fees: 417-431.000-403.303 WSB & Associates 417-431.000-403.352 Pro(ect Testing Services Architect Fees: 417-431.000-403.368 Construction Documents 417-431.000-403.372 Community Room Revisions 417-431.000-403.367 Bidding Fees 417-431.000-403.369 Construction Administration 417-431.000-403.370 Reimbursable Expenses Septic System Evaluation_ 417-4310D0-403.371 Ingleside Engineering Insurance: 417-431.000-407.362 Builders Risk Insurance Utilities: 417-431 0004(18381 _ Electricity (to be reimbursed by Parkos) $ 640.69 ' $ 1,723.54 . $ (1,062.85) $ 1,723.54 417-431.000 408.381 Deducted from Retainage $ - $ (1,723.54) $ 1,723.54 $ (1,723.54) 417-431.000-408.383 Gas (to be reimbursed by Parkos) $ 1,527.17 $ 4,716.47 $ (3,189.30) $ 4,716.47 ... 417-431.000-408.383 Deducted from Retainage $ - $ (4,716.47) $ 4,716.47 (4,716.47) Permits: 417-431.000-412.435 NPDES Permit Construction Contracts: 417-431.000-413.504 Building Base Bid & Alternates (Parkos) $ 1,727,980.12 $ 1,735,329.12 $ (7,349_00) $ 1,735,329.12 417-431.000-413.504 E• lectrical Work 1 $ - $ 925.00 $ (925.00) $ 925.00 417-431 000-413.504! Snow Guards i $ - $ 17,600.00 ! $ (17,600.00) $ 17,600.00 417-431.000-413.504 Change Locks 1 $ - $ 939.00 $ (939.00) $ 939.00 417-431.000-413.504 Rice Lake Park Centre Signage I $ - $ 4,977.15 $ (4,977.15) $ 4,977.15 417-431.000-413.504 Repaint Exterior $ - $ 3,553.00 ' $ (3,553.00) $ 3,553.00 417-431 000-413.507 S• prinkler System ; $ - $ 7,475.00 $ (7,475.00) $ 7,475.00 417-431.000-413.508 Sitework (Arnt Construction) 1 $ 232,731.80 $ 268,020.62 $ (35,288.82) $ 268,020.62 417-431.000-413.508 I Silt Fence $ 62.05 $ 62.05 $ $ 62.05 417-431.000-413.525 Water System (Ingleside Engineering) i $ 30,923.20 $ 30,923.20 $ $ 30,923.20 417-431.000-413.518 S• anitary Sewer System (Ingleside Engineering) i $ 10,450.00 $ 10,450.00 $ $ 10,450.00 417-431.000-413.503. Fencing (Century Fence) $ $ 16,896.00 $ (16,896.00) $ 16,896.00 417-431000-403.333 Landscaping $ - $ 12,777.78 $ (12,777.78) $ 12,777.78 Equipment: $ - 417-431.000-413.505 I Welding Hood & Blower (Airgas North Central) $ 3,198.18 $ 3,198.18 $ $ 3,198.18 417-431.000-413.512: Shop Sweeper (Tennant) $ 20,591.29 $ 21,381.62 $ (790.33) $ 21,381.62 417-431.000-413.513; Vehicle Hoists (Pump & Meter Service) 1 $ 38,399.33 $ 37,899.33 $ 500.00 $ 37,899.33 417-431.000-413.520 Exhaust Extraction System : $ 11,362.00 $ 12,363.88 $ (1,001.88) $ 12,363.88 417-431.000-413.532 Poured Concrete Pit ; $ 15,980.80 $ 15,980.80 $ - $ 15,980.80 417431.000-413.522 4,000 Gallon Holding Tank ; $ 6,696.72 $ 6,696.72 $ $ 6,696.72 417-431.000-413.528 Bulk Fuel & Lubricant Tanks j $ 23,445.05 $ 24,858.26 $ (1,413.21), $ 24,858.26 417-431.000-413.533 Air Compressor $ - 3,581.81 $ 3,581.81 $ - $ 3,581.81 417-431.000-413.521 Air Lines $ 386.93 $ 1,569.90 $ (1,182.97), $ 1,569.90 417431.000-413.526 Pressure WasherlWash Bay 9,202 52 $ 9,590.66 $ (388.14), $ 9,590.66 :Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment 417431.000413.515 Voice & Data Cabling $ 6,111.24 $ 6,384.12 . $ 417-431000-413.516 Shelving $ 3,846.22 $ 11,085.15 $ 417-431.000-413.535 Telephone System $ $ 26,749.26 $ 417-431.000-413.541 Blinds, Bench Vise, Hydraulic Lift, Cabinets... $ 1,579 41 $ 6189 79 $ 417-431.000-413.570 Office Furniture & Equipment 1 $ 3,546.45 $ 35,714.60 $ Financing Costs Underwriters Discount 417-470.000-403.316 Cost of Issuance Capitalized Interest Total Project Costs 455.39 11,661.40 $ 455.39 1 $ $ 11,661.40 11 $ 114,000.00 $ 114,000.00 1 $ 6,146.62 $ 6,146.62 i$ 7,600.00 1 $ 7,600.00 $ 30,400.00 $ 30,400.00 $ 10,000.00 ; $ 10,000.00 $ 350.00 . $ 350.00 $ 1,974.00 $ 400.00 ` $ 400.00 $ $ 455.39 11,661.40 $ 114,000.00 $ 6,146.62 $ 7,600.00 $ 30 400.00 $ 10,000.00 350.00 1,974.00 $ - $ 1,974.00 - $ 400.00 (272.88) I $ 6,384.12 (7,238.93)1 $ 11,085.15 (26,749.26) $ 26,749.26 (4,610.38)1 $ 6,189.79 132,168.15)1 $ 35,714.60 I $ 2,335,230.39 $ 2,516,159.41 $ (180,929.02) $ 2,516,159.41 29,884.25 $ 29,884.25 $ I$ $ 29,884.25 -_$ $ 29,884.25 $ 29,884.25 $ 29,884.25 $ 2,365,114.64 $ 2,546,043.66 $-(180,929.02 $ 2,546,043.66 Fund Balance $ 117,799.49 $ $ (117,799.49) $ This fund was established to account for the construction of a public works facility. Funding was provided through the sale of capital: improvement bo Page 32 HUGO PUB Rice Lake Par 2003 6WoQusstccm Inc.:02003 femosibn Tsohnabak6 LOCATION MAP Code Analysis A. APPLICABLE CODES & REGULATIONS 2002 MN State Building Code (Includes 2000 Intl Building Code) Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341 B. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION A3 - Assembly (Community Hall) 3,200 SF S1 - Moderate Hazard Storage 19,000 SF S2 - Light Hazard Storage 3,200 SF C. CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-B Non -Combustible Not Fire Rated D. ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE A3 9500 SF Allowable 7130 SF Frontage Increase 16830 Total Allowable > 3200 SF S117500 SF Allowable 7130 SF Frontage Increase 16630 Total Allowable (Per Floor) > 15,800 SF - Ground Level > 3200 SF - Mezzanine Level S2 26000 SF Allowable 19500 SF Frontage Increase 45500 Total Allowable > 3200 SF E. OCCUPANCY LOAD A3213 (2 Exits) S1 95 S2 16 F. ROOFING Type C or Better G. INTERIOR FINISHES Interior Stairs - Class B Interior Rooms - Class C Root 1/48 Minimum Slope (1/8 Actual) 1 Hour Firewall �lAg®I�I�I�I■ 3 Hour Firewall I®I•IIIMRuIAUR•IIIu®MIIII CODE PLAN 1/16. = I' -a' r L WORKS 0•36\A-E CONTACTS OWNER CITY OF HIGO 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N. Nugo, MN 55038 Roils: (651)162-6316 Fast (651) 162-6314 ARCHITECT ELNEee SeENea4 GRAHAM ARCHITECT8 500 Ilia Hanton Av. S. Suite 10e0 Mlmeapolie, MN 65415 Fl n., (612)339-5508 Few (612) 339-5362 CIVIL ENGINEER STEVENS!, ENGINEERS Ib56 Livingstone Rd Hudson WI 54016 Prams, (115) 386-5819 Fax, L STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER lk 011111 NEL6ON RUM 1 ASSOCIATES, NC. 2635 lhlvanityy Ave,. W. Suite 150 6t. Paul, 184 55114 Mow (651) 644.2400 Fax: (65U 641-4120 1•14be:f"*/* 90-0, SI - 19p00 SF (INCLUDES MEZZANINE) OCCUPANTS • `3-14R FLOOR Ae61anBI.Y- E<-42 HIGH GUARDRAIL 81 - 3200 SF MEZZANINE 2 OCG ,(t BASE BID ALTEFNAlE, 120 1--3-HR PRECAST CONCRS SALL -61GNAGE -Tim Ml�Etclr l Cal -3-NR PRECAST CONCRETE WALL OGG 0T OCC. 40'-0. 40.0' 40'-0' 210,-0' 82 - 3300 8F A3 - 3,200 SP I6 OCCUPANTS 213 OCCUPANTS 106 OCC DRAWING INDEX TI !Title Sheet 4 Code Plan CIVIL CI Site Layout Plan C2 Site Grading and Utility Plan - - C3 Site Details ARCHITECTURAL TI Title Sheet a Code Plan ... Al Ground Floor Plan A2 Mezzanine Plan 4 Details A3 Reflected Ceiling Plans and Interior Elevations A4 Roof Plan 4 Details A5 Building a Wall Sections A6 Wall Sections 1 Details Al Exterior Elevations A8 Door and Window Elevations, Details and Schedules - STRUCTURAL 81 Foundation Plan 52 Roof Framing Plan 53 General Structural Notes and Mezzanine Framing Plan 54 Details 55 Details 86 Details MECHANICAL M1.1 Main Floor Plumbing Plan -. . MI2 Mezzanine Plumbing and NVAC Plans M2.1 Main Floor HVAC Plan M22 Main Floor Below Slab Heating Plan - M3.1 Mechanical. Details M32 Mechanical Details 4 Schematics M4.1 Medvnreal Schedules - ME1 Mechanical/Electrical Schedules`.I ME2 Mechanical/Electrical Schedules--` - . - ELECTRICAL E0.1 Electrical Site Plan - EI.1 Electrical Power 4 Systems Plant'" £12 Electrical Mezzanine Power 4 Systems Plan E2.1 Electrical Lighting Plan E22 Electrical Mezzanine Lighting Plan and Fixture Schedule E3.1 Electrical Riser Diagram and Schedules - Hugo Pub }pocks • VI S.y, ELNBSS'SWHNSON GRAHAM ARCHITECT$ INC. ,k • 7002141i ases swat 4av,.u41s Pfau 612r13➢ FSOS"P 612/333 3332 Hasp ilia is rbiia; 6900 - 137t)t Stxfet Math H p, hN 55038 T1 MVE MG IF MAMA AGIT.1i T. En tU lm=GIES TC GTRRm mGROLD VC • GY 0.1100 lnaMGle PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING GO ET Gat MO 6.11101 VG. TfALS ll' CMS IT =tin, IMe MVoae. GYP RADRR HTUNDOR VI1N E. OWE. 1141.10 GYP NOTES; 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITIES FOR LOCATIONS, SIZES, INVERTS AND TYPE OF PIPE. (GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 1-800-252-1166) 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND CITY OF HUGO PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTIUTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3. • CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS WITH THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND ACQUIRING PERMITS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SAVE TREES WHEREVER POSSIBLE. VERIFY ALL REMOVALS WITH THE ENGINEER AND CITY. 5. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH 4" SALVAGED TOPSOIL. SEED AND MULCH AREAS PER SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. awaTPAnRSEC m SUEVALS W.T. o DTTIt S.C. to ET GP ALT. 1 BID BUILDING ADDITION ALT. 2 BID BUILDING ADDITION BASE BID BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION ALT. 2 81D BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION Q RE SOCCER FIELD FUTURE PARKING 120 STALLS LEGEND: a * FUTURE PLAY GROUND °6 0 . FUTURE VOLLEYBALL COURTS BASE BID 14" GRAVEL SECTION tyre-r-rerm EX. EDGE OF WOODS CLEARING\GRADING LIMITS a FENCE CONIFEROUS TREE — — SILT FENCE DECIDIOUS TREE -0- EXISTING UTILITY POLE GRAPHIC SCALE i i m 10 ( D2 PE4a) 1 huh- 40 ft Hugo Public Works Irv; Womb ELNESS SWENSON GRAHAM ARCHITECTS INC. 700II* Sl tSon* w33413 tMlu 612y3.04308 Arc 6120394382 IAady elayy a. 0* aea.lte,r Ma P.P.., tr a8. ae.rt. ay a1as,paeVV. 4th 1 ..iyYwud eRERMi )SAS. 6COTT A. WARE) Dori orA4+edNose 410921 <.` 1-29.04 tme.Ne. Date STEVENS ENGINEERS PFofat *notation 203801 TJ8 BP81 Dram Hy Mari Hy Shad LfommNon 81TE LAYOUT Cl INSIDE STORAGE ANALYSIS FOR CITY'S VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 28-Feb-18 EXISTING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT (EXCLUDING TRAILERS) Space Name Quantity Size Area (SF) Total (SF) Large Spaces 9 18 x 36 648 5,832 Medium Spaces 37 12 x 24 288 10,656 General Equipment Storage 1 3,000 3,000 Circulation 1 8,500-10,800 8,500-10,800 TOTAL 28,000-30,300 EXISTING INSIDE STORAGE Streets Shed 1 18 x 36 648 648 Parks Shed 1 22 x 76 1,672 1,672 TOTAL 2,320 ADDITIONAL STORAGE NEEDED *Does not include vehicle wash bay 25,680-27,980* WS — Item 10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 10 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Public Works Facility Renovation & Expansion Background The Council had much discussion in 2017 about remodeling and expanding the existing public works facility. There was little support for building a new facility. There was no consensus as to what direction the Council wanted to go. During the Council's last discussion in November, it was suggested that the conversation continue after the election. Amongst the information included in this packet are the Site Analysis and Space Needs Study prepared by CNH Architects and an Addendum which further explains the deficiencies and scope of noncompliant code issues in the public works building. In the Addendum, Quinn Hutson specifically references pages 28 and 33 of the study. Requested Council Direction Staff is looking for further direction from the Council. Attachments Addendum to Public Works Facility Study 10-30-17 2017 Staff Reports and Minutes Public Works Facility Study 4-11-17 Original Proposal from CNH Addendum City of Lino Lakes Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Addendum October 30, 2017 The following information is intended to expand on information provided in the original study dated April 11, 2017, to provide a more in-depth discussion of Layout Option Al, the remodeling and expansion of the existing City of Lino Lakes Public Works facility. The information in this Addendum does not change the space needs data, schematic layout design, estimated costs or other information in the original study; but instead provides a more comprehensive view of the background on which the data, design and cost estimates were based. The Addendum also reviews broad cost potentials for future expansion labeled Phase II in the study. Existing Public Works Remodeling Scope The remodeling of the existing Public Works facility is shown in the study to be a relatively complete interior gutting and rebuilding along with exterior envelope upgrades. To expand on this it is necessary to consider how the building code evaluates maintenance versus remodeling. First of all, ongoing maintenance of an existing building does not trigger code updates. However, maintenance of an existing building only allows minor ongoing operational items such as changing light bulbs (not fixtures), painting, recarpeting, patching an existing roof or repairing existing mechanical units. Replacement of roofing systems, new mechanical units, replacement of light fixtures, and similar upgrades however are specifically excluded from the maintenance definition and are instead considered remodeling. In comparison, the Minnesota State Building Code and referenced International Building Code require all remodeled portions of a building to fully comply with current building code requirements. Further, if the scope of a remodeling is such that the majority of the existing facility is remodeled, then the entire facility is required to be brought into compliance with the current building code standards. Under these provisions, the proposed remodeling and expansion of the existing Public Works facility as represented in Layout Option Al would trigger a complete code compliant end result. Finally, any items that are not in compliance with ADA accessibility standards, MPCA regulations, OSHA safety standards or other similar safety, environmental, and civil rights requirements are not "grandfathered" or allowed to remain noncompliant until a future remodeling date, but instead are to be addressed when identified. When reviewing the existing Public Works facility, see pages 28 through 33 for a general summary, it was determined that the scope of code noncompliant spaces is such that no interior room was reasonably reusable in its current basic existing condition due to configuration, construction or operational deficiencies. This level of noncompliance was more extensive than was anticipated prior to CNH ARCHITECTS the start of the study however as the documentation of existing conditions completed, the evidence was extensive. The noncompliant items include the following partial list: corridors to narrow to meet accessibility standards, restrooms and countertops of improper size or without accessible heights, combustible construction in a non-combustible defined building including wood paneling and some wood wall construction, mechanical units that did not provide minimum air quality requirements, storage in areas without proper headroom, floor drains in vehicle accessed areas that flow into a septic system, among many other items. The deficiencies identified in the existing Public Works facility are not maintenance items as defined in the earlier paragraph, but can only be addressed in an extensive remodeling of the entire existing building which is what led to the findings represented in the original study. While providing for more upgrade costs than originally would have been anticipated, the extent of the needed remodeling upgrades identified in the study is valuable knowledge for use by the City of Lino Lakes in effectively planning for the current and future needs of the Public Works Department in a manner to ensure that upgrades budgeted address the short-term and long-term goals developed for the facility. Future Expansion (Phase II) Timing and Cost The future expansion labeled as Phase II in the study represents possible future growth needs for the Public Works department looking out at least 15 to 20 years. This data is based on typical anticipated additional departmental needs to serve the increase in the population of the City of Lino Lakes as projected by the Metropolitan Council by the year 2040. This population projection is more than two decades in the future and only time will indicate if this growth level materializes. Further, the additional square footage of vehicle storage needed to serve this larger population is estimated based on staff input and comparison to other cities of similar population to the Metropolitan Council's future population estimate and also may not fully materialize. The intent of the study is to identify the maximum potential departmental facility needs within the requested timeframe reviewed such that, if needed, the site and building masterplan layout can accommodate this future facility growth without relocation or other inefficiencies. The study is not intended to indicate that the Phase II storage building expansion will be required, only that if the projections both for growth of population and equipment needs achieves the maximum envisioned levels, the site and building masterplans developed remain viable. The City of Lino Lakes would need to revisit actual needs based on updated data over the coming decades. Due to the unknown size and timing of the potential future expansion (Phase II) a cost estimate for this building addition was not included in the study results. However, to provide some concept of potential future expansion costs, the following table has been added to this Addendum. Future Expansion Size Building Area (sf) Low Cost /SF* High Cost /SF* Low Range High Range Minor Addition 15,000 $110 $150 $1,650,000 $2,250,000 Maximum Addition 30,000 $110 $150 $3,300,000 $4,500,000 *Costs in 2017 dollars and does not include inflation CNH ARCHITECTS As the table indicates, the low end cost for a small addition of a scope that still allows for efficient construction costs represents a construction cost of $1.65 million for a low -temperature heated open plan storage addition. Conversely, if the population and equipment growth projections hit their most aggressive levels represented in this study, the maximum addition cost would range from $3.3 million to a high end of $4.5 million. As noted, these construction estimates are based on recent construction costs for Public Works facilities of similar types and are listed in 2017 dollars. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional data to better explain the study methodology and the intended limitations of the future expansion cost ranges. Best Regards Quinn Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. CNH ARCHITECTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 513 STAFF ORIGINATOR: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director MEETING DATE: December 12, 2016 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-172, Approving Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit Proposal VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The Lino Lakes Public Services Department is requesting City Council approval to retain CNH Architects, Inc. to conduct a Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit. 3ACKGROUND The Public Works Building (located at 1189 Main Street) was built in 1971 and consists primarily of a mechanical area (for fleet and equipment repairs), break room, and office space. A 40' x 80'shed (also built in 1971) provides some storage for vehicles, equipment, and supplies. In 2000, a 60' x 80' shed was built to provide additional indoor storage. A salt storage shed was built in 2013. CNH Architects, Inc. will consider three approaches: 1. Renovate existing building and expand to meet future needs 2. Build a new facility at the existing site 3. Build a facility at the city property at Centerville Road and Birch Street Topics including existing facility conditions, current and future space needs, growth potential for each option, accessibility compliance, energy usage and potential for savings, long-term costs of operation, and capital costs for remodeling/construction will be examined. Mr, Quinn Hutson, Principal Architect with CNH Architects, Inc. will lead and coordinate all members of the design team and be the primary contact throughout the project. He brings extensive experience with city projects, numerous reviews of client and facility needs, and familiarity with the City and staff from past projects with the City of Lino Lakes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council accept the CNH Architects, Inc. proposal to conduct a Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit for a fixed fee of $11,900 plus reimbursable expenses for printing and mileage. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 16-172 Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit (Dated Sep. 23, 2016). CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-172 RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT PROPOSAL WHEREAS, The Lino Lakes Public Services Department is requesting City Council approval to retain CNH Architects, Inc. to conduct a Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit; and WHEREAS, The Public Works Building (located at 1.189 Main Street) was built in 1971 and consists primarily of a"mechanical area (for fleet and equipment repairs), break room, and office space. Two sheds (built in 1971 and 2000) provide some storage for vehicles, equipment, and supplies. A salt storage shed was built in 2013; and WHEREAS, CNH Architects, Inc, will consider three approaches; 1. Renovate existing building and expand to meet future needs 2. Build a new facility at the existing site 3. Build a facility at the city property at Centerville Road and Birch Street Topics including existing facility conditions, current and future space needs, growth potential for each option, accessibility compliance, energy usage and potential for savings, long-term costs of operation, and capital costs for remodeling/construction will be examined; and WHEREAS, Funding is available from the Building Facilities Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Liiio Lakes that the Council accept the CNH Architects, Inc. proposal to conduct a Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit for a fixed fee of $11,900 plus reimbursable expenses for printing and mileage. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 12`h day of December 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member Rafferty and was duly seconded by Council Member Maher and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Rafferty, Maher, Manthey, Kusterman, Reinert The following voted against same: none Jeff Reinert, ATTEST: � \n Juiiafir�e Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017 APPROVED 46 and staff intends that there will be more information and discussion in the future with 47 resident involvement included. 48 49 The council expressed their support for strong neighborhood involvement. The residents 50 would be directly affected by additional traffic control (or no additional traffic control) 51 and should have their voices heard. City Engineer Hankee explained that staff is still 52 looking at the validity of the stop sign request from an engineering perspective. Staff 53 could provide notice to the area residents at any time with council direction. Council 54 Member Kusterman pondered the council's authority if it comes to overruling a staff 55 recommendation. Ms. Hankee explained that safety is the number one priority and so a 56 recommendation would be based first on that consideration. If the addition of a stop sign 57 isn't the right action, there could be other traffic calming recommendations. 58 59 Council Member Rafferty asked if a traffic study and the work occurring on this situation 60 is a standard response to a resident's request and staff confirmed that they review several 61 requests each year as part of their normal work load. 62 63 3. Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study — Public Services Director 64 DeGardner introduced Quinn Hutson (Principal Architect) and Jessica Johnson 65 (Architectural Designer) representing CNH Architects, to present their report. 66 67 Mayor Reinert noted that he believes the council requested an option of fixing the current 68 facility but that doesn't seem to be included in the analysis. Mr. Hutson said that Option 69 One includes renovating the current facility with a building expansion. 70 71 Jessica Johnson and Quinn Hutson, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that included 72 information on: 73 Overview of analysis they have completed; 74 Public Works site options map (site options are the existing site as Option A, or 75 site adjacent to fire station #2 as Option B); 76 - Space needs for the city's public works program: office, vehicle storage, vehicle 77 maintenance, and departmental shops; 78 - Growth consideration for the next 20 years; 79 - A comparison with other public works facilities in cities in the area and with 80 similar population; 81 - Layout options (two at site one and one at site two); 82 - Sanitary and water service addition would be required at current site; there would 83 be some disruption of services at current facilities (Council Members expressed 84 concern about losing the baseball field and suggested that should not be 85 necessary); 86 - Site Option B advantages were noted (sewer and water hookup;, etc); the site is 87 sufficient to meet the needs of both Phase 1 and 2; 88 - An architectural review of the current facilities; accessibility and code review 89 (several issues noted); mechanical systems review; 2 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017 APPROVED 90 Cost estimate: Phase 1, all three options priced, both low cost options to higher 91 cost (Mayor Reinert remarked that a remodel without a space expansion hasn't 92 been priced and Mr. Hutson said that is because that option wouldn't address 93 future space needs). Mayor Reinert suggested that there is an even lower cost 94 option that would basically add an unheated pole barn, although Director 95 Grochala suggested there could be some space/utility services issues. 96 97 Mayor Reinert noted his concern about costs and prudence in spending the taxpayer's 98 funds. He is more supportive of exploring improvements at the Fire Station No. 2 land 99 for community use, such as a park, and improving the current public works facilities to 10o get equipment protected (i.e. unheated pole barn). Council Member Kusterman 101 remarked that perhaps a more detailed, lower level explanation of costs would be helpful 102 in a careful consideration of spending. Mayor Reinert remarked that the city just dug out 103 of a recession and he'd like to keep the city's budget small. He supports forward and 104 innovate thinking but this requires a lot of thought and there may be more urgent needs 105 right now. 106 107 In addition to more information on costs (at a more micro level), 108 a comparison of proposed square footages to current space would be helpful. Council 109 Member Rafferty remarked that city hall is a good example of a decision based on future 110 needs and the rocky road and changes that can occur as the future comes upon you. 111 112 Council Member Rafferty noted that one option would move facilities to the south side of 113 the city and he wonders if that is best location for service provision. Director DeGardner 114 suggested that the closer to the core of the city, the better as far as saving trips and driving 115 economy. Mayor Reinert noted that the future could mean population changes however. 116 Mr. Hutson added that with the south site, it is anticipated that the current site facilities 117 would continue to some extent. 118 119 The mayor asked Administrator Karlson, if the roof were leaking here at city hall, what 120 procedure and funding is available to address the problem. Mr. Karlson noted the 121 facilities fund that is available for building expenses at city hall; for the work itself, a 122 bidding process would be appropriate. The mayor asked, would that facilities fund be 123 the same source to fund repairs to the public works facilities. Director DeGardner 124 explained that staff makes judgements about how to move on repair situations. Mayor 125 Reinert suggested that repairs should be done as needed along the way and he feels the 126 funds were available for repairs. 127 128 The council concurred that they will receive additional information as they have 129 requested. Council Member Manthey asked about the move of city hall from the old 130 building to the current. Director Grochala noted a study that involved creating a town 131 center as well as the space needs that developed. 132 133 Council Member Rafferty requested that the Hugo, Shoreview, etc. public works 134 locations be shared with the council. 3 WS — Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: July 5, 2017 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Public Works Facility Audit Payment and Proposal for Additional Architectural Services Background December 12, 2016 - City Council approved Resolution 16-172 (Attachment 1), retaining CNH Architects to conduct a Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit (Attachment 2). Three approaches were identified: 1. Renovate existing building and expand to meet future needs 2. Build a new facility at the existing site 3. Build a facility at the city property at Centerville Road and Birch Street April 14, 2017 - Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study delivered to all City Councilmembers (Attachment 3). May 1, 2017 - Mr. Quinn Hutson, Principal Architect and Ms. Jessica Johnson, Architectural Designer, present the study to the City Council. The City Council wanted additional information including an option of fixing the current facility, a more detailed explanation of costs, and a comparison of proposed square footages to current space. June 12, 2017 - City Council removed the payment of $764.30 to CNH Architects from the consent agenda and directed staff to place this item on the July work session agenda. A proposal for Additional Architectural Services from CNH Architects is included for consideration (Attachment 4). This would expand the scope of the original Public Works Facility Space Needs Study to breakout individual costs for remodeling the existing public works facility. Requested Council Direction Authorize staff to forward payment to CNH Architect for services rendered. Determine whether to proceed with proposal for Additional Architectural Services with CNH Architects. Attachments Attachment 1 - Staff Report and Resolution 16-172 Attachment 2 - Public Works Space Needs Analysis & Existing Facility Audit Proposal Attachment 3 - Completed Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Attachment 4 - Proposal for Additional Architectural Services PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES PROJECT: Lino Lakes Public Works Space Needs Study CNH No,: 16088 CLIENT: City of Lino Lakes May 24, 2017 Mr, Rick DeGardner Public Works Director - City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy. Lino Lakes, MN 55014 DESCRIPTION The additional services under this proposal is to expand the original Public Works Facility Space Needs Study to breakout individual costs for Option Al - the remodeling of the existing public works facility to evaluate the costs of individual portions of the remodeling and prioritize these items to consider a multi -phased approach. GENERAL We propose to perform the following additional services: ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Our services for this part of the work consist of expanding the scope of the Space Needs Analysis Study with the following items SERVICES PROVIDED - Meetings with Staff as required - Review structural element capacity and implications related to remodeling existing building - Breakout elements of upgrade and remodeling of existing facility — Prioritize maintenance and upgrade options - Develop approximate budgets for each partial phase maintenance and upgrade option - Update Study document — printed and pdf copies - Presentation at City Council Workshop SERVICES NOT PROVIDED — Mechanical/Electrical design — Civil design 7300 West 147"' St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55'124 952.43'1,4433 www.cnharch,com Page 1 FEE We propose the services indicated above for a fixed fee of $4,800, plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. This proposal fee is valid for 90 days from the date of this document. AGREEMENT This proposal updates the original Space Needs Proposal as indicated in this document, all other items remain as originally indicated. The fee is due within 30 days of monthly invoices. A finance charge of 1,5% per month will be charge to unpaid bills after 30 days. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses include the following items and will be billed as they occur: Miscellaneous B&W and color printing at cost — Miscellaneous postage, shipping and messenger service at cost Mileage, at IRS designated rate SCHEDULE The work indicated above will be completed for presentation at the early August City Council Workshop. We appreciate the opportunity to expand the study to cover these additional elements. Sincerely, g(A4;0—"uinn Stso , AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc ACCEPTED BY: Signature: Name: Title: Date: 7300 West 147`' St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 ( 952,431.4433 ( +,wvw.cnharch.com 1 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 5, 2017 APPROVED 134 Council Member Rafferty recalled the department's early recommendation on the 135 purchase from Woodbury and asked if those trucks were intended for training from the 136 onset? Director Swenson recalled the development of the need for training. Mayor 137 Reinert said he's comfortable with the fact that the equipment has served a purpose and 138 may provide revenue to the city. 139 140 Director Swenson said he would proceed with working with the Brinlee Mountain 141 Company on the marketing of the equipment. Mayor Reinert directed staff to try and 142 make as much off the trucks as possible. Council Member Manthey asked if there is 143 time to work the market and Director Swenson said it's tied to the timing of the 144 requirement for recertification. 145 146 Director Swenson also received council concurrence on donating some hard suction host 147 that is no longer useful to the city. It was agreed that the equipment would be donated to 148 the Centennial Fire District. He will bring the matter to the council for official 149 authorization. 150 4) Public Works Facility Audit Payment and Proposal for Additional Architectural 151 Services - Public Services Director DeGardner reviewed his written staff report, 152 including the history of this project to date. 153 154 Mayor Reinert remarked that the council wants to receive the infoituation that they paid 155 for. The work received didn't include what was specifically requested. Now the 156 council is receiving this (representing the work originally requested) with a request to be 157 paid for the "additional" work. He suggests that the council work session recording of 158 previous council consideration will tell the tale. He clarified that he has stated in a 159 previous meeting that he isn't interested in new buildings. He sees the goal as getting the 160 city's equipment out of the weather. He didn't see anything representing that option 161 brought back. 162 163 Council Member Manthey said he recalls the three options brought forward and actually 164 that was what he expected. He would like to see additional information but he doesn't 165 necessarily recall that request. He recalls discussion about what the city will need 166 looking ahead to the future. 167 168 Mayor Reinert suggested that providing only three $12 million options isn't what he 169 wanted and isn't appropriate. This is the difference between a want and a need — the 170 need being to get equipment out of the weather and repair the public works building. 171 172 Council Member Kusterman suggested that he got what he expected, not to say that he's 173 interested in spending that much money. 174 175 Mayor Reinert said he recalls specifically his request and he feels it was ignored. He 176 doesn't think that the bill should be paid until the job is finished. 177 4 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 5, 2017 APPROVED 178 Council Member Maher suggested that the council voted and approved a resolution that 179 authorizes what came forward. Mayor Reinert suggested then that, to be clear, the 180 council will have to have every element of their discussion included in what they vote on 181 in the future. 182 183 Council Member Kusterman noted that the council's discussion included a request for an 184 itemization so they could look at what is really needed. 185 186 Director DeGardner remarked that he believes Mr. Hutson of CNH Architects thinks he 187 provided what he was asked to. Mr. DeGardner added that by keeping a shell and 188 attempting to retrofit the existing facility was probably not a level of improvement that 189 was considered. Mr. DeGardner said he can inform Mr. Hutson that the city doesn't 190 want to pay the remainder of the bill based on this discussion. Mayor Reinert added that 191 the job wasn't done as requested. He should finish the job with what he was paid or the 192 city can get someone else. 193 194 Council Member Maher said she hasn't listened to the tape to confirm what was said. 195 196 Council Member Kusterman suggested that the mayor seems to want the council to listen 197 to the tape to confirm the direction. 198 199 Council Member Rafferty recalled that he wasn't interested in spending a huge sum of 200 money at this point although he knows eventually facilities have to be upgraded. He does 201 see that Mr. Hutson tried to basically break things down in his report; perhaps Mr. Hutson 202 may have seen that it didn't make sense in his mind to not move to a new facility. 203 Council Member Rafferty said he doesn't see the need to withhold payment of the bill. 204 205 Mayor Reinert said he'd be willing to let go of the issue of payment of the bill but he 206 won't be willing to work with that company again. He'd like to see three contractors 207 brought in to view the current facility and hear what they could do to update that facility. 208 209 Council Member Manthey suggested that the process of discussion now is a good thing; 210 he always anticipated that there would be more council discussion to decide on the best 211 option for this city. He feels the council has to be very clear on the information they 212 want to receive. He thinks part of the discussion are things like bringing in water and 213 sewer and thinking ahead to needs in the future. 214 215 Council Member Rafferty suggested that even a contractor has to understand what is 216 being asked and that type of information isn't prepared. 217 218 Mayor Reinert asked, for the $12,000 that this company will be paid, will there be value 219 to the city in the future. Council Member Rafferty said he believes so. 220 221 The council concurred that the payment will be added to the next council agenda for their 222 consideration (as an item separate from the expenditure list). Staff was directed to look at 5 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 5, 2017 APPROVED 223 alternative options to get information from contractors or architects who specialist in 224 remodeling. 225 4.5) New Facility Rental Charges Impacting Recreation Department — Rick 226 DeGardner and Brian Hronski were present. Director DeGardner reviewed his written 227 report outlining charges for facility use that have been instituted by Centennial School 228 District (CSD). He reviewed the fall 2016 programs offered by the city and how the 229 revenue for those programs will not cover the costs of facility rental and result in a 230 significant deficit situation for the department. He reported that staff has attempted to 231 work this out with CSD but they are firm in their determination to charge the fees. The 232 department has worked hard to move what programs they can to city facilities or other 233 non -charge sites; some programs may have to be discontinued. He identifies two 234 scenarios within the staff report to deal with the situation — either challenge the 235 Recreation Supervisors to come up with solutions, or let certain programs go and hope 236 that the school district picks up on those activities and with that a loss of a recreation staff 237 position. 238 239 Mayor Reinert suggested that there's been a deterioration in the relationship between the 240 city and the school district in areas such as this and he fears it is mostly on their side. He 241 recalled ways that the city has worked with the district to assist. He suggested that there 242 are ways to charges back city costs to the district. He'd like to see if CSD would 243 reconsider. 244 245 Council Member Manthey asked if the school board members are aware and supportive 246 of this action. Mayor Reinert said he would write a letter to the superintendent and copy 247 the school board members; he'd rather unwind this before having to look at charging 248 back. 249 250 Director DeGardner remarked that the youth sports organizations have been given a 251 higher priority and as a result an exemption from the use fees. This would be a big 252 impact to the department and he can state that they have tried to work this out with his 253 contemporaries but that hasn't worked. He is really faced with a "what do we do for this 254 fall" and he is recommending the direction to staff to work on solutions. 255 256 Mayor Reinert asked that staff help him with a letter to the Superintendent, copied to the 257 school board members and perhaps a visit to the next school board meeting. 258 259 Council Member Kusteiinan said he is frustrated especially because he would like to see 260 more budgetary consideration to providing even more recreation opportunities. He 261 agrees with going to the school hierarchy to attempt to work this out. 262 263 The council directed staff to proceed with their recommended option one, including the 264 change to the $10,000 contribution. 6 WS — Item 10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 10 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: Public Works Facility Background During the July 5th work session, the Council directed staff to seek alternative options for upgrading the public works facility. Since that meeting I have talked to several of you, including staff, about what direction we need to take. None of us seem to be on the same page. Therefore, it is unclear to staff what direction the Council wants to go. Is it the Council's intent at this point to only address deficiencies with the building before moving forward with a plan for additional storage? Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting further direction. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 7, 2017 APPROVED 303 10. Public Works Facility _Mayor Reinert explained that he has met with 304 staff and has received much more information on this subject and will be receiving more. 305 Perhaps that information will includes what he felt was lacking earlier. He feels it could 306 be beneficial for city officials to look at other facilities. 307 308 Council Member Manthey asked about the goal of touring other facilities. Administrator 309 Karlson can work with other city staff to arrange visits. Council Member Kusterman said 310 he'd be happy to share some documents that he has from the City of Shoreview and their 311 process of phasing improvements. 312 313 The council agreed on the date of Tuesday, August 22, 5:30 p.m. 314 7. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 315 8. Monthly Progress Report — Administrator Karlson reviewed the progress report. 316 This item included an update on the Laserfiche project by the City Clerk. 317 9. Review Regular Agenda — The agenda for the August 14, 2017 council meeting 318 was reviewed and there were no changes. 319 320 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 321 322 323 August 28, 2017. 324 325 326 327. J 328 Juliae Bartell, City Clerk 329 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 8 WS — Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: November 6, 2017 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Public Works Facility Background During the Council Work Session on May 1, 2017, Quinn Hutson, Principal Architect for CNH Architects, presented a Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study. Mr. Hutson identified three options in the study along with the cost estimates for each option. Mayor Reinert was of the opinion that CNH did not provide an option to remodel the existing facility. There has been much discussion and debate the last several months about what the City Council should do. Public Services Director Rick DeGardner requested that Mr. Hutson provide a more in- depth explanation of his evaluation regarding Option Al, which was to remodel and expand the existing public works building. Attached is an Addendum that Mr. Hutson prepared last week. The Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study are also attached. Hutson specifically references pages 28 through 33, which illustrates the deficiencies and scope of noncompliant code issues in the public works building. Requested Council Direction Staff is looking for further direction from the Council. Attachments October 30, 2017 Addendum to Public Works Facility Study April 11, 2017 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 6, 2017 APPROVED 225 Mr. Hillesheim reported on the current status of the city's equipment and the benefits of 226 replacing units. On the question of funding, staff is recommending use of 2017 budget 227 surplus for the units and funding of controls from the building maintenance fund. The 228 NAC representative spoke to replacement/down time if the units were to fail. The 229 council discussed replacement brand proposed as well as energy savings as a result of 230 replacement. 231 232 8. Public Works Facility — Administrator Karlson explained that, as a result of 233 questions that came up during a previous presentation by Quinn Hutson of CNH 234 Architects, an addendum is being presented further outlining the option of remodeling 235 and expanding the existing public works facility. He is asking if the council has further 236 direction on the matter. 237 238 Mayor Reinert feels opinions on this project are subjective. To address that, he thinks 239 that more information and different perspective is needed. Perhaps an opinion from 240 someone who doesn't specialize in government projects would be appropriate. 241 242 Council Member Manthey suggested that the council should give more detail on what is 243 wanted in order to get additional information. He suggested he'd prefer more discussion 244 for the whole council of possibilities and stages. 245 246 Mayor Reinert noted a Hugo facility that cost $2 million. His concern is that there's no 247 better level of services offered to the constituents with a more expensive building. He 248 wants to get the best for the residents' money. 249 250 Council Member Manthey warned against oversimplifying. It isn't just putting trucks in 251 a garage. He recommends the council review the whole situation and decide of what 252 should be spent, including what the facility can provide in the future. Mayor Reinert said 253 he is oversimplifying to make a point. 254 255 Council Member Rafferty remarked that the conversation should be held with the 256 upcoming council. Council Member Maher added that she isn't certain all the 257 information has gotten to the architect that needs to and that can be solved by more 258 discussion and direction. 259 260 9. 2018 West Shadow Lake Drive and LaMotte Drive — City Engineer Hankee 261 explained that staff is continuing to work on the project design. They are still planning on 262 holding a neighborhood meeting at the end of November. Communication is underway 263 with the webside and phone calls being taken. Drainage, a critical component, is being 264 worked on. Ms. Hankee was informed that residents have contacted the mayor with 265 questions about lake level and she explained that she is working to address those 266 questions with the DNR and watershed district. 267 6 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study '° CNH ARCHITECTS 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 952.431.4433 www.cnharch.com 04/11/17 16088 TEAM CNH Architects Quinn Hutson, AIA Principal Architect Jessica Johnson, LEED AP BD + C Architectural Designer 7300 West 147th Street, #500 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 431-4433 www.cnharch.com Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. (edi) Larry Svitak, PE Mechanical Engineer 1112 Fifth Street North Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612) 343-5965 www.edilimited.com Professional Project Management (PPM) Doug Holmberg Cost Estimator 1858 East Shore Drive Maplewood, MN 55109 651-776-5590 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PRINT NAME: QUINN HUTSON DATE: 4/11/17 LICENSE NO: 21234 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Overview of Study 6 Site A: Existing Public Works Site Introduction Site Analysis Site B: Fire Station Site Introduction Site Analysis Program Overview Space Needs Program Comparison Matrix 8 10 12 14 16 20 Option Al: Existing Building Expansion Introduction 22 Layout 23 Option A2: New Facility - Existing Public Works Site Introduction 24 Layout 25 Option B1: New Facility - Flre Station Site Introduction Layout 26 27 Existing Facility & Site Review Architectural Review 28 Accessibility and Code Review 31 Mechanical Systems Review 32 Cost Estimate Option Al 35 Option A2 35 Option B1 35 CNH ARCHITECTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site A Site B Introduction The main facility of the current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971 with several additional cold storage sheds, salt and brine shed, and a mobile office out -building added to the site, since that time. The current site is on the northwest portion of Lino Lakes, off Main Street. While the facility has functioned in the past 45 years, the City Council and staff determined that it would be appropriate to analyze the condition of the current buildings along with the operational needs of the Public Works Department to best serve the community for the next 20 years. The long-term growth anticipated for the Public Works facility was also selected to be analyzed with two possible sites to be considered - the current location labeled Site A in this study and the site adjacent to Fire Station #2 on Centerville Road and Birch Street referred to as Site B. With this goal in mind, the City of Lino Lakes contracted CNH Architects to perform an analysis of three approaches for the Public Works Facility, now and into the future. The goal of this study is to provide evidence based recommendations to address the needs of each department and analyze site conditions for each site. This study evaluates each of the sites identified, rating them for a broad series of attributes. The information provided in this study includes site data, gathered and analyzed by CNH Architects and valuable input from Lino Lakes city staff. The report includes this Executive Summary followed by supporting data and diagrams. Process Over the past few months, CNH Architects and our consulting team performed a detailed study and analysis. The study process evaluated the following four major steps: Step 1: Assess conditions of the current facility, including taking photos of the existing site. This step includes reviewing current code and accessibility compliance, deferred maintenance, and short-term anticipated maintenance requirements. Step 2: Develop a Space Needs Program of current space needs, as well as evaluating impacts on the space needs based on the projected growth of the City of Lino Lakes by 2040. This step started by gathering data from Lino Lakes city staff regarding current and projected space and site needs. Other public works facilities in similar, neighboring communities were reviewed as comparative case studies to create proper metrics for gauging the appropriate scope of work. Step 3: Develop an analysis of relevant site attributes for the two sites being considered. This analysis includes availability of public utilities, buildable area after easement and wetlands were located, efficiency of potential space use, and adjacent land uses. Step 4: Develop a total of three preliminary site and building layouts on the two proposed sites and obtain cost estimates for each option. The three options that have been identified for evaluation for the Public Works Facility are shown on the Public Works Facility Site Option Map and consist of the following: Option Al: Remodel & Building Expansion on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Option A2: New Facility on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Option B1: New Facility at Birch Street & Centerville Road adjacent to Fire Station #2 (Site B) CNH ARCHITECTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site A Statistics 0000.Adjacent Land Uses 00000 Infrastructure 0•••• Buildable Area 000•• Easements - Existing or Future 0000 • Floodplain 0000• Wetland 0•••• Site Visibility 00000 Noise Issues 00000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance) Site B Statistics 00000Adjacent Land Uses 11 00000 Infrastructure 0000• O00• Buildable Area • Easements - Existing or Future 1000..Floodplain 00000 Wetlands 10•••• Site Visibility 00000 Noise Issues 100000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance Conclusions The study determined that the existing facility, while having served the city well for 45 years, has fallen well behind current standards both for codes, safety, facility maintenance and appropriate size for a Public Works Department serving a city, the size of Lino Lakes. The building's code deficiencies include total lack of accessibility standards, multiple building code noncompliance items, OSHA workplace concerns, inappropriate sanitary waste conditions, and significant HVAC air quality issues. Similarly, the existing building has deferred maintenance issues such as leaking roof and windows as well as future near -term maintenance items that will require attention in the next 1 to 5 years. These items can all be addressed by remodeling or replacement, but need to be factored into the cost of relevant options being evaluated. The review of the Space Needs for the Public Works Department, evaluated current space use, shortfalls in needed space, and the future growth in staff and equipment projected within the study timeframe of looking forward to 2040 needs. The approach included storage of all vehicles, equipment and equipment accessories within a weather -protected semi -heated facility as is typical within current public works facilities. This approach will provide long term value to the city in significantly longer lifespan of the equipment and reduced upkeep. The results of the Space Needs Program indicate a need for a total building area around 80,000 square feet by the end of the 2040 timeframe. The study indicates that all categories are short of space, currently with the largest shortage being in the Vehicle Storage category. Based on this review, we recommend a two-step construction with Phase 1 addressing current and near -term shortfalls and Phase 2 adding additional Vehicle Storage space later in the masterplan. With this phased approach, the Space Needs Program indicated a Phase 1 size of approximately 55,000 square feet with Phase 2 adding the remaining 30,000 square feet of Vehicle Storage. These Space Needs were then compared to facilities at Hugo, Shoreview, Otsego and Hopkins. The areas of each category of space were translated in square feet per population to equalize the comparisons. The results indicate that Phase 1 Space Needs area goals are very conservative being at or under the areas represented by all the cities in comparison. The Phase 2 Space Needs area goals for the Vehicle Storage category rise into the middle of the comparison data still remaining conservative as this phase for Lino Lakes looks out to 2040 and beyond. The next step of the study analyzed site characteristics of the two potential sites being considered for the future Public Works Facility, Site A, the current Public Works site and Site B, adjacent to Fire Station #2. Site A scored moderately positive on buildable area and site visibility and moderately negative on six other statistics. It scored negative on the infrastructure due to the current lack of municipal water and sanitary sewer serving the site, which would be required to remodel or replace the facility on this site. In review of Site B, this location rated infrastructure as a positive since all utilities are already stubbed to the site from the fire station work. This site rated moderately positive for four statistics, neutral for buildable area and flood plain, and moderately negative for two remaining items. However, understanding not all statistics are of equal weight, Site A scored an average of 2.22 out of 5 total points and Site B scored an average of 3.44 out of 5 total points. While Site B has features that result in a better analysis, both sites are workable and can be considered for the future of the Public Works Department, assuming of course that municipal water and sanitary sewer is extended to Site A. Finally, the study developed three public work facility masterplan site layout options representing both a remodel / expansion approach as well as all new facilities. All three options result in facilities that function and meet the minimum goals of the Space Needs Program. The following are highlights of each option with more detailed information to be found in the main body of the study report. As shown in the cost analysis, there is approximately a 5% range in initial costs between the options however there are other factors for the City of Lino Lakes to consider in the selection such as long-term location within the city, life -cycle maintenance and utility costs, operation of public works staff during construction, and best uses of city property. 4 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Option Al Option A2 Option Bl Option Al: Remodel & Building Expansion on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Remodeling and expansion of the existing public works building is the first option reviewed and provides the main advantages of reuse of the existing building structure. There is also the advantage of a somewhat larger overall site. However due to the extensive code, accessibility and safety issues, the building's interior would need to be mostly rebuilt to address these minimum requirements. There would also need to be exterior upgrades of the existing structure such as reroofing the building to replace the currently failing roof. For either option on Site A, the project also includes the requirement to bring municipal water and sanitary service to the site to provide mandatory fire suppression and treatment of vehicle floor drain sanitary flows. This option also impacts the public works department's operations, related to working around the remodeling and addition process. Based on the detailed preliminary cost estimates done by the cost consultant, this option's cost falls in the middle of the three options reviewed. However, when the increased maintenance costs of the remodeled portion of the building is factored in; this option is likely the costliest over the next decades. Option A2: New Facility on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) The approach on this option is the demolition of the existing public works facility and construction of an all -new facility on Site A on Main Street. This option has several advantages including the flexibility to place the new facility on the site to maximize the use, providing a more compact building and better screening of the outdoor storage and salt building area. This option also allows the continued use of the newer, of the two existing cold storage garages for the next 10 to 20 years until its life -expectancy is reached and Phase 2 is completed. The other main benefit of a new facility is the elimination of the increased maintenance and replacement requirements inherent in remodeling the existing building under Option Al. Similar to the first option however, this option would require the extension of municipal water and sanitary service to the site to provide mandatory fire suppression and treatment of vehicle floor drain sanitary flows. Operations of the Public Works Department would also be significantly impacted between the demolition and new construction of the facility, although the construction timeline would be reduced by not working around ongoing operations. Finally, this option has the highest initial cost of all the options considered, but would be less than Option Al over the next few decades when increased maintenance costs of the remodeled building is factored in. Option B1: New Facility at Birch Street & Centerville Road adjacent to Fire Station #2 (Site B) This option represents a new facility at the south Site B location where preparations for future city facilities were provided in the Fire Station #2 project. The advantages of this site include existing municipal utilities stubbed into the site, a location closer to the future population density projections, and the smallest most efficient building footprint of the three options. Other benefits of building on this site is the ability to not impact the operations of the Public Works Department during the construction process as they will be able to work from the existing facility until the new building opens. Also, by not building on Site A, there is not the loss of the one ballfield and hockey rink, maintaining more park and recreation usage within the city. Replacement costs for these recreational areas were not included in the study. Under this option, the existing salt storage building, material storage bins, as well as the existing cold storage buildings would remain on the north Site A location, at least through Phase 2 construction, providing the benefit of more available storage space in the short term. However, there will be a mixed impact of having public works elements on two sites. Option B1 has the lowest initial cost as well as the lowest life -cycle cost of the three options analyzed. CNH ARCHITECTS 5 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SITE OPTION MAP Option Al: Option A2: Option B1: Existing Site: Expand to meet future needs Existing Site: New Facility Birch St. & Centerville Rd.: New Facility Public Works Facility Option Location Map The map above shows the two sites that were identified by city staff for consideration as potential properties for the proposed Public Works Facility. Options Al and A2 are located at the current Public Works Facility. Option B1 is located adjacent to Fire Station #2. 6 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study OVERVIEW OF STUDY Project Needs Assessment CNH interviewed appropriate City Staff to understand both their current needs as well as future operational changes and anticipated growth areas. We compared these areas to similar nearby cities, providing not only relational size comparisons but interjecting potential issues that may not have been considered. To create accountability and clarity in our investigation, we made it a priority to gather initial information with rigor such that assumptions are minimal, collaborating closely with our engineers to pinpoint existing and potential issues that may or may not already be identified. Option Analysis After gathering all the information on space needs, CNH evaluated the existing public works cam- pus, and developed future needs based on expected growth; CNH reviewed three approaches for the City of Lino Lakes to meet their Public Works needs. These include: Option Al — Renovate the existing building and expand to meet future needs. Option A2 — Build an all new facility at the existing site to provide long-term value. Option Bl — Build an all new facility at the city property at Birch Street and Centerville Road leaving some appropriate elements at the existing site. The study has reviewed each of the above options, analyzing and listing comparative data on each option in order to provide the City of Lino Lakes with the tools to make an informed decision on the future of the Public Works department facilities. Among others, the review of each option will include the following topics: • Space needs — current and future • Growth potential for each option • Existing facility conditions Deferred and short-term maintenance Building code / OSHA compliance • Accessibility compliance • Capital costs for construction / remodeling proposed • Site location relative to population and infrastructure CNH ARCHITECTS 7 Site A consists of the existing site for the current Senior Citizen Center and Public Works Facility. The property's current zoning designation is for Public and Semi -Public District (PSP). It has a gross area of 27.46 acres of which 17.6 acres are suitable for building. The city owns the property of this existing facility. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the east and south, baseball fields to the west and agricultural land to the north. Photograph: View of the existing Vehicle Maintenance portion of the Public Works Facility • 8 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study SITE A CNH ARCHITECTS 9 Site A i Site Analysis PSP i Public and Semi -Public District 80 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55025 2 Properties Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres Wetlands 000•• There are designated wetlands running through the middle of the property which reduces the buildable area and mostly separating the northwest storage area from the main buildable area. The wetlands represent approximately 40% of the overall site. Infrastructure 00000 This city owned property is served by electricity and natural gas utilities, but does not have municipal sanitary or water service. The current facility uses well water and has a private mound - style septic system limiting the ability to install fire suppression and requiring storage tanks for future vehicle wash and floor drain sanitary flows. Extension of municipal sanitary is highly recommended. Municipal water and sanitary are located approximately 1 mile to the west. Floodplain 000e* There is a large floodplain running through the middle of the property mostly duplicating the wetland areas. 10 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Easements 000 There is one gas easement running on the southwest corner of the site. This easement defines the southwest edge of the main buildable area. Site Analysis Site Statistics Public Works Analysis Site A 000•• 00000 Infrastructure 0•••• 000• Adjacent Land Uses Buildable Area • Easements - Existing or Future 00000 Floodplain 00000 Wetland 00.00 Site Visibility 000110 Noise Issues 00000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance! Rating Scale ••••• o•••• oo••• 000•• 00000 Positive Moderately Neutral Moderately Negative Positive Negative Buildable Area 0•... This site is approximately 27.4 acres, of which 12 acres is buildable area. This buildable area is separated into three distinct blocks with only the southeast block of 7.7 acres large enough to be considered for this project. CNH ARCHITECTS 11 Site B: Site B is located on the southeast intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road. The property's current zoning designation is for Public and Semi -Public District (PSP). It has a gross area of 17.6 acres of which 3 acres are suitable for building. It is adjacent to Fire Station #2 to the north and agricultural land on the east and west sides. To the south the property extends toward 46 acres of land owned by the City. There is one private residence on agricultural land to the southwest. Photograph: View of the site from the east 12 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study CNH ARCHITECTS 13 B Site Analysis • PSP Public and Semi -Public District • 1710 Birch Street Lino Lakes, MN 55038 1 Property Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres - Wetlands 000•0 The designated wetlands run along the North, East and West sections of the property and decreases the buildable area within this parcel. Infrastructure •000• This city owned property is served by all public utilities including electrical, natural gas, municipal water, and municipal sanitary services. The water and sanitary pipes were stubbed into the site as part of the recent Fire Station #2 project. The site is also served by the new city street with completed connections to both Centerville Road (County 21) and Birch Street (County 34). Floodplain 0000• The floodplain runs through the East part of the property, but since the construction of the fire station the FEMA map should be updated to reflect the correct contours of the site. The diagram above represents the approximate corrected floodplain zone. It is our understanding that the floodplain update is in process. 14 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Easements 000% There are no easements on the south buildable area being considered for this project other than standard drainage and utility setbacks along the property lines and roads. Site Analysis Site Statistics Public Works Analysis Adjacent Land Uses II 0000.Infrastructure 100••• Buildable Area 0•... Site B Easements - Existing or Future 100••• Floodplain 000•• Wetlands 10•••• Site Visibility 00.00Noise Issues 1000.0Potential Neighborhood ResistanceI Rating Scale ••••• o•••• oo••• 000 00000 Positive Moderately Neutral Moderately Negative Positive Negative Buildable Area 00•0. This site is approximately 17.6 acres not including the over 46 acres to the south. After deducting the fire stations' built area, there is 3 acres of remaining buildable area for this potential project. CNH ARCHITECTS 15 SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM 16 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS - SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Overview The current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971. While the facility has functioned in the past 45 years, the City Council and staff determined that a space needs program be developed to assess the existing, current and future needs. The Space Needs Program captures the conclusions made from the assessment exercise over the last months to express the scale and scope of modifications needed to the facility for both short and long term operational demands. A comparison matrix at the end of this section reflects other Public Works facilities as they relate to the scale of this project. Public works facilities in the Twin Cites metro of Hugo, Shoreview, Otsego, and Hopkins were used as references. While each city's needs and approaches are different, the comparisons can provide additional insight when considering the best fit for the City of Lino Lakes. Space Needs Analysis Approach The space needs reviewed are based on the following assumptions to address the long-term needs of the Public Works Department for the City of Lino Lakes. While other approaches may be pursued, the assumptions indicated in this study represent the facility designs commonly taken by other similar municipalities within the greater region. A. Departments Included within the Facility: This space needs program for the overall Public Works Department includes the streets, utilities, vehicle maintenance and park & recreation operations. This combination of operations creates efficiencies in operations and facilities as many functions overlap and require similar facilities. B. Protection of Equipment: This space needs program provides space for all vehicles and equipment to be stored within the protection of the proposed building. This would include fully heated operational areas as well as partially heated storage areas, depending on the needs of the individual spaces. Much of the current equipment and many vehicles are currently stored outside within the current Public Works site significantly reducing its life -expectancy and increasing maintenance requirements. The space needs program assumes that all equipment and vehicles would be stored within the facility providing reduced life -cycle costs for the equipment and vehicles within the public works department. C. Growth Projections: The space needs program allows room for the anticipated growth needs within the following 20 years at a minimum as is typical for a public facility built to operate for a period approaching 50 years. The City of Lino Lakes is projected by the Metropolitan Council's study to expand in population to 31,100 by 2040, or a growth of 49% from current. The growth built into the space needs program represents only the added staff and equipment that was determined to be needed with the increase in population and associated streets, parks, and utilities. Consequently the building space needs growth is only 14% above the current needs, significantly less than projected population growth. CNH ARCHITECTS 17 SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Office Area Vehicle Storage 1 Space Name Public Works Superintendent Open Office Area T 1 7 • Quantity 1 Size I Area 1 Total 1 1 1 12'x14' 168 I 168 1 4 1 1_ 1 I 15'x20' 1 300 1 300 Reception 1 1 16'x10' 160 160 Private Offices I 9 1 12'x10' 1 120 1 1,080 Shop Supervisor Office 1 1 1 12'x10' 120 120 Copy Room 1 1 1 9'x10' I 90 1 90 IT/Server Room 1 9'x10' 90 i 90 Multi -Purpose Room 1 1 1 40'x45' 1 1,800 I 1,800 Lunch Room 1 30'x40' 1,2001 1,200 Men's Restroom & Locker Room 1 1 1 30'x40' 1 1,200 I 1,200—i Women's Restroom & Locker Room 1 15'x25' 375 1 375 L 1 1 1 Storage 1 1 1 10'x25' 1 250 1 250 1 Janitor's Closet 1 10'x12' 120 r 120 L 4 1 1 Mechanical/Electrical Room 1 1 1 20'x30' 1 600 1 600 Public Restrooms 21 9'x10' 90 L 180 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% Space Name Quantity Large Spaces (Angled 60°) Medium Spaces 7,773 1 1,160 8,893 1 Size i Area i Total 16 18'x36' 835 13,3601 4 1 1- 49 1 12'x24' I 288 1 14,112 Small Spaces Mezzanine Storage 20 I 8'x12' 96 1,920 1 1 1 30'x40' 1 1,200 I 1,200 General Storage 1 1 1 L 20'x100' 2,000 L 2,000 1 Vehicle Wash Bay 1 1 1 35'x50' 1 1,750 1 1,750 J Circulation 1 1 30'x6600' 19,789 19,789 1 L 1 1 L Total 54,131 1 18 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Vehicle Maintenance Departmental Shops Total Area Summary Space Name Quantity Large Maintenance Bay Size Area Totali 2 1 24'x48' 1 1,152 1 2, 304-1 Small Maintenance Bay 2 i 20'x40' 800 L 1,600 Welding Bay / Fabrication 1 1 I 28'x40' 1 1,120 1 1,1201 Small Engine Repair Bay 1 20'x40' 1 800 800 1 L Tire & Brake Shop 1 1 1 20'x28' I 560 1 560_I Tire Storage ( Mezzanine) 1 1 I 30'x10' 1 300 I 300 i Lube Room I 1 7 12'x16' 192 r 192 Parts Storage & Tools Room L 11 20'x50' 1,000 L 1,000 J Subtotals Circulation Total 15% 7,876 1,181 9,057, Space Name i Quantity Size Area Total Sign Storage 1 1 I 30'x40' 1 1,200 1 1,200 J Woodworking Shop 1 20'x30' 600 600 Parks Storage I 1 30'x40' 1,200 Water Meter Shop / Storage 1 15'x30' 450 r 450 1 1 L 1 1,200 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% 3,450 518 3,968, Subtotals 76,049 Exterior Wall and Building 10% 7,605 Services Total 83,654 As this Space Needs Program indicates, the Public Works Department will need a total building area approaching approximately 84,000 square feet by the end of the study target of 2040. While the population of the City of Lino Lakes is projected to grow 50% by 2040, the projected total Space Needs Program is only 15% more than the current space needs because of operational efficiencies of a larger city. Due to this future growth and also the potential use of some existing cold storage space over the next 10 to 15 years, the Space Needs Program can be met in a two phase approach with Phase 2 encompassing approximately 25,000 square feet of future Vehicle Storage needs. CNH ARCHITECTS 19 COMPARISON MATRIX Comparative Square Footage Calculation The Comparison matrix reflects size of areas in comparative Public Works Facilities. The following formula was used to create comparison factors. Formula for Comparison: Square feet Population __ Comparison Factor The comparative factors are not a definitive means for determining the appropriate size and scale of Lino Lakes' expansion needs, particularly con- sidering many other factors can influence how and why departmental allocations are established. However, this information can be helpful in guiding the space needs program with a larger perspective that acknowledges the external factor of city population and growth and how that impacts the operational capacity of the Public Works facility. From the chart below, we can see that Hopkins' has a somewhat smaller population. Hopkins' total square footage for their Vehicle Storage space (shown to the right) is 37,800 square feet which is 85.5% larger than Lino Lakes' actual area of 5,512 square feet. Lino Lakes has a much smaller Vehicle Storage area. It is not surprising that Lino Lakes' Public Works facility is smaller than comparison facilities given Lino Lakes' growth in popula- tion and service needs since the current facility was built approximately 45 years ago. City Population (2013 Census) ' Lino Lakes Hugo 1 Shoreview Otsego Hopkins � ,, ' 20,862 14,082 ' 25,931 14,524 18,025 ' Projected Population (2040) . Lino Lakes � l, 1. 31,100 ,l 20 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study COMPARISON MATRIX I Existing L Phase 1 Phase 2 0 I Vehicle Storage Square Feet OAS^ psO^ pis^ .o Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,512 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (24,359 sf (54,131 sf) / 31,100) Hugo (15,000 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (38,410 sf / 25,931) Otsego (18,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (37,800 sf / 18,025) ••' / Population sz\ 0000000G O 00000001 O 00000001 0000001 600 a) v O lad Iy I V Ic I a) v) Lino Lakes (Existing) (3,545 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (8,893 sf / 31,100) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (15,620 sf / 25,931) Otsego (4,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (13,596 sf / 18,025) Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,742 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (13,025 sf / 31,100) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (13,990 sf / 25,931) Otsego (5,850 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (10,917 sf / 18,025) oc O 000 O 00001 00( 410001 O 0001 CNH ARCHITECTS 21 Option Al Layout Description Option Al is located at the current Public Works and Senior Center Facility site. This option includes extensive remodeling of the existing Public Works and Senior Center Facility into Public Works' office space and vehicle maintenance area. The expansion includes additional office, additional vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building and material storage bins will be reused. Due to the limitations of the buildable area and the location of the existing cell tower, a portion of the vehicle storage is rotated at a 120 degree angle. This option would involve a total gutting of the existing building as needed to address deficiencies in the current building related to accessibility, energy code, fire suppression and mechanical systems. Option Al and the following option by using the existing public works site will also require an extension of the municipal water service and municipal sanitary service to the site. Due to the site layout limitations working around the existing office and maintenance building, the existing cold storage buildings will not be able to remain. This will reduce the total available storage for the Public Works department until Phase 2 is built, and may also result in the need to build Phase 2 sooner than the other option in order to meet the city's growth. 1 Pros I I • Re -use of existing Public Works building structure I • Use of existing Salt Building I • Use of existing Material Storage Bins I • Use of existing miscellaneous site storage I • Re -use of existing site I • Large buildable area I I I I • • Cons • Potential long construction period of existing building disrupting operations • Cost of bringing new Water main to site due to fire suppression requirements • Loss of use of existing ice rink and cost to remove • Loss of use of existing baseball field and cost to remove • Cost of remodel based on code and handicapped accessibility deficiencies • Non -efficient floor plan of vehicle storage to fit site and keep existing building • Cost of bringing municipal sanitary sewer to site (or impacts of large storage tank and regular pumping for floor drains and wash bay sanitary) • Reduced facility life expectancy and increased maintenance for the remodeled portion of the building compared to an all new facility Total Square Footage • Remodel 12,752 s.f. • New 67,582 s.f. • Total 80,334 s.f. • • • 22 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Existing Material Storage Bins LI Existing Baseball Field Wetlands Fuel Trailer Island Storage Vehicle Storage Wash ` Bay • Vehicle Maintenance Existing • Cell / Tower 55 Parking Stalls Option Ex. Retention Pond Main Street CNH eau Lake Dr. ARCHITECTS 23 Option A2 • • • Layout Description Option A2 is located at the current Public Works and Senior Center Facility site. This option provides for an all -new Public Works Facility which includes office, vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building, cold storage garage and material storage bins will be reused. Since this option removes the existing 45 year old building, it provides the flexibility to place the building on the site in a more advantageous layout. This results in a more compact building footprint, better screening of the building to the east neighborhood, and the option for drive -through parking for large equipment within the storage garage. This site option also allows for the continued use of the newer of the two existing cold storage garages which will provide more available space for the Public Works department, especially until Phase 2 is added. Option A2, using the existing public works site, requires an extension of the municipal water service and municipal sanitary service to the site. Pros • Use of existing salt building • Use of existing material storage Bins • Use of existing miscellaneous site storage • Use of existing cold storage garage • Longer life -expectancy and reduced maintenance for an all new facility • Large buildable area • Drive through stalls for large vehicle storage parking • Flexibility in building placement to best fit uses and site Cons • Cost of demolishing existing facility • Disruption of operations during construction period • Cost of bringing new water main to site for fire suppression requirements • Loss of use of existing ice rink and cost to remove • Loss of use of existing baseball field and cost to remove • Cost of bringing municipal sanitary sewer to site (or impacts of large storage tank and regular pumping for floor drains and wash bay sanitary) Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 79,503 s.f. • Total 79,503 s.f. • Existing Cold Storage 4,835 s.f. • • • 24 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Option "2 Existing Material Storage Bins sew ehf Existing Baseball Field Existing Roa 0 0 0 0 0 Wetlands Existing Salt Phase 2 Building r — Trailer Storage I I Existing Garage 1 Existing,, Cell Tower 55 Parking Office Stalls = Vehicle Storage Vehicle /` I Maintenance 1 ...� Wash Bay 1 Shops ch. 410111114 t e e e a e Ex. Retention Pond ir Main Street d 4• ondeau Lake Dr. CNH ARCHITECTS 25 Option B1 Layout Description Option B1 is located adjacent to Fire Station #2. This option includes a new Public Works Facility which includes office, vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building and material storage bins will be reused at the existing Public Works site. This option would allow for the use of the existing public works storage buildings throughout the construction period reducing operational disruption and cost during construction. Option B1 would also allow for the continued use of the north site facilities after construction until they reach there anticipated life -expectancy allowing for more flexibility and space for the Public Works department, especially until Phase 2 is added to the building. • I, I I Pros • • • Existing municipal sanitary sewer connection located on site • Existing municipal water main connection located on site • Use of existing ice rink on Site A • Use of existing baseball fields on Site A • Efficient floor plan of vehicle storage • No disruption at the current Public Works facility during construction • Located adjacent to Fire Station #2 • Closer to future population density as Lino Lakes grows • Existing storage buildings at north site can continue to be used Cons • Smaller buildable area creates minimal clearances for site functions • Existing salt building is located on Site A • Existing material storage bins are located on Site A • High visibility from future road Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 76,017 s.f. • Total 76,017 s.f. • Ex. Public Works Storage 14,799 s.f. • • 26 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Office Layout Infiltration Wetlands Basin Vehicle Storage Wash ;,� Bay Birch Street Infiltration Basin Existing Fire Wetlands Fuel Island Trailer Storage Station Infiltration Basin Existing Road " II III' Phase 2-\ 55 Parking Stalls r CNH Option B1 ARCHITECTS 27 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Introduction The current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971 and does not have access to municipal water or municipal sanitary sewer. Due to fire code requirements that limit the square footage of the facility the existing Public Works building cannot be expanded unless municipal water is brought to the site. The additions to this facility include 4 separate buildings. The majority of the vehicles are stored outdoors, which inherently reduces their life span. Equipment is currently stored in 3 buildings and is not conducive to an efficient work flow. The building has water damage and leaking in several locations. Equipment Storage Public Works is currently storing most of their equipment outside where they are covered in snow and have a greater chance of being rusted, therefore reducing their life span. Vehicle Storage Public Works is currently storing vehicles outside, where they are covered in snow and have a greater chance of being rusted, therefore reducing their life span. Vehicle Maintenance The current Vehicle Maintenance area and tool storage area does not provide adequate space to service the city's fleet of vehicles. 28 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Exterior Brick Exterior brick on the building has severe water damage in multiple places and is in need of repair. Roof leakage The existing standing seam roof needs to be replaced as there are multiple locations where leaking has occurred. Gutters There are several locations around the building where gutters are failing or not in place, snow is melting off of the roof and causing water damage and icy conditions, which are hazardous for the public and employees. Offices and Storage Current offices and storage areas are intermingled and do not provide an efficient use of space. CNH ARCHITECTS 29 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Break Room/Office One of the additional buildings on -site houses one office and a break room due to limited space in the main facility. Locker room The current locker room does not have adequate lockers to accommodate employees and is used as a circulation space which doesn't have privacy for employees. Lunch Room The current lunch room does not have adequate appliances and chairs to accommodate Public Works employees. Server / Telephone Storage The current server is located in the main hallway, isn't easily accessible and is an eyesore. The data and telephone phone board is currently in the storage room. 30 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ACCESSIBILITY & CODE REVIEW Introduction The current Public Works facility was built in 1971 and has major deficiencies related to accessibility, energy code, fire suppression and mechanical systems. Our accessibility review identifies conditions in the existing building that require immediate attention including; restroom clearances (water closet, lavatory and shower), non -accessible door hardware, accessible door clearances and accessible counter heights. The existing building does not meeting current energy code requirements, fire suppression requirements, exiting requirements and mechanical system requirements as discussed on the following page. We did not complete a full OSHA safety assessment as a part of this study, but there are several items in the building that should be assessed further, including proper headroom clearances under the Vehicle Maintenance mezzanine. As a result of the extent and variety of code, accessibility, and safety deficiencies in the current building, it is our opinion that the most economical approach if remodeling is considered would be to remove all existing interior rooms and reconstruct the interior build -out of the vast majority of the existing space. This also results in the best design fit with the long-term needs of the Public Works department. The existing Men's Restroom does not have proper clearances for accessibility, with any amount of remodeling the restrooms would need to comply with the latest Minnesota State accessibility code. The existing Women's Restroom does not have proper clearances for accessibility, with any amount of remodeling the restrooms would need to comply with the latest Minnesota State accessibility code. CNH ARCHITECTS 31 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE Ventilation System Current ventilation system is inadequate. Current codes require .75 cfm per square foot of ventilation interlocked with an outdoor air intake. The current system operates manually with independent control switch for both the fan and intake damper. The exhaust fans appear dated and most likely have exceeded their expected service life. Exhaust System Vehicle Maintenance requires carbon monoxide sensors (gasoline engine fumes) and nitrogen dioxide sensors (diesel engine fumes) to enable the exhaust system in the event that the concentrations exceeds code minimum set point. These sensors are not installed. Heating General heating is accomplished with gas fired infrared heaters. These units are dated and most likely have exceeded their expected service life. Sanitary Waste The sanitary waste from the trench drains and floor drains are routed directly to the septic system. This is a code violation. For buildings served with a septic system, the flammable waste from trench drains must be routed to a storage tank separate from the septic system. Tanks are emptied periodically and trucked to a proper waste facility. 32 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study MECHANICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW - OFFICES/SENIOR CENTER Furnace Room - Offices The office space is served by three furnaces and associated split system air conditioning units. The units were installed in 2010 and are in good condition. The ductwork connected to these units would need to be replaced based upon the condition of the current ductwork and the change in zoning due to renovation schemes. In addition, current requirements for ventilation air will require an air-to-air energy recovery unit to temper the outdoor air before it is introduced into the furnaces. Furnace Room - Senior Center The community space is also served by three furnaces and associated split system air handlers. They were installed in 2010 as well and are in good condition. The comments for item 1 above applies to these systems as well. - One of the units has a capacity of 5 tons. The Mn Energy Code requires a system of this capacity to be equipped with an economizer. The economizer introduces outdoor air into the space when outdoor air temperatures are favorable and cooling is required by utilizing outdoor air for cooling as opposed to operating compressors. CNH ARCHITECTS 33 COST ESTIMATE 34 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study COST ESTIMATE Option Al Remodel & Expansion Phase 1 • Option A2 New Facility at Existing Site Phase 1 • Option B1 New Facility at Fire Station Site Phase 1 • Cost Estimate Summary Low Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) $ 9,707,342 $ 360,000 $ 10,067,342 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,195,113 $ 360,000 $ 12,555,113 1 Low Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) $ 10,040,359 $ 360,000 $ 10,400,359 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,458,171 $ 360,000 12,818,171 Low Cost Public Works Facility Total (2017 Dollars) 9,922,715 $ 9,922,715 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,380,093 $ 12,380,093 The cost estimates shown above represent our teams professional opinion of probable construction cost based on the uses proposed, and typical construction costs for similar facilities within the greater metropolitan area. The low cost to high cost range represents the preliminary level of the designs done within this study, as well as the range in quality, life -cycle, and aesthetic choices that would be reviewed and selected by the city during the design process. The costs, as indicated are current construction costs and an inflation factor would need to be applied when a specific time line is developed. The prices shown represent the estimated hard costs of the site and building construction shown in each option layout and vary only about $500,000 when comparing the Low Cost for each option or 5% of the total cost. However, there are other cost factors not indicated that should also be taken into consideration when comparing options that would create a greater final cost differential between options. A partial list of these items include: • Operational cost to move Public Works functions off -site during construction for Site A options • Loss of use of ball field and hockey rink at Site A if expansion occurs there • Additional maintenance costs for reused portions of the existing structure under Option Al, compared to an all -new facility in the other options • Ability to continue to use one existing cold storage building under Option A2 and two existing cold storage buildings under Option B1, thus postponing the date when Phase 2 of the Public Works storage shown in each option layout would be needed CNH ARCHITECTS 35 PROPOSAL CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS A AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT QUINN S. HUTSON, AIA PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT CNH ARCHITECTS 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 PHONE 952-431-4433 www.cnharch.com SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 16088 September 23, 2016 City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy. Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Public Works Space Needs Analysis and Existing Facility Audit On behalf of CNH Architects, our consulting engineers and estimator, thank you for considering our Proposal to provide Facility Space Needs Analysis services for the City of Lino Lakes. The project team presented in this proposal has worked together for many years on City, County, and State projects in the State of Minnesota. Our architectural/engineering team has a common goal to provide quality design services and to be at the forefront of utilizing sustainable building methodologies. We understand the need for an organized process from the first meeting through completion of this study, with clear and detailed documentation along the way. CNH Architects has worked with the City of Lino Lakes as well as numerous municipalities throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area to provide assessment services, reviewing current conditions of many existing governmental facilities and identifying immediate as well as future growth needs. We communicate closely with our engineers and cost estimator so that our observations are shared and comprehensive, while keeping a holistic approach on the entire project so that the overall building performance and client vision is considered when individual components and systems are under analysis. Details can impact both short and long term effects on cost, maintenance and occupant use, and as a design team we are attentive to these implications at every scale. We look forward to serving the City of Lino Lakes and together evaluate the facility needs of the Public Works Department now and into the future. Respectfully submitted, Quinn S. Huston, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. CNH Architects, Inc. 7300 West 147th Street Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone 952-431-4433 www.cnharch.com PROJECT TEAM e Our Team for your project consists of Architects, Mechanical / Electrical Engineers and Cost Estimator. It is our intention to maintain a consistent team of the principal architect and engineers presented in this proposal from the first meeting through completion of the study. By doing this, we will provide continuity of information, communications and understanding of the city's goals as the study progresses. This team will be supported by staff architects, designers and engineers as needed for the workflow and timeline developed in coordination with City staff. Principal Architect, Quinn Hutson, will lead and coordinate all members of the design team and be the primary contact throughout the project. He brings extensive experience with city projects, numerous reviews of client and facility needs, and familiarity with the City and staff from past projects with the City of Lino Lakes. Architect of Record CNH Architects, Inc. 7300 W. 147th Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124-7580 952-431-4433 Project Architect: Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Mechanical/Electrical Engineers Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. (edi) 1112 Fifth Street North Minneapolis, MN 55411 612-343-5965 Mechanical Engineer: Larry Svitak, PE Electrical Engineer: Jay S. Hruby, PE Cost Estimator Professional Project Management (PPM) 1858 East Shore Drive Maplewood, MN 55109 651-776-5590 Cost Estimator: Doug Holmberg CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 2 PROJECT APPROACH PROJECT NEEDS ASSESSMENT In order to put together a comprehensive assessment that addresses issues thoroughly and makes sound recommendations going forward, CNH Architects will collect information about the existing facilities as exhaustively as possible. Our team will interview appropriate City Staff to understand both their current needs as well as future operational changes and anticipated growth areas. We will compare these areas to other similar cities, providing not only relational size comparisons but interjecting potential issues that may not have been considered. To create accountability and clarity in our investigation, we make it a priority to gather initial information with rigor such that assumptions are minimal, collaborating closely with our engineers to pinpoint existing and potential issues that may or may not already be identified. In this process, owner and facility management involvement is critical, particularly in revealing and weighing components that contribute towards small and large scale building performance and longevity. ACCESSIBILITY AND CODE COMPLIANCE Many existing buildings are not up to code with building codes and accessibility requirements. We have extensive experience working with code and ADA guidelines, including recent projects completed with the State of Minnesota in upgrading all restrooms in their 4-story, 78,000 sf administrative building on the Capitol grounds, plus the unique security and accessibility issues of the Dakota County LEC 8100 Cell Block remodeling. These aspects of a project can easily become a costly component, and our familiarity with many issues related to accessibility upgrades can lead to efficient and proactive solutions. MAINTENANCE & LONGEVITY Durable materials, equipment and finishes are considered for longevity when providing recommendations in the assessment report, and consideration will be taken to balance initial construction cost versus cost over the life of the product and its implications on the rest of the structure if any. We would present a list of options, innovative ways to keep cost at a minimum, and review the pros and cons of each option to best achieve identified project goals. Buildings inevitably deteriorate and require periodic maintenance. While keeping safety and durability of paramount importance, the Project Team is prepared to recommend options that help reduce maintenance costs and create an environment where building upkeep is simple and straightforward. CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 3 PROJECT APPROACH SUSTAINABILITY The Project Team will provide recommendations for sustainable opportunities in the existing city public works campus as well as any future facilities or sites. CNH has many years of green building experience, with several awarded projects listed in our firm portfolio. We just recently assisted the City of Roseville in utilizing the excess heat generated by the Ice Arena on their city campus to fully heat the new Fire Station we designed for them, providing significant energy cost savings. Creative approaches such as this will be evaluated for Lino Lakes, including initial cost and payback analysis to assist you in making informed choices that best fit the goals and values of the City. OPTION ANALYSIS After gathering all the information on space needs, evaluated the existing public works campus, and developed future needs based on expected growth; CNH will review three approaches for the City of Lino Lakes to meet their Public Works needs. These will include: Option 1 — Renovate the existing building and expand to meet future needs. Option 2 — Build an all new facility at the existing west site to provide long-term value. Option 3 — Build an all new facility at the city property at Birch Street and Centerville Road leaving some appropriate elements at the existing west site. The study will review each of the above options, analyzing and listing comparative data on each option in order to provide the City of Lino Lakes with the tools to make an informed decision on the future of the Public Works department facilities. Among others, the review of each option will include the following topics: • Space needs — current and future • Growth potential for each option • Existing facility conditions Deferred and short-term maintenance Building code / OSHA compliance • Accessibility compliance • Energy usage and potential for savings • Long-term costs of operation • Capital costs for construction / remodeling proposed • Site location relative to population and infrastructure CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 4 FIRM BACKGROUND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CNH Architects is a full -service architectural firm providing architectural design, engineering, interior planning and landscape architecture for corporate, commercial, manufacturing, and recreational facility owners as well as government agencies. The Principals, Wayne Hilbert and Quinn Hutson, are directly responsible for all design work. CNH Architects has a staff with advanced training and certification in several areas including Certified Interior Designers, Certified Construction Specifier, LEED Accredited Professionals, NCARB certification, Construction Document Technologist, and Green Globe Professional. With an efficient project team and over 50 years of experience, CNH Architects has a strong reputation for well thought-out design plans and personal attention to client requirements. CNH stresses strong design, quality contract documents, close communications with clients, and an intense field review and follow-up program. We are organized to assume full, single source responsibility for a thoroughly integrated and cost effective service. From a project's beginning, program, budget, and schedule are established, and a team of experts is assembled under the principal and project manager to assure that elements are addressed, questions answered, and the design and construction process is fully coordinated. A growing list of satisfied and repeat clients is testimony to the discipline and persistence of an organization that will not settle for partial success. Over the last several years, CNH Architects has worked on construction projects which total between 20 - 30 million dollars annually. Our projects have varied including city, county, and state work, along with church and private sector clients. COMPOSITION OF FIRM Licensed Architects 5 Designers 5 Administrative Support 2 Sustainable design is an integral part of our practice. A majority of our professional staff has LEED Accreditation and our office designed the first Green Globe projects in Minnesota. This is a third party national verification system as administered by the Green Building Initiative. CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 5 PROJECTS First Floor Plan 61542.81 Enlarged Plan - Police Entry /Receoton _ Enlarned Plan - Citv Hall Main Lobby ED EAGAN CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT ADDITION AND REMODEL EAGAN, MN After over 25 years of use without significant remodeling, the City of Eagan found that the growth of the staff both in administration and the police department was stretching their facility past its ability to meet the current needs. CNH Architects did a comprehensive review of all staffing departments and operations and, along with city staff, developed a space needs analysis identifying both under-utilized space as well as significant shortfalls in operational space standards. In addition, the building condition was reviewed to determine elements that were either failing or reaching their expected usable life. From this space needs study, CNH developed multiple options for addressing the needs identified in both City Hall and Police Department portions of the building. With staff input, these options were then modified to best meet operational flows, space needs, efficiency, and budget. A detailed construction cost was then determined and the project budget was set. The city is completing the financial planning for this addition and remodeling project which will then move into the construction document and actual construction phases in the near future. Project Architect Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects Reference Dave Osberg, City Administrator, 651-675-5000 POLICE SPACE SUMMARY First Floor Addition Remodel Enclosed Vehicle Garage -35 squad stalls 14,300 SF Front Lobby / Sally Port - Increase Security 210 SF Renovate Evidence Intake Lab and Evidence Storage 360 SF Renovate Men's and Women's Locker Rooms 2,200 SF Relocate Tactical Team Room / Renovate Garage #7 335 SF Enlarge Computer Forensics Office Area 80 SF Reduce Number of Holding Cells to Increase Storage 400 SF Sub -Total First Floor 14,300SF 3,585SF Second Floor Addition Remodel Police Office Expansion 3,485 SF Add Investigations Meeting Room 380 SF Renovate Records Storage Area 170 SF Enlarge Existing Conference Room 1,000 SF Add 2 Administrative Offices at existing Break Room 400 SF Sub -Total Second Floor 3,485SF 1,950SF Total Proposed Police Space 17,785 SF 5,535 SF PROPOSED PROJECT Renovation Area Expansion Area New Building Addition Fir. Floor Police Garage Addition $3,061,000 Security Upgrades to Fire Station R3 Seto. Floor Police / City Hall Addition $60,000 $2,581,000 Existing Campus Facility Lower Level Police/CRY Hall Renovation Bi Overall Building First Floor Police Renovation $27,00c $312,00( Second Floor Police Renovation Second Floor City Hall Renovation $205,00( $112,00c Exterior site Police Parking Lot Expansion $109 o00 andSySIPMS 2nd Floor City Hall tRenovation $535,000 Systems Furniture at 2nd Floor Police / City Hall Expansion Moving of Communications Equipment $1so,0o0 $11,000 Sub -total Total Estimated Cost (Revised) Cost Reduction from Original $1,352,006 $6,/11,000 Sa,o63,000 Ss9o,a00 CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 6 PROJECTS ywwwwrr-wi_mcm maw.. - - Fire Slaliou Four BUILDING ASSESSMENTS (CNH Architects) CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MN CNH Architects is hired by the City of Bloomington to provide ongoing architectural consulting on design and maintenance projects. These projects have involved studies, design options, maintenance recommendations, and aesthetic opinions. Along with our consulting engineers and designers, our services to date have included: • Improving locker room drainage at a pool facility. • Developing new site design options for street turning lanes and municipal center complex. • Studying material upgrades for a Senior Center. • Finish replacement options for public lobby at City Hall. • Acoustical study and design for private offices, conference room, and performance studio at public works and performing arts areas. • Pistol range storage options study. Office area remodeling to accommodate additional staff. BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BUILDING (EDI) FORT SNELLING, MN Engineering Design Initiative completed a comprehensive feasibility study for the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building located in Fort Snelling, MN. Facility sustainability and energy efficiency were the primary focus of the study. The existing mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems serving the building are very inefficient, have greatly exceeded their normal operating lifetimes and have become increasingly problematic. Asbestos containing materials (ACM) are also a major concern. EDI identified four facility alternatives ranging from refurbishing and replacing selected MEP equipment to complete ACM abatement and facility renovation. The study included conceptual design, construction cost estimating, tenant relocation planning, sustainability concepts and life cycle cost analysis. Based on the study results, the US General Services Administration has implemented a program to completely renovate the building so that it can continue to serve the regional offices of the Federal Government well into the future. CITY OF EAGAN FIRE STATION #4 - FACILITY STUDY (CNH Architects) EAGAN, MN CNH Architects provided a complete facility assessment of existing Fire Station #4 for the City of Eagan. This study evaluated the existing condition of fire station exterior envelope and all interior elements to determine their life expectancy and repair costs. The facility was also reviewed for ADA accessibility, identifying deficiencies and recommended upgrades. In addition, the facility was evaluated for function, current staff and equipment needs, and finally fire fighter safety. From this review, CNH developed a list of recommended remodeling elements and an expansion to better fit the current apparatus and to expand gear locker clearance to meet NFPA safety standards. After identifying the facility's maintenance, accessibility, function and safety deficiencies, CNH Architects provided preliminary design of measures to address the existing concerns. Once these project goals were determined, an itemized cost estimate was developed for the maintenance, remodeling and expansion project. Finally, CNH worked along with the city staff to develop a written report and digital presentation to present this information to the City Council. CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 7 RESUMES Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal Architect CNH Architects As principal in the firm, Quinn's responsibilities cover all facets of architectural design, design development and construction document preparation. Individual project tasks include: client need assessment, alternative concept development, design/construction document preparation, building material and finish selection, cost estimating, code compliance verification and approval assurance. In addition to over 30 years with CNH Architects, Quinn's background includes many years of construction experience and annual continuing education to bring current construction knowledge to all of his projects. Years of Experience: 30 Education: Bachelor of Architecture, University of Minnesota Registration: Professional Architect, Minnesota; Minnesota State Architecture Registration No. 21234; Certified Interior Designer, Minnesota; LEED Accredited Professional Affiliations: Rotary International, past President Eagan Rotary; Eagan Rotary Foundation, past Chair; American Institute of Architects; Firm Membership in the US Green Building Council Facility Assessments City of Eagan City Hall / Police Department - Facility Assessment and Needs Analysis Masterplan City of Eagan Fire Station #4 - Facility Assessment and Upgrade Study City of Rosemount Steeple Center (Former St. Joseph's Church) - Facility & Accessibility Study 360 Communities - Facility Assessment & Maintenance Budget Report Dakota County - Rooftop Fall Protection Study (32 buildings) Dakota County LEC - 8100 Cell Block Renovation Other Relevant Projects ABLE Fire Training Center - Burnsville, MN B. Robert Lewis House Renovation - Eagan, MN City of Apple Valley, MN Apple Valley Liquor Store #1 & #2 Police Facility City of Eagan, MN City Hall Community Room Fire Station #2 Remodel Fire Station #3 Remodel City of Rosemount, MN Community Center Arena Wall Community Center Banquet Upgrades Steeple Center Renovations City of Roseville Fire Station - Roseville, MN Dakota County, MN Community Development Agency - Eagan Courtroom Build -Out - Hastings Judicial Center- Hastings Judicial Center Addition & Remodel Law Enforcement Center - Hastings Independent School District 192 - Farmington, MN ECSE Program Farmington High School MMI Renovation Special Education Superintendant Office Independent School District 196 - Rosemount/ Apple Valley/Eagan, MN Apple Valley High School Baseball Field Eastview High School Mechanical Catwalk ISD 196 Pathways, Apple Valley Commons II ISD 196 Transition Plus, Apple Valley Commons II Rosemount High School Theater Light Access Transportation Building Metropolitan Council Regional Maintenance Facility Addition/Remodel - Eagan, MN Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Division Headquarters - Scott, Carver, Anoka, & Dakota Counties Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) District Facility - Detroit Lakes, MN Straight River Wayside Rest - Owatonna, MN CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 8 RESUMES Timothy M. Nielsen, LEED AP BD+C Architect CNH Architects Mr. Nielsen has participated in numerous projects requiring the assessment of existing building components and systems. Examples of this experience include renovation and repair projects for municipal/government facilities as well as historic preservation projects that have required a full assessment and analysis of all building components and systems to determine their appropriateness and cost effectiveness for reuse. Years of Experience: 20 Education: Master of Architecture, University of Kansas; Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies, University of Nebraska Registration: Professional Architect, Minnesota; NCARB Certificate; Certified Building Official (CBO), State of Minnesota; LEED AP BD+C Affiliations: Competent Toastmaster (CTM), Toastmasters Int'I; Member, National Trust for Historic Preservation Facility Assessments City of Eagan City Hall / Police Department - Facility Assessment and Needs Analysis Masterplan Dakota County LEC - 8100 Cell Block Renovation Hennepin County"- multiple facilities Minnesota Air National Guard" Reroofing and exterior renovation projects Hotel Kaddatz - Fergus Falls, MN" Historic building renovation / repairs for adaptive reuse North Branch Library - Minneapolis, MN" Historic building renovation / repairs for adaptive reuse Flour Exchange Building - Minneapolis, MN" Historic building exterior repairs Other Relevant Projects Department of Administration, State of Minnesota Water Intrusion Repairs - Judicial Center Exterior Paver Replacement - Judicial Center Buerkle Acura - White Bear Lake, MN Dakota County Western Service Center Public Health Remodel - Apple Valley, MN Metropolitan Mosquito Control District - Plymouth, MN * denotes projects completed with other firms CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 9 PROJECT TEAM rill 1: Larry Svitak, PE , Principal, Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. '1 - Mechanical Engineer Larry has been involved in the design, construction administration, and project management of a variety of HVAC systems for over 12 years. Throughout that time Larry has earned the respect of his colleagues and clients through his hard work, attention to detail, and his great skills in communicating the complexities of HVAC systems to his customers. These skills stem not only from his technical grasp of HVAC systems, but from the practical experiences he gained in his first career as an Owner of an HVAC sheet metal firm. Years of Experience: 30 Registration: Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Minnesota Registration No. 25091 Affiliations: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers; American Society of Plumbing Engineers; Firm Membership in the Consulting Engineering Council; Firm Membership in the U.S. Green Building Council Select Projects: Aitkin County Public Works Building - Aitkin, MN Anoka County Public Safety Campus Facility Analysis - Andover, MN (Minnesota B3) City of Eagan Fire Station #1 Fire Station #4 City of Minneapolis, MN Building Automation System Installation in 13 Fire Stations Paving Lab Study, Hiawatha Site Water Works Fridley Maintenance Facility (B3) - Fridley, MN Crow Wing County Highway Department, Brainerd Complex - Brainerd, MN Dakota County LEC 8100 Block - Hastings, MN Lino Lakes Fire Station - Lino Lakes, MN Lower St. Croix Valley Fire Station - Lakeland, MN LSS Data System Assessment - Minnetonka, MN MCF Rush City Property Space Renovation - Rush City, MN Metro Transit Overhaul Office Remodel - St. Paul, MN MnDOT District Facility - Detroit Lakes, MN Storage Facility - Maplewood, MN Safety Rest Area Energy Upgrades - New Market, Heath Creek, Albert Lea, and Straight River, MN Mora Police Facility Study & Schematic Design - Mora, MN Morrison County - Little Falls, MN Jail Expansion Public Works, Landfill Site Public Works, River Site Nobles County Public Works Building - Worthington, MN Roseville Fire Station - Roseville, MN Sherburne County - Zimmerman, MN Maintenance Facility Public Safety Building Staples City Garage - Staples, MN CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 10 PROJECT TEAM Jay S. Hruby, PE Principal, Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. Electrical Engineer Jay has committed a large percentage of his electrical engineering career to the promotion of energy conservation and sustainability within his designs of commercial, industrial, educational and correctional buildings. Nearly all of Jay's recent projects have incorporated technologies that allow the buildings to exceed current energy code. Jay has teamed with utilities, environmental groups and energy conservation organizations to provide owners with sustainable buildings that meet the owner's performance goals. Jay has been involved in forensic engineering and commissioning of an array of electrical and communication systems. Years of Experience: 19 Registration: Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Illinois Minnesota Registration No. 40290 Affiliations: Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers; Consulting Engineering Council of Minnesota; Firm Membership in the U.S. Green Building Council Select Projects: Beltrami County Highway Department Study - Bemidji, MN City of Eagan Fire Station #1 Fire Station #4 City of Minneapolis, MN 2710 Pacific Ave. Maintenance Facility Remodel 60th & Harriet Maintenance Facility Remodel Hiawatha Maintenance Facility (LEED Project) Paving Lab Study, Hiawatha Site Royalston Maintenance Facility Fire Alarm Commissioning Water Works Maintenance Facility, Fridley (MN - B3) City of Staples Maintenance Facility - Staples, MN Crow Wing County - Brainerd, MN Highway Department, Brainerd Complex Maintenance Facility Dakota County Empire Transportation Facility Remodel - Apple Valley, MN Heartland Express Transportation Maintenance Facility - Luverne, MN Lino Lakes Fire Station - Lino Lakes, MN Metro Transit Mall of America Transit Station Remodel — Bloomington, MN Mall of America Transit Shelter — Bloomington, MN 725 Building Addition & Remodel — Minneapolis, MN Reuter Facility Remodel & Addition — Brooklyn Center, MN Transit Overhaul Office Remodel - St. Paul, MN Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Maintenance Facility (MN - B3) - Anoka, MN Minneapolis Schools Transportation Remodel - Minneapolis, MN MnDOT Equipment Storage Building Renovation — Maplewood, MN Safety Rest Areas Remodel & Energy Upgrades Mora Police Facility Study & Schematic Design - Mora, MN Morrison County - Little Falls, MN Maintenance Facility Public Works, Landfill Site Public Works, River Site Northstar Corridor LRT Terminal Target Field Station - Minneapolis, MN Pine County Public Works - Sandstone, MN Roseville Fire Station - Roseville, MN Staples City Garage - Staples, MN CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 11 PROJECT TEAM Doug Holmberg, PE President, Professional Project Management (PPM) Cost Estimator Years of Experience: 37 Registration: Registered Professional Civil Engineer Select Projects: 88th RRC Tenant Build -Out - Arden Hills, MN Apple Valley City Hall - Apple Valley, MN Apple Valley Fire Station #2 - Apple Valley, MN Apple Valley Fire Station #3 - Apple Valley, MN Army National Guard Training and Community Center - Hutchinson, MN Brainerd RTC Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades (3 Buildings) - Brainerd, MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Office Build Out - St. Paul, MN Capitol Complex Power House Electrical Upgrade - St. Paul, MN Cedar Street National Guard Armory Renovation - St. Paul, MN CENTRO Latin Community Center - Minneapolis, MN Chisago County Health and Human Services Building - North Branch, MN City of Sterling Colliseum Remodel (City Hall & Police) - Sterling, IL Command Operations Facility - Camp Pendleton, CA Dakota Communications Center - Empire, MN Delano Fire Station - Delano, MN Department of Labor: Job Corps Center Building 1 & 2 Renovation - Dayton, OH Fergus Falls City Hall Improvements - Fergus Falls, MN Fern Hill Park Picnic Shelter - St. Louis Park, MN Hennepin County Domestic Abuse Service Center - Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County Probate Court Floor C-4 Remodel - Minneapolis, MN Hennepin Parks Admin Headquarters Addition & Renovation - Plymouth, MN Improve Old Shoot Range House, Range 130 - Camp Pendleton, CA LaCrosse Transit Center - LaCrosse, WI Lesueur County Front Entry Remodel - Lesueur County, MN Metro Transit Canopy @ 7th Street (Typical Bay) - Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit Expansion 24th Street Facility - Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit Rail Support Facility - Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit South Garage Landscape Improvements - St. Paul, MN Metropolitan Council Regional Maintenance Facility Addition - Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis City Hall / MBC MPOP Upgrades - Minneapolis, MN Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) Bus Garage Expansion - Eagan, MN Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Office Consolidation - Burnsville, MN MN National Guard Camp Ripley Remodel - Little Falls, MN MN National Guard Flight Simulator Re -Roof - Minneapolis MN MN National Guard Military Vehicle Storage Building - Olivia, MN MN National Guard Roof Replacement - Northfield, MN MN National Guard Roof Replacement - Olivia, MN MnDOT District Headquarters - Detroit Lakes, MN MnDOT Maplewood Bridge Crew Building - St. Paul, MN MnDOT Truck Station - Maple Grove, MN Neighborhood House / El Rio Vista Recreation Center - St. Paul, MN Oakdale City Hall Remodel - Oakdale, MN Olmsted County Human Services Center 2116 Building - Rochester, MN Ramsey City Hall Meeting Room / Kitchenette Remodel - St. Paul, MN Ramsey County License Bureau Remodel - St. Paul, MN Rochester Bus Shelters - Rochester, MN Sherburne County / City of Becker Public Works Facility - Becker, MN Shoreview Community Center Addition & Renovation - Shoreview, MN Shoreview Community Center Remodel - Shoreview, MN Union Depot - St. Paul, MN Wabasha Hi -Rise Exterior Modifications - St. Paul, MN Wright County Remodel - Buffalo, MN CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 12 DESIGN INNOVATION Minnesota Zoo Black Bear Exhibit Valleywood Clubhouse zmmiiw. Iff! 13 4 4 ill' Apple Valley Liquor Store No. 3 ABLE Burn Building CNH Architects address issues of concern and opportunity for our clients with creative and innovative design solutions. Some of these design solutions are exemplified by the following examples: CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE When designing the Minnesota Zoo's new Black Bear Exhibit there were numerous challenges: the sloping site, exhibit safety, meeting the needs of the bears, fitting into the existing zoo's MN Trail, and creating a great visitor experience. This last challenge, to create a great customer experience, is a common issue with public facilities. For this exhibit, our design involved minimizing public view to caging and other institutional looking animal security features, while emphasizing the natural looking materials. A rock wall is positioned to hide the bear doors leading into the cage dens and creates a barrier to maintain the bears within their exhibit space. Landscaping is used to hide security fencing while giving the exhibit a natural feel. A cave for the bears also allows for an intimate viewing of sleeping bears, especially by the children that visit the exhibit. Large windows in the viewing gallery, with heated rocks just in front, help to attract the bears to a more visible viewing location. These and many other features increase the chances for visitors to see the bears while not being distracted by functional aspects of the exhibit. FLEXIBILITY Designing flexibility into a project is more than just creating a large featureless space. In the case of Valleywood Clubhouse, the facility was designed to accommodate a steady flow of golfers during the golf season, full course tournament events, and special occasion events in both the golf and non -golf seasons. To achieve this mix of activities and maintain the building footprint within the client's budget, a strategy of flexible rooms was developed. The main event room overlooks the 18th hole for a beautiful view of the course and the natural setting. It is sized to appeal to both golfers and special event users. This room is also equipped with audio/visual capabilities and has connections with an outdoor patio, bar serving window, commercial kitchen and a casual bar seating area. The casual bar seating area can serve as an overflow event space or accommodate a steady stream of golfers while another event is booked. The main entrance lobby with fireplace is ideal for setting a casual tone for golfers and allows enough space for a reception table for special events. All these rooms are nicely detailed and are equipped with features that can be used by either golfers and/or special event guests. ENERGY Reducing energy costs to a third of similar retail operations gives a building owner a competitive advantage. To achieve these savings, a comprehensive and innovative approach to building design was required. One strategy for the free standing Apple Valley Liquor Store No. 3 was to tie waste heat from the beverage coolers to a geothermal heat pump loop system that is used to heat and cool the building. Along with this system, a well -insulated building also limits the need for temperature adjustments. To further reduce energy consumption, efficient lighting and building systems were used. By incorporating natural daylight, the need for artificial lighting during daytime hours was reduced, and consequently the heat created by light fixtures. LED lighting and other high efficiency light sources were used. Pay back on the energy systems was calculated and verified by the owner at 6 to 7 years. This project is a Green Globe certified project and achieved Energy Star certification after a full year of operation. FIRST COSTS This fire training tower combines both a training tower and a fire burn facility. With 14 training rooms and participation from four communities, this facility reduces the need for multiple facilities and expands the training capabilities for the local fire departments. Within the facility sacrificial walls were used to allow protection of the permanent structural elements. Fires can do tremendous damage to a facility and these sacrificial block walls will need to be replaced every 5 years or more, but the overall structure should last for generations. This sacrificial system was selected in place of very expensive fire tile construction, saving the communities over $200,000 or more than 10 percent of the construction budget. �f CIi1TEcTS 13 CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Valleywood Clubhouse - Three Green Globes Apple Valley Liquor Store #3 - Two Green Globes Apple Valley City Hall DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS A majority of CNH Architects' architectural and intern staff are LEED Accredited Professionals and designed the first two projects in Minnesota to be awarded a Green Globe certification. Wayne Hilbert is a principal with CNH Architects and one of the first architects LEED accredited and the first architect to receive certification as a Green Globe Professional in Minnesota. CNH Architects, along with our design team, evaluate and develop sustainable strategies with our clients. We are familiar with a variety of rating systems and have incorporated multiple sustainable and high-performance strategies in our projects. These projects not only highlight our energy strategies, but also include multiple approaches to: Performance Management Site and Water Energy and Atmosphere Indoor Environment Quality Materials and Waste ROSEVILLE FIRE STATION With an existing Ice Arena on the city campus, the new Roseville Fire Station took advantage of the economies and included the development of a campus geothermal loop system. The piping loop harvests excess heat created in the process of freezing the ice sheet and distributes this heat through the city campus to the new fire station building. This first phase of the campus geothermal loop provides sufficient energy to fully heat the entire fire station building for only the cost of circulating the fluid in the loop piping, with capacity to spare for other city buildings on the campus. APPLE VALLEY LIQUOR STORE #3 Completed in 2008, this project was the first project in Minnesota to receive a Green Globe certification. The Green Building Initiative recognized this project with a "Two Globe" rating, and the building is also Energy Star certified. Using a highly efficient geothermal heat pump system and ventilation exchange allows this building to greatly reduce energy usage. The beer coolers are also integrated into the geothermal system. APPLE VALLEY CITY HALL Using both Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide and LEED as outlines for design, this project incorporates multiple sustainable strategies. It is listed on the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance website as an example of green architecture. It has also been published in American City and County Magazine and The National League of Cities for its sustainable strategies. APPLE VALLEY SENIOR CENTER - APPLE VALLEY, MN Completed in 2009, this project was awarded Two Globes under the Green Globe rating system. This facility uses a combination of daylight harvesting, heat pumps, ventilation air exchange and in -floor radiant heating to provide comfort and reduce energy consumption. VALLEYWOOD CLUBHOUSE - APPLE VALLEY, MN First facility in Minnesota to earn Three Green Globes for new construction. Overlooking the 18th hole, this building combines energy efficiency with a contemporary design to create a very successful event venue. CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 14 FEE PROPOSAL The services for this study will result in a report document that will include the following study elements and recommendations: • Space needs • Current and future growth • Comparisons to similar cities • Growth potential for each option • Existing facility conditions • Deferred and short-term maintenance • Building code / OSHA compliance • Accessibility compliance • Site location relative to population and infrastructure • Energy usage and potential for savings • Long-term costs of operation • Capital costs for construction / remodeling proposed In addition to preparing the above study results, CNH Architects and our consultant team will meet with staff as needed to gather the study information and review study drafts as well as present study results to the City Council. We propose the services indicated above for a fixed fee of $11,900, plus reimbursable expenses for printing and mileage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal and we look forward to working with the City of Lino Lakes. Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. Accepted by: Name Title Owner (Firm name) CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 15 Addendum City of Lino Lakes Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Addendum October 30, 2017 The following information is intended to expand on information provided in the original study dated April 11, 2017, to provide a more in-depth discussion of Layout Option Al, the remodeling and expansion of the existing City of Lino Lakes Public Works facility. The information in this Addendum does not change the space needs data, schematic layout design, estimated costs or other information in the original study; but instead provides a more comprehensive view of the background on which the data, design and cost estimates were based. The Addendum also reviews broad cost potentials for future expansion labeled Phase II in the study. Existing Public Works Remodeling Scope The remodeling of the existing Public Works facility is shown in the study to be a relatively complete interior gutting and rebuilding along with exterior envelope upgrades. To expand on this it is necessary to consider how the building code evaluates maintenance versus remodeling. First of all, ongoing maintenance of an existing building does not trigger code updates. However, maintenance of an existing building only allows minor ongoing operational items such as changing light bulbs (not fixtures), painting, recarpeting, patching an existing roof or repairing existing mechanical units. Replacement of roofing systems, new mechanical units, replacement of light fixtures, and similar upgrades however are specifically excluded from the maintenance definition and are instead considered remodeling. In comparison, the Minnesota State Building Code and referenced International Building Code require all remodeled portions of a building to fully comply with current building code requirements. Further, if the scope of a remodeling is such that the majority of the existing facility is remodeled, then the entire facility is required to be brought into compliance with the current building code standards. Under these provisions, the proposed remodeling and expansion of the existing Public Works facility as represented in Layout Option Al would trigger a complete code compliant end result. Finally, any items that are not in compliance with ADA accessibility standards, MPCA regulations, OSHA safety standards or other similar safety, environmental, and civil rights requirements are not "grandfathered" or allowed to remain noncompliant until a future remodeling date, but instead are to be addressed when identified. When reviewing the existing Public Works facility, see pages 28 through 33 for a general summary, it was determined that the scope of code noncompliant spaces is such that no interior room was reasonably reusable in its current basic existing condition due to configuration, construction or operational deficiencies. This level of noncompliance was more extensive than was anticipated prior to CNH ARCHITECTS the start of the study however as the documentation of existing conditions completed, the evidence was extensive. The noncompliant items include the following partial list: corridors to narrow to meet accessibility standards, restrooms and countertops of improper size or without accessible heights, combustible construction in a non-combustible defined building including wood paneling and some wood wall construction, mechanical units that did not provide minimum air quality requirements, storage in areas without proper headroom, floor drains in vehicle accessed areas that flow into a septic system, among many other items. The deficiencies identified in the existing Public Works facility are not maintenance items as defined in the earlier paragraph, but can only be addressed in an extensive remodeling of the entire existing building which is what led to the findings represented in the original study. While providing for more upgrade costs than originally would have been anticipated, the extent of the needed remodeling upgrades identified in the study is valuable knowledge for use by the City of Lino Lakes in effectively planning for the current and future needs of the Public Works Department in a manner to ensure that upgrades budgeted address the short-term and long-term goals developed for the facility. Future Expansion (Phase II) Timing and Cost The future expansion labeled as Phase II in the study represents possible future growth needs for the Public Works department looking out at least 15 to 20 years. This data is based on typical anticipated additional departmental needs to serve the increase in the population of the City of Lino Lakes as projected by the Metropolitan Council by the year 2040. This population projection is more than two decades in the future and only time will indicate if this growth level materializes. Further, the additional square footage of vehicle storage needed to serve this larger population is estimated based on staff input and comparison to other cities of similar population to the Metropolitan Council's future population estimate and also may not fully materialize. The intent of the study is to identify the maximum potential departmental facility needs within the requested timeframe reviewed such that, if needed, the site and building masterplan layout can accommodate this future facility growth without relocation or other inefficiencies. The study is not intended to indicate that the Phase II storage building expansion will be required, only that if the projections both for growth of population and equipment needs achieves the maximum envisioned levels, the site and building masterplans developed remain viable. The City of Lino Lakes would need to revisit actual needs based on updated data over the coming decades. Due to the unknown size and timing of the potential future expansion (Phase II) a cost estimate for this building addition was not included in the study results. However, to provide some concept of potential future expansion costs, the following table has been added to this Addendum. Future Expansion Size Building Area (sf) Low Cost /SF* High Cost /SF* Low Range High Range Minor Addition 15,000 $110 $150 $1,650,000 $2,250,000 Maximum Addition 30,000 $110 $150 $3,300,000 $4,500,000 *Costs in 2017 dollars and does not include inflation CNH ARCHITECTS As the table indicates, the low end cost for a small addition of a scope that still allows for efficient construction costs represents a construction cost of $1.65 million for a low -temperature heated open plan storage addition. Conversely, if the population and equipment growth projections hit their most aggressive levels represented in this study, the maximum addition cost would range from $3.3 million to a high end of $4.5 million. As noted, these construction estimates are based on recent construction costs for Public Works facilities of similar types and are listed in 2017 dollars. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional data to better explain the study methodology and the intended limitations of the future expansion cost ranges. Best Regards Quinn Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. CNH ARCHITECTS Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study '° CNH ARCHITECTS 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 952.431.4433 www.cnharch.com 04/11/17 16088 TEAM CNH Architects Quinn Hutson, AIA Principal Architect Jessica Johnson, LEED AP BD + C Architectural Designer 7300 West 147th Street, #500 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 431-4433 www.cnharch.com Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. (edi) Larry Svitak, PE Mechanical Engineer 1112 Fifth Street North Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612) 343-5965 www.edilimited.com Professional Project Management (PPM) Doug Holmberg Cost Estimator 1858 East Shore Drive Maplewood, MN 55109 651-776-5590 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PRINT NAME: QUINN HUTSON DATE: 4/11/17 LICENSE NO: 21234 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Overview of Study 6 Site A: Existing Public Works Site Introduction Site Analysis Site B: Fire Station Site Introduction Site Analysis Program Overview Space Needs Program Comparison Matrix 8 10 12 14 16 20 Option Al: Existing Building Expansion Introduction 22 Layout 23 Option A2: New Facility - Existing Public Works Site Introduction 24 Layout 25 Option B1: New Facility - Flre Station Site Introduction Layout 26 27 Existing Facility & Site Review Architectural Review 28 Accessibility and Code Review 31 Mechanical Systems Review 32 Cost Estimate Option Al 35 Option A2 35 Option B1 35 CNH ARCHITECTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site A Site B Introduction The main facility of the current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971 with several additional cold storage sheds, salt and brine shed, and a mobile office out -building added to the site, since that time. The current site is on the northwest portion of Lino Lakes, off Main Street. While the facility has functioned in the past 45 years, the City Council and staff determined that it would be appropriate to analyze the condition of the current buildings along with the operational needs of the Public Works Department to best serve the community for the next 20 years. The long-term growth anticipated for the Public Works facility was also selected to be analyzed with two possible sites to be considered - the current location labeled Site A in this study and the site adjacent to Fire Station #2 on Centerville Road and Birch Street referred to as Site B. With this goal in mind, the City of Lino Lakes contracted CNH Architects to perform an analysis of three approaches for the Public Works Facility, now and into the future. The goal of this study is to provide evidence based recommendations to address the needs of each department and analyze site conditions for each site. This study evaluates each of the sites identified, rating them for a broad series of attributes. The information provided in this study includes site data, gathered and analyzed by CNH Architects and valuable input from Lino Lakes city staff. The report includes this Executive Summary followed by supporting data and diagrams. Process Over the past few months, CNH Architects and our consulting team performed a detailed study and analysis. The study process evaluated the following four major steps: Step 1: Assess conditions of the current facility, including taking photos of the existing site. This step includes reviewing current code and accessibility compliance, deferred maintenance, and short-term anticipated maintenance requirements. Step 2: Develop a Space Needs Program of current space needs, as well as evaluating impacts on the space needs based on the projected growth of the City of Lino Lakes by 2040. This step started by gathering data from Lino Lakes city staff regarding current and projected space and site needs. Other public works facilities in similar, neighboring communities were reviewed as comparative case studies to create proper metrics for gauging the appropriate scope of work. Step 3: Develop an analysis of relevant site attributes for the two sites being considered. This analysis includes availability of public utilities, buildable area after easement and wetlands were located, efficiency of potential space use, and adjacent land uses. Step 4: Develop a total of three preliminary site and building layouts on the two proposed sites and obtain cost estimates for each option. The three options that have been identified for evaluation for the Public Works Facility are shown on the Public Works Facility Site Option Map and consist of the following: Option Al: Remodel & Building Expansion on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Option A2: New Facility on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Option B1: New Facility at Birch Street & Centerville Road adjacent to Fire Station #2 (Site B) CNH ARCHITECTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site A Statistics 0000.Adjacent Land Uses 00000 Infrastructure 0•••• Buildable Area 000•• Easements - Existing or Future 0000 • Floodplain 0000• Wetland 0•••• Site Visibility 00000 Noise Issues 00000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance) Site B Statistics 00000Adjacent Land Uses 11 00000 Infrastructure 0000• O00• Buildable Area • Easements - Existing or Future 1000..Floodplain 00000 Wetlands 10•••• Site Visibility 00000 Noise Issues 100000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance Conclusions The study determined that the existing facility, while having served the city well for 45 years, has fallen well behind current standards both for codes, safety, facility maintenance and appropriate size for a Public Works Department serving a city, the size of Lino Lakes. The building's code deficiencies include total lack of accessibility standards, multiple building code noncompliance items, OSHA workplace concerns, inappropriate sanitary waste conditions, and significant HVAC air quality issues. Similarly, the existing building has deferred maintenance issues such as leaking roof and windows as well as future near -term maintenance items that will require attention in the next 1 to 5 years. These items can all be addressed by remodeling or replacement, but need to be factored into the cost of relevant options being evaluated. The review of the Space Needs for the Public Works Department, evaluated current space use, shortfalls in needed space, and the future growth in staff and equipment projected within the study timeframe of looking forward to 2040 needs. The approach included storage of all vehicles, equipment and equipment accessories within a weather -protected semi -heated facility as is typical within current public works facilities. This approach will provide long term value to the city in significantly longer lifespan of the equipment and reduced upkeep. The results of the Space Needs Program indicate a need for a total building area around 80,000 square feet by the end of the 2040 timeframe. The study indicates that all categories are short of space, currently with the largest shortage being in the Vehicle Storage category. Based on this review, we recommend a two-step construction with Phase 1 addressing current and near -term shortfalls and Phase 2 adding additional Vehicle Storage space later in the masterplan. With this phased approach, the Space Needs Program indicated a Phase 1 size of approximately 55,000 square feet with Phase 2 adding the remaining 30,000 square feet of Vehicle Storage. These Space Needs were then compared to facilities at Hugo, Shoreview, Otsego and Hopkins. The areas of each category of space were translated in square feet per population to equalize the comparisons. The results indicate that Phase 1 Space Needs area goals are very conservative being at or under the areas represented by all the cities in comparison. The Phase 2 Space Needs area goals for the Vehicle Storage category rise into the middle of the comparison data still remaining conservative as this phase for Lino Lakes looks out to 2040 and beyond. The next step of the study analyzed site characteristics of the two potential sites being considered for the future Public Works Facility, Site A, the current Public Works site and Site B, adjacent to Fire Station #2. Site A scored moderately positive on buildable area and site visibility and moderately negative on six other statistics. It scored negative on the infrastructure due to the current lack of municipal water and sanitary sewer serving the site, which would be required to remodel or replace the facility on this site. In review of Site B, this location rated infrastructure as a positive since all utilities are already stubbed to the site from the fire station work. This site rated moderately positive for four statistics, neutral for buildable area and flood plain, and moderately negative for two remaining items. However, understanding not all statistics are of equal weight, Site A scored an average of 2.22 out of 5 total points and Site B scored an average of 3.44 out of 5 total points. While Site B has features that result in a better analysis, both sites are workable and can be considered for the future of the Public Works Department, assuming of course that municipal water and sanitary sewer is extended to Site A. Finally, the study developed three public work facility masterplan site layout options representing both a remodel / expansion approach as well as all new facilities. All three options result in facilities that function and meet the minimum goals of the Space Needs Program. The following are highlights of each option with more detailed information to be found in the main body of the study report. As shown in the cost analysis, there is approximately a 5% range in initial costs between the options however there are other factors for the City of Lino Lakes to consider in the selection such as long-term location within the city, life -cycle maintenance and utility costs, operation of public works staff during construction, and best uses of city property. 4 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Option Al Option A2 Option Bl Option Al: Remodel & Building Expansion on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) Remodeling and expansion of the existing public works building is the first option reviewed and provides the main advantages of reuse of the existing building structure. There is also the advantage of a somewhat larger overall site. However due to the extensive code, accessibility and safety issues, the building's interior would need to be mostly rebuilt to address these minimum requirements. There would also need to be exterior upgrades of the existing structure such as reroofing the building to replace the currently failing roof. For either option on Site A, the project also includes the requirement to bring municipal water and sanitary service to the site to provide mandatory fire suppression and treatment of vehicle floor drain sanitary flows. This option also impacts the public works department's operations, related to working around the remodeling and addition process. Based on the detailed preliminary cost estimates done by the cost consultant, this option's cost falls in the middle of the three options reviewed. However, when the increased maintenance costs of the remodeled portion of the building is factored in; this option is likely the costliest over the next decades. Option A2: New Facility on Existing Public Works Site (Site A) The approach on this option is the demolition of the existing public works facility and construction of an all -new facility on Site A on Main Street. This option has several advantages including the flexibility to place the new facility on the site to maximize the use, providing a more compact building and better screening of the outdoor storage and salt building area. This option also allows the continued use of the newer, of the two existing cold storage garages for the next 10 to 20 years until its life -expectancy is reached and Phase 2 is completed. The other main benefit of a new facility is the elimination of the increased maintenance and replacement requirements inherent in remodeling the existing building under Option Al. Similar to the first option however, this option would require the extension of municipal water and sanitary service to the site to provide mandatory fire suppression and treatment of vehicle floor drain sanitary flows. Operations of the Public Works Department would also be significantly impacted between the demolition and new construction of the facility, although the construction timeline would be reduced by not working around ongoing operations. Finally, this option has the highest initial cost of all the options considered, but would be less than Option Al over the next few decades when increased maintenance costs of the remodeled building is factored in. Option B1: New Facility at Birch Street & Centerville Road adjacent to Fire Station #2 (Site B) This option represents a new facility at the south Site B location where preparations for future city facilities were provided in the Fire Station #2 project. The advantages of this site include existing municipal utilities stubbed into the site, a location closer to the future population density projections, and the smallest most efficient building footprint of the three options. Other benefits of building on this site is the ability to not impact the operations of the Public Works Department during the construction process as they will be able to work from the existing facility until the new building opens. Also, by not building on Site A, there is not the loss of the one ballfield and hockey rink, maintaining more park and recreation usage within the city. Replacement costs for these recreational areas were not included in the study. Under this option, the existing salt storage building, material storage bins, as well as the existing cold storage buildings would remain on the north Site A location, at least through Phase 2 construction, providing the benefit of more available storage space in the short term. However, there will be a mixed impact of having public works elements on two sites. Option B1 has the lowest initial cost as well as the lowest life -cycle cost of the three options analyzed. CNH ARCHITECTS 5 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SITE OPTION MAP Option Al: Option A2: Option B1: Existing Site: Expand to meet future needs Existing Site: New Facility Birch St. & Centerville Rd.: New Facility Public Works Facility Option Location Map The map above shows the two sites that were identified by city staff for consideration as potential properties for the proposed Public Works Facility. Options Al and A2 are located at the current Public Works Facility. Option B1 is located adjacent to Fire Station #2. 6 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study OVERVIEW OF STUDY Project Needs Assessment CNH interviewed appropriate City Staff to understand both their current needs as well as future operational changes and anticipated growth areas. We compared these areas to similar nearby cities, providing not only relational size comparisons but interjecting potential issues that may not have been considered. To create accountability and clarity in our investigation, we made it a priority to gather initial information with rigor such that assumptions are minimal, collaborating closely with our engineers to pinpoint existing and potential issues that may or may not already be identified. Option Analysis After gathering all the information on space needs, CNH evaluated the existing public works cam- pus, and developed future needs based on expected growth; CNH reviewed three approaches for the City of Lino Lakes to meet their Public Works needs. These include: Option Al — Renovate the existing building and expand to meet future needs. Option A2 — Build an all new facility at the existing site to provide long-term value. Option Bl — Build an all new facility at the city property at Birch Street and Centerville Road leaving some appropriate elements at the existing site. The study has reviewed each of the above options, analyzing and listing comparative data on each option in order to provide the City of Lino Lakes with the tools to make an informed decision on the future of the Public Works department facilities. Among others, the review of each option will include the following topics: • Space needs — current and future • Growth potential for each option • Existing facility conditions Deferred and short-term maintenance Building code / OSHA compliance • Accessibility compliance • Capital costs for construction / remodeling proposed • Site location relative to population and infrastructure CNH ARCHITECTS 7 Site A consists of the existing site for the current Senior Citizen Center and Public Works Facility. The property's current zoning designation is for Public and Semi -Public District (PSP). It has a gross area of 27.46 acres of which 17.6 acres are suitable for building. The city owns the property of this existing facility. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the east and south, baseball fields to the west and agricultural land to the north. Photograph: View of the existing Vehicle Maintenance portion of the Public Works Facility • 8 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study SITE A CNH ARCHITECTS 9 Site A i Site Analysis PSP i Public and Semi -Public District 80 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55025 2 Properties Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres Wetlands 000•• There are designated wetlands running through the middle of the property which reduces the buildable area and mostly separating the northwest storage area from the main buildable area. The wetlands represent approximately 40% of the overall site. Infrastructure 00000 This city owned property is served by electricity and natural gas utilities, but does not have municipal sanitary or water service. The current facility uses well water and has a private mound - style septic system limiting the ability to install fire suppression and requiring storage tanks for future vehicle wash and floor drain sanitary flows. Extension of municipal sanitary is highly recommended. Municipal water and sanitary are located approximately 1 mile to the west. Floodplain 000e* There is a large floodplain running through the middle of the property mostly duplicating the wetland areas. 10 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Easements 000 There is one gas easement running on the southwest corner of the site. This easement defines the southwest edge of the main buildable area. Site Analysis Site Statistics Public Works Analysis Site A 000•• 00000 Infrastructure 0•••• 000• Adjacent Land Uses Buildable Area • Easements - Existing or Future 00000 Floodplain 00000 Wetland 00.00 Site Visibility 000110 Noise Issues 00000 Potential Neighborhood Resistance! Rating Scale ••••• o•••• oo••• 000•• 00000 Positive Moderately Neutral Moderately Negative Positive Negative Buildable Area 0•... This site is approximately 27.4 acres, of which 12 acres is buildable area. This buildable area is separated into three distinct blocks with only the southeast block of 7.7 acres large enough to be considered for this project. CNH ARCHITECTS 11 Site B: Site B is located on the southeast intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road. The property's current zoning designation is for Public and Semi -Public District (PSP). It has a gross area of 17.6 acres of which 3 acres are suitable for building. It is adjacent to Fire Station #2 to the north and agricultural land on the east and west sides. To the south the property extends toward 46 acres of land owned by the City. There is one private residence on agricultural land to the southwest. Photograph: View of the site from the east 12 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study CNH ARCHITECTS 13 B Site Analysis • PSP Public and Semi -Public District • 1710 Birch Street Lino Lakes, MN 55038 1 Property Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres - Wetlands 000•0 The designated wetlands run along the North, East and West sections of the property and decreases the buildable area within this parcel. Infrastructure •000• This city owned property is served by all public utilities including electrical, natural gas, municipal water, and municipal sanitary services. The water and sanitary pipes were stubbed into the site as part of the recent Fire Station #2 project. The site is also served by the new city street with completed connections to both Centerville Road (County 21) and Birch Street (County 34). Floodplain 0000• The floodplain runs through the East part of the property, but since the construction of the fire station the FEMA map should be updated to reflect the correct contours of the site. The diagram above represents the approximate corrected floodplain zone. It is our understanding that the floodplain update is in process. 14 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Easements 000% There are no easements on the south buildable area being considered for this project other than standard drainage and utility setbacks along the property lines and roads. Site Analysis Site Statistics Public Works Analysis Adjacent Land Uses II 0000.Infrastructure 100••• Buildable Area 0•... Site B Easements - Existing or Future 100••• Floodplain 000•• Wetlands 10•••• Site Visibility 00.00Noise Issues 1000.0Potential Neighborhood ResistanceI Rating Scale ••••• o•••• oo••• 000 00000 Positive Moderately Neutral Moderately Negative Positive Negative Buildable Area 00•0. This site is approximately 17.6 acres not including the over 46 acres to the south. After deducting the fire stations' built area, there is 3 acres of remaining buildable area for this potential project. CNH ARCHITECTS 15 SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM 16 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS - SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Overview The current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971. While the facility has functioned in the past 45 years, the City Council and staff determined that a space needs program be developed to assess the existing, current and future needs. The Space Needs Program captures the conclusions made from the assessment exercise over the last months to express the scale and scope of modifications needed to the facility for both short and long term operational demands. A comparison matrix at the end of this section reflects other Public Works facilities as they relate to the scale of this project. Public works facilities in the Twin Cites metro of Hugo, Shoreview, Otsego, and Hopkins were used as references. While each city's needs and approaches are different, the comparisons can provide additional insight when considering the best fit for the City of Lino Lakes. Space Needs Analysis Approach The space needs reviewed are based on the following assumptions to address the long-term needs of the Public Works Department for the City of Lino Lakes. While other approaches may be pursued, the assumptions indicated in this study represent the facility designs commonly taken by other similar municipalities within the greater region. A. Departments Included within the Facility: This space needs program for the overall Public Works Department includes the streets, utilities, vehicle maintenance and park & recreation operations. This combination of operations creates efficiencies in operations and facilities as many functions overlap and require similar facilities. B. Protection of Equipment: This space needs program provides space for all vehicles and equipment to be stored within the protection of the proposed building. This would include fully heated operational areas as well as partially heated storage areas, depending on the needs of the individual spaces. Much of the current equipment and many vehicles are currently stored outside within the current Public Works site significantly reducing its life -expectancy and increasing maintenance requirements. The space needs program assumes that all equipment and vehicles would be stored within the facility providing reduced life -cycle costs for the equipment and vehicles within the public works department. C. Growth Projections: The space needs program allows room for the anticipated growth needs within the following 20 years at a minimum as is typical for a public facility built to operate for a period approaching 50 years. The City of Lino Lakes is projected by the Metropolitan Council's study to expand in population to 31,100 by 2040, or a growth of 49% from current. The growth built into the space needs program represents only the added staff and equipment that was determined to be needed with the increase in population and associated streets, parks, and utilities. Consequently the building space needs growth is only 14% above the current needs, significantly less than projected population growth. CNH ARCHITECTS 17 SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Office Area Vehicle Storage 1 Space Name Public Works Superintendent Open Office Area T 1 7 • Quantity 1 Size I Area 1 Total 1 1 1 12'x14' 168 I 168 1 4 1 1_ 1 I 15'x20' 1 300 1 300 Reception 1 1 16'x10' 160 160 Private Offices I 9 1 12'x10' 1 120 1 1,080 Shop Supervisor Office 1 1 1 12'x10' 120 120 Copy Room 1 1 1 9'x10' I 90 1 90 IT/Server Room 1 9'x10' 90 i 90 Multi -Purpose Room 1 1 1 40'x45' 1 1,800 I 1,800 Lunch Room 1 30'x40' 1,2001 1,200 Men's Restroom & Locker Room 1 1 1 30'x40' 1 1,200 I 1,200—i Women's Restroom & Locker Room 1 15'x25' 375 1 375 L 1 1 1 Storage 1 1 1 10'x25' 1 250 1 250 1 Janitor's Closet 1 10'x12' 120 r 120 L 4 1 1 Mechanical/Electrical Room 1 1 1 20'x30' 1 600 1 600 Public Restrooms 21 9'x10' 90 L 180 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% Space Name Quantity Large Spaces (Angled 60°) Medium Spaces 7,773 1 1,160 8,893 1 Size i Area i Total 16 18'x36' 835 13,3601 4 1 1- 49 1 12'x24' I 288 1 14,112 Small Spaces Mezzanine Storage 20 I 8'x12' 96 1,920 1 1 1 30'x40' 1 1,200 I 1,200 General Storage 1 1 1 L 20'x100' 2,000 L 2,000 1 Vehicle Wash Bay 1 1 1 35'x50' 1 1,750 1 1,750 J Circulation 1 1 30'x6600' 19,789 19,789 1 L 1 1 L Total 54,131 1 18 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM Vehicle Maintenance Departmental Shops Total Area Summary Space Name Quantity Large Maintenance Bay Size Area Totali 2 1 24'x48' 1 1,152 1 2, 304-1 Small Maintenance Bay 2 i 20'x40' 800 L 1,600 Welding Bay / Fabrication 1 1 I 28'x40' 1 1,120 1 1,1201 Small Engine Repair Bay 1 20'x40' 1 800 800 1 L Tire & Brake Shop 1 1 1 20'x28' I 560 1 560_I Tire Storage ( Mezzanine) 1 1 I 30'x10' 1 300 I 300 i Lube Room I 1 7 12'x16' 192 r 192 Parts Storage & Tools Room L 11 20'x50' 1,000 L 1,000 J Subtotals Circulation Total 15% 7,876 1,181 9,057, Space Name i Quantity Size Area Total Sign Storage 1 1 I 30'x40' 1 1,200 1 1,200 J Woodworking Shop 1 20'x30' 600 600 Parks Storage I 1 30'x40' 1,200 Water Meter Shop / Storage 1 15'x30' 450 r 450 1 1 L 1 1,200 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% 3,450 518 3,968, Subtotals 76,049 Exterior Wall and Building 10% 7,605 Services Total 83,654 As this Space Needs Program indicates, the Public Works Department will need a total building area approaching approximately 84,000 square feet by the end of the study target of 2040. While the population of the City of Lino Lakes is projected to grow 50% by 2040, the projected total Space Needs Program is only 15% more than the current space needs because of operational efficiencies of a larger city. Due to this future growth and also the potential use of some existing cold storage space over the next 10 to 15 years, the Space Needs Program can be met in a two phase approach with Phase 2 encompassing approximately 25,000 square feet of future Vehicle Storage needs. CNH ARCHITECTS 19 COMPARISON MATRIX Comparative Square Footage Calculation The Comparison matrix reflects size of areas in comparative Public Works Facilities. The following formula was used to create comparison factors. Formula for Comparison: Square feet Population __ Comparison Factor The comparative factors are not a definitive means for determining the appropriate size and scale of Lino Lakes' expansion needs, particularly con- sidering many other factors can influence how and why departmental allocations are established. However, this information can be helpful in guiding the space needs program with a larger perspective that acknowledges the external factor of city population and growth and how that impacts the operational capacity of the Public Works facility. From the chart below, we can see that Hopkins' has a somewhat smaller population. Hopkins' total square footage for their Vehicle Storage space (shown to the right) is 37,800 square feet which is 85.5% larger than Lino Lakes' actual area of 5,512 square feet. Lino Lakes has a much smaller Vehicle Storage area. It is not surprising that Lino Lakes' Public Works facility is smaller than comparison facilities given Lino Lakes' growth in popula- tion and service needs since the current facility was built approximately 45 years ago. City Population (2013 Census) ' Lino Lakes Hugo 1 Shoreview Otsego Hopkins � ,, ' 20,862 14,082 ' 25,931 14,524 18,025 ' Projected Population (2040) . Lino Lakes � l, 1. 31,100 ,l 20 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study COMPARISON MATRIX I Existing L Phase 1 Phase 2 0 I Vehicle Storage Square Feet OAS^ psO^ pis^ .o Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,512 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (24,359 sf (54,131 sf) / 31,100) Hugo (15,000 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (38,410 sf / 25,931) Otsego (18,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (37,800 sf / 18,025) ••' / Population sz\ 0000000G O 00000001 O 00000001 0000001 600 a) v O lad Iy I V Ic I a) v) Lino Lakes (Existing) (3,545 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (8,893 sf / 31,100) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (15,620 sf / 25,931) Otsego (4,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (13,596 sf / 18,025) Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,742 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (13,025 sf / 31,100) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Shoreview (13,990 sf / 25,931) Otsego (5,850 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (10,917 sf / 18,025) oc O 000 O 00001 00( 410001 O 0001 CNH ARCHITECTS 21 Option Al Layout Description Option Al is located at the current Public Works and Senior Center Facility site. This option includes extensive remodeling of the existing Public Works and Senior Center Facility into Public Works' office space and vehicle maintenance area. The expansion includes additional office, additional vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building and material storage bins will be reused. Due to the limitations of the buildable area and the location of the existing cell tower, a portion of the vehicle storage is rotated at a 120 degree angle. This option would involve a total gutting of the existing building as needed to address deficiencies in the current building related to accessibility, energy code, fire suppression and mechanical systems. Option Al and the following option by using the existing public works site will also require an extension of the municipal water service and municipal sanitary service to the site. Due to the site layout limitations working around the existing office and maintenance building, the existing cold storage buildings will not be able to remain. This will reduce the total available storage for the Public Works department until Phase 2 is built, and may also result in the need to build Phase 2 sooner than the other option in order to meet the city's growth. 1 Pros I I • Re -use of existing Public Works building structure I • Use of existing Salt Building I • Use of existing Material Storage Bins I • Use of existing miscellaneous site storage I • Re -use of existing site I • Large buildable area I I I I • • Cons • Potential long construction period of existing building disrupting operations • Cost of bringing new Water main to site due to fire suppression requirements • Loss of use of existing ice rink and cost to remove • Loss of use of existing baseball field and cost to remove • Cost of remodel based on code and handicapped accessibility deficiencies • Non -efficient floor plan of vehicle storage to fit site and keep existing building • Cost of bringing municipal sanitary sewer to site (or impacts of large storage tank and regular pumping for floor drains and wash bay sanitary) • Reduced facility life expectancy and increased maintenance for the remodeled portion of the building compared to an all new facility Total Square Footage • Remodel 12,752 s.f. • New 67,582 s.f. • Total 80,334 s.f. • • • 22 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Existing Material Storage Bins LI Existing Baseball Field Wetlands Fuel Trailer Island Storage Vehicle Storage Wash ` Bay • Vehicle Maintenance Existing • Cell / Tower 55 Parking Stalls Option Ex. Retention Pond Main Street CNH eau Lake Dr. ARCHITECTS 23 Option A2 • • • Layout Description Option A2 is located at the current Public Works and Senior Center Facility site. This option provides for an all -new Public Works Facility which includes office, vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building, cold storage garage and material storage bins will be reused. Since this option removes the existing 45 year old building, it provides the flexibility to place the building on the site in a more advantageous layout. This results in a more compact building footprint, better screening of the building to the east neighborhood, and the option for drive -through parking for large equipment within the storage garage. This site option also allows for the continued use of the newer of the two existing cold storage garages which will provide more available space for the Public Works department, especially until Phase 2 is added. Option A2, using the existing public works site, requires an extension of the municipal water service and municipal sanitary service to the site. Pros • Use of existing salt building • Use of existing material storage Bins • Use of existing miscellaneous site storage • Use of existing cold storage garage • Longer life -expectancy and reduced maintenance for an all new facility • Large buildable area • Drive through stalls for large vehicle storage parking • Flexibility in building placement to best fit uses and site Cons • Cost of demolishing existing facility • Disruption of operations during construction period • Cost of bringing new water main to site for fire suppression requirements • Loss of use of existing ice rink and cost to remove • Loss of use of existing baseball field and cost to remove • Cost of bringing municipal sanitary sewer to site (or impacts of large storage tank and regular pumping for floor drains and wash bay sanitary) Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 79,503 s.f. • Total 79,503 s.f. • Existing Cold Storage 4,835 s.f. • • • 24 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Option "2 Existing Material Storage Bins sew ehf Existing Baseball Field Existing Roa 0 0 0 0 0 Wetlands Existing Salt Phase 2 Building r — Trailer Storage I I Existing Garage 1 Existing,, Cell Tower 55 Parking Office Stalls = Vehicle Storage Vehicle /` I Maintenance 1 ...� Wash Bay 1 Shops ch. 410111114 t e e e a e Ex. Retention Pond ir Main Street d 4• ondeau Lake Dr. CNH ARCHITECTS 25 Option B1 Layout Description Option B1 is located adjacent to Fire Station #2. This option includes a new Public Works Facility which includes office, vehicle maintenance, departmental shops and vehicle storage. The existing salt building and material storage bins will be reused at the existing Public Works site. This option would allow for the use of the existing public works storage buildings throughout the construction period reducing operational disruption and cost during construction. Option B1 would also allow for the continued use of the north site facilities after construction until they reach there anticipated life -expectancy allowing for more flexibility and space for the Public Works department, especially until Phase 2 is added to the building. • I, I I Pros • • • Existing municipal sanitary sewer connection located on site • Existing municipal water main connection located on site • Use of existing ice rink on Site A • Use of existing baseball fields on Site A • Efficient floor plan of vehicle storage • No disruption at the current Public Works facility during construction • Located adjacent to Fire Station #2 • Closer to future population density as Lino Lakes grows • Existing storage buildings at north site can continue to be used Cons • Smaller buildable area creates minimal clearances for site functions • Existing salt building is located on Site A • Existing material storage bins are located on Site A • High visibility from future road Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 76,017 s.f. • Total 76,017 s.f. • Ex. Public Works Storage 14,799 s.f. • • 26 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study Office Layout Infiltration Wetlands Basin Vehicle Storage Wash ;,� Bay Birch Street Infiltration Basin Existing Fire Wetlands Fuel Island Trailer Storage Station Infiltration Basin Existing Road " II III' Phase 2-\ 55 Parking Stalls r CNH Option B1 ARCHITECTS 27 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Introduction The current Lino Lakes Public Works Facility was built in 1971 and does not have access to municipal water or municipal sanitary sewer. Due to fire code requirements that limit the square footage of the facility the existing Public Works building cannot be expanded unless municipal water is brought to the site. The additions to this facility include 4 separate buildings. The majority of the vehicles are stored outdoors, which inherently reduces their life span. Equipment is currently stored in 3 buildings and is not conducive to an efficient work flow. The building has water damage and leaking in several locations. Equipment Storage Public Works is currently storing most of their equipment outside where they are covered in snow and have a greater chance of being rusted, therefore reducing their life span. Vehicle Storage Public Works is currently storing vehicles outside, where they are covered in snow and have a greater chance of being rusted, therefore reducing their life span. Vehicle Maintenance The current Vehicle Maintenance area and tool storage area does not provide adequate space to service the city's fleet of vehicles. 28 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Exterior Brick Exterior brick on the building has severe water damage in multiple places and is in need of repair. Roof leakage The existing standing seam roof needs to be replaced as there are multiple locations where leaking has occurred. Gutters There are several locations around the building where gutters are failing or not in place, snow is melting off of the roof and causing water damage and icy conditions, which are hazardous for the public and employees. Offices and Storage Current offices and storage areas are intermingled and do not provide an efficient use of space. CNH ARCHITECTS 29 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Break Room/Office One of the additional buildings on -site houses one office and a break room due to limited space in the main facility. Locker room The current locker room does not have adequate lockers to accommodate employees and is used as a circulation space which doesn't have privacy for employees. Lunch Room The current lunch room does not have adequate appliances and chairs to accommodate Public Works employees. Server / Telephone Storage The current server is located in the main hallway, isn't easily accessible and is an eyesore. The data and telephone phone board is currently in the storage room. 30 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study ACCESSIBILITY & CODE REVIEW Introduction The current Public Works facility was built in 1971 and has major deficiencies related to accessibility, energy code, fire suppression and mechanical systems. Our accessibility review identifies conditions in the existing building that require immediate attention including; restroom clearances (water closet, lavatory and shower), non -accessible door hardware, accessible door clearances and accessible counter heights. The existing building does not meeting current energy code requirements, fire suppression requirements, exiting requirements and mechanical system requirements as discussed on the following page. We did not complete a full OSHA safety assessment as a part of this study, but there are several items in the building that should be assessed further, including proper headroom clearances under the Vehicle Maintenance mezzanine. As a result of the extent and variety of code, accessibility, and safety deficiencies in the current building, it is our opinion that the most economical approach if remodeling is considered would be to remove all existing interior rooms and reconstruct the interior build -out of the vast majority of the existing space. This also results in the best design fit with the long-term needs of the Public Works department. The existing Men's Restroom does not have proper clearances for accessibility, with any amount of remodeling the restrooms would need to comply with the latest Minnesota State accessibility code. The existing Women's Restroom does not have proper clearances for accessibility, with any amount of remodeling the restrooms would need to comply with the latest Minnesota State accessibility code. CNH ARCHITECTS 31 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE Ventilation System Current ventilation system is inadequate. Current codes require .75 cfm per square foot of ventilation interlocked with an outdoor air intake. The current system operates manually with independent control switch for both the fan and intake damper. The exhaust fans appear dated and most likely have exceeded their expected service life. Exhaust System Vehicle Maintenance requires carbon monoxide sensors (gasoline engine fumes) and nitrogen dioxide sensors (diesel engine fumes) to enable the exhaust system in the event that the concentrations exceeds code minimum set point. These sensors are not installed. Heating General heating is accomplished with gas fired infrared heaters. These units are dated and most likely have exceeded their expected service life. Sanitary Waste The sanitary waste from the trench drains and floor drains are routed directly to the septic system. This is a code violation. For buildings served with a septic system, the flammable waste from trench drains must be routed to a storage tank separate from the septic system. Tanks are emptied periodically and trucked to a proper waste facility. 32 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study MECHANICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW - OFFICES/SENIOR CENTER Furnace Room - Offices The office space is served by three furnaces and associated split system air conditioning units. The units were installed in 2010 and are in good condition. The ductwork connected to these units would need to be replaced based upon the condition of the current ductwork and the change in zoning due to renovation schemes. In addition, current requirements for ventilation air will require an air-to-air energy recovery unit to temper the outdoor air before it is introduced into the furnaces. Furnace Room - Senior Center The community space is also served by three furnaces and associated split system air handlers. They were installed in 2010 as well and are in good condition. The comments for item 1 above applies to these systems as well. - One of the units has a capacity of 5 tons. The Mn Energy Code requires a system of this capacity to be equipped with an economizer. The economizer introduces outdoor air into the space when outdoor air temperatures are favorable and cooling is required by utilizing outdoor air for cooling as opposed to operating compressors. CNH ARCHITECTS 33 COST ESTIMATE 34 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study COST ESTIMATE Option Al Remodel & Expansion Phase 1 • Option A2 New Facility at Existing Site Phase 1 • Option B1 New Facility at Fire Station Site Phase 1 • Cost Estimate Summary Low Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) $ 9,707,342 $ 360,000 $ 10,067,342 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,195,113 $ 360,000 $ 12,555,113 1 Low Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) $ 10,040,359 $ 360,000 $ 10,400,359 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,458,171 $ 360,000 12,818,171 Low Cost Public Works Facility Total (2017 Dollars) 9,922,715 $ 9,922,715 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Total (2017 Dollars) • $ 12,380,093 $ 12,380,093 The cost estimates shown above represent our teams professional opinion of probable construction cost based on the uses proposed, and typical construction costs for similar facilities within the greater metropolitan area. The low cost to high cost range represents the preliminary level of the designs done within this study, as well as the range in quality, life -cycle, and aesthetic choices that would be reviewed and selected by the city during the design process. The costs, as indicated are current construction costs and an inflation factor would need to be applied when a specific time line is developed. The prices shown represent the estimated hard costs of the site and building construction shown in each option layout and vary only about $500,000 when comparing the Low Cost for each option or 5% of the total cost. However, there are other cost factors not indicated that should also be taken into consideration when comparing options that would create a greater final cost differential between options. A partial list of these items include: • Operational cost to move Public Works functions off -site during construction for Site A options • Loss of use of ball field and hockey rink at Site A if expansion occurs there • Additional maintenance costs for reused portions of the existing structure under Option Al, compared to an all -new facility in the other options • Ability to continue to use one existing cold storage building under Option A2 and two existing cold storage buildings under Option B1, thus postponing the date when Phase 2 of the Public Works storage shown in each option layout would be needed CNH ARCHITECTS 35 WS — Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Recreation Complex Discussion Background Mr. Jason Amberg from WSB Engineering attended the January work session to review an updated master plan and preliminary cost estimates for Phase 1A (area immediately south of Fire Station), and Phase 1B (ball field area). The attached updated Recreation Complex Masterplan reflects comments made at last month's work session. Phase 1A - Option A (Two additional pickleball courts and full size basketball court) has been incorporated into the masterplan as well as the addition of sand volleyball courts at the south end. A memorandum providing an overview of updated cost estimates reflecting the changes are attached. The total estimated cost for Phase 1A Base Development is $592,232.55, including contingency and design fees. This does not include the park shelter ($45,000) and full size basketball court ($25,000). Secured funding amounts to $375,000. Staff has identified potential funding sources to fill the gap: $137,000 Remaining portion of 2018 Parks and Trail Capital Projects Fund $ 80,233 Dedicated Parks Fund Requested Council Direction For informational purposes. Staff will need further direction if the City Council wishes to proceed with construction. r - I PHASE 1A PARKING TRAILS 6 PICKLEBALL COURTS 2 TENNIS COURTS BASKETBALL COURT (OPTIONAL) SHELTER (OPTIONAL) Parking (+/- 36 Stalls) Basketball Court Bypass Lane PHASE 1 B PARKING PHASE 1B PARKING TRAIL TO BALLFIELDS & PLAZA 4 200' BALLFIELDS K:\012854-000\Cad\Exhibits\012854 lino lakes _Rec MP_20190129 Stormwater Ponds Turn Lane Parking (+/- 200 Stalls) Warming House/ Restrooms Hockey Rinks xisting ■■�s� rrM��-"��4 ■aee 1ae1111E4e®NAPI Cf�<f9ORrJt�A'!7! PEPS EGIlles 6 Pickleball Courts 13-Frc-1 LStree t589.24'11;E Shelter 2 Tennis Courts 8.5' Wide Trails Stormwater Pond , r' 411* Park Drive Parking .• Shelter & Play Area eneral Skating Batting Recreation complex Masterplan Lino Lakes, Minnesota January 29, 2019 WSB Project number: 012854-000 Storm BIRCH STREET Open Lawn (C.S.A.H`NO. 34 APPRO%IMATE FLOODP W H 003 5g FIR 10CW O Or 240' x 36 Multi -Purpose Field W • IP 240'x360' Multi -Purpose Field 200' Scale in Feet r Utility Easement Games Court Shelter Parking (+/- 145 Stalls) 10' Wide Regional Trail 8.5' Wide Trails Concrete Pad for Portable Concessions (Future Building) Screening Future Molitor Drive Extension 400wsb WSBENG.COM 763.541.4800 LO LO MINNEAPOLIS, MN SUITE 300 701 XENIA AVENUE S wsb Memorandum To: Rick DeGardner, Lino Lakes From: Jason Amberg, WSB Bailey Krause, WSB Date: January 29, 2019 Re: Lino Lakes Recreation Complex — Updated Cost Estimates WSB Project No. 012854-000 Rick, the following pages provide an overview of the probable costs to construct Phase 1 A (the court area) and Phase 1 B (the ballfield area) based on the final concept master plan which has been updated per your direction following the council meeting on Jan. 7, 2019. This information will be updated and reviewed with you in the next steps of final design for phases / elements approved by the City. Phase 1A - Base Development ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Price PROJECT TOTAL Est. Qty. Est. Cost 1 Mobilization (MAX. 5%) LS $21,693.50 1 $21,693.50 2 Grading, Earthwork & Erosion Control CY $4.00 2,500 $10,000.00 3 Stormsewer System LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 4 Bituminous Parking Lot w/ 10" Compacted Agg. Base (36 Stalls) - assumes 24" Soil Corrections SY $33.00 1,700 $56,100.00 5 Curb & Gutter LF $25.00 750 $18,750.00 6 8.5' Wide Bituminous Trails w/ 6" Compacted Agg. Base & Assuming 24" Soil Corrections SY $32.00 135 $4,320.D0 7 10' Wide Bituminous Regional Trail w/ 6" Compacted Agg. Base & Assuming 24" Soil Corrections SY $32.00 225 $7,200.00 8 (6) Pickle Ball Courts (Assumes 36" Sail Corrections] Includes: Surfacing, Fencing and Post & Net System Ls $155,000.00 1 5155,000.00 9 (2) Tennis Courts (Assumes 36" Soil Corrections) Includes: Surfacing, Fencing, and Post & Net System LS $160,000.00 1 $160,000.00 10 Landscaping Restoration ACRE $4,500.00 1 $4,500.00 11 Trees & Plantings LS $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 PROJECT SUBTOTAL $455,563.50 15% CONTINGENCY $68,334.53 15% DESIGN FEES $68,334.53 TOTAL $592,232.55 Phase 1A - Potential Add-Ons ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Price PROJECT Est. Qty. TOTAL Est. Cost 1 24' Shelter with Concrete Base & Picnic Tables LS $45,000.00 1 $45,000.00 2 1 Full Basketball Court LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00 Add-Ons Subtotal: $70,000.00 15% CONTINGENCY $10,500.00 15% DESIGN FEES $10,500.00 Add-Ons TOTAL $91,000.00 K:\012854-000\Quantity\Preliminary\012854_Lino Lakes_Memorandum .docx 2019-01-29.docx Rick DeGardner January 29, 2019 Page 2 Phase 1B - Base Development ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Price PROJECT TOTAL Est. Qty. Est. Cost 1 Mobilization (MAX. 5%) LS $90,860.25 1 $90,860.25 2 Grading, Earthwork & Erosion Control CY $4.00 34,500 $138,000.00 3 Tree Clearing ACRE $4,500.00 3.0 $13,500.00 4 Wetland Impacts LS $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00 5 Well LS $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 6 Stormsewer System LS $32,000.00 1 $32,000.00 7 Centerville Road Modifications (Turn Lanes / Bypass) LS $500,000.00 1 $500,000.00 8 Bituminous Drive & Parking w/ 10" Compacted Agg. Base (Assumes 24" Soil Corrections) SY $33.00 11,900 $392,700.00 9 Curb & Gutter LF $20.00 2,100 $42,000.00 10 8.5' Wide Bituminous Trails w/ 6" Compacted Agg. Base & Assuming 24" Soil Corrections SY $32.00 615 $19,680.00 11 200' Little League Ballfield - Includes: Irrigation, Fencing, Agglime, Backstop, Benches & Bleachers LS $120,000.00 4 $480,000.00 12 Bituminous Ballfield Plaza w/ 6" Compacted Agg. Base & Assuming 24" Soil Corrections SY $32.00 2,600 $83,200.00 13 Concrete Pad for Portable Concession SF $11.00 625 $6,875.00 14 Landscaping Restoration ACRE $4,500.00 4.5 $20,250.00 15 Trees LS $24,000.00 1 $24,000.00 PROJECT SUBTOTAL $1,908,065.25 15% CONTINGENCY $286,209.79 15% DESIGN FEES $286,209.79 TOTAL $2,480,484.63 Phase 1B - Potential Add-ons ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Price PROJECT TOTAL Est. Qty. Est. Cost 1 Play Area - Includes: Wood Fiber Play Surfacing, Play Container Concrete Curb, Sidewalks & Play Equipment LS 5100,000.00 1 5100,000.00 2 30' Shelter with Concrete Base LS $60,000.00 1 $60,000.00 3 Picnic Tables EACH $1,100.00 4 $4,400.00 4 Sand Volleyball Courts LS $9,000.00 1 $9,000.00 Add-Ons Subtotal: $173,4D0.00 15% CONTINGENCY $26,010.00 15% DESIGN FEES $26,010.00 Add-Ons TOTAL $225,420.DD K:\012854-000\Quantity\Preliminary\012854_Lino Lakes_Memorandum .docx 2019-01-29.docx WS — Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director Re: Methods of Financing Public Facilities Background The City Council has started discussions regarding planning for a future Recreation Complex and Public Works Facility Improvements. Municipalities have three basic options for financing these types of improvements, including 1) utilizing current revenues, 2) setting aside funds to build a capital reserve, or 3) borrowing through the issuance of municipal bonds. Local governments often borrow to finance major public facility improvements. Terri Heaton, from Springsted, Inc. will be present to discuss some of the options that are available. Attachments None Requested Council Direction For informational purposes only. No action is required. WS — Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director Re: PermitWorks/Laserfiche Integration Project Background In the fall of 2018, staff began looking into potential software solutions that would accommodate electronic submission of permit applications, as well as online payment of permit fees. As part of the 2019 budget process, $30,000 of General Fund surplus was designated to fund a fully automated and integrated online permitting solution with an electronic payment option. OPG-3 has developed an integrated online permit application process using PermitWorks and Laserfiche, two software/systems currently in use by the City of Lino Lakes. The digitized, automated, and integrated system includes: • Online submission of permit applications (automatically stored in PermitWorks and Laserfiche) • Automatic generation of permit fees and inspections (based on online permit application selections) • Digital approval process (application and plan review documents, if applicable, are automatically routed for review and approval by appropriate staff) • Online payment of fees (integration with a payment gateway) • Automatic document generation (permit and inspection documents emailed to applicant) Staff is ready to proceed with the Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks developed by OPG-3. The Statement of Work details a fixed cost for the project of $22,200. Staff anticipates additional licensing costs of approximately $5,000. Attachments Statement of Work — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks Requested Council Direction For informational purposes only. oPG3 Enterprise Transformation Statement of Work Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks For: City of Lino Lakes October 25, 2018 Laserfiche Run Smarter Document Management I Business Process Management I Enterprise Content Contents Statement of Work — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks 3 Project Scope and Objective 3 Change Management Process 3 Identified Phases 4 Phase 1— Confirmation of Laserfiche Infrastructure and Initial Setup 4 Phase 2 — System Development 5 Phase 3 — User Acceptance Testing 5 Phase 4 — Promotion to Production 6 Phase 5 — Training, Knowledge Transfer and Transition to Support 6 Lino Lakes Responsibilities 7 OPG-3 Responsibilities 8 Project Assumptions 8 Professional Services Pricing 9 Payment Plan 9 Statement of Work Approval 9 oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 2 Statement of Work — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks This Statement of Work ("SOW") defines the professional services ("Services") that OPG-3 will provide for the City of Lino Lakes (Lino Lakes) in conjunction with the Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks ("Project"). This SOW will be a part of a Professional Services Agreement between OPG-3 and Lino Lakes. Project Scope and Objective OPG-3 has developed an online permitting solution for use with the PermitWorks application. The solution makes permit applications available online and is tightly integrated with PermitWorks to: • Dynamically build out the application based on user input • Determine necessary approval based on permit types • Automatically calculate permit fees and accept online payment • Generate and email permit documents as attachments The solution requires Laserfiche Avante, Rio or Subscription, Forms Professional and the Laserfiche Forms Portal. OPG-3 has developed a templated framework so the solution can be implemented quickly for a fixed bid cost. Cities can choose to limit the scope of the system by choosing which types of permits are made available but changes to the framework may require additional development at additional cost. Change Management Process It may become necessary to amend this SOW for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: • Changes to the project schedule, scope or budget • Changes in priorities (external or internal to the project) that impact the project • Environmental or architectural impediments not previously identified • Lack of access to personnel, facilities, or systems necessary to complete project as scoped In the event that it is necessary to change this SOW, the following process will be followed: A Project Scope Change Request (PSCR) will be used to communicate change. The PSCR must describe the change, the reasons for the change, and the effect the change will have on the project, which may include scheduling changes, pricing, etc. A PSCR will be initiated by OPG-3 but must be executed by both parties to make it effective and binding on the parties. oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 3 Identified Phases The following Phases (major project areas) are included in the services. Phases will run in parallel where possible. Estimated project timeline is 8 weeks. Phase 1— Confirmation of Laserfiche Infrastructure and Initial Setup OPG-3 will confirm the prerequisite Laserfiche components are installed and configured as appropriate. If any components need to be upgraded, OPG-3 will perform the upgrade as part of the project. OPG-3 will also determine the version of PermitWorks in place. If an upgrade is necessary, the City will need to arrange that with PermitWorks. Core Activities Include: • Confirm version and configuration of prerequisite Laserfiche components and perform upgrades as necessary • Confirm version of PermitWorks and recommend upgrade if necessary • Confirm admin access to SQL database utilized by PermitWorks • Confirm list of permit types to be enabled through system Deliverables: • List of permit types to be enabled through system Assumptions Driving Effort: • The City provides remote access to network including: ■ Admin access to Laserfiche Repository, Forms Server and Workflow Server ■ Admin access to SQL database used by PermitWorks oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 4 Phase 2 — System Development Core Activities Include: • Develop solution in test (or production) environment • Regular solution demonstrations and walkthroughs with Lino Lakes project team (PM, SMEs and users as appropriate) to show progress and solicit feedback • Develop test scripts to be utilized in Phase 3 — User Acceptance Testing Deliverables: • System deployed in test (or production) environment, ready for User Acceptance Testing. • Test scripts to be utilized in Phase 3 — User Acceptance Testing* Assumptions Driving Effort: • OPG-3 project team members receive access to all necessary Lino Lakes resources by the scheduled implementation start time in the project plan. • Lino Lakes personnel will be available to provide any assistance OPG-3 may need in the Lino Lakes environment. • Lino Lakes personnel attending solution demonstrations and walkthroughs are empowered to provide feedback that will affect overall design. Phase 3 — User Acceptance Testing Core Activities Include: • Work with Lino Lakes to identify end users that will participate in UAT. • Testing by Lino Lakes end -users using the test scripts developed in Phase 2. • Remediate any issues discovered during UAT until acceptance criteria are satisfied. Deliverables: • Solution deployed in Test (or Production), approved by Lino Lakes for promotion to Production. Assumptions Driving Effort: • Lino Lakes personnel will be available for UAT per a mutually agreed -upon schedule. oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 5 Phase 4 — Promotion to Production If the solution is developed in a test environment, the OPG-3 project team will assist Lino Lakes in promoting the solution from Test to Production. If Lino Lakes prefers, and provides access, the OPG-3 project team can take the lead with Lino Lakes personnel assisting. Core Activities Include: • Work with Lino Lakes to develop promotion plan. • Promote solution to production. • Functional testing of individual components, testing of solution using Test Scripts. • Remediate any issues within scope as necessary. Deliverables: • Laserfiche solution deployed in production and ready for end users. • Two weeks of Stabilization support after Promotion to Production. Assumptions Driving Effort: • The OPG-3 project team will continue to support the solution for two weeks after Promotion to Production while transferring support responsibilities to the OPG-3 Support Team. Phase 5 — Training, Knowledge Transfer and Transition to Support Once the solution has been promoted to production and is ready for use, OPG-3 will provide training for users and administrators. Deliverables: • Recorded demonstrations to show each step of the processes. • Knowledge Transfer sessions with OPG-3 Support on solution for post -project support. • System documentation. • User and Administrative training onsite. Assumptions Driving Effort: • Lino Lakes will work with OPG-3 to help develop appropriate training materials for end - users. • Lino Lakes will coordinate attendance of Lino Lakes personnel for training sessions. • Training will occur throughout this project as the OPG-3 and Lino Lakes teams work alongside each other. • OPG-3 may deliver a final update to the System documentation prior to project closeout if such an update is necessary. This potential final System documentation update is not a deliverable of this Phase. oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 6 Lino Lakes Responsibilities The following are Lino Lakes's responsibilities for the Services. 1. Lino Lakes will make available, and provide access to (e.g., within two to three business days), necessary personnel to ensure project success, including: a. A designated project manager to help schedule meetings, facilitate project governance, coordinate document requests, and other tasks. b. IT personnel such as system administrators, database administrators, or help desk. c. Subject matter specialists to provide information on Lino Lakes's business processes. d. Personnel to execute the test scripts and document results for User Acceptance Testing ("UAT"). Personnel will be made available per the project schedule and plan. 2. Lino Lakes will work with OPG-3 to provide any necessary technical resources and support. This includes: a. Providing requested documentation and acceptance of key deliverables within two to three business days. If Lino Lakes does not respond in writing to OPG-3's request for acceptance within three business days of OPG-3's request, or Lino Lakes's refusal of such approval within the three- day period is not reasonable, Lino Lakes will be deemed to have accepted. b. Providing any access to the Lino Lakes environment that the OPG-3 team will need to develop the solution. 3. Lino Lakes will be responsible for providing all hardware and licensing all software components necessary for completing Services. This includes: a. Windows Server 2012R2 (or higher) and SQL Server Standard/Enterprise 2012 (or higher) licenses. b. SSL certificates for all servers that require them. c. Licenses for all software and systems on the Lino Lakes network with which the Laserfiche system will integrate. oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 7 OPG-3 Responsibilities The following are OPG-3's responsibilities for the Services. 1. OPG-3 will make available, and provide access to (e.g., within two to three business days), necessary personnel to ensure project success, including: a. A designated project manager to help schedule meetings, facilitate project governance, coordinate document requests, provide status updates and other tasks. b. Experienced OPG-3 engineering personnel. c. Personnel to perform preliminary testing during development and prior to UAT. Personnel will be made available per the project schedule and plan. 2. OPG-3 will work with Lino Lakes to provide any necessary technical resources and support. This includes escalating any issues to Laserfiche Support and Laserfiche Development as necessary. Project Assumptions 1. The scope of the engagement will include the Services described in this SOW. Any additional scope requests will be provided in a separate SOW or change order. a. The Services will focus exclusively on Laserfiche and Laserfiche-related products to support the system and solution, except where explicitly noted in this SOW. 2. If after OPG-3's request for acceptance on project closeout, Lino Lakes does not respond in writing within five business days, or Lino Lakes's refusal of such approval in the five-day period is not reasonable, Lino Lakes will be deemed to have accepted. 3. All Laserfiche Software Products, Professional Services and Support are sold subject to the terms and conditions of Laserfiche's Software License Agreement, which accompanies the software. By accepting this Statement of Work, Lino Lakes accepts all of these terms and conditions, which will not be varied except in writing signed by both parties. oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 8 Professional Services Pricing The Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks has been developed as a templated solution offered at a fixed cost of $22,200. Changes or additions to scope may lead to increased cost — any changes that result in additional cost or timeline will be agreed to in writing. Payment Plan All Services will be performed in accordance with this mutually accepted SOW. To provide initial funding for the project and simplify billing, an initial payment of 50% of the cost of the SOW will be billed upon execution of the document. The balance of Services will be billed at the close of the project. Invoices are due upon receipt. If Lino Lakes disputes any portion of an invoice, Lino Lakes will pay the undisputed portion when due. Changes to project scope or effort required to complete specific work items due to unforeseen complications or issues outside of OPG-3's control will go through the Change Management Process and will be approved by Lino Lakes. Statement of Work Approval By signing this document, Lino Lakes agrees that the proposed approach satisfactorily addresses all items in scope for the project. Lino Lakes Approval (one signeeill uire Signature Name Title Date OPG-3 (ontIMPIMPIIIMI Signature •IName Title Date oPc-3 Enterprise Transformation CONFIDENTIAL I SOW — Lino Lakes — Online Permitting Solution for PermitWorks I Page 9 WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 7 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Marty Asleson Re: Emerald Ash Borer Update Background In the fall of 2017, Emerald Ash borer was found in Lino Lakes for the first time in the Target infiltration ponds. An initial survey, after finding the Target store infested trees, was completed by city staff, county staff, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture staff. Results showed a few scattered additional trees infested with the insect. In the winter of 2017/2018, city staff and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture surveyed the south side of 35W, from the Target infestation, and found EAB infested Ash trees in the closest woodland area to the freeway and extending down to the trail entrance area in back of City Hall. In 2018, staff found new infestation areas of EAB in Country Lakes Park, Lino Park, the Rondeau Lake Road area, 4th Avenue, and the West Shadow Lake Drive area. After summer of 2018, those sites became infested. Removing and replacing boulevard Ash trees started in 2010. Since that time we have removed and replaced about half our boulevard trees and treated 2/3 of the remaining trees. Staff has been methodically selecting areas to treat, remove, and replace trees. Many of the park areas in Lino Lakes have had Ash trees removed. This year Lino Park Ash trees were removed and Country Lakes Park trees are being removed. Country Lakes Park is, by far, the largest holder of Ash trees on public property, other than the Regional Park. The City started treating Ash trees on boulevards in 2017 and 2018. Treatment started before we knew there was an infestation in the City. The treatment started on the side of the city that most of the infestation was showing up later. We have had two years of treating our remaining boulevard trees. Trees not treated at this time are on the east and south sides of the city. Removals or treatment of the remaining untreated areas will continue in 2019. The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park has thousands of Ash trees and will act as a conduit, vectoring mechanism for the rapid spread of EAB in the upcoming years. The City of Lino Lakes is, most likely, in year 5 or 6 in the death curve for this pest. After year 6 and 7 there will be a rapid loss of all remaining Ash trees. There are two boulevard tree areas that could use more money to remove and replace. One area is Clearwater Creek Drive, where there are approximately 103 trees. The other area is West Shadow Lake Drive with 55 Ash Trees. Clearwater Creek Drive from Cedar Street to Tart Lake Road would cost twice our annual budget of $30,000, if contracted. The cost would decrease if the city staff removes the trees, buy smaller bare root trees (6-8 foot high), and have city staff do the planting. In 2018, 33 trees were removed, stumps ground, yards restored, and trees replaced at a cost of $30,000, contracted. Attachments 1. EAB Location Map 2. EAB Loss Timeline Requested Council Direction This is an information update. Also, requesting additional funds to remove and replace trees if needed. if1E11E11k; ..,711 ralliturna lan 111r-i .-41 I 17711' ,•tkSIIiCUP:"F:" ..... 2111-C 1k:3444(4'Z• TE,Alvali111. tak vA111111/11: ati• ars_ 111psi% rano= a Old » 10 10 Ash Mortality from EAB 0 0 1 1 1 4 a s ) • a 10 11 12 11 J 21 36 Years After Eint EAB Infestation WS — Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Sale of Wetland Bank Credits Background The City Council accepted the Natural Resource Revolving Fund Plan in August of 2017. One of the overall goals of the plan was the establishment of the wetland banks to serve as a funding source to implement the City's greenway system. The City currently has two banks in place. Bank No. 1122 (Otter Lake) is located east of I-35E and south of CSAH 14. 1.482 acres of credit are available. This bank is not Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) approved. Credits can only be used for wetland impacts not under ACOE jurisdiction. Bank No. 1601(Wollan Park) is located west of Lake Drive and north of Main Street. 3.6849 acres of credit are currently available in this bank. This bank is ACOE approved. Credits from both these banks are available for sale on the open market, much like a real estate transaction. Typically developers and/or government agencies, that have projects with wetland impacts, purchase the credits to meet mitigation requirements. The 2015-16 Average Cost per Credit for Major Watershed 20, which we are located in, was $33,377 per acre ($.76 per square foot). Locally, three known transactions over the past three years ranged from 2.40 to 2.75 a square foot. A recent inquiry from a Maple Grove project sold for $2.30 a square foot. ACOE approved credits have a higher value on the market. Proceeds from any sale are proposed to be used in the following way: 1. Repay establishment costs including restoration activities and monitoring. 2. 10% set aside for future maintenance of established banks. 3. New land acquisition and restoration. Credits are purchased throughout the year as project approvals are sought. The City's ability to make a sale is largely dependent on our ability to react to inquires and negotiate a purchase price. All sales are subject to execution of a purchase agreement which in the City's case requires City Council approval. Staff would like to get the council's opinion on a pricing strategy as a basis for establishing our minimum sale price. The base price would be to recover our initial investment. In the case of the Otter Bank (constructed as part of the Otter Lake Road project in 1997) costs where incorporated into the overall street improvement project. No specific bank costs where tracked. Since this is not ACOE approved values are lower. Values on non-ACOE credits are closer to 1.00 1.50 per square foot. Woolan's Park budget is $125,000 (includes in -kind labor). A baseline price of $.80 would recover all costs. Prices in the $2.00 to $2.25 SF range would likely result in a quicker return on investment while providing revenues for future efforts. Prices at the high end $2.40 to $2.50 SF may result in a longer return. SQFT $0.80/SF $1.00/SF $1.85/SF $2.00/SF $2.25/SF $2.50/SF Fresh $ $ $ $ $ $ Meadow 124,485.77 99,588.61 124,485.77 230,298.67 248,971.54 280,092.98 311,214.42 Shallow $ $ $ $ $ $ Marsh 36,028.48 28,822.78 36,028.48 66,652.68 72,056.95 81,064.07 90,071.19 $ $ $ $ $ $ 225,070.16 128,411.40 160,514.24 296,951.35 321,028.49 361,157.05 401,285.61 The council may wish to review a combination that allows for a quicker repayment on the initial investment and then an increase in pricing for the remaining credits. We do expect that the number of credits available from the Woolan bank will increase upon completion of the Year 5 monitoring. Restoration activities have been highly successful and our credit percentages are likely to be maximized. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting Council feedback. Based upon the comments received staff will formulate a pricing policy for council review. Attachments 1. Bank Location Map 2. Sample Purchase Agreement O 0 3 0 0 0 co cc co a 0 0 0 N V m 01 m x • 0 m (G 3 x a 0 0 (G 0, 0 m a J W N O_ J (N� 01 Figure 5: Existing Wetland Bank Locations Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan N o 1 w�7B City of Lino Lakes Miles 1 inch = 1 miles The following is a sample of a possible Purchase Agreement for the sale of Wetland Banking Credits. This Purchase Agreement does not necessarily cover all of the issues that would be important to Sellers and Buyers, nor does it address the terms that would be appropriate for any particular transaction. Sellers and Buyers should obtain the services of qualified legal counsel to adapt this Purchase Agreement to meet their specific needs. THIS AGREEMENT is made this PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR WETLAND BANKING CREDITS _ day of _ _, 20 _ between (Seller) and _ (Buyer). 1. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy from Seller, the wetland banking credits (Credits) listed below: Credits to be Sold Credit Subgroup Wetland Type/Plant Community Type Cost per Credit Credit Amounts Per Credit BSA 1 $520 BSA 2 $371 BSA 3 $725 BSA 4 $1,412 BSA 5 $685 Withdrawal Fee by BSA Enter the Withdrawal Fee BSA 6 $1,083 for the BSA of the account: Total Cost: Total Credits: (Withdrawal Fee x total cred'ts) BSA 7 $1,992 Withdrawal Fee: BSA 8 $2,577 Easement Stewardshi s Fee: (Easement stewardship fee x total credits) BSA 9 $2,628 $302 I er credit Stewardshi i Fee: BSA 10 $3,099 Total Fees: BWSR fee policy: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wetlandbanking/fee and sales data/Wetland Banking Fee Policy Effective Junel 20 17.pdf 2. Seller represents and warrants as follows: a) The Credits are deposited in an account in the Minnesota Wetland Bank administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) pursuant to Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0700-.0760. b) Seller owns the Credits and has the right to sell the Credits to Buyer. Page 1 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14, 2017 3. Buyer will pay Seller a total of $_ _ for the Credits, as follows: a) $_ _ as earnest money, to be paid when this Agreement is signed; and b) The balance of $_ to be paid on the Closing Date listed below. 4. [❑ ] Buyer, [❑ ] Seller agrees to pay to a withdrawal fee of $_ _ to the State of Minnesota based on the per credit fee of _ _for Bank Service Area _ _ and a stewardship fee of $_ based on the per credit fee of $_ . At the Closing Date, [❑] Buyer, [❑ ] Seller will execute a check made out for this amount, payable to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 5. The closing of the purchase and sale shall occur on _ , 20 _ (Closing Date) at The Closing Date and location may be changed by written consent of both parties. Upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, Seller will sign a fully executed Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits provided by BWSR, provide a copy of the Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits to the Buyer and forward the same to the BWSR along with the check for the withdrawal fee and stewardship fee. 6. Buyer has applied or will apply to _ (Local Government Unit (LGU) or other regulatory authority) for approval of a replacement plan utilizing the Credits as the means of replacing impacted wetlands. If the LGU has not approved the Buyer's application for a replacement plan utilizing the Credits by the Closing Date, and no postponement of the Closing Date has been agreed to by Buyer and Seller in writing, then either Buyer or Seller may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to the other. In this case, Seller shall return Buyer's earnest money, and neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any further obligations under this Agreement. If the LGU has approved the replacement plan and the Seller is ready to proceed with the sale on the Closing Date, but Buyer fails to proceed, then the Seller may retain the earnest money as liquidated damages. (Signature of Seller) (Date) (Signature of Buyer) (Date) Page 2 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14, 2017 Item # 10 Monthly Progress Report February 4, 2019 Item Last Action Taken Staff Status Digital Scanning Project 8/7/17 — Scanning Operator Rusty Ray submitted his resignation. Julie Conditional offer has been made and will be on Feb. 11 agenda White Bear Lake Restoration Assn. v. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) 5/21/18 — HF 4003 was signed into law by the governor, which temporarily suspends enforcement of the water appropriation permit amendments Jeff The law is effective through July 1, 2019 Labor Negotiations Update 1/14/19 — Council approved last remaining labor contract (Sergeants) for 2018-2019 Jeff All labor contracts have been settled for 2018-2019 Employment Update Jan. 2019 — A CSO resigned after accepting another position. A new officer is starting Feb. 4 Jeff Recycling Intern — One candidate will be interviewed next week WS —Item 11 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 11 Date: February 4, 2019 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Comprehensive Plan Update - Schedule Background December 3 Following discussion at the December 3, 2018 City Council work session staff has been working with WSB and Landform to incorporate the land use district changes into the Comprehensive Plan draft. We are proposing a joint meeting with the City Council and Planning & Zoning Board on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 to review the draft. The plan schedule is as follows: February 20, 2019 tentative Joint Meeting - City Council and Planning and Zoning Board Review Draft Plan April 10, 2019 (6:30 p.m) Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing May 6, 2019 (6:00 p.m.) City Council Work Session Review for Distribution May 13, 2019 (6:30 p.m.) City Council Council Authorizes Distribution May 23, 2019 — November 21, 2019 6 month review/comment period by adjacent jurisdictions November 25, 2019 (6:30 p.m.) City Council Adopt Draft Plan and submit to Metropolitan Council January 2020 City Council Adopt Final Plan Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting City Council confirm February 20, 2019 Joint Meeting Date Attachments 1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Schedule Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Get Involved! Let's talk about the future of Lino Lakes. There are many opportunities to participate in the 2040 Update. All meetings are open to the public. Mark your calendar and join us! Date Meeting Topic July 10, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) July 12, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) July 13, 2017 (8:00 a.m.) July 26, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) August 7, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) August 9, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) August 19, 2017 September 13, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) September 27, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) October 2, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) October 9, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) October 11, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) November 6, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) November 8, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) November 29, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) December 4, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) December 13, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) January 2, 2018 (6:00 p.m.) January 8, 2018 (6:30 p.m.) Park Board Planning and Zoning Board Economic Development Advisory Committee Environmental Board City Council Work Session Harming and Zoning Board Blue Heron Days Planning and Zoning Board Environmental Board City Council Work Session Park Board Planning and Zoning Board City Council Work Session Planning and Zoning Boaiu Environmental Board City Council Work Session Planning and Zoning Board City Council Work Session City Council Meeting Schedule, Updated January 23, 2019 Parks & Trails Land Us Economic Development Surface Water/ Natural Resources Land Use Land Use/ Housing Key Issues Surface Water/ Natural Resources Transportation Review Draft Park Plan Water (supply, sewer, surface) Land Use/ Housing Local Water Management Plan mina, I I dIIb a lNdlui dl Resources Local Water Management Plan Parks Economic Development, Community Facilities Sewer/ Water Local Water Management Plan Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update 61.1.11 Meeting Topic March 14, 2018 (6:00 p.m.) April 3, 2018 (6:00-8:00 p.m.) June 4, 2018 (6:00 p.m.) November 14, 2018 (6:30 p.m.) February 20, 2019 tentative April 10 9n1Q (R.30 p.m.) May 6, 2019 (6:00 p.m.) May 13, 2019 (6:30 p.m.) May 23, 2019 — November 21, 2019 November 25, 2019 (6:30 p.m.) January 2020 Planning and Zoning Board Open House / Workshop City Council Work Session Planning and Zoning Board Joint Meeting - City Council and Planning and Zoning Board Planning and Inning Board City Council Work Session City Council City Council City Council Draft Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan Update Discussion Review Draft Plan Public Hearing Council Authorizes Distribution Council Authorizes Distribution 6 month review/comment period by adjacent jurisdictions Adopt Draft Plan and submit to Metropolitan Council Adopt Final Plan All meetings are held at Lino Lakes City Hall, unless otherwise noted. Starting times and topics of meetings are subject to change. Meetings may be added or cancelled, please check the website for the latest information. Questions? Contact Community Development Director Michael Grochala at 651-982-2427 or E-mail compplan@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us For more information and additional opportunities to engage in the Comprehensive Plan Process visit us online at www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us Meeting Schedule, Updated January 23, 2019