The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-05-2018 Council Work Session PacketCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, February 5, 2018 Community Room 6:00 P.M. A Closed Meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Room Regarding Legacy Land Sale Negotiations 1. Rice Lake Elementary School Playground Equipment Project, Rick DeGardner 2. Winter Land Use, Comp Plan, Michael Grochala 3. Water Tower Siting Update, Diane Hankee 4. White Bear Lake Lawsuit Court Order, Michael Grochala 5. Target Remodeling Project After Hours, John Swenson 6. Pavement Management Report, Diane Hankee 7. Advisory Boards, Jeff Karlson 8. Technology Upgrades, Jeff Karlson 9. Proposals for Civil Legal Services, Jeff Karlson 10. Public Works Facility Renovation and Expansion, Jeff Karlson 11. Community Room Expansion and Renovation, Jeff Karlson 12. 2018 Parks and Trails Capital Projects Update, Rick DeGardner 13. 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement, Sarah Cotton 14. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 15. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson 16. Review Regular Agenda 17. Adjourn WS – Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: Rice Lake Elementary School Playground Equipment Project Background The Rice Lake Elementary (RLE) School PTO has been raising funds to replace the playground equipment structures at their school. St. Clair Estates, a 35 single-family lot residential subdivision located on the north side of Birch Street, directly west of RLE was final platted in February, 2017. The City received $87,500.00 in park dedication fees. Since RLE provides the closest leisure opportunities for this subdivision, designating these fees to improve RLE seems appropriate. Mr. Bryan Carlson, Principal of Rice Lake Elementary School will attend the February 5 work session to provide additional information regarding the RLE Playground Equipment Project. Requested Council Direction Provide direction whether to contribute park dedication fees for the RLE Playground Equipment Project. WS – Item 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Winter Property Land Use Amendment Background During the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update process Mr. Les Winter, 7473 24th Avenue, submitted a request to change the guiding designation of his 139 acres on the east side of I-35W from industrial to mixed use. In his letter he cites the configuration of wetlands on the property and the abundance of surrounding industrial land. He believes that “Mixed Use” would give more options for development of the property. Site Information This request affects four parcels, totaling 139.46 acres including about 47 acres of wetlands. Most of the wetlands are in the north/northwestern portion of the property. PID Gross Acres Wetland Net Acres 1 13-31-22-11-0001 39.52 15.61 23.91 2 13-31-22-12-0002 30.39 24.82 5.57 3 13-31-22-13-0002 30.22 0.01 30.21 4 13-31-22-14-0001 39.33 6.79 32.54 139.46 47.22 92.24 The site is located east of I-35 E and west of 24th Avenue, the border with the City of Hugo. The half mile of street that borders the site is currently paved along the southern two-thirds, and gravel along the northern one-third of the frontage. The transportation plan calls for the future extension of Otter Lake Roadnorth from County Road 14 to 80th Street as a new major collector road to serve the industrial area. The Utility Staging Plan for 2030 shows this area as Stage 2A—utility service to be provided in the first half of the second decade of the 20-year plan. The draft Utility Staging Plan for 2040 changes this designation to Stage 1-A, making the area eligible for utility extensions in the 2018 to 2025-time frame. Water and sewer will be extended to the north from County Road 14, as the land to the south of the site develops and demand warrants. The adjacent properties to the north and the south in the City of Lino Lakes are currently designated for future industrial use, and are shown in the same classification by the draft 2040 land use plan. All of Lino Lakes north of Country Road 14 and east of I-35E is designated for commercial, industrial and business campus uses by the draft plan. Hugo is planning for residential uses to the east, across 24th Street (Elmcrest in the City of Hugo.) The property was assessed for its share of the County Road 14/I-35E interchange project, based on future industrial use and the 2030 Utility Staging Plan classification 2A. The assessments are currently deferred, but are accruing interest. Planning and Zoning Board Review - December 13, 2017 Staff prepared a report for review at the December 13, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff recommended that the land remain guided for industrial use. The Planning & Zoning Board, following presentation by the applicant, recommended a change to Mixed Use, defined as high density residential (10-24 units/acres similar to Town Center) and Business Campus uses. To address compatibility with surrounding uses the Planning & Zoning Board also recommended that approximately 87 acres lying south of the Winters Property change from Industrial to Business Campus. City Council Review – January 2, 2018 Staff prepared a report for review at the January 2, 2018 City Council work session and presented the Planning & Zoning Boards recommendation. Staff recommended a land area of 20% for residential and 80% for commercial to limit the scope of the residential area. Staff further recommended reduction in the proposed density to a range of 8-15 units per acre. The City Council following discussion and applicant input proposed a residential to commercial mix of 35% residential and 65% commercial with a density of 4 to 5.9 units per acre. The applicant was asked to prepare a concept plan for the site. In response, the applicant has submitted a Concept Land Use Plan, dated January 18, 2018, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Analysis The submitted concept plan provides a general framework for development of the site. The plan identifies several land use components including medium density residential, medium/high residential flex, commercial/office, and a commercial/office/high density residential flex space. A general road pattern is depicted including both an arterial street (Otter Lake Road) and local collectors. Land uses are generally separated into pods by either the street network or existing wetlands. Staff is comfortable with the overall layout and distribution of housing densities allowing for transitions from lower to higher intensity uses. While recognizing the conceptual nature of the plan it should be noted that the north ½ of the property lies within a wetland management corridor and proposed City Greenway Corridor. In addition to required wetland buffers the city would likely pursue preservation of the woodland located in the northwest corner of the site. This area is depicted as medium density residential in the plan. The right-of-way requirements and location of the Otter Lake Road will also be different than what is shown in the plan. Of primary concern is the amount of residential contemplated by the plan. While staff is supportive of a variety of housing types and densities within the site as a whole, the overall number of units, potentially allowed, is higher than both staff and council recommendations. A comparison of the different options is presented below: Density Range Potential New Units Use Gross Acres Net Acres % Residential Net Acres Residential Min. Max. Min. Max. Original Staff Recommended Mixed Use 139.46 92.24 20% 18.45 8.00 15.00 147 276 Council Recommended Mixed Use 139.46 92.24 35% 32.28 4.00 6.00 128 193 Winter Proposal: "COMM/OFFICE/ HD RES FLEX" 10.50 6.00 10.00 62 104 "MD/HD FLEX" 7.00 4.00 10.00 27 69 "MD RESIDENTIAL" 40.50 4.00 5.90 161 238 Total 139.46 92.24 63% 58.00 4.33 7.10 250 411 Requested Council Direction Council direction regarding the proposed Winter Land Use Plan request is needed. Options include: 1: No change. Retain the original Industrial Land Use Classification. 2. Incorporate the City Council January 2, 2018 recommendation. 3. Incorporate the Winter Proposal as is or modified. Changes to the land use plan have ripple effects throughout the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If the Council is uncertain with the land use proposal than staff would recommend retaining the existing industrial or business campus classification. A separate land use amendment can be pursued in the future as would be typically with other development proposals. Attachments 1. Land Use Plan request Winters Property supporting materials 2. Proposed Land Use Plan Changes 3. Winter Property Concept Plan 13-31-22-11-000113-31-22-12-0002 13-31-22-14-000113-31-22-13-0002 456714 §¨¦35E ")84 Ma in S t City of Hugo So urce: Esri, DigitalGlo be, GeoEye, Earthsta r Geograph ics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USG S, AeroGRI D, IGN, and the GIS User Community ´0 1,00 0500Ft Legend City Boundary Parcels Streams Wetland Location Map, Winter Property Baldwin Lak e RondeauLake BaldEagleLake Wilk insonLake Otter Lake Amel iaLake Reshanau Lak eRice Lake CentervilleLake Marsh an Lake Ge orgeWatchLake Peltier Lake Cedar Lake L i l a cSt 20 th Ave S 456721 456749456749 456721 456749 456714 456754 456723 456714 456721 456721 456714456714 20th Ave 20th Ave §¨¦35E §¨¦35W ")153 ")140 ")84 ")84 M ai nSt Main St M ai n S t Ce darSt Hodgson Rd Lake Dr Elm St Birch St Birc h St Lake Dr Sunset Ave Rondeau Lake Dr E As h S t Oak Ln Apollo Dr 62nd St N Ash St Rondeau Lake Rd W Ce n te rvi ll e Rd Holl y Dr 4th Ave Holly Dr E Birch St 80th St E 64th St City of Bl aine City of Circle Pines City ofColumbus Cityof ForestLakeCity of Ham Lake City of Hugo City of North OaksCity of Shoreview White BearTownship ´ 2040 Fu ture L an d U se Legend City of Centerville Permanent Rural Urb an Rese rve Low Den sity Reside ntia l Me dium De nsity Resid ential High Den sity Reside ntial Commercia l Mixed Use Business Campus Ind ustrial Civic a nd Institutional Parks an d O pen Space Private Airfield Open Water Right-of-Way Mu nicipal Bou ndary Parcels Stre ams 3,500 0 3,5001,750 Feet Date: 11/30/2017 BaldwinLake RondeauLake BaldEagleLake Wilkins onLake Ot ter Lake AmeliaLake Reshanau Lak eRice Lake CentervilleLake Marsh an Lake Ge orgeWatchLake Pelt ier Lake Cedar Lake Li l a cSt 20th Ave S 456721 456749 456721 456749 456714 456754 456714 456723 456721 456721 456714456714 20th Ave 20th Ave §¨¦35E §¨¦35W ")153 ")140 ")84 ")84 Lake Dr N M ai nSt Main St M ai n S t CedarSt Hodgson Rd Lake Dr E lm S t Birch St Birc h St Lake Dr Sunset Ave Rondeau Lake Dr E As h S t Oak Ln Apollo Dr 62nd St N As h St Rondeau Lake Rd W Ce nte rvi lle Rd Holl y Dr 4th Ave Holly Dr E Birch St 80th St E 64th St City of Blaine City of Circle Pines City ofColumbus City ofForestLake Cityof HamLake City of Hugo City ofNorth OaksCity ofShoreview White BearTownship ´ 204 0 Utility S tag ing P lan Legend City of Centerville Stage 1A P lanned Service Are a (2018 - 2025 ) Stage 1B Planned Se rvice Area (202 5 - 203 0) Stage 2A P lanned Service Are a (2030 - 2035 ) Stage 2B Planned Se rvice Area (203 5 - 204 0) Stage 3 Plan ned Service Area (P ost 2040 ) No Service Open Water Right-of-Way Mu nicipal Bou ndary Parcels Stre ams 3,500 0 3,5001,750 Feet Date: 11/17/2017 DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Chapter 3 Land Use 16 December 18, 2017 - Project CLL17010 The potential changes were evaluated and the 2040 Full Build Land Use Map includes changes to only a few areas, labeled on Figure 3-3 as follows: A. Approximately 10.4 acres on the west side of Lake Drive north of Diane Street has changed from Medium Density Residential to Commercial. This change recognizes some of the existing land uses and the configuration of existing parcels which would make it difficult to assemble a suitable housing development site. This area is in the post-2040 Utility Staging Area. B. Approximately 628 acres in the northeast corner of the city lying north of 80th Street and west of the regional park has changed from Low Density Residential (120 acres), Medium Density Residential (333 acres), Industrial (104 acres) and Commercial (71 acres) to the new classification of Business Campus (538 acres) and Mixed Use 90 acres). The Mixed Use area is designated west of I-35E and south of Hardwood Creek, with the remainder designated Business Campus. Including Mixed Use would allow opportunities for higher- density housing and other uses compatible with intense business-related uses. Part of this area (on the east side of I- 35E) is in the 2020 to 2030 Utility Staging Area, with the remainder in the post-2040 Utility Staging Area. C. Approximately 139 acres east of I-35E and west of 24th Avenue, on the city’s boundary with Hugo, has changed from Industrial to Mixed Use (Winter Property.) Mixed Use allows opportunities for higher-density housing compatible with business-related uses and recognizes the environmental constraints posed by a large wetland complex on the site. This area was in Stage 2A of the 2030 Utility Staging Plan, and has changed to Stage 1A of the new 2040 Utility Staging Plan. D. Approximately 87 acres east of I-35E, approximately one half mile north of the I-35E and County Road 14 interchange, has changed from Industrial to Business Campus. This allows for high-quality, integrated development of a wide range of business uses at high visibility location This area was in Stage 2A of the 2030 Utility Staging Plan, and has changed to Stage 1A of the new 2040 Utility Staging Plan. E. Approximately 9.75 acres on West Cedar Street adjacent to I-35E, west of the Northpointe development, has changed from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. This recognizes the need for a transition from the adjacent single-family homes and the highway right-of-way and the interest in the site for higher density housing styles. This area was in Stage 1A of the 2030 Utility Staging Plan, and is also in Stage 1A of the new 2040 Utility Staging Plan. Figure 3-3. Full Build Land Use Plan Changes, 2030 to 2040 Winter Property Lino Lakes, MN Concept Land Use Plan 0014487 01-18-2018 N 0‘100‘ 200‘ 300‘ Phone (952) 937-5150 Fax (952) 937-5822 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 westwoodps.com Westwood Professional Services, Inc. LAND USE DATA GROSS SITE AREA: 139.5 ac EXISTING WETLANDS: 50.3 ac COLLECTOR ROW: 3.8 ac PONDING/OPEN SPACE: 6.9 ac COMM / OFFICE: 20.5 ac COMM/OFFICE/HD RES FLEX: 10.5 ac MD/ HD RESIDENTIAL FLEX: 7.0 ac MD RESIDENTIAL: 40.5 ac Aerial photography from State of Minnesota; Topography from State LIDAR 80’ ROW Pond Pond Pond Pond Regional Stormwater Mgmt MD RESIDENTIAL MD RESIDENTIAL (3.5 ac) (15.0 ac) (4.0-5.9 un/ac) (4.0-5.9 un/ac) (4.0-5.9 un/ac) (4.0-10.0 un/ac) (4.0-10.0 un/ac) (10.0 ac) MD RESIDENTIAL MD/HD RES. FLEX (3.5 ac) MD/HD RES. FLEX (15.0 ac) (15.5 ac) (10.5 ac) WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND COMM/ OFFICE / HD RES FLEX COMMERCIAL/OFFICE (3.5 ac) COMMERCIAL/OFFICE (2.0 ac) COMM/OFC WS – Item #3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer Re: Water Storage Siting Update Background The Water Tower Siting Study, dated August 7, 2017, identified four potential sites for the proposed 1.5 million gallon (MG) water tower. The City Council authorized a contract for geotechnical evaluations for the proposed sites on August 28, 2017. A map of the proposed water tower sites is attached. Staff proceeded first with the geotechnical evaluation for the Tower Site No. 2 (City property by Fire Station No. 2 at Birch and Centerville Road). The results of the analysis determined that the soils at this site are not suitable for supporting a spread foundation system and will require structural pilings. The following is a summary of the site evaluations to date: Site 1 – Birch Street and Timberwolf Trail (School District Property) – No borings completed at this time. The School District is not ready to make any long-term commitments as they are determining their plans for the future. Site 2 Birch Street and Centerville Road (City Property) – The site is located on City-owned property and close to existing 16” trunk watermain. The geotechnical evaluation determined that this site would require structural pilings to reach suitable soils that can support a water tower. Structural pilings could add $200,000 to $400,000 to the water tower construction cost. Site 2 is also located within the White Bear Lake 5-mile buffer zone. Due to the recent court order the DNR has recently denied dewatering permits to developers of proposed construction projects within this zone. While dewatering may not be required at this site, based on the groundwater elevations observed in the recent soil borings, permitting timelines is a consideration. Site 3 – Birch Street and 12th Avenue South (Privately Owned) – The site is located on privately owned land and close to existing 16” watermain. Further evaluation showed that there may not be enough open land on this site to construct and maintain a 1.5 MG water tower. Site 4 – Birch Street and West Shadow Lake Drive (School District Property) - No borings completed at this time. The School District is not ready to make any long-term commitments as they are determining their plans for the future. With the potential elimination of Site 1, 3 and 4 staff is suggesting evaluation of 2 additional sites pending City Council review: Site 5 – Holly Drive and Holly Court (Privately Owned) - Existing 16” trunk watermain exists on Holly Drive for potentially connecting to the proposed water tower. This watermain would need to be extended southward along Holly Drive N. to this site. A geotechnical analysis (soil borings and report) would be needed to determine if structural pilings would be required at this site. Site 6 – Country Lakes Park (City Property) New 16” trunk watermain would need to be constructed along West Shadow Lake Drive from Birch Street to this site. A geotechnical analysis (soil borings and report) would be needed to determine if structural pilings would be required at this site. This site is located within County Lakes Park. The following table shows the estimated additional costs to construct a water tower at each site: Site Estimated Additional Cost for Land Purchase (1-acre site) Estimated Additional Cost for Trunk Watermain ($250/ft) Estimated Total Additional Cost (Not including structural pilings if needed) 1 (School District) $110,000.00 $25,000.00 $135,000.00 2 (Fire Station) $0.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 3 (Privately Owned) $110,000.00 $25,000.00 $135,000.00 4 (School District) $110,000.00 $25,000.00 $135,000.00 5 (Privately Owned) $110,000.00 $330,000.00 $440,000,00 6 (Country Lakes Park) $0.00 $372,000.00 $372,000.00 The advantages and disadvantages of each site are summarized below: Site Advantages Disadvantages 1 (School District) Close to existing 16” trunk watermain Private property - Requires negotiating with owner and land purchase. 2 (Fire Station) City owned property. Close to existing 16” trunk watermain. None 3 (Privately Owned) Close to existing 16” trunk watermain -Available land area might not be adequate for a 1.5 MG water tower. -Smaller site could be more difficult for construction and future water tower rehabilitation projects. -Private property - Requires negotiating with owner and land purchase. 4 (School District) Close to existing 16” trunk watermain Private property - Requires negotiating with owner and land purchase. 5 (Privately Owned) Existing 16” trunk watermain exists on Holly Drive for connection to water tower. - Private property - Requires negotiating with owner and land purchase. -Requires additional watermain to connect to 16” trunk watermain. 6 (Country Lakes Park) City owned property. Requires additional watermain to connect to 16” trunk watermain. Requested Council Direction The City Council previously authorized geotechnical evaluation of up to four sites. Staff is requesting direction regarding which additional sites, if any, the City Council would consider for the proposed 1.5 MG water tower. Sites 5 and 6 are recommended. Sites 1, 3 and 4 have constraints detailed above. Site 5 will require permission from the existing property owner to obtain soil borings on this site. Attachments 1. Water Storage Siting Location Map RICE CREEKCHAIN OF LAKESREGIONAL TRAIL County Hw y 10 County Hwy 14 County Hwy 21 County Hwy 23 County Hw y 14 Hodgson Rd C o u nty H w y 2 3 Frenchman Rd County Hwy 21 %&d(%&c( )s !® !® !®!® !®!® !® !®!< !<!< !< !< !< Blaine Lino Lakes Circle Pines Lexington Circle Pines Lino Lakes Circle PinesShoreview ColumbusLinoLakes Hugo Lino Lakes HugoWhiteBearTwp. Lino LakesNorthOaks Lino LakesShoreview Lino LakesWhiteBearTwp. Lino LakesCenterville Site 6City Owned890 ft Site 4School District900 ft Site 5Privately Owned900 ft Site 3Privately Owned900 ft Site 1School District905 ft Site 2City Owned910 ft Document Path: K:\02988-440\GIS\Maps\Figure2_PotentialTowerLocations.mxd Date Saved: 1/22/2018 2:32:08 PM !<Municipal W ell !®Tower 3 Study Location !®Existing Water Tower Watermain Diameter Other 12" 16" City Boundary Figure 2Tower 3 Study LocationsWater Storage Siting StudyCity of Lino Lakes 0 3,300Feet¯ WS – Item 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Water Appropriations Permit Amendments Court Order White Bear Lake Restoration Assoc. v. Mn/DNR Background White Bear Lake Restoration Association initiated a Minnesota Environment Rights Act (MERA) lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The lawsuit centered on alleged impacts to White Bear Lake and the Prairie du Chien Aquifer, in part, due to groundwater appropriations permitted by the DNR. The DNR is the state agency that regulates groundwater appropriations for municipal water supply systems. The matter went to trial in March of 2017 and a decision by the Court was made in August of 2017. The Court found the DNR in violation and ordered a number of corrective actions. A temporary stay on the orders was granted pending the post-trial motions hearing which was held on January 26, 2018. Pending a decision by the court the DNR is moving forward with implementation of the court order. Several of these actions will have a direct impact on 11 communities with well permits within 5 miles of White Bear Lake, including the City of Lino Lakes. We are expecting that four additional conditions will placed on our Water Appropriation permits as a result of the court order. On January 17, 2018 the City’s water appropriations permit was amended to including a condition addressing Court Order Item 4.E.: 1) Water Supply Contingency Plan: A revised Water Supply Plan must be submitted to the DNR, by August 29, 2018, that includes a contingency plan to fully or partially convert the source water that is authorized under this permit from groundwater to surface water source(s). The contingency plan must include a schedule for funding design, construction and conversion to a surface water supply. Whether any conversion would occur shall be determined by the DNR and the holder of this permit. The three additional conditions are expected to be added by February 28, 2018. They are as follows: 2) Residential Irrigation Ban: Residential irrigation must be prohibited within your community when notified by DNR that the lake level of White Bear Lake has fallen below 923.5 feet; the prohibition shall continue until notified by the DNR that the lake levels have reached an elevation of 924 feet. The residential irrigation ban in your community must include enforcement tools and procedures if there is non- compliance with your local law. This must be implemented through your local law by the start of the irrigation season. 3) Per Capita Water Use Plan: By August 29, 2018 a plan to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day must be submitted to the DNR. The plan was include enforcement tools and procedures to ensure implementation of the plan. 4) Report of Collaborative Efforts: Annual reporting to the DNR is required by February 15 of each year, about collaborative efforts with other northeast metro communities to develop plans to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day. In addition, the City is indirectly effected by other aspects of the order, including a prohibition of the issuance of the new appropriation permits within a 5 mile radius of the lake. This has led to construction projects being held up because dewatering permits were not being issued. This is one item that seems likely to get addressed with the post- trial motions. Analysis While the City of Lino Lakes continues to be a strong advocate for implementing water conservation measures, staff has expressed concerns over the viability and benefit of the proposed conditions. Specific issues related to the four permit conditions are as follows: 1. Water Supply Contingency Plan: This is the only condition currently in effect. Lino Lakes is likely in a better position than most to address an alternative to groundwater use simply due to its proximity to the Chain of Lakes. St. Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) still has infrastructure in place from both Centerville and Otter Lakes, previously used to supply water to their system. While the system has not been used since the late 80’s, and water quality is not optimum it may serve as a potential alternative in the future. DNR has provided little guidance on the plan components other than what is in the order. Uncertainty includes the scope of use, the cost, and funding options. 2. Residential Irrigation Ban: While not yet in effect this condition may be the most pressing. The current lake level is 922.89 as of January 2018. Under the order an irrigation ban will be in effect if the lake level is under 923.5 and not rescinded until the lake elevation reaches 924.0. The City will be responsible for enforcing this ban. White Bear Lake has not reached this level since 2006. Besides the obvious impact to residents there are a number of issues with this order, first of which, is the limited impact on White Bear Lake. Initial results of the DNR groundwater model, completed in the fall of 2017, demonstrates that the irrigation ban will only increase water levels by about one inch (1”) per year. Additional concerns include the practicality of enforcement, applicability to new construction lawns and private wells. 3. Per Capita Water Use: Staff is still evaluating the impact of this requirement. Our current water supply plan identifies goals of 75 gallons per day (gpd) for residential per capita use and 100 gpd for total per capita use. The City’s 10 year average (2005 – 2015) residential water use was 80.9 gpd and trending downward hitting 73 gpd in 2016. Our 2010-2015 total per capita use was 91 gpd. Accordingly, meeting the 75 gpd mark is very attainable with continued implementation of conservation education, lawn irrigation programs, and implementation of surface water reuse where applicable. While we are currently on mark, meeting the 90 gpd total per capita use is more challenging because the makeup of land use can effect this greatly. The amount and type of commercial and industrial land uses can have a large effect on this measurable from community to community. A restaurant, hotel or manufacturer that uses water in processing, will tend to drive these numbers up. 4. Report of Collaborative Efforts: It is still unclear what the scope of this condition will be. Staff currently meets and discusses water conservation and supply issues with adjacent jurisdictions routinely. Whether this is intended to be primarily an idea exchange or to actually implement collaborative projects is uncertain. Requested Council Direction None required at this time. Staff will be meeting with DNR in February to receive a post hearing update. Once the court rules on post-trial motions we may have a better understanding or clarity on the conditions imposed. Joe Langel, City Attorney, has also been apprised of the orders and will be consulted as we move forward. Staff will provide an update at the March work session or earlier if new information develops. Attachments 1. Draft Water Appropriation Permit Amendments 2. DNR Groundwater Model Overview, dated November 3, 2017 1· lmplementatton of Ramsey Co1inty DistFrctCo-urt-Order 62�� -�� --__ -I CV-13-2414: Item 4.C) Residential�l-tr =igatie�Ban · _:----=--__ Timeline: Permit Condition will be added to permits by 2/28/2018 The following outlines language from the Court Order in Part 4.C) and conceptual permit condition language for amending the 11 municipal/public water supply groundwater appropriation permits within a 5-mile radius of White Bear Lake. Court Order Language: 4.C} Preparing, enacting and enforcing a residential irrigation ban when the level of White Bear Lake is below 923.5 feet, to continue until the lake has reached an elevation of 924 feet. The preparation and enactment of this process will be completed within 6 months of this order. This section in the Court Order pertains to the following communities: •Hugo, City of (Permit# 1975-6218) •Lake Elmo, City of (Permit# 1961-1031) •Lino Lakes, City of (Permit# 1985-6168) •Mahtomedi, City of (Permit# 1969-0163} •North St. Paul, City of (Permit# 1977-6176) •Oakdale, City of (Permit# 1978-6197) ·• St. Paul Regional Water S�rvices (city of St. Paul) (Permit# 1977-6229) •Stillwater, City of (Permit# 1975-6207) •Vadnais Heights, City of (Permit# 1980-6153) •White Bear Lake, City of (Permit #1969-0174) •White Bear Township (Permit# 1984-6120 & 1984-6121) Item 4.C) will be implemented through permit language in the above municipal/public water supply groundwater appropriation permits within a 5-mile radius of White Bear Lake. Concept for Permit Condition Language: Ramsey County District Court Order: 62-CV-13-2414-Residential Irrigation Ban: Residential irrigation must be prohibited within your community when notified by DNR that the lake level of White Bear Lake has fallen below 923.5 feet; the prohibition shall continue until notified by the DNR that the lake levels have reached an elevation of 924 feet. The residential irrigation ban in your community must include enforcement tools and procedures if there is non-compliance with your local law. This must be implemented through your local law by the start of the irrigation season. The current lake levels of White Bear Lake may be viewed on the MN DNR website (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/csg/site report.html?mode=get site report&site=82016700). January 10, 2018 Implementation of Ramsey County District Court Order 62- CV-13-2414: Item 4.E} The following outlines language from the Court Order in Part 4.E) and includes draft permit condition language to be included in amending the 11 municipal/public water supply groundwater appropriation permits within a 5-mile radius of White Bear Lake. Court Order Language: 4.E) Immediately amending all permits within tMffiQ� mile radius of White Bear Lake to require that within one year of the date of this order, permittees suq,ti}tf§Jt'fmtingency plan in their water supply plans for conversion to surface water supply. The Court notes thqJifilfil�l,QJ} DNR has previously ignored the mandate of this statute, submission of these water supply convfffl�"hptdfi'$lj�zrequired for the issuance of permits. Whether any conversion would occur shall be de{gfi'f}Jff'J;tby the DN�',�nq the affected communities. This section in the Court Order pertains to th0;,(1tl�i�g communities;c�'.��<:,• •Hugo, City of (Permit# 1984-6120}•L ake Elmo, City of (Permit# 1980-6153} -'Cj;:'::.r:,,_ •Lino Lakes, City of (Permitftt1��8,4:c6121)\:A:';-:\5')?��:':s_ ./', '<�::�}�,��?�,,-•,. • M ahtomedi, City of (Permitlf:®;Q69IQ@Q8) ?{?fi1t� '''.\��t;}jtfti�\:::·,,. •North St. Paul, City of (Permit #1:[Q99-017i:l)3l:¾\t. •Oakdale, c; .... t�� 1977;,�f, ,�i'�,,��/('1;,•St. Pau · .anal Watet:t&�rvices (citYtQ:'fk�t�Riiul ) (PermitJt,1975-6218)!�:,t.� 0�i\tf\ 0.�t:�1tl t""•1J1;�0,J (Perm··w;n985-6168)'. ',t;i\If'·. . . \' C}'.;b.. ''f O', Heightsj\,J mJt 75-62QZ'b�l��:.�i ·->.. ' :lffi'.• White Bea r ToWrrspip (Perrfj1t,# 1977-6229} ·· ..... �,... "ilrlf'Jf:i}.. '''i4�,1i2·,. Item 4:�)JjX'{}II be implementt<l.througm�n;�;following language in the a bove municipal/public water suppl y g/6:µ�q,water a ppropil�tion perm ifs within the 5-mile boundary of White Bear Lake 't}\f?it. \t�JfN, Draft Permit t61J)�p;: L:;a;, Ramsey County Distri.c��co:�:ft Order: 62-CV-13-2414 -Plan to Convert to Surface Water Source: A revised Water Supply Plih;}must be submitted to the DNR, by August 29, 2018, th at includes a plan to fully or pa rtially convert the source water that will be authorized under this permit from groundwater to surface water source(s). The plan must include a schedule for funding design, co nstruction and conversion to a surface water supply. Draft: December 15, 2017 WS – Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director Re: Target Remodel – City Ordinance 903.03 (4) b1 Background The Target Store located at 749 Apollo Dr. is currently remodeling the store, which has resulted in some construction activity taking place outside the hours outlined in Lino Lakes Ordinance 901.03 (4) b1. This City ordinance restricts construction activity as outlined below. No person shall engage in or permit construction activity involving the use of any kind of electric, pneumatic, diesel or gas-powered machine or other power equipment except as follows: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday No construction activity allowed Sunday and Federal Holidays Police staff have responded to noise complaints for construction activity taking place outside the authorized times on January 16, 2018 at 2:45 AM (CN 18-011796) and January 23, 2018 at 11:53 PM (CN 18-017761). Police staff spoke with the construction staff at Target and informed them of the complaints. Construction workers altered or ended their activity once police staff spoke with them and no further complaints were received those nights. Police staff did not take any enforcement action in response to either incident. The Project Manager, Brita Ryan, for Ryan Companies has contacted our staff and informed them of construction activity they would like to place during the overnight hours on February 13, 2018 and February 14, 2018. This overnight work will remove and replace two large rooftop HVAC units. Ryan Companies current plan to complete this works is: • Remove and replace two rooftop HVAC units (4400 lbs each) with a 250’ crane. By OSHA requirements, they’ll need 33’ clearance in all directions around the crane. In order to do that, they feel it necessary to conduct this work after hours (after 10 PM). • Removal of rooftop units is scheduled to begin at 10 PM on Tuesday, February 13th. The crane is scheduled to be set up on the north side of the building prior to 10 PM on February 13th, so they can begin the work right at 10 PM. The lifting/removal of the north side rooftop unit will take approximately 30 minutes. Then, the crane will be disassembled and moved to the south side of the building. The disassembly and moving of the crane is estimated to take two hours, at most. Once set up on the south side, the crane will remove the south side rooftop unit, which will take approximately 30 minutes. Then, the crane will be taken down for the night. • Installation of the new rooftop units is scheduled for Wednesday, February 14th. Same process for installation as the removal above. The City ordinance does not allow for this type construction activity during the articulated timeline. Staff has researched the ordinance to determine if there are any options to complete this work within the current framework of the ordinance on Ryan Companies desired plan. In the current framework, there is no mechanism to accommodate this construction activity within the ordinance framework. Some potential solutions to consider are: 1. Amend the current City Ordinance to accommodate this type of construction activity. Please note that amending the ordinance could not be accomplished in the timeline, which Ryan Companies is requesting due to statutory requirements related to passage of City ordinances. 2. Consider authorizing a Special Event Permit to allow this construction activity to take place on the desired timeline. It should be noted that a Special Event is defined in City ordinance 615.02 as; “An outdoor gathering of at least 50 individuals whether on public or private property, assembled with a common purpose for a period of one hour or longer. Special events include, but are not limited to concerts, fairs, circuses, parades, open air markets, marathons, walkathons, festivals, races, and bicycles events, celebrations or any other gathering or event of similar nature. Special events do not include noncommercial events held on private property such as graduation parties or social parties.” Council has approved Special Event Permits for activity that is based on community gatherings previously, but has not authorized construction activity through a Special Events Permit. 3. Take no action and require Ryan Companies to complete the work within the current framework of the City ordinance. Staff is seeking Council direction on how to proceed. Attachments City Ordinance 901.03 Lino Lakes City Ordinance 901.03 § 901.03 PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safety: (1) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; (2) All trees, hedges, billboards or other obstructions which prevent persons from having a clear view of all traffic approaching an intersection; (3) All wires and limbs of trees which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles; (4) (a) Noise emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minn. Rules Ch. 7030, as it may be amended from time to time; (b) 1. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, pneumatic, diesel or gas-powered machine or other power equipment except as follows: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday No construction activity allowed Sunday and federal holidays 2. The restriction on working hours in this § 901.03(4)(b)1. does not apply to persons working on their own existing private residences; (Am. Ord. 11-03, passed 4-28-2003) (5) Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks or public grounds except under conditions as are permitted by this code or other applicable law; (6) Radio aerials or television antennae erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (7) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free use of the street or sidewalk; (8) All hanging signs, awnings and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks or so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained in a sound condition; (9) The allowing of rain water, ice or snow to fall from any building or structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (10) Any barbed wire fence less than six feet above the ground and within ten feet of a public sidewalk or way; (11) All dangerous, unguarded machinery in any public place or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; (12) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (13) Accumulations in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies, lumber, wood or other material, or the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes or vermin, or in a manner creating fire, health or safety hazards from the accumulation; (14) Any well, hole or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child or other person coming on the premises where it is located; (15) Obstruction to the free flow of water in a natural waterway or a public street drain, gutter or ditch through accumulation of trash or other materials; (16) The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk or other public property of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles or other substances which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over the substances; (17) The depositing of paper, litter, debris, garbage or refuse on a public right-of-way or on adjacent private property or the throwing of any matter from a motor vehicle; (18) (a) The parking, keeping, or storing of, or the permitting of junk cars on a public street or alley or on any private land, or premises which are owned, occupied or controlled by the one so doing or so permitting except where such is being pursued in accordance with existing zoning. (b) This shall also apply to anyone who shall park, keep or place a vehicle even if he or she is not the owner of the land upon which the vehicle is parked, kept or placed. (c) For the purpose of this section, a JUNK CAR means any motor vehicle which is not in operating condition, or which is partially dismantled, or which is used for sale of parts or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles, or which is kept for scrapping, dismantling or salvage of any kind, or is not properly and currently licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota; and (19) All other conditions or things which are likely to cause injury to the person or property of anyone. (Prior Code, § 901.03) WS – Item # 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Diane Hankee Re: 2017 Pavement Management Report Background The City of Lino Lakes annually reviews and rates the condition of the City’s street system. The City Council authorized an update to the pavement management plan on September 25, 2017. The pavement management program uses pavement ratings and pavement management software to provide recommended maintenance activities and associated budgets. The pavement management program uses a weighted average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scale for bituminous roads. The PCI is based on a 0 to 100 scale, with increasing PCI as better condition roadways. Below is summary of the City’s system: • There are 97 miles of bituminous roadways in Lino Lakes, which 22 miles were inspected in 2017. • The average PCI for bituminous roads in Lino Lakes is 71.32. • Percentage of bituminous roadways in respective category: o “Adequate” category requiring preventative maintenance – 62.8% o “Marginal” category requiring preservation – 22.8% o “Problem” category requiring reconstruction – 14.4% The report identifies that a majority of the roadways within the City are in adequate condition. However, with the aging infrastructure in the marginal category (mill and overlay), it is recommended to increase funding to this program to keep marginal roads from deteriorating into problem (reconstruction) category roads. The current City budget for mill and overlay projects includes a 5 percent increase per year. We included an analysis of where funding was increased by 8 - 10 percent per year and found that this increase better matched the maintenance needs. It was also concluded that if funding is available, the City should consider a larger mill and overlay project to keep marginal roadways from becoming problem roadways. A 5-year Capital Improvement Plan from 2018 to 2022 was developed based on the City’s current funding levels. Upon reviewing the roadways that are currently under the “problem” category, it would take the City roughly 15 years to reconstruct all these roadways. There would also be roadways that are currently under the “marginal” category that will be gradually deteriorating into the “problem” category if there is no consideration to increase funding to preserve the service life of these streets. The City should continue to review their roadway maintenance funding approximately every 5 years. This will ensure cost effective maintenance activities and account for adjustments due to construction costs and the changing conditions of the roadways. Historically, the speed of development varies thus creating a variation in maintenance needs. Requested Council Direction City Council is to consider accepting the Pavement Management Report and order the 2018 Mill and Overlay project at the February 12, 2018 regular Council meeting. Attachments 1. 2017 Pavement Management Report 2. Mill and Overlay 5-year CIP 3. Road Reconstruction / Reclaimation 5-year CIP WSB Project No. 010884 1/8/2018 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT Lino Lakes, MN Prepared for City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Pavement Management Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 What is a Pavement Management Program? ........................................................................................................... 2 Why establish a Pavement Management Program? ................................................................................................. 2 What is Pavement Forensics? ................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Pavement Condition Report ................................................................................................................................. 3 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION ............................................................................................................................. 3 Pavement Rating Examples ................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Pavement Management Report ........................................................................................................................... 9 Special Maintenance Actions Recommended ........................................................................................................... 9 Preventative Maintenance.................................................................................................................................... 9 Preservation ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Reclamation ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Reconstruction .................................................................................................................................................... 11 PAVER Modeling and Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 12 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 PCI Deterioration Models ................................................................................................................................... 12 Condition Performance Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 13 Work Planning Models ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Recommendations and 5-year CIP ...................................................................................................................... 22 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Pavement PCI Map .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Pavement PCI Ratings ......................................................................................................................................... 25 Pavement Management Report Page | 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the findings for the pavement inspection of the road segments performed by WSB & Associates in the city of Lino Lakes completed in October 2017. This report gives an overview of the road condition in the city and provides recommendations on pavement management. Per the City plan, pavement conditions for one-fourth of the City roadways are rated annually. Roadways not rated in the current year are then projected using the PAVER software. The projections are based on past inspection ratings and decreased based on a deterioration curve. Recent roadway improvement projects were updated in the condition ratings. Private roadways and gravel roadways were not evaluated. A summary of the pavement condition findings are as follows: • WSB’s GIS system states that there are currently 97 miles of bituminous roadways in Lino Lakes, which 22 miles were inspected in 2017. • The current weighted average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for bituminous roads in Lino Lakes is 71.32. The PCI is based on a 0 to 100 scale, with increasing PCI as better condition roadways. This weighted average is taken from the PCI values generated on each segment based on the distresses identified in the field, and averaged depending on the area of each segment. Any type of road maintenance (i.e. patching or crack sealing) done prior to inspections would be accounted for in each PCI value. • Percentage of bituminous roadways in respective category, in terms of area, are as follows: o “Adequate” category requiring preventative maintenance – 62.8% o “Marginal” category requiring preservation – 22.8% o “Problem” category requiring reconstruction – 14.4% • There are 3.99 miles of gravel roadways and 3.67 miles of private roadways within Lino Lakes, which are not included in the pavement management. A majority of the roadways within the City are currently in adequate condition. The City has been adding new roadways constructed with development, and has also completed roadway maintenance/reconstruction on existing roadways. In modeling the pavement condition over 20 years, it was found that the marginal category roadways drop into problem category roadways if not preserved within a certain time frame. A budget driven model and a target PCI model were analyzed to determine the level of funding needed to cost effectively maintain the roadways. An analysis of the preservation budget showed an 8 to 10 percent per year increase matched the maintenance needs. It was also concluded that if funding is available in the near future, the City should consider a larger preservation project to keep marginal roadways from becoming problem roadways. Pavement Management Report Page | 2 II. INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM? A pavement management program includes a systematic method of inspecting and rating the pavement condition of roads in a network, followed by performing a cost-effective analysis of various maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, which assists decision makers in making the best decision on the use of available resources. The pavement management ideology, if successfully implemented, can result in drastic improvement of the life cycle costs, performance, and life of roads. The main objectives of a pavement management program are to maintain a high-level network, evaluate the effectiveness of different alternatives, and optimize timing of maintenance and construction activities. These objectives can be met by routinely inspecting the road conditions. The data is typically managed with pavement management software that can manage, sort, and store the collected data. Using the software, various models can be generated that allows the user to run different budget scenarios. WHY ESTABLISH A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM? A Pavement Management Program can serve as a good guide for the City to make strategic and appropriate decisions relating in maintenance and reconstruction activities to maximize the life cycle of the pavements. The program will also provide some financial strategies to help the City to allocate available resources in an efficient manner. WHAT IS PAVEMENT FORENSICS? Pavement forensics involves taking cores on the roadways to identify the pavement structure and condition under the visible layer of the pavement, such as the depths of pavement layers, signs of bonding or de-bonding, and distresses that might not be visible from the surface. Recommendations can then be made on certain maintenance or reconstruction activity is best suited for the roadway. Several factors should be considered when determining the number of cores to be taken, which include the pavement condition or visible distresses present on the pavement and the variability in the pavement depth as the cores are being taken. The findings from the pavement forensic have been proven to lead to cost savings and better solutions for roadway maintenance. Pavement Management Report Page | 3 III. PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was used to measure pavement condition on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect roadway with no distress. This report provides the latest pavement conditions. PAVER, which is an asset management software, was used to record and estimate the conditions of the roadways. The software calculates the PCI using the deduct values, which are based on the distress type, distress severity, and distress quantity. Examples of distress type are alligator cracking, pothole, and rutting. Distress severity is divided into low, medium, and high. Distress quantity is either the number of counts, length, or area depending on the distress type. Majority of the bituminous roadway systems at the time of inspection are in good condition, and are in need of maintenance to preserve the road structure. The following is the breakdown of the pavement overall condition in the City: Pavement Condition Index Mileage Percent of System Adequate Category (70.01 – 100.00) 59.8 62.8 Marginal Category (40.01 – 70.00) 21.9 22.8 Problem Category (0.00 – 40.00) 15.6 14.4 Pavements that fall into the adequate category are recommended to have surface treatment preventative maintenance performed. The lower the PCI, the less effective a preventative maintenance activity is in preserving the life of the roadways. Each type of preventative maintenance serves its own function, and project selection depends on the type and severity of distresses observed on the surface of the road. Streets that fall into the lower range of the adequate category, with PCI in low the 70s, may be prompted to perform a Texas Underseal or mill and overlay in order to extend the life of the road. It is recommended to evaluate the road condition prior to project selection to determine the appropriate type of construction for the roadways. Pavement preservation is recommended to be conducted on roadways that fall into the marginal category. Some of the pavement preservation methods are partial and full depth mill and overlay. Roadways that fall into the lower range of the marginal category, with PCI in the 40s, may be monitored without performing any maintenance activities since they have degraded to the point that pavement preservation methods are no longer effective and the roadways still have another few years’ time before a reconstruction is needed. Prior to any mill and overlay or full depth bituminous removal and replacement, coring is strongly recommended to determine if the bituminous layer thickness is sufficient and underlying pavement is in good condition. If there are issues in the base and subgrade layers, pavement preservation methods are not recommended and those roadways would fall into the problem category that a reclamation or reconstruction needs to be done. Pavement Management Report Page | 4 Reclamation or reconstruction is recommended to be performed on streets that fall into the problem category. Reclamation can only be done if there is enough gravel underneath the bituminous layer. Thus, coring would be recommended prior to any design work to determine the appropriate improvement. The PCI values obtained were based on visual inspection and the recommended strategies for each category shall only be used as guidelines. Recommended maintenance activities are further explained in the Pavement Management Report. Appendix A includes maps of all the pavements in the City showing their PCI classification. The specific PCI rating for each pavement segment is included in Appendix B. Pavement Management Report Page | 5 PAVEMENT RATING EXAMPLES PCI Rating = 27 Talle Lane (Segment ID: 541) Detailed Distresses: • Patching, Low Severity, 50.17% • Alligator Cracking, Low Severity, 10.03% • Alligator Cracking, Medium Severity, 1.00% • Alligator Cracking, High Severity, 10.05% Pavement Management Report Page | 6 PCI Rating = 43 Timberwolf Trail (Segment ID: 564) Detailed Distresses: • Patching, Low Severity, 3.94% • Patching, Medium Severity, 7.87% • Alligator Cracking, Low Severity, 10.01% • Alligator Cracking, Medium Severity, 0.98% • Block Cracking, Medium Severity, 10.03% Pavement Management Report Page | 7 PCI Rating = 77 Tele Drive (Segment ID: 553) Detailed Distresses: • Alligator Cracking, Low Severity, 2.83% • Alligator Cracking, Medium Severity, 0.28% • Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 0.02% Pavement Management Report Page | 8 PCI Rating = 97 Rolling Hills Drive (Segment ID: 454) Detailed Distresses: • Linear Cracking, Low Severity, 0.04% Pavement Management Report Page | 9 IV. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT This pavement management report includes a systematic method of inspecting and rating the pavement condition of roads in a network, followed by performing a cost-effective analysis of various maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, which assists decision makers in making the best decision on the use of available resources. It is also used to supply updated information regarding the current management plan. S PECIAL MAINTENANCE A CTIONS RECOMMENDED Lino Lakes has many options available for pavement preventative maintenance, preservation, and reconstruction including reclamation, mill and overlays, and Texas underseal to extend the life of a roadway. These maintenance actions are anticipated to last several years and be cost effective. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE Preventative maintenance can be defined as a treatment to an existing road that will help preserve and protect the road, while also slow future deterioration. This type of maintenance will improve the condition of the system without increasing its structural capacity. Implementing a preventative maintenance strategy is both cost effective and appropriate since maintenance costs increase with pavement age. Preventative maintenance actions can be completed at a much lower cost than preservation actions such as mill and overlays. By applying the appropriate preventative maintenance strategy at the right time, it can keep the good roads in good condition at a lower cost, which is a better strategy than waiting for the road to deteriorate before applying an improvement. With preventative maintenance techniques, you can extend the life of a pavement from 20 years to close to 50 years if the maintenance is done at the correct time. Preventative maintenance is best performed on newer pavements prior to the appearance of significant and/or severe distresses. Types of preventative maintenance include crack sealing, fog sealing, chip sealing, micro surfacing. Crack Seal Crack sealing is a type of preventative maintenance done to prevent the intrusion of water and incompressible materials into cracks. When water enters the cracks, it can soften the sub-base and base layers and lead to further cracking and the development of more severe alligator cracking and subsequently the formation of potholes. In Minnesota where freeze/thaw cycles exist, the water that enters the system through cracks can lead to frost heaving issue. Crack sealing should be completed as preventative maintenance early in the life of a new pavement or overlay, typically in 2 to 4 years, and roughly every 7 years or as determined to be necessary. This technique will not improve the structural capacity of the pavement but will slow down future structural deterioration that could be caused when water enters the system. It is recommended that crack sealing is done prior to either fog sealing or chip sealing. Pavement Management Report Page | 10 Chip Seal Chip sealing process involves an application of a uniform layer of emulsified asphalt followed immediately by a layer of cover aggregate across the pavement surface. Pre-sweeping and filling of all cracks shall be done prior to the chip seal application. Chip sealing creates a waterproof surface membrane to the existing membrane, which helps to slow down the deterioration of the pavement from oxidation as well as to prevent the intrusion of water. Chip sealing is typically completed one year after crack sealing. Normally, a good chip seal placed on a newer road can last 5 to 10 years. This assumes the chip seal is protected during placement to allow proper time to cure. Other factors which affect a chip seals performance include the type of binder that is used, the condition of the underlying road and external factors such as plow damage. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that these external factors do not contribute to premature failure of a chip seal. It is important to note that chip seals can be effective if constructed properly and if placed on a road that is a good candidate for chip seal. Field surveys will assist in determining which roads are candidates for a chip seal. WSB would recommend the City to reference MnDOT Spec 2356 or the 2006 Minnesota Chip Seal Handbook for guidelines to use when chip sealing. It would be our recommendation that on residential streets, the City use CRS- 2 oil with 1/8” Dresser Trap Rock at a rate of .24 to .26 gallons per square yard. On arterials with no bike traffic, it would be our recommendation to use FA-2 aggregate with CRS-2P emulsion at a rate of .26 to .28 gallons per square yard. On heavy commercial streets, it would be our recommendation to use FA-3 aggregate with CRS-2P emulsion at a rate of .35 to .4 gallons per square yard. The larger size aggregate will withstand the heavier vehicle traffic. Fog Seal WSB would recommend the City reference MnDOT Spec 2355 for more information on fog sealing guidelines. Fog sealing is typically completed one year after crack sealing. Typically, a fog seal will last 3 to 5 years. It is important to note that while the color of a fog seal may fade as early as a year after its application, a fog seal remains effective for as many as 2 to 4 years. Fog sealing is another type of preventative maintenance in which only the asphalt emulsion is applied to the roadway to protect the roadway surface from environmental aging, moisture damage, and oxidation. This preventative maintenance technique will not add any strength to the pavement. Micro surfacing WSB would recommend the City reference MnDOT Spec 2354 for more information on micro surfacing guidelines. Micro surfacing is a mix of crushed aggregate, mineral filler, and latex-modified emulsified asphalt. It is applied by a truck equipped with a squeegee or spreader box. Micro surfacing can be applied in multiple layers. It is effective at sealing low-severity cracks, including fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. It also addresses raveling, friction loss, moisture infiltration, bleeding, and roughness. Micro surfacing is often selected to inhibit raveling and oxidation, as well as improving surface friction and filling minor irregularities and rutting in a roadway. A micro surfacing treatment can be expected to extend a roadway’s life by 3 to 6 years, depending on the number of layers applied. Pavement Management Report Page | 11 This treatment provides resurfacing from 3/8″ to 3/4″ thick and returns traffic use in one hour under average conditions. This can be applied in multiple applications and provide minor reprofiling. Micro surfacing can also fill wheel ruts up to 1 1/2″ in depth in one pass and produces high surface friction. PRESERVATION An overlay involves placing a new layer of bituminous material on top of an existing asphalt surface. A mill and overlay involves grinding all or a portion of the in-place asphalt surface and topping it with a bituminous wearing course over the entire surface. This type of action provides a structural improvement to the roadway. We recommended pavement coring to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Information such as depths of pavement layers, signs of bonding and de-bonding, and distresses that are not visible from the road surface can be obtained through pavement coring. Texas underseal is a non-conventional pavement preservation method, which a chip seal is placed under an overlay. The chip seal layer acts as stress relief membrane providing a crack resistance asphalt layer. We recommend that the City consider Texas underseal for overlay projects. RECLAMATION There are two conventional types of reclamation, which are full depth reclamation (FDR) and stabilized full depth reclamation (SFDR). FDR involves grinding the asphalt pavement with a portion of the underlying base, followed by an overlay or a surface treatment. SFDR is FDR with the addition of stabilizing additive, which are asphalt based, chemical based, or compaction aids. The asphalt additives can be foamed asphalt or asphalt emulsion. Reclamation brings the pavement condition back to a 100 (perfect condition) rating. RECONSTRUCTION Reconstruction includes removing and replacing the existing pavement and subgrade. Subsurface water management is a significant component of a reconstruction project. Thus, addressing roadway drainage is included in roadway reconstruction projects. Reconstruction also brings the pavement condition back to a 100 (perfect condition) rating. Pavement Management Report Page | 12 PAVER MODELING AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION PAVER software was utilized in the pavement management for the streets in the City of Lino Lakes. First step in the pavement management process was to develop a pavement deterioration curve for bituminous roadways. Next step was to apply the deterioration curve to all the roadways, and run the 20-year design model. Two main models of interest were budget driven model and target PCI driven model. A curve was also generated when there will not be any maintenance activities done over the years to show the importance of performing maintenance actions to prolong the life of pavements. PCI DETERIORATION MODELS Pavement performance curve, which was based on the Army Corps of Engineer data (Figure IVa), was used to estimate pavement performance for roadways that were not inspected this year. The graph below represents typical pavement deterioration rate, and it may varies depending on the type of maintenance activities done over the period of pavement life. In order to predict pavement performance, all the bituminous roadways were assigned to the following deterioration curve. Figure IVa. Pavement performance curve applied to all bituminous roadways in Lino Lakes. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 PC I Years in Service (Age) PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE CURVE Pavement Management Report Page | 13 CONDITION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Work history obtained from the City was included in the model to accurately portray the condition of the streets with respect to the year since construction. The three main inputs for the model were chip seal, mill and overlay, and reclamation / reconstruction. Chip seal was treated as a surface treatment and it does not affect the structural capacity of the pavement, while mill and overlay was treated as major maintenance and repair activity since it improves the structural capacity of the pavement. Reclamation and reconstruction were input as new construction. A condition performance analysis was performed to predict the PCI ratings for the roadways that were not inspected this year. WORK PLANNING MODELS Maintenance cost increases considerably with the age of pavement. Thus, implementing a preventative maintenance strategy proves to be both cost effective and appropriate. Preventative maintenance activities such as crack seal, fog seal, chip seal, and micro surfacing are done at a much lower cost compared to preservation actions such as mill and overlay. The main idea behind the preventative maintenance strategy is that applying the appropriate maintenance action at the right time will keep the good roads in good condition at a lower cost. This is often a better strategy than leaving the road to deteriorate over time before performing maintenance. With the application of proper preventative techniques, the pavement life often can be extended from 20 years to up to 50 years, provided the maintenance is done at the correct time frame. In PAVER, Preventive Maintenance involves crack seal, patching, and joint seal, along with surface treatments such as chip seal, fog seal, and micro surfacing. The critical condition index used was 70 PCI, which is the threshold that mill and overlay, surface reconstruction, reclamation, and complete reconstruction or new construction will be carried out. Using PAVER, the funding level needed to maintain the current weighted average PCI can be predicted. This dollar budget will continue to expand if a pavement management plan is not implemented. A good pavement management plan will budget for preventative maintenance to maintain the pavements in good condition, and preservation to improve the structural capacity of the existing roadway. Figure IVb shows the pavement condition over a course of 20 years, with a variable annual budget available. Figure IVc shows the budget required to maintain various PCI levels for the pavements, including the weighted average PCI of 71.32 at the time of inspection, with no condition tolerance. These scenarios include maintenance activities listed above to be performed, which are Preventative Maintenance, Preservation and Reconstruction. These models also accounted for an inflation rate of 3%. Preservation was set to only be done when the PCI ranges from 70 to 100, when the roads are still in adequate condition. Re-planning of projects was set to every 3 years after recommended maintenance activities were performed since routine inspection and planning help to keep track of the condition of the streets thus appropriate maintenance can be applied. Pavement Management Report Page | 14 Unit pricing for the maintenance activities that were included in the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and PAVER analysis were provided by the City, which were obtained from recent project costs. The unit pricing includes engineering, legal, financial, and administrative costs. Following are the unit pricing for each type of maintenance activity. Type of Activity Unit Pricing (Per Linear Foot) Mill and overlay $ 65 Full depth reclamation $ 95 Reconstruction $ 235 Under the 5-year CIP, reconstruction costs were used to evaluate all the projects that fall under the “problem” category. Although some of the roadway segments may be a candidate for full depth reclamation, further investigation such as pavement forensics needs to be performed on the roadways to determine if there are enough underlying good materials for a full depth reclamation. Thus, a more conservative approach was conducted by applying the reconstruction costs than to utilizing the reclamation costs. PAVER runs the analysis using unit pricing for all the maintenance activities in terms of square foot instead of linear foot. All the unit pricing listed above was converted to the unit pricing that PAVER uses. An average road width of 32-feet was used to run the model. Pavement Management Report Page | 15 BUDGET DRIVEN MODEL Two scenarios were analyzed to determine if the current City budget is sufficient to maintain the streets in a cost- effective manner. The City’s Preservation “Mill and Overlay” budget was specifically reviewed. These marginal roadways are the focus due to the aging infrastructure in this category and the time dependent structural maintenance. A model was analyzed with the existing funding and another one where the Preservation funding was increased. The first model was based on: • Existing budget for Preventative $50,000 (crack fill, pothole patching) + $80,000 (chip seal, other) • Existing budget for Preservation $580,000 (2018 budget, increase 5% per year) • Proposed budget for Reconstruction including $5,200,000 allocated in 2018 and $2,600,000 allocated in 2021. After that $3,250,000 was programed in every 3 years. A second model was performed with: • Existing budget for Preventative $50,000 (crack fill, pothole patching) + $80,000 (chip seal, other) • Increase budget for Preservation $580,000 (2018 budget, increase 10% per year) • Proposed budget for Reconstruction as in the first model Pavement Management Report Page | 16 Table IVa. Existing Annual budget Year Preventative Budget Preservation Budget Reconstruction Budget Total Existing Annual Budget 2018 $130,000 $580,000 $5,200,000 $5,910,000 2019 $130,000 $609,000 $739,000 2020 $130,000 $639,450 $769,450 2021 $130,000 $671,423 $2,600,000 $3,401,423 2022 $130,000 $704,994 $834,994 2023 $130,000 $740,243 $870,243 2024 $130,000 $777,255 $3,250,000 $4,157,255 2025 $130,000 $816,118 $946,118 2026 $130,000 $856,924 $986,924 2027 $130,000 $899,770 $3,250,000 $4,279,770 2028 $130,000 $944,759 $1,074,759 2029 $130,000 $991,997 $1,121,997 2030 $130,000 $1,041,597 $3,250,000 $4,421,597 2031 $130,000 $1,093,677 $1,223,677 2032 $130,000 $1,148,360 $1,278,360 2033 $130,000 $1,205,778 $3,250,000 $4,585,778 2034 $130,000 $1,266,067 $1,396,067 2035 $130,000 $1,329,371 $1,459,371 2036 $130,000 $1,395,839 $3,250,000 $4,775,839 2037 $130,000 $1,465,631 $1,595,631 Average $130,000 $958,913 $3,435,714 $2,291,413 Total $2,600,000 $19,178,253 $24,050,000 $45,828,253 Pavement Management Report Page | 17 Table IVb. 10 % Increase Per Year in Budget for Preservation Year Preventative Budget Preservation Budget Reconstruction Budget Total Annual Budget with 10% Increase Per Year 2018 $130,000 $580,000 $5,200,000 $5,910,000 2019 $130,000 $638,000 $768,000 2020 $130,000 $701,800 $831,800 2021 $130,000 $771,980 $2,600,000 $3,501,980 2022 $130,000 $849,178 $979,178 2023 $130,000 $934,096 $1,064,096 2024 $130,000 $1,027,505 $3,250,000 $4,407,505 2025 $130,000 $1,130,256 $1,260,256 2026 $130,000 $1,243,282 $1,373,282 2027 $130,000 $1,367,610 $3,250,000 $4,747,610 2028 $130,000 $1,504,371 $1,634,371 2029 $130,000 $1,654,808 $1,784,808 2030 $130,000 $1,820,288 $3,250,000 $5,200,288 2031 $130,000 $2,002,317 $2,132,317 2032 $130,000 $2,202,549 $2,332,549 2033 $130,000 $2,422,804 $3,250,000 $5,802,804 2034 $130,000 $2,665,084 $2,795,084 2035 $130,000 $2,931,593 $3,061,593 2036 $130,000 $3,224,752 $3,250,000 $6,604,752 2037 $130,000 $3,547,227 $3,677,227 Average $130,000 $1,660,975 $3,435,714 $2,993,475 Total $2,600,000 $33,219,500 $24,050,000 $59,869,500 Pavement Management Report Page | 18 Figure IVc. Annual weighted average PCI with different budget available. 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 We i g h t e d A v e r a g e P C I Years Budget Driven Annual Condition Current Budget 10% Increase for Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 19 As shown in Figure IVc, if the City maintains its current budget for pavement management it will result in a pavement condition difference of approximately 10 PCI in 20 years. By increasing the Preservation budget by 10% per year the City can maintain a more reasonable PCI. The Reconstruction budget could also be reviewed to increase the PCI however that has been modeled at this time. Initially, the weighted average PCI drops and that is due to a significant number of roadways deteriorating before Preservation and Reconstruction activities are performed. The drop is then followed by a gradual increase after appropriate maintenance activities are carried out. Figure IVc shows that by increasing the annual budget for Preservation, the City would be able to maintain their roadway condition over time. Since there will be an increase in the percentage of roadways that falls under the marginal category in a few years, we would recommend the City consider a larger scale of mill and overlay project in the near future to address the roadways before needing a reclamation or reconstruction. Pavement Management Report Page | 20 TARGET PCI DRIVEN MODEL Three scenarios were run to determine the budget required to maintain or achieve a certain target PCI. Models ran include decreasing to a PCI of 65, maintaining current PCI (71.32), increasing to a PCI of 75. Maximum iteration was employed for each model to achieve the most accurate results, with no condition tolerance. Table IVc. Annual budget required to maintain desired condition rating. Year 65 PCI Maintain Current PCI 75 PCI 2018 $2,164,204 $2,596,375 $2,975,384 2019 $2,164,705 $2,591,058 $2,977,368 2020 $2,159,715 $2,589,842 $2,976,986 2021 $2,158,969 $2,593,401 $2,976,239 2022 $2,155,974 $2,562,111 $2,948,787 2023 $2,157,451 $2,577,644 $2,939,425 2024 $2,120,846 $2,554,443 $2,974,845 2025 $2,164,801 $2,596,961 $2,975,335 2026 $2,159,990 $2,579,632 $2,966,675 2027 $2,150,392 $2,595,832 $2,973,715 2028 $2,160,778 $2,587,333 $2,976,734 2029 $2,163,895 $2,593,600 $2,974,830 2030 $2,151,566 $2,583,764 $2,939,283 2031 $2,164,796 $2,596,533 $2,981,384 2032 $2,162,524 $2,596,594 $2,981,519 2033 $2,164,330 $2,596,774 $2,981,235 2034 $2,161,290 $2,596,781 $2,979,862 2035 $2,164,013 $2,596,995 $2,981,382 2036 $2,163,878 $2,597,268 $2,981,718 2037 $2,162,397 $2,596,801 $2,978,314 Average $2,158,826 $2,588,987 $2,972,051 Total $43,176,513 $51,779,743 $59,441,020 The results above show budget representation annually and that differs from the City’s reconstruction budget that is bonded every 3 years. Although the budgets could not be compared directly, the average and total annual budget over a period of 20 years could be compared to determine if the City’s current funding is sufficient to maintain and improve the condition of the roadways. The current annual budget is insufficient to maintain the current weighted average PCI. Based on an iterative review of the total budget it shows that a budget increase of 8 to 10 percent per year would better match the maintenance needs. Pavement Management Report Page | 21 Figure IVc. Annual funding required to maintain desired weighted average PCI. $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 Average WE I G H T E D A V E R A G E P C I YEARS TARGET PCI DRIVEN ANNUAL FUNDING 65 PCI Maintain Current PCI 75 PCI Pavement Management Report Page | 22 RECOMMENDATIONS AND 5-YEAR CIP Using the PAVER software analysis, different alternatives were run to determine the optimal actions to extend the pavement life in a most cost-effective manner. The key to achieving that goal is performing maintenance when it is required to preserve the road structure. It is recommended to maintain a roadway network condition under PCI rating of at least 70 in the long term. To achieve this goal, the funding of maintenance activities should be increased by 8 to 10 percent per year. It is recommended to allocate additional funding to preserve “marginal” roadways such as mill and overlay and Texas Underseal. These maintenance activities are cost effective and increase the pavement life if applied at the appropriate time. Roadways that are in need of reconstruction prior to the City being able to fund could be considered with a temporary solution such as chip sealing to hold the pavement together. WSB recommended the City perform preventative maintenance treatments in the early life of the pavement, normally within the first 5 years, as it would be the optimum time frame to maximize its performance. A 5-year CIP from 2018 to 2022 was developed based on the funding information provided by the City. Upon reviewing the roadways that are currently under the “problem” category, it would take the City roughly 15 years to reconstruct all these roadways. There would also be roadways that are currently under the “marginal” category that will be gradually deteriorating into the “problem” category if there is no increase in funding to lengthen the service life of these streets. A map showing the 5-year project areas and a spreadsheet presenting the respective project cost are attached to the report. This is intended to be used as a guide and assist engineers in decision making on road maintenance. Other factors such as scheduling of other projects, use of the road, expected life, cost, public perception should also be considered. Pavement Management Report Page | 23 A PPENDICES Pavement Management Report Page | 24 APPENDIX A PAVEMENT PCI MAP Figure A.1. Map showing PCI category and recommended maintenance activity for all the roadways in the City of Lino Lakes. Pavement Management Report Page | 25 APPENDIX B PAVEMENT PCI RATINGS Table B.1. PCI ratings for each bituminous segment, recommended maintenance activity for each segment was based on visual inspection. Streets with Section ID “TBD” are newer roadways that do not have Section ID assigned to them yet. Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity 81st Stree 49 1,034.25 24. 24,822.02 .00 Reconstruction Diane Cour 192 46. 30. 1,380.00 .00 Reconstruction Lamotte Dr 342 281.22 28. 7,874.25 .00 Reconstruction Rondeau La 463 1,966.13 24. 47,187.11 .00 Reconstruction Shadow Lak 494 3,327.36 24. 79,856.69 .00 Reconstruction Woodland D 636 1,363.65 22. 30,000.38 .00 Reconstruction Lamotte Dr 978 839.32 28. 23,501.00 .00 Reconstruction Lamotte Ci 1221 825.63 28. 23,117.68 .00 Reconstruction Shadow Cou 480 281.94 28. 7,894.29 .29 Reconstruction Shadow Lak 485 3,362.7 24. 80,704.83 2.44 Reconstruction Diane Cour 191 213.71 30. 6,411.27 4.23 Reconstruction Danube Str 177 502.41 30. 15,072.20 5.23 Reconstruction Shadow Lak 493 846.5 24. 20,315.95 5.66 Reconstruction Carl Stree 132 1,315.64 24. 31,575.40 6.22 Reconstruction 4th Avenue 22 1,363.48 24. 32,723.57 8.28 Reconstruction Evergreen 215 1,135.21 28. 31,785.92 8.28 Reconstruction Orange Str 674 827.17 28. 23,160.69 8.28 Reconstruction Sandpiper 473 333.47 22. 7,336.28 9.08 Reconstruction 4th Avenue 20 3,837.56 24. 92,101.38 9.31 Reconstruction Shadow Lak 487 330.57 24. 7,933.69 11.45 Reconstruction Rehbein St 443 2,080.78 30. 62,423.29 11.51 Reconstruction Rondeau La 465 1,349.3 24. 32,383.19 11.51 Reconstruction Red Maple 439 431.72 28. 12,088.14 12.69 Reconstruction Rondeau La 455 1,682.02 24. 40,368.41 12.72 Reconstruction Karth Road 317 1,220.16 30. 36,604.77 12.99 Reconstruction Rondeau La 464 2,602.66 24. 62,463.92 13.93 Reconstruction 81st Stree 1000 1,252.54 24. 30,060.85 13.93 Reconstruction Evergreen 214 884.24 30. 26,527.32 14.52 Reconstruction Red Maple 441 1,110.58 28. 31,096.32 14.92 Reconstruction Peltier La 408 2,901.63 22. 63,835.82 16.42 Reconstruction Rondeau La 462 1,293.84 24. 31,052.16 16.42 Reconstruction Olive Stre 673 799.32 24. 19,183.66 16.64 Reconstruction Nordin Str 1261 221.45 28. 6,200.48 16.64 Reconstruction Oak Lane 663 2,256.07 18. 40,609.26 16.66 Reconstruction Joyer Lane 316 1,971.86 30. 59,155.73 16.99 Reconstruction Rondeau La 456 2,471.38 24. 59,313.17 17.68 Reconstruction Main St 1260 623.84 22. 13,724.41 17.68 Reconstruction Pavement Management Report Page | 26 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Red Maple 438 1,514.78 28. 42,413.94 18.31 Reconstruction Gaage Lane 235 831.47 30. 24,944.13 18.99 Reconstruction Diane Stre 193 1,549.55 30. 46,486.35 19.85 Reconstruction 64th Stree 30 708.41 24. 17,001.94 19.99 Reconstruction Rondeau La 458 1,505.11 24. 36,122.74 20.25 Reconstruction Canfield R 128 562.4 30. 16,872.13 20.99 Reconstruction Gladstone 1020 643.49 22. 14,156.73 21.55 Reconstruction Olive Stre 672 498.4 24. 11,961.64 22.00 Reconstruction Gordon Ave 249 452.92 30. 13,587.58 22.88 Reconstruction Lamotte Dr 344 306.84 28. 8,591.39 22.88 Reconstruction Diane Stre 194 510.87 30. 15,326.12 25.26 Reconstruction Rustic Lan 471 784.51 18. 14,121.26 25.54 Reconstruction Otter Lake 679 1,242.77 24. 29,826.47 25.99 Reconstruction 64th Stree 1001 374.3 24. 8,983.14 25.99 Reconstruction Evergreen 213 502.57 28. 14,071.87 26.35 Reconstruction Gordon Ave 250 224.41 30. 6,732.44 26.91 Reconstruction Talle Lane 541 1,129.55 30. 33,886.43 26.99 Reconstruction Holly Driv 1008 3,893.9 24. 93,453.50 27.99 Reconstruction James Stre 307 2,202.17 28. 61,660.81 28.55 Reconstruction Knoll Driv 989 1,018.61 28. 28,520.95 30.76 Reconstruction Fairmont D 216 603.96 22. 13,287.12 30.99 Reconstruction 77th Stree 37 2,086.95 22. 45,912.94 31.04 Reconstruction Lakeview D 1042 1,307.31 24. 31,375.34 32.39 Reconstruction Old Birch 671a 900. 24. 21,600.00 33.74 Reconstruction Cedar Stre 135 727.81 28. 20,378.54 33.98 Reconstruction Barbara La 994 542.71 28. 15,195.98 35.18 Reconstruction Lakeview D 1045 1,316.06 24. 31,585.36 36.63 Reconstruction 77th Stree 38 623.83 22. 13,724.31 38.03 Reconstruction Glenview D 244 629.58 22. 13,850.70 38.03 Reconstruction Karth Road 318 454.09 30. 13,622.73 38.99 Reconstruction Timberwolf 563 260.05 32. 8,321.73 38.99 Reconstruction Gladstone 239 619.12 22. 13,620.61 39.39 Reconstruction Oak Lane 662 2,012.74 24. 48,305.77 39.67 Reconstruction Holly Driv 1012 725.8 18. 13,064.38 39.99 Reconstruction Fairmont D 217 620.08 22. 13,641.83 40.75 Preservation Buckthorn 127 499.75 28. 13,992.97 40.99 Preservation Ware Road 597 2,630.32 35. 92,061.03 41.06 Preservation 81st Stree 50 414.95 30. 12,448.61 41.89 Preservation Maple Stre 389 926.16 24. 22,227.85 41.89 Preservation Timberwolf 564 423.35 30. 12,700.56 42.99 Preservation 77th Stree 40 1,264.26 24. 30,342.29 43.01 Preservation Glenview D 1098 654.96 22. 14,409.20 43.45 Preservation Orange Str 675 1,017.34 24. 24,416.21 44.10 Preservation Black Duck 111 498.04 28. 13,945.05 44.68 Preservation Shadow Lak 491 498. 40. 19,920.01 44.69 Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 27 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity White Owl 612 726.1 28. 20,330.73 44.69 Preservation Lakeview D 1044 1,324.03 24. 31,776.80 44.74 Preservation Merganser 642 552.48 28. 15,469.31 44.99 Preservation Terra Cour 556 365.9 28. 10,245.23 45.20 Preservation Fox Road 228 634.26 28. 17,759.20 45.85 Preservation Hickory Pl 269 184.68 28. 5,171.18 45.85 Preservation Shadow Lak 489 157.15 40. 6,286.14 45.85 Preservation Pondview C 426 425.13 28. 11,903.77 46.00 Preservation Black Duck 109 327.33 28. 9,165.35 46.99 Preservation Black Duck 112 149.05 28. 4,173.46 46.99 Preservation Pheasant R 418 505.22 28. 14,146.15 46.99 Preservation Pheasant H 412 323.44 28. 9,056.46 47.00 Preservation Whitetail 618 335.73 28. 9,400.42 47.00 Preservation Whitetail 619 555.9 28. 15,565.07 47.00 Preservation Painted Tu 681 475.27 28. 13,307.45 47.00 Preservation Glenview D 245 475.3 22. 10,456.61 47.17 Preservation Service Ro 477 459.65 24. 11,031.54 47.18 Preservation 81st Stree 51 348.44 30. 10,453.14 47.37 Preservation Sherman La 504 481.81 28. 13,490.76 48.00 Preservation Sherman La 506 458.41 28. 12,835.48 48.00 Preservation Timberwolf 565 468.54 28. 13,119.00 48.00 Preservation White Oak 608 496.75 28. 13,908.99 48.00 Preservation White Oak 611 851.52 28. 23,842.47 48.00 Preservation Fox Road 229 1,056.47 28. 29,581.07 48.11 Preservation Shadow Lak 488 212.57 44. 9,353.15 48.11 Preservation Gladstone 236 345.46 27. 9,327.45 48.32 Preservation Chokecherr 146 425.07 28. 11,902.09 49.00 Preservation Chokecherr 147 476.68 28. 13,347.18 49.00 Preservation Sherman La 505 611.38 28. 17,118.68 49.00 Preservation Linda Lane 371 331.96 28. 9,294.90 49.18 Preservation Shadow Lak 495 387.87 40. 15,514.99 49.20 Preservation Green Bria 254 909.65 27. 24,560.61 49.42 Preservation Ulmer Driv 588 928.32 27. 25,064.77 49.42 Preservation Bloom Cour 121 471.38 24. 11,313.02 50.00 Preservation Sherman La 498 228.81 28. 6,406.61 50.00 Preservation White Pine 616 907.32 28. 25,404.83 50.24 Preservation Lonesome P 384 333.82 28. 9,347.08 50.26 Preservation Post Road 429 845.27 27. 22,822.36 50.45 Preservation Stage Coac 524 589.36 28. 16,502.16 50.45 Preservation Nancy Driv 963 1,156.26 30. 34,687.86 50.51 Preservation Meadow Cou 403 585.34 28. 16,389.56 50.52 Preservation Sherman La 503 515.82 28. 14,442.98 51.00 Preservation Timberwolf 558 212.71 48. 10,210.19 51.00 Preservation White Oak 610 232.67 28. 6,514.75 51.00 Preservation Black Duck 113 1,651.78 28. 46,249.76 51.29 Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 28 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Deerwood L 182 988.09 28. 27,666.55 51.29 Preservation Hawthorn R 263 595.49 28. 16,673.86 51.29 Preservation River Birc 450 769.47 28. 21,545.14 51.29 Preservation Shadow Lak 490 417.52 40. 16,700.79 51.29 Preservation 77th Stree 39 551.34 24. 13,232.15 51.54 Preservation Elbe Stree 203 864.09 30. 25,922.68 51.55 Preservation White Oak 609 452.9 28. 12,681.25 52.00 Preservation Linda Lane 372 1,038.94 28. 29,090.32 52.28 Preservation Lantern La 356 555.84 28. 15,563.47 52.30 Preservation Elbe Stree 202 176.81 30. 5,304.16 52.55 Preservation Sherman La 501 1,077.87 28. 30,180.40 53.00 Preservation Timberwolf 560 585.73 28. 16,400.32 53.00 Preservation Kingfisher 324 489.63 28. 13,709.73 53.29 Preservation Lonesome P 386 523.07 28. 14,646.07 53.29 Preservation Stage Coac 525 290.98 28. 8,147.39 53.39 Preservation Antelope D 62 333.29 27. 8,998.79 53.41 Preservation Heather Co 265 477.66 28. 13,374.47 53.55 Preservation Timberwolf 559 268.49 28. 7,517.74 54.00 Preservation Black Duck 117 487.35 28. 13,645.91 54.25 Preservation Shadow Lak 482 558.28 28. 15,631.90 54.25 Preservation Fox Circle 970 172.58 28. 4,832.27 54.25 Preservation Stage Coac 527 344.65 28. 9,650.09 54.32 Preservation Lakeview D 1043 1,324.57 24. 31,789.58 54.32 Preservation Rondeau La 461 678.16 24. 16,275.86 54.34 Preservation Snow Owl C 518 393.24 28. 11,010.71 54.34 Preservation Shadow Lak 496 538.01 40. 21,520.27 55.21 Preservation Green Bria 255 383.98 27. 10,367.36 55.25 Preservation Sherman La 497 101.66 50. 5,083.17 56.00 Preservation Fawn Lane 218 801.77 28. 22,449.59 56.15 Preservation Linden Lan 373 1,317.35 28. 36,885.74 56.15 Preservation Painted Tu 682 462.93 28. 12,961.91 56.15 Preservation Coyote Tra 990 746.54 28. 20,903.23 56.15 Preservation Eva Street 212 325.3 30. 9,758.88 56.48 Preservation Velvetleaf 591 277.51 28. 7,770.18 57.00 Preservation Hunters Ri 1019 983.24 28. 27,530.59 57.00 Preservation Antelope D 61 176.27 27. 4,759.28 57.04 Preservation Caribou Ci 130 363.44 27. 9,812.89 57.04 Preservation Wildflower 622 603.94 27. 16,306.30 57.04 Preservation Sandhill D 472 891.46 28. 24,960.97 57.07 Preservation Fox Road 225 164.01 28. 4,592.39 57.09 Preservation Ironwood C 301 220.62 28. 6,177.37 57.09 Preservation Gladstone 237 383.23 28. 10,730.46 57.93 Preservation Beaver Tra 99 533.67 28. 14,942.84 58.02 Preservation Black Duck 119 583.36 28. 16,333.97 58.02 Preservation Coyote Tra 169 377.63 28. 10,573.72 58.02 Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 29 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity River Birc 449 651.6 28. 18,244.72 58.02 Preservation Shadow Lak 492 330.6 40. 13,224.00 58.02 Preservation Coyote Tra 991 773.45 28. 21,656.68 58.02 Preservation Cinnamon T 148 340.37 28. 9,530.36 58.81 Preservation Gray Heron 252 1,159.3 28. 32,460.27 58.81 Preservation Sunfish Co 529 265.92 27. 7,179.95 58.81 Preservation White Pine 613 208.48 28. 5,837.45 58.93 Preservation Birch Cour 104 128.65 28. 3,602.09 58.95 Preservation Fox Road 231 341.13 28. 9,551.61 58.95 Preservation Lonesome P 385 861.99 28. 24,135.75 58.95 Preservation James Stre 308 441.9 28. 12,373.22 59.38 Preservation Antelope D 63 483.83 27. 13,063.48 59.70 Preservation Ware Road 601 1,461.14 35. 51,139.83 59.85 Preservation Linda Circ 368 204.02 28. 5,712.59 59.86 Preservation Linda Cour 369 471.93 28. 13,214.00 59.86 Preservation Black Duck 108 1,146.55 28. 32,103.31 59.88 Preservation Coyote Cou 166 335.28 28. 9,387.98 59.88 Preservation Deerwood L 184 230.13 28. 6,443.58 59.88 Preservation Fawn Lane 219 222.84 28. 6,239.49 59.88 Preservation Lonesome P 387 586.24 28. 16,414.79 59.88 Preservation Coyote Tra 992 337.94 28. 9,462.24 59.88 Preservation Sherman La 507 323.88 28. 9,068.54 60.00 Preservation Elm Street 1034 342.61 28. 9,592.96 60.56 Preservation Pelican Pl 406 1,381.83 28. 38,691.31 60.78 Preservation Black Duck 114 695.19 28. 19,465.39 60.81 Preservation Deerwood L 188 484.75 28. 13,573.02 60.81 Preservation Red Hawk T 436 296.05 28. 8,289.35 60.81 Preservation Ruffed Gro 469 630.7 28. 17,659.64 61.00 Preservation Lea Court 361 360.56 28. 10,095.67 61.29 Preservation Grey Squir 259 336.03 27. 9,072.79 61.48 Preservation Snow Owl L 519 1,361.26 28. 38,115.25 61.48 Preservation Sunflower 531 208.05 27. 5,617.41 61.48 Preservation Ware Road 603 309.33 35. 10,826.59 61.71 Preservation Ware Road 944 541.64 35. 18,957.30 61.71 Preservation Deerwood L 183 222.91 28. 6,241.45 61.74 Preservation Cedar Stre 136 646.25 28. 18,095.02 61.99 Preservation Sunrise Dr 535 1,002.59 24. 24,062.24 62.36 Preservation Sunrise Ro 537 316.38 24. 7,593.19 62.36 Preservation Smoketree 515 603.1 27. 16,283.63 62.38 Preservation Snow Owl L 520 355.28 28. 9,947.87 62.38 Preservation Ruffed Gro 468 356.88 28. 9,992.67 63.00 Preservation 4th Avenue 24 1,327. 36. 47,771.89 63.22 Preservation Forsham La 223 678.22 28. 18,990.06 63.25 Preservation 62nd Avenu 28 404.34 22. 8,895.52 63.61 Preservation Deerwood L 187 488.17 28. 13,668.72 63.61 Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 30 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Killdeer D 321 157.83 28. 4,419.34 63.61 Preservation White Birc 607 578.28 28. 16,191.97 63.61 Preservation Painted Tu 680 152.35 28. 4,265.75 63.61 Preservation Ruffed Gro 470 269.59 28. 7,548.39 64.00 Preservation Wildflower 621 332.98 27. 8,990.56 64.18 Preservation Linda Aven 366 182.4 28. 5,107.30 64.53 Preservation Black Duck 105 408.99 28. 11,451.61 64.55 Preservation Black Duck 116 426.27 28. 11,935.69 64.55 Preservation Deerwood C 180 118.79 28. 3,326.12 64.55 Preservation Deerwood C 181 278.92 60. 16,735.12 64.55 Preservation Deerwood L 186 441.88 28. 12,372.67 64.55 Preservation Hawthorn R 262 1,981.44 28. 55,480.19 64.55 Preservation Pheasant R 420 961.49 28. 26,921.76 64.55 Preservation Lacasse Dr 330 505.51 28. 14,154.39 64.99 Preservation Wild Turke 620 699.72 28. 19,592.09 65.00 Preservation Grey Squir 257 269.67 27. 7,281.13 65.10 Preservation Sunflower 532 445.65 27. 12,032.56 65.10 Preservation 4th Avenue 19 479.09 41. 19,642.58 65.15 Preservation 77th Stree 41 747.25 24. 17,934.05 65.15 Preservation 77th Stree 43 494.79 24. 11,875.02 65.15 Preservation Egret Lane 198 183.77 28. 5,145.53 65.47 Preservation Black Duck 106 318.12 28. 8,907.46 65.49 Preservation Deerwood L 185 1,241.63 28. 34,765.53 65.49 Preservation Hawthorn R 264 383.2 28. 10,729.48 65.50 Preservation Elm Street 1037 361.28 28. 10,115.85 65.99 Preservation Ruffed Gro 467 362.32 28. 10,145.08 66.00 Preservation Phelps Roa 421 1,317.58 28. 36,892.35 66.02 Preservation Egret Lane 199 449.97 28. 12,599.19 66.41 Preservation White Pine 615 576.51 27. 15,565.79 66.42 Preservation Killdeer D 1342 561.96 28. 15,734.91 66.44 Preservation Sunrise Dr 536 1,317.04 24. 31,608.98 66.91 Preservation Mourning D 644 334.37 27. 9,027.95 66.93 Preservation Blue Heron 123 639.44 28. 17,904.43 67.36 Preservation Woodridge 227 262.11 27. 7,076.91 67.37 Preservation Laurene Av 357 674.81 24. 16,195.42 67.37 Preservation Linda Aven 367 379.91 28. 10,637.47 67.37 Preservation Black Duck 110 249.71 28. 6,991.89 67.39 Preservation Pheasant R 995 398.79 28. 11,166.25 67.39 Preservation Sunrise Dr 533 586.04 24. 14,064.88 67.83 Preservation Sunrise Ro 539 505.07 24. 12,121.72 67.83 Preservation Red Clover 435 593.99 27. 16,037.72 67.85 Preservation Timberwolf 566 461.78 28. 12,929.75 67.99 Preservation Egret Lane 200 418.81 28. 11,726.56 68.31 Preservation Baldwin La 95 557.36 28. 15,606.20 68.32 Preservation Beaver Cir 98 528.5 28. 14,798.07 68.34 Preservation Pavement Management Report Page | 31 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Red Hawk T 437 267.34 28. 7,485.63 68.34 Preservation Shadow Lak 481 407.5 28. 11,409.94 68.34 Preservation Robinson D 1163 40. 32. 1,279.99 68.50 Preservation Stage Coac 526 251.53 28. 7,042.93 68.75 Preservation Antelope D 60 167.45 27. 4,521.09 68.78 Preservation Glenview D 243 363.24 28. 10,170.76 68.78 Preservation Whippoorwi 606 1,328.92 28. 37,209.62 68.78 Preservation Lacasse Co 326 236.65 28. 6,626.17 68.99 Preservation Timberwolf 562 900.02 28. 25,200.68 68.99 Preservation Marilyn Dr 396 1,043.5 28. 29,217.87 69.03 Preservation Blue Heron 122 474.95 28. 13,298.57 69.27 Preservation Egret Lane 201 463.8 28. 12,986.38 69.27 Preservation Laurene Av 358 285.07 24. 6,841.74 69.27 Preservation Laurene Av 360 469.8 24. 11,275.31 69.27 Preservation Mallard La 388 336.68 28. 9,427.15 69.29 Preservation Sioux Cour 509 167.97 28. 4,703.11 69.61 Preservation Post Road 428 442.11 27. 11,936.89 69.68 Preservation Gray Heron 253 374.16 28. 10,476.60 69.70 Preservation Teal Court 551 649.85 28. 18,195.77 69.99 Preservation Cripple Cr 174 281.38 28. 7,878.69 70.00 Preservation Oakwood La 669 586.89 28. 16,433.03 70.23 Preventative Maintenance Crystal Co 176 188.57 28. 5,279.89 70.25 Preventative Maintenance Fawn Lane 221 698.35 28. 19,553.70 70.25 Preventative Maintenance Shadow Lak 483 2,166.98 28. 60,675.46 70.25 Preventative Maintenance Partridge 694 798.56 28. 22,359.54 70.25 Preventative Maintenance Gray Heron 251 328.72 28. 9,204.05 70.63 Preventative Maintenance Tele Lane 555 377.34 28. 10,565.59 70.99 Preventative Maintenance Laurene Av 359 558.16 24. 13,395.79 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Linda Aven 365 935.44 24. 22,450.60 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Rohavic La 452 477.35 30. 14,320.42 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Schlavin C 476 478.18 30. 14,345.44 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Woodridge 638 1,058.86 27. 28,589.13 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Woodridge 640 1,442.32 27. 38,942.53 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Baldwin La 1139 1,802.72 21. 37,857.03 71.18 Preventative Maintenance Lantern Ci 354 582.03 28. 16,296.81 71.20 Preventative Maintenance Lantern La 355 527.05 28. 14,757.53 71.20 Preventative Maintenance Aqua Lane 1004 450. 36. 16,200.15 71.53 Preventative Maintenance Mourning D 646 486.18 27. 13,126.76 71.55 Preventative Maintenance Royal Pine 1179 531.68 24. 12,760.24 71.99 Preventative Maintenance Rohavic La 451 445.45 30. 13,363.43 72.14 Preventative Maintenance Black Duck 115 311.55 28. 8,723.35 72.16 Preventative Maintenance Red Birch 434 575.19 28. 16,105.19 72.16 Preventative Maintenance Muskrat Ru 647 330.87 28. 9,264.38 72.16 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 149 213.72 28. 5,984.29 72.99 Preventative Maintenance Ware Road 942 624.98 35. 21,874.40 73.08 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 32 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Oakwood Dr 668 570.25 28. 15,966.90 73.09 Preventative Maintenance Killdeer C 319 155.02 28. 4,340.44 73.11 Preventative Maintenance Killdeer D 323 331.7 28. 9,287.57 73.11 Preventative Maintenance Smoketree 516 328.43 27. 8,867.58 73.37 Preventative Maintenance Mourning D 645 370.89 27. 10,013.93 73.37 Preventative Maintenance Wolf Circl 623 310.25 28. 8,687.13 73.99 Preventative Maintenance Black Duck 118 408.25 28. 11,430.97 74.06 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road 230 505.97 28. 14,167.09 74.06 Preventative Maintenance Partridge 693 719.48 28. 20,145.39 74.06 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1041 1,070.99 28. 29,987.83 74.24 Preventative Maintenance Sunrise Ro 540 864.64 24. 20,751.27 74.25 Preventative Maintenance Sunflower 530 319.95 27. 8,638.58 74.27 Preventative Maintenance Ware Road 599 1,044.55 35. 36,559.41 74.97 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 155 936.05 28. 26,209.32 74.99 Preventative Maintenance Ellen Cour 204 200.22 28. 5,606.18 74.99 Preventative Maintenance Service Ro 479 1,360.61 24. 32,654.68 75.17 Preventative Maintenance 4th Avenue 1169 546.4 24. 13,113.60 75.19 Preventative Maintenance White Pine 614 1,216.94 27. 32,857.39 75.92 Preventative Maintenance Woodridge 639 1,378.79 27. 37,227.28 75.92 Preventative Maintenance Aspen Lane 85 641.59 28. 17,964.54 75.94 Preventative Maintenance Tamarack L 542 571.01 28. 15,988.15 75.94 Preventative Maintenance Aspen Lane 1220 163.72 28. 4,584.06 75.94 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 584 253.57 28. 7,099.95 76.00 Preventative Maintenance Sunrise Dr 534 451.15 24. 10,827.66 76.02 Preventative Maintenance Oak Lane 664 839.41 24. 20,145.84 76.83 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1040 597.38 28. 16,726.67 76.87 Preventative Maintenance Aqua Lane 1005 303.17 24. 7,276.01 76.88 Preventative Maintenance Jane Avenu 1211 182.97 32. 5,855.12 76.93 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 334 200.94 36. 7,233.77 76.99 Preventative Maintenance Tele Drive 553 630.87 28. 17,664.50 76.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers X 579 398.45 28. 11,156.60 76.99 Preventative Maintenance Oakwood La 670 529.94 28. 14,838.32 77.24 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1036 591.06 28. 16,549.55 77.72 Preventative Maintenance Grey Squir 258 330.8 27. 8,931.70 77.75 Preventative Maintenance Killdeer D 320 126.84 28. 3,551.58 77.79 Preventative Maintenance 77th Stree 42 1,245.88 24. 29,901.17 77.80 Preventative Maintenance Glen Circl 240 263.6 28. 7,380.88 77.80 Preventative Maintenance Sherman La 502 1,593. 28. 44,603.98 77.99 Preventative Maintenance Tele Lane 554 355. 28. 9,939.93 77.99 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1033 338.98 28. 9,491.36 78.55 Preventative Maintenance Country La 161 1,410.53 28. 39,494.86 78.71 Preventative Maintenance South Glen 993 518.93 28. 14,530.10 78.71 Preventative Maintenance Apollo Cou 1226 432.7 26. 11,250.31 78.74 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 336 418.4 28. 11,715.14 78.99 Preventative Maintenance Sherman La 500 497.55 28. 13,931.43 78.99 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 33 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Elmcrest A 1187 914.95 24. 21,958.86 78.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 582 322.35 28. 9,025.91 79.00 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 583 218.77 28. 6,125.43 79.00 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1032 358.5 28. 10,038.09 79.37 Preventative Maintenance Elmcrest A 1233 5,618.32 28. 157,313.07 79.41 Preventative Maintenance Linda Lane 370 313.36 28. 8,774.20 79.58 Preventative Maintenance Hollow Lan 286 483.47 28. 13,537.15 79.61 Preventative Maintenance South Glen 521 134.39 28. 3,763.01 79.61 Preventative Maintenance Marilyn Dr 391 424.87 28. 11,896.28 79.69 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 331 407.35 28. 11,405.87 79.99 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Ci 981 244.03 28. 6,832.95 79.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 585 402.08 28. 11,258.27 80.00 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 973 583. 24. 13,991.94 80.00 Preventative Maintenance Marshan Co 1197 142. 24. 3,408.00 80.20 Preventative Maintenance Northern L 1002 356.47 36. 12,832.98 80.21 Preventative Maintenance Aspen Lane 83 581.93 28. 16,293.92 80.50 Preventative Maintenance Killdeer D 322 259.27 28. 7,259.63 80.50 Preventative Maintenance Hollow Lan 285 656.85 28. 18,391.71 80.51 Preventative Maintenance South Glen 522 497.24 28. 13,922.73 80.51 Preventative Maintenance South Glen 523 360.14 28. 10,083.95 80.51 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1038 973.6 28. 27,260.91 80.95 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 158 679.17 28. 19,016.69 80.99 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Co 980 275.07 28. 7,701.98 80.99 Preventative Maintenance Country La 160 221.95 28. 6,214.69 81.38 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1035 485.57 28. 13,595.97 81.72 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1039 338.31 28. 9,472.69 81.72 Preventative Maintenance Ulmer Driv 589 643.14 27. 17,364.71 81.75 Preventative Maintenance Arthur Cou 82 548.51 28. 15,358.32 81.99 Preventative Maintenance 62nd Avenu 26 962.39 22. 21,172.62 82.25 Preventative Maintenance Shadow Lak 484 1,614.28 44. 71,028.18 82.25 Preventative Maintenance Park Court 1198 560.53 32. 17,937.07 82.47 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu 7 908.46 30. 27,253.68 82.51 Preventative Maintenance Quarter Ho 433 285.91 28. 8,005.42 82.51 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 332 529.47 28. 14,825.11 82.99 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 333 764.35 28. 21,401.89 82.99 Preventative Maintenance Fawn Lane 220 473.24 28. 13,250.60 83.10 Preventative Maintenance Robinson D 1168 83.28 24. 1,998.66 83.20 Preventative Maintenance Ulmer Driv 590 374.1 27. 10,100.58 83.24 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 293 244.96 24. 5,879.01 83.99 Preventative Maintenance Osprey Cou 676 522.81 28. 14,638.73 83.99 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 972 286.99 24. 6,887.78 83.99 Preventative Maintenance Cherokee T 142 514.12 28. 14,395.43 84.00 Preventative Maintenance Stage Coac 1202 174.38 32. 5,580.01 84.54 Preventative Maintenance Stage Coac 1218 342.39 32. 10,956.47 84.63 Preventative Maintenance Rice Lake 447 1,775.14 28. 49,703.83 84.66 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 34 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity 62nd Avenu 29 2,312.63 22. 50,877.78 84.74 Preventative Maintenance Prairie Fl 431 573.47 28. 16,057.15 84.74 Preventative Maintenance Ravens Cou 1177 472.65 24. 11,343.50 84.75 Preventative Maintenance Oak Hollow 1178 975.99 24. 23,423.65 84.75 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 152 350.46 28. 9,813.01 84.99 Preventative Maintenance Mineral Po 643 418.24 28. 11,710.67 85.00 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 974 759.85 24. 18,236.33 85.00 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 1254 155.6 90. 14,003.62 85.00 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 1258 481.23 40. 19,249.26 85.36 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu 6 386.02 34. 13,124.58 85.37 Preventative Maintenance Ware Road 605 570.86 28. 15,984.19 85.56 Preventative Maintenance Lakota Tra 1154 553.68 26. 14,395.68 85.56 Preventative Maintenance Oak Hollow 1256 146.51 24. 3,516.33 85.57 Preventative Maintenance Country La 162 160.19 28. 4,485.32 85.60 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 546 327.35 28. 9,165.87 85.99 Preventative Maintenance Meadowlark 641 243.02 28. 6,804.70 85.99 Preventative Maintenance Cripple Cr 173 785.08 28. 21,982.11 86.00 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 975 899.25 24. 21,582.02 86.00 Preventative Maintenance Cherokee T 1090 324.38 28. 9,082.66 86.00 Preventative Maintenance Aqua Circl 1227 2,399.37 24. 57,584.90 86.01 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 574 755.64 44. 33,248.17 86.04 Preventative Maintenance Marilyn Dr 395 1,313.32 28. 36,772.83 86.17 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 683 358.32 28. 10,033.08 86.17 Preventative Maintenance Sioux Lane 511 357.95 28. 10,022.68 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Sioux Lane 512 637.27 28. 17,843.61 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Sioux Lane 513 288.98 28. 8,091.40 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Ware Circl 596 205.75 28. 5,761.12 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Ojibway Pa 1158 1,098.61 26. 28,563.91 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Ware Road 1170 677.42 24. 16,258.04 86.37 Preventative Maintenance Chippewa T 1232 263.44 28. 7,376.25 86.37 Preventative Maintenance 62nd Avenu 27 617.37 22. 13,582.09 86.41 Preventative Maintenance Aspen Lane 84 183.19 28. 5,129.41 86.41 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant R 1341 1,505.62 28. 42,157.34 86.41 Preventative Maintenance Marshan La 400 937.69 20. 18,753.85 86.71 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 575 343.94 44. 15,133.44 86.71 Preventative Maintenance Villiage D 595 791.85 22. 17,420.77 86.71 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 150 407.74 32. 13,047.74 86.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers X 577 794.74 28. 22,252.78 86.99 Preventative Maintenance Langer Lan 1105 700.16 25. 17,504.03 86.99 Preventative Maintenance Stella Lan 1110 527.69 24. 12,664.57 86.99 Preventative Maintenance Molitor Dr 1133 781.29 28. 21,876.25 86.99 Preventative Maintenance Cripple Cr 172 345.49 28. 9,673.61 87.00 Preventative Maintenance Nancy Driv 962 392.88 30. 11,786.51 87.06 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 685 802.71 28. 22,476.00 87.07 Preventative Maintenance Patti Driv 696 736.81 30. 22,104.16 87.07 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 35 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Lilac Stre 1191 895.31 28. 25,068.75 87.07 Preventative Maintenance Lilac Stre 1264 1,787.89 28. 50,060.79 87.07 Preventative Maintenance Prairie Fl 430 243.04 28. 6,805.01 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Sioux Look 514 736.32 28. 20,616.83 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Ware Road 947 241.05 28. 6,749.51 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Lakota Tra 1156 223.63 26. 5,814.48 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 1224 276.04 24. 6,625.02 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Sioux Lane 1335 184.82 28. 5,174.96 87.17 Preventative Maintenance Linda Lane 1174 444.2 24. 10,660.69 87.18 Preventative Maintenance Ravens Cou 1175 350.55 24. 8,413.10 87.18 Preventative Maintenance Ravens Cou 1176 530.55 24. 12,733.10 87.18 Preventative Maintenance Rice Lake 446 528.29 28. 14,792.00 87.37 Preventative Maintenance NULL 1333 527.78 40. 21,111.16 87.37 Preventative Maintenance Stage Coac 1200 132.46 32. 4,238.57 87.49 Preventative Maintenance 79th Stree 46 441.7 28. 12,367.72 87.95 Preventative Maintenance Oak Court 661 369.63 28. 10,349.73 87.95 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 1222 520.44 30. 15,613.09 87.95 Preventative Maintenance Behm Lane 101 788.39 28. 22,074.81 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Savanna Co 475 423.97 26. 11,023.26 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 1171 186.25 24. 4,470.09 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 1172 759.48 24. 18,227.45 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Lakota Tra 1225 198. 26. 5,148.00 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Pine Stree 1323 3,845.98 30. 115,379.53 87.96 Preventative Maintenance Linda Lane 1173 229.38 24. 5,505.16 87.97 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 157 735.8 28. 20,602.44 87.98 Preventative Maintenance 65th Stree 1007 750.34 24. 18,008.13 87.98 Preventative Maintenance Cassiopeia 134 360.15 28. 10,084.21 88.00 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 292 449.4 24. 10,785.70 88.00 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 581 221.88 28. 6,212.61 88.00 Preventative Maintenance Hudson Tra 997 673.47 28. 18,857.15 88.00 Preventative Maintenance Carpenter 1161 343.42 32. 10,989.38 88.00 Preventative Maintenance Rice Lake 448 1,768.77 28. 49,525.43 88.02 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 1195 618.36 40. 24,734.31 88.02 Preventative Maintenance Villiage D 1196 863.82 40. 34,552.95 88.02 Preventative Maintenance Woods Edge 1223 667.74 40. 26,709.71 88.02 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 1337 325.76 28. 9,121.24 88.16 Preventative Maintenance 20th Ave S 1340 1,241.77 28. 34,769.50 88.16 Preventative Maintenance Otter Lake 1343 599.34 28. 16,781.65 88.16 Preventative Maintenance Town Cente 1336 598.07 40. 23,922.88 88.66 Preventative Maintenance Peltier La 409 655.88 22. 14,429.43 88.67 Preventative Maintenance Rondeau La 457 3,088.24 24. 74,117.72 88.67 Preventative Maintenance Lakota Tra 1155 61.85 26. 1,608.09 88.75 Preventative Maintenance 79th Stree 45 763.09 28. 21,366.43 88.84 Preventative Maintenance Highland D 274 488.15 28. 13,668.17 88.84 Preventative Maintenance Arlo Lane 1102 441.19 29. 12,794.46 88.84 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 36 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Patti Driv 695 663.19 30. 19,895.59 88.85 Preventative Maintenance Thomas Str 999 1,349.47 30. 40,484.17 88.85 Preventative Maintenance Pine Stree 1324 1,811.45 30. 54,343.65 88.85 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 151 438.88 28. 12,288.66 88.98 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 1112 740.84 28. 20,743.44 88.98 Preventative Maintenance Durango Po 197 474.86 28. 13,296.18 89.00 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 587 440.55 28. 12,335.33 89.00 Preventative Maintenance Bluebill L 968 882.75 28. 24,717.00 89.41 Preventative Maintenance Stage Coac 1201 336.03 32. 10,752.80 89.45 Preventative Maintenance Arlo Lane 75 818.34 28. 22,913.46 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Oak Lane 97 473.06 28. 13,245.67 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Carl Stree 131 773.37 24. 18,560.84 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Highland C 270 128.74 28. 3,604.83 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Highland C 271 333.06 28. 9,325.62 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Highland D 275 146.55 28. 4,103.28 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Highland L 277 196.49 28. 5,501.85 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Joseph Cou 314 225.24 28. 6,306.81 89.72 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 374 452.74 30. 13,582.09 89.72 Preventative Maintenance 4th Avenue 25 1,317.12 40. 52,684.61 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Jeanne Dri 311 720.46 30. 21,613.65 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Marcia Lan 390 750.04 30. 22,501.11 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Pinto Lane 425 403.05 28. 11,285.26 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Teckla Cou 552 315.86 28. 8,844.06 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Mustang La 652 498.33 28. 13,953.13 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 684 481.56 28. 13,483.58 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 687 698.19 28. 19,549.19 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Pine Stree 1327 1,542.14 30. 46,264.29 89.73 Preventative Maintenance Apollo Dri 1259 474.99 36. 17,099.61 89.74 Preventative Maintenance Iverson Co 302 602.81 28. 16,878.72 89.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Court 543 342.44 28. 9,588.39 89.98 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 411 144.79 28. 4,054.19 89.99 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 971 339.89 24. 8,157.30 89.99 Preventative Maintenance Oakview Co 1121 311. 28. 8,707.87 89.99 Preventative Maintenance Arlo Lane 73 421.9 28. 11,813.29 90.59 Preventative Maintenance Highland D 272 809.35 28. 22,661.89 90.59 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 383 296.77 30. 8,903.03 90.59 Preventative Maintenance Vicky Lane 592 1,343.23 30. 40,296.91 90.59 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 626 702.05 28. 19,657.54 90.59 Preventative Maintenance Appaloosa 68 1,199.1 28. 33,574.73 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Behm Lane 100 152.6 28. 4,272.73 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Connie Lan 159 661.15 30. 19,834.44 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Mustang La 651 793. 28. 22,203.95 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 686 784.84 28. 21,975.44 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 688 586.1 28. 16,410.72 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1125 607.2 28. 17,001.65 90.60 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 37 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Albert Cou 54 266.88 24. 6,405.13 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Delina Cir 189 260.25 24. 6,246.06 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Langer Lan 352 453.86 24. 10,892.61 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 545 173.06 28. 4,845.82 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 548 671.81 28. 18,810.78 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Langer Lan 1103 455.85 25. 11,396.33 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Stella Lan 1109 350.89 24. 8,421.41 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Stella Lan 1111 309.62 24. 7,430.90 90.98 Preventative Maintenance Hawk Ridge 261 163.2 21. 3,427.11 90.99 Preventative Maintenance Meadowview 1124 232.79 28. 6,518.24 90.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 1137 403.09 28. 11,286.45 90.99 Preventative Maintenance Holly Cour 287 1,871.99 24. 44,927.75 91.00 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant R 1357 1,118.45 28. 31,316.52 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Saddle Clu 1358 182.11 28. 5,099.02 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant R 1359 454.69 28. 12,731.23 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road 1360 376.81 28. 10,550.79 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road TBD 645.86 28. 18,084.08 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Black Berry Ct TBD 465.8 28. 13,042.40 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant R 1361 321.41 28. 8,999.53 91.14 Preventative Maintenance Marshan Co 1203 340.42 32. 10,893.49 91.41 Preventative Maintenance Highland D 273 662.62 28. 18,553.30 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Highland T 278 661.53 28. 18,522.77 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Marilyn Dr 392 213.55 28. 5,979.44 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Marilyn Dr 398 457.21 28. 12,801.92 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 624 169.43 28. 4,743.99 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Myrtle Lan 653 766.43 28. 21,459.98 91.46 Preventative Maintenance Oak Court 660 343.72 28. 9,624.18 91.46 Preventative Maintenance 4th Avenue 21 1,299.95 40. 51,998.09 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Appaloosa 66 367.04 28. 10,277.11 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Appaloosa 67 438.74 28. 12,284.79 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Jeanne Dri 312 1,251.98 30. 37,559.27 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Marvy Stre 402 612.67 28. 17,154.89 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Mustang La 650 364.66 28. 10,210.34 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Stallion L 1129 1,355.05 28. 37,941.43 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Pinto Lane 1130 290.8 28. 8,142.39 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Robinson D 1162 402.93 32. 12,893.67 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Carl Stree 1164 597.37 28. 16,726.26 91.47 Preventative Maintenance Carole Dri 133 1,483.47 30. 44,503.96 91.49 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 153 214.97 28. 6,019.09 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Clearwater 154 1,235.81 28. 34,602.57 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Lacasse Dr 335 581.21 28. 16,273.90 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Langer Lan 350 1,712.3 24. 41,095.17 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 547 337.45 28. 9,448.70 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 549 916.3 28. 25,656.48 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 550 615.4 28. 17,231.12 91.98 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 38 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Sherman La 1115 271.45 28. 7,600.72 91.99 Preventative Maintenance Osprey Cou 1253 122.09 80. 9,766.96 91.99 Preventative Maintenance 4th Avenue 23 2,661.12 40. 106,444.65 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 376 1,428.15 30. 42,844.45 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 381 306.7 30. 9,200.96 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Marilyn Dr 393 327.54 28. 9,171.19 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Meadowview 404 1,461.56 30. 43,846.90 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Nottingham 659 1,319.39 30. 39,581.65 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Arlo Lane 1101 272.02 25. 6,800.45 92.32 Preventative Maintenance Behm Lane 102 230.59 28. 6,456.55 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Jeanne Dri 310 658.79 30. 19,763.67 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Marvy Stre 401 1,936.98 28. 54,235.53 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Patti Driv 405 1,275.26 30. 38,257.68 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Palomino L 689 642.86 28. 17,999.99 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1127 854.14 28. 23,915.83 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Pinto Lane 1131 550.75 28. 15,421.01 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Robinson D 1263 425.67 32. 13,621.57 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Robinson D TBD 1,492.31 32. 47,753.92 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1320 641.64 28. 17,965.78 92.33 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 380 2,168.01 30. 65,040.30 92.34 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 77 217.24 28. 6,082.77 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 78 457.4 28. 12,807.08 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 79 535.87 28. 15,004.49 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 80 580.61 28. 16,257.00 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 81 779.52 28. 21,826.51 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Chippewa T 144 759.05 28. 21,253.34 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Chippewa T 145 192.67 28. 5,394.70 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 279 152.79 68. 10,389.40 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 280 473.43 28. 13,256.05 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 281 475.65 30. 14,269.44 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 282 664.89 28. 18,616.85 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 283 806.57 30. 24,196.96 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Hokah Driv 284 868.53 30. 26,056.01 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Rice Court 445 404.08 28. 11,314.17 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Tomahawk C 567 252.83 28. 7,079.32 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Tomahawk T 568 345.27 28. 9,667.67 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Tomahawk T 569 291.52 28. 8,162.63 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Tomahawk T 570 533.61 28. 14,940.97 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Totem Trai 571 541.86 28. 15,172.13 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Totem Trai 572 282.02 28. 7,896.63 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Totem Trai 573 325.72 28. 9,120.29 92.55 Preventative Maintenance Arrowhead 1140 557.38 28. 15,606.66 92.55 Preventative Maintenance 12th Avenu 1 783.53 24. 18,804.79 92.99 Preventative Maintenance 12th Avenu 3 309.75 33. 10,221.86 92.99 Preventative Maintenance 12th Avenu 4 1,197.55 24. 28,741.26 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 39 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity 12th Avenu 5 337.87 24. 8,108.80 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 413 360.8 28. 10,102.36 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 414 348.85 28. 9,767.93 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 415 245.77 28. 6,881.58 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 416 259.54 28. 7,267.23 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 417 873.78 28. 24,465.86 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers C 576 327.13 28. 9,159.69 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Snow Goose 977 289.34 28. 8,101.39 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Sherman La 1116 469.89 28. 13,157.01 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Sedge Cour 1117 352.32 28. 9,865.09 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Stoneybroo 1118 367.78 28. 10,297.81 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Stoneybroo 1119 1,616.37 28. 45,258.24 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Sherman La 1138 729.57 28. 20,427.86 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Trappers X 1255 113.7 90. 10,233.04 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Broken Oak 9778 301.19 28. 8,433.34 92.99 Preventative Maintenance Country La 163 1,528.81 30. 45,864.43 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Country La 165 811.46 30. 24,343.91 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Greenwood 256 575.02 30. 17,250.72 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Henry Lane 267 450.6 28. 12,616.93 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Highland D 276 386.47 28. 10,821.03 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Joseph Cou 315 332.7 28. 9,315.72 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 375 1,377.21 30. 41,316.31 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Praire Vie 432 578.85 30. 17,365.48 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Sherwood L 508 492.78 38. 18,725.62 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 964 333.44 28. 9,336.45 93.18 Preventative Maintenance Andall Str 59 1,254.22 30. 37,626.46 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Bradley St 125 605.19 30. 18,155.82 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Jon Avenue 313 658.77 28. 18,445.58 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Leonard Av 362 1,715.67 28. 48,038.85 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Leonard Av 363 1,559.45 28. 43,664.69 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Pony Court 427 262.3 28. 7,344.36 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1126 951.82 28. 26,650.99 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1160 329.76 28. 9,233.18 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Clydesdale 1165 310.01 28. 8,680.34 93.19 Preventative Maintenance Aenon Plac 53 1,112.89 30. 33,386.81 93.20 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 379 933.73 30. 28,012.04 93.20 Preventative Maintenance Flora Cour 222 349.98 24. 8,399.43 93.98 Preventative Maintenance Langer Cir 1104 171.74 60. 10,304.56 93.98 Preventative Maintenance Hartford C 1106 165.2 43. 7,103.40 93.98 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 1122 982.79 28. 27,518.04 93.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 1136 451.26 28. 12,635.29 93.99 Preventative Maintenance Henry Lane 266 1,351.33 28. 37,837.21 94.04 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 377 176.72 30. 5,301.53 94.04 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 1214 258.76 30. 7,762.77 94.04 Preventative Maintenance Andall Str 58 699.31 30. 20,979.23 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 40 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Mustang Co 648 351.73 28. 9,848.31 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 966 3,122.8 28. 87,438.38 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Arabian Ci 1132 314.61 28. 8,808.97 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1159 439.09 28. 12,294.45 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Lilac Stre 1270 5,163.54 28. 144,579.21 94.05 Preventative Maintenance Park Court 1199 367.61 32. 11,763.62 94.33 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 625 243.51 28. 6,818.26 94.89 Preventative Maintenance Andall Str 56 791.84 30. 23,755.23 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Andall Str 57 904.84 30. 27,145.32 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Blackbird 120 751.55 28. 21,043.51 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Mustang La 649 479.38 28. 13,422.77 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Wood Duck 967 678.93 28. 19,010.01 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Century Tr 1128 121.45 92. 11,173.74 94.90 Preventative Maintenance Lois Lane 378 572.66 30. 17,179.80 94.91 Preventative Maintenance Tart Lake 544 222.79 28. 6,237.98 94.98 Preventative Maintenance August Cir 1107 169.85 43. 7,303.37 94.98 Preventative Maintenance Stella Cir 1108 134.57 43. 5,786.42 94.98 Preventative Maintenance Langer Lan 1134 196.96 25. 4,924.12 94.98 Preventative Maintenance Butternut 1354 144.75 28. 4,052.89 94.98 Preventative Maintenance Peregrine 410 345.86 26. 8,992.36 94.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 1120 1,133.62 28. 31,741.34 94.99 Preventative Maintenance Goldenrod 1123 258.65 28. 7,242.27 94.99 Preventative Maintenance Pheasant H 1135 297.93 28. 8,341.94 94.99 Preventative Maintenance Apollo Dri 64 321.09 36. 11,559.12 95.77 Preventative Maintenance Oakwood La 1250 622.3 28. 17,424.44 95.85 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road 1144 238.99 28. 6,691.66 95.90 Preventative Maintenance Red Oak La 1346 560.17 28. 15,684.66 95.98 Preventative Maintenance Cottonwood 1347 160.05 28. 4,481.33 95.98 Preventative Maintenance Red Oak La 1348 245.77 28. 6,881.47 95.98 Preventative Maintenance Red Oak La 1349 190.47 28. 5,333.15 95.98 Preventative Maintenance Old Birch 671 1,238.86 24. 29,732.66 96.00 Preventative Maintenance Cedar Stre 1252 888.22 22. 19,540.80 96.98 Preventative Maintenance Cedar Stre 1356 30.19 22. 664.27 96.98 Preventative Maintenance Rolling Hi 454 1,657.2 24. 39,772.76 96.99 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road 1145 723.57 26. 18,812.83 97.07 Preventative Maintenance Fox Road 1146 450.2 26. 11,705.30 97.07 Preventative Maintenance Red Fox Ro 1147 783.91 26. 20,381.65 97.07 Preventative Maintenance Red Fox Ro 1148 777.36 26. 20,211.42 97.07 Preventative Maintenance Bubble 1151 100. 120. 12,000.00 97.07 Preventative Maintenance Cedar Stre 1344 1,127.25 22. 24,799.51 97.98 Preventative Maintenance Cedar Stre 1345 197.3 22. 4,340.70 97.98 Preventative Maintenance Palm Stree 1350 1,175.03 28. 32,900.89 97.98 Preventative Maintenance Deer Pass 179 523.35 28. 14,653.84 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Foxtail Co 232 804.12 30. 24,123.52 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Foxtail Dr 233 946.32 30. 28,389.56 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 41 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Foxtail Dr 234 591.78 30. 17,753.41 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Reiling Ro 444 871.78 28. 24,409.79 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Rolling Hi 453 551.1 24. 13,226.47 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Sargent Co 474 910.92 28. 25,505.90 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Whitetail 617 412. 30. 12,359.96 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Woodchuck 627 821.24 30. 24,637.34 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Woodchuck 628 588.06 30. 17,641.79 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Woodchuck 629 764.33 30. 22,929.89 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Woodchuck 630 572.54 30. 17,176.19 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Partridge 691 448.75 28. 12,565.05 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Rolling Hi 982 198.3 20. 3,966.08 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Deer Pass 983 119.75 28. 3,353.04 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Bald Eagle 1180 1,193.72 24. 28,649.29 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Bald Eagle 1181 1,149.8 24. 27,595.11 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Bald Eagle 1182 377.72 24. 9,065.33 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Bald Eagle 1183 1,394.5 24. 33,468.09 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Bald Eagle 1184 643.22 24. 15,437.36 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Ash Street 1338 1,173.25 28. 32,851.13 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Ash Street 1339 888.62 28. 24,881.29 97.99 Preventative Maintenance Vaughan Co 1167 222.87 28. 6,240.42 98.19 Preventative Maintenance Holly Driv 976 3,463.97 24. 83,135.40 99.00 Preventative Maintenance Red Fox Ro 1150 305.39 26. 7,940.26 99.44 Preventative Maintenance Fox Cove 1152 338. 26. 8,788.00 99.44 Preventative Maintenance Fox Hollow 1153 163.53 26. 4,251.84 99.44 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 9 338.22 40. 13,528.97 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 10 331.36 40. 13,254.37 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 11 333.44 40. 13,337.58 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 12 1,457.36 40. 58,294.39 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 13 319.66 40. 12,786.35 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 14 343.35 40. 13,733.91 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 15 318.29 40. 12,731.72 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 16 483.67 40. 19,346.81 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 17 342.23 40. 13,689.35 99.57 Preventative Maintenance 2nd Avenue 18 308.67 40. 12,346.71 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Glenview A 242 494.56 27. 13,353.15 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Glenview L 247 324.6 27. 8,764.14 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Parkview D 690 501.41 27. 13,538.14 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Glenview L 984 824.14 27. 22,251.78 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Aqua Lane 1006 650. 24. 15,600.00 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1030 455.49 28. 12,753.62 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Elm Street 1031 411.23 28. 11,514.37 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Red Fox Ro 1149 196.09 26. 5,098.27 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Kelly Stre 1204 832.37 32. 26,635.68 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Kelly Stre 1205 952.53 32. 30,480.99 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Shelia Ave 1206 483.84 32. 15,482.88 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 42 Street Name Section ID Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft²) PCI Recommended Maintenance Activity Timothy Co 1207 201.99 32. 6,463.69 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Kelly Stre 1208 380.12 32. 12,163.84 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Wayne Cour 1209 201.33 32. 6,442.55 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Kelly Stre 1210 620.81 32. 19,865.94 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Kelly Stre 1212 891.1 32. 28,515.28 99.57 Preventative Maintenance Butternut St TBD 513.45 28. 14,376.60 99.98 Preventative Maintenance Redwood Ct TBD 344.61 28. 9,649.08 99.98 Preventative Maintenance Cypress St TBD 2,488.42 28. 69,675.76 99.98 Preventative Maintenance Rosewood St TBD 1,459.37 28. 40,862.36 99.98 Preventative Maintenance Rosewood St TBD 1,388.84 28. 38,887.52 99.98 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu TBD 471.8 28. 13,210.40 99.98 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu TBD 284.42 28. 7963.76 99.98 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu 1352 488.71 28. 13,683.94 99.98 Preventative Maintenance 21st Avenu 1355 238.36 28. 6,673.95 99.98 Preventative Maintenance Pavement Management Report Page | 43 Table B.2. List of private roadways not inspected. Name Section ID Length 82nd St E 1281 914.91 Apollo Ct 1288 1054.37 Apollo Dr 1272 1399.03 Apple Ln 1278 872.36 Aqua Cir 1310 263.75 Baldwin Cr 1279 499.07 Baldwin Cr 1280 196.48 Baldwin Cr 1314 172.64 Baldwin Cr 1315 497.64 Baldwin Cr 1316 171.18 Cherry Ln 1313 642.3 Ivy Ridge Ct 1311 332.41 Ivy Ridge Ct 1312 513.85 Ivy Ridge Ct 1317 188.48 Ivy Ridge Ct 1318 1,532.75 Market Pl 399 241.22 Market Pl 1286 1511.24 Market Pl 1287 794.29 Market Pl 1319 643.49 Morgan Ln 1283 557.86 Morgan Ln 1285 477.05 Nancy Ct 1305 579.09 Otter Lake 1273 1494.06 Plum Ln 1276 925.15 Shetland Ln 1284 461.08 Willow Pond Trl 1271 1,101.64 Willow Pond Trl 1300 304.84 Willow Pond Trl 1301 272.95 Willow Pond Trl 1302 217.39 Willow Pond Trl 1303 315.45 Willow Pond Trl 1304 228.02 Pavement Management Report Page | 44 Table B.3. List of gravel roadways not inspected. Name Section ID Length 74th Street 1188 627.95 74th Street 1189 366.98 74th Street 1257 250.94 Cedar Street E 1251 1,302.11 Cedar Street E 1252 888.22 Channel Dr 1277 393.48 Elmcrest Avenue 1185 243.42 Elmcrest Avenue 1186 621.95 Elmcrest Avenue 1330 5,574.6 Elmcrest Avenue 1331 2,602.23 Elmcrest Avenue 1233b 3,553.62 Pine Street 1321 1,629.99 Pine Street 1322 2,997.9 %&d(%&c( County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14 County Hwy 21 County Hwy 23 County Hwy 14 Hodgson Rd C o u nty H w y 2 3 County Hwy 21 Mill & Overlay Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 0 4,250Feet¯Figure 2 - Mill and Overlay Document Path: K:\02029-230\GIS\Maps\MillOverlay2018Updated.mxd Date Saved: 2/1/2018 2:39:59 PM 1 inch = 4,250 f eet Lino Lakes PMP Lino Lakes, MN %&d(%&c( County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14 County Hwy 21 County Hwy 23 County Hwy 14 Hodgson Rd C o u nty H w y 2 3 County Hwy 21 Reclaim Year 2018 2021 0 4,250Feet¯Figure 1 - Full Depth Reclaim/Reconstruction Document Path: K:\02029-230\GIS\Maps\Reclaim2018.mxd Date Saved: 1/8/2018 11:45:27 AM 1 inch = 4,250 f eet Lino Lakes PMP Lino Lakes, MN WS – Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 7 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues Re: Annual Board Appointments Background There are currently 17 applicants that have applied for openings on the Planning & Zoning Board, Environmental Board, Park Board and the Economic Development Advisory Committee. At this time, 4 candidates have been interviewed. We will need an additional 3¼ hours to finish interviews. Requested Council Direction The council should establish dates and times to interview all applicants (Application will be provided to council previous to the interview date if so decided.) WS – Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Technology Upgrades Background Beginning in 2012, every two years following the municipal election, Councilmembers have had the option of replacing their tablet with a new one. They can keep the current one, turn it in for repurposing or resale, or purchase it for a fair market price. Two years ago the Council wanted the option of purchasing a Surface Pro. There have been problems with the Surface Pro, which are not supported by Roseville IT. The cost of computer support in 2018 through Roseville IT is $63.30 per unit per month. Staff believes this is an unnecessary expenditure since the Council only needs to view the agenda packets and check emails. Staff’s recommendation is that the Council consider only purchasing tablets, which also are not supported by Roseville. Councilmember Stoesz may bring up a few other ideas for enhancing the City’s technology capabilities. Requested Council Direction Staff is looking for further direction. WS – Item 9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 9 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: RFP’s for Civil Legal Services Background Last November the City requested proposals for civil legal services. RFP’s were mailed to 15 law firms who specialize in municipal law. The RFP was also posted on the League of Minnesota Cities and City of Lino Lakes websites. The deadline for submitting proposals was January 5th. The City received eight proposals. Staff evaluated the proposals a prepared the summary below. Campbell Knutson The firm employs 15 attorneys and 10 legal assistants. Over 90% of the firm’s revenue is generated by public sector clients. The lead attorney would be Matt Brokl. He has 12 years of experience with Campbell Knutson representing municipal clients. Brokl’s practice areas are general municipal, land use, litigation, and real estate. Campbell Knutson provides city attorneys for nearly two dozen cities and one township, which includes the following metro cities: Arden Hills, Burnsville, Chanhassen, Edina, Elk River, Farmington, Lakeville, North St. Paul, Plymouth, and St. Louis Park. They proposed the following rates: Lead/Attorney/Shareholders: $155.00/hr. Attorneys: $145.00/hr. Legal Assistants/Law Clerks: $ 85.00/hr. The minimum increment of time for billings is .10 hours (6 minutes). Eckberg Lammers Eckberg Lammers has seven attorney/shareholders and ten associate attorneys. Municipal work accounted for 30.9% of total billings in 2016. Patrick Sweeney would be the lead attorney. He has 25 years of experience as an attorney. Mr. Sweeney was Lino Lakes’ prosecution attorney for a number of years. He is the city attorney for Blaine. Sweeney spends nearly 75 percent of his time on general municipal activities, including prosecution and development matters, such as preliminary and final plats, development negotiations, special assessments, and conditional use permits. The firm currently serves as civil municipal general counsel for the following metro cities: Bayport, Blaine, East Bethel, Grant, Mendota Heights, Oak Park Heights, White Bear Lake, Woodbury, and Wyoming. The hourly rates are as follows: 2018 2019 2020 Attorney: $150 $155 $160 Paralegals: $ 80 $ 80 $ 80 Law Clerks: $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Developer—Reimbursed $200 $210 $220 All services would be billed to the nearest .10 hours (6 minutes). Flaherty Hood The staff at Flaherty Hood includes six attorneys and seven support staff positions. Chris Hood and Robert Scott will be the primary attorneys assigned to Lino Lakes. Hood is the city attorney for 12 cities, but none in the Twin Cities area. He has over 24 years of experience representing Minnesota local governments in employment, administrative, annexation, environmental, municipal, and real estate matters. The city attorney hourly fees are as follows: General Municipal: $135/hr. Other Legal: $ 65/hr. Employment & Real Estate: $150/hr. Other Legal: $ 75/hr. Litigation: $165/hr. Other Legal: $ 85/hr. Third Party—Reimbursed: $185/hr. Other Legal: $ 95/hr. The minimum increment of time billed for services is 15 minutes (.25 hours). Kelly & Lemmons Kelly & Lemmons has seven full-time attorneys and four full-time staff. Municipal work represented 39% of their total billings in 2016 and 42% in 2017. Kevin Beck would be the primary city attorney. He has nearly 10 years of experience in municipal, criminal, and employment/labor law. He is currently the city attorney for Shoreview. The firm is also the city attorney for Taylors Falls, White Bear Township, Gem Lake, and Little Canada. The hourly rates are as follows: Attorneys: $150/hr. Law clerks/paralegals: No charge For general civil city attorney services, the firm proposed a fixed annual retainer of $30,000 to encourage open and frequent communication between the City and its attorneys. Kennedy & Graven Kennedy & Graven is the largest law firm in Minnesota that practices primarily local government law. Their staff consists of 29 attorneys, 7 paralegals, and 14 support staff. The firm practices in all major areas of municipal relating to cities. They are the appointed city attorney in 32 cities, including Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Hopkins, Maplewood, Oakdale, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rosemount, Shakopee and Tonka Bay. Kennedy & Graven proposes Andrew Biggerstaff for the role of city attorney. Biggerstaff is the city attorney for Tonka Bay and Robbinsdale. He has less than three years of experience as an associate attorney with Kennedy & Graven. Kennedy proposed the following fees through 2018: General Non-General Econ. Dev. & TIF Attorneys: $160/hr. $180/hr. $215/hr. Paralegals: $ 95/hr. $ 95/hr. $115/hr. Law Clerks: $ 95/hr. $ 95/hr. $ 95/hr. Municipal work was 95% of the firm’s billing in 2016. Minimum billing increment is six minutes (.10 hours). Ledin, Hofstad, Troth & Fleming The law firm has three full-time attorneys, one counsel attorney, and five support personnel. They have three office locations in Hinckley, Pine City, and North Branch. The firm represents eight municipal clients, but none in the metropolitan area. They did specify who the lead attorney would be since they prefer to operate in a collaborative manner. Their 2016 billings for municipal work were nine percent. Attorneys charge $200 per hour for municipal work. The firm bills to the nearest tenth of an hour (1/10th). Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney Ratwik currently has 10 attorneys and three support staff. All attorneys are experienced in municipal law. 99 percent of its billings are to municipal clients. Joe Langel has been Lino Lakes’ city attorney since 2010 and would continue to serve as the Lino Lakes City Attorney. Joe has practiced municipal law for over 22 years. Joe also serves as city attorney for the cities of Ramsey, Brainerd, Ironton, Crosby, Deerwood, Cass Lake, Clear Lake, Breezy Point, and Federal Dam. 100 percent of Joe’s work is related to municipal civil law. City rates are as follows: Normal Litigation Developer Paid Shareholders: $145/hr. $155/hr. $205/hr. Associates: $145/hr. $145/hr. $145/hr. Paralegal: $ 80/hr. $ 80/hr. $ 80/hr. Legal Secretary: No charge No charge No charge These are the same rates the firm proposed when first retained in 2009. Ratwik has not increased its rates the past eight years. The minimum increment of time billed is .10/hr. (six minutes). Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger The firm has 15 attorneys, which includes six shareholders and nine associate attorneys, and five support staff. Jay Squires would serve as city attorney. Squires has been practicing in the area of municipal law since 1989. He is currently the city attorney for the cities of Cambridge, Hanover, Dayton, Clearwater, and Norwood Young America. Squires previously worked for Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney and served as Lino Lakes’ contact person in Joe’s absence until moving to Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldsburger. Rupp represents over 100 cities, counties, school districts, and joint powers entities in the State of Minnesota. Attorney rates are as follows: General: $170/hr. Litigation: $200/hr. Third Parties: $225/hr. Paralegals: $ 75/hr. Law Clerks: $ 75/hr. The hourly rates would be increased by $5 per hour annually. Billing is done for time incurred in 1/10th increments. Requested Council Direction Staff recommends the following firms by interviewed: Campbell Knutson, Kennedy & Graven, and Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, which is based on firm’s municipal law experience, hourly billing rates, minimum billing increment, and lead attorney’s percentage of time spent on municipal work. RFP Comparisons for 2018 Legal Services Firm No. of Attorneys No. of Cities Represented Primary Attorney Municipal Experience Time Spent on Municipal Work General Billing Rate Min. Billing Increment  Campbell Knutson 15 22 Matt Brokl1 14 yrs. 100% $155/hr. .10 hours Eckberg Lammers 17 17 Patrick Sweeney2 25 yrs. 75% $150/hr.3 .10 hours Flaherty Hood 6 12 Chris Hood4 24 yrs. 100% $135/hr. .25 hours Kelly & Lemmons 7 5 Kevin Beck5 10 yrs. 30-40% $150/hr. .10 hours  Kennedy & Graven 29 32 Andrew Biggerstaff6 3 yrs. 95% $160/hr. .10 hours Ledin, Hofstad, Troth 3 8 None Assigned NA 9% $200/hr. .10 hours  Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney 10 10 Joe Langel7 22 yrs. 100% $145/hr. .10 hours Rupp, Anderson, Squires 15 7 Jay Squires8 17 yrs. 75% $170/hr.9 .10 hours  Staff recommends these firms be interviewed. 1 Brokl currently does not represent another city as the lead attorney, but was the city attorney for several cities before moving to the private sector in 2006. 2 Sweeney is the City Attorney for Blaine. 3 Hourly rate would increase to $155 in 2019 and $160 in 2020. 4 Hood serves as the City Attorney for the cities of Bagley, Breckenridge, Grand Marais, Moose Lake, Northfield, Park Rapids, Pequot Lakes, Pine City, Plainview, St. Charles, Willmar, and Winona. 5 Beck was the City Attorney for Shoreview from April 2016 through July 2017, and currently serves as the backup city attorney for Shoreview. 6 Biggerstaff is currently the City Attorney for the cities of Tonka Bay and Robbinsdale. 7 Langel has been Lino Lakes’ City Attorney since 2010. He also serves as City Attorney in the cities of Ramsey, Brainerd, Ironton, Crosby, Deerwood, Cass Lake, Clear Lake, Breezy Point, and Federal Dam. 8 Squires is the City Attorney for the cities of Cambridge, Hanover, Dayton, Clearwater, and Norwood Young America, and co-lead attorney for Red Wing. 9 Hourly rates would be increased by $5 per hour annually. 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 CNH ARCHITECTS 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 A1, 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 A1 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 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 952.431.4433 www.cnharch.com 04/11/17 16088 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study CITY OF LINO LAKES ARCH I T E C T S 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 SIGNATURE: DATE: 4/11/17 LICENSE NO: 21234 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 team 1CNH ARCHITECTS tabLe of Contents Executive Summary 2 Overview of Study 6 Site A: Existing Public Works Site Introduction 8 Site Analysis 10 Site B: Fire Station Site Introduction 12 Site Analysis 14 Program Overview Space Needs Program 16 Comparison Matrix 20 Option A1: Existing Building Expansion Introduction 22 Layout 23 Option A2: New Facility - Existing Public Works Site Introduction 24 Layout 25 Option B1: New Facility - FIre Station Site Introduction 26 Layout 27 Existing Facility & Site Review Architectural Review 28 Accessibility and Code Review 31 Mechanical Systems Review 32 Cost Estimate Option A1 35 Option A2 35 Option B1 35 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study2 E xEcutivE Summary 3CNH ARCHITECTS exeCutive summary 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 A1: 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) Site B Site A Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study4 exeCutive summary 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. Infrastructure Buildable Area Adjacent Land Uses Easements - Existing or Future Floodplain Wetland Site Visibility Noise Issues Potential Neighborhood Resistance Site A Statistics Infrastructure Buildable Area Adjacent Land Uses Easements - Existing or Future Floodplain Wetlands Site Visibility Noise Issues Potential Neighborhood Resistance Site B Statistics 5CNH ARCHITECTS exeCutive summary Option A1: 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 A1. 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 A1 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. Option A1 Option A2 Option B1 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study6 Main Street Ce n t e r v i l l e R d . Birch St. Option A1: Existing Site: Expand to meet future needs Option A2: Existing Site: New Facility Option B1: 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 A1 and A2 are located at the current Public Works Facility. Option B1 is located adjacent to Fire Station #2. PubLiC Works faCiLity site oPtion maP B1 A1 A2 W R o n d e a u La k e D r 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 A1 – 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 B1 – 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 7CNH ARCHITECTS overvieW of study Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study8 Site A: 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 Site A 9CNH ARCHITECTS SITE A Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study10 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. SiteA Site Analysis There is a large floodplain running through the middle of the property mostly duplicating the wetland areas. 1180 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55025 PSP Public and Semi-Public District 2 Properties Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres FloodplainWetlands 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. Infrastructure 11CNH ARCHITECTS 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. Infrastructure Buildable Area Adjacent Land Uses Easements - Existing or Future Floodplain Wetland Site Visibility Noise Issues Potential Neighborhood Resistance Site Statistics Buildable Area SiteASite Analysis Positive Moderately Positive Neutral Moderately Negative Negative Rating Scale Public Works Analysis There is one gas easement running on the southwest corner of the site. This easement defines the southwest edge of the main buildable area. Easements Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study12 Photograph: View of the site from the east 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. Site B City Owned Property 13CNH ARCHITECTS SITE B Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study14 B Site Analysis Site The designated wetlands run along the North, East and West sections of the property and decreases the buildable area within this parcel. Wetlands 1710 Birch Street Lino Lakes, MN 55038 PSP Public and Semi-Public District 1 Property Owned by City of Lino Lakes Gross Site Area 17.6 Acres 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. Floodplain 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). Infrastructure 15CNH ARCHITECTS BSite Analysis Site Infrastructure Buildable Area Adjacent Land Uses Easements - Existing or Future Floodplain Wetlands Site Visibility Noise Issues Potential Neighborhood Resistance Site Statistics Positive Moderately Positive Neutral Moderately Negative Negative Rating Scale Public Works Analysis 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. Buildable Area 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. Easements Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study16 SpacE NEEdS program 17CNH ARCHITECTS 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. arChiteCturaL Considerations - sPaCe needs Program Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study18 Large Spaces (Angled 60°) Medium Spaces Space Name Small Spaces Mezzanine Storage General Storage Vehicle Wash Bay Circulation SizeQuantity 16 49 20 1 1 1 1 18’x36’ 12’x24’ 8’x12’ 30’x40’ 20’x100’ 35’x50’ 30’x6600’ Area 835 288 96 1,200 2,000 1,750 19,789 Total Total 13,360 14,112 1,920 1,200 2,000 1,750 19,789 54,131 Public Works Superintendent Open Office Area Space Name Reception Private Offices Shop Supervisor Office Copy Room IT/Server Room Multi-Purpose Room Size Lunch Room Quantity 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 12’x14’ 15’x20’ 16’x10’ 12’x10’ 12’x10’ 9’x10’ 9’x10’ 40’x45’ 30’x40’ Area 168 300 160 120 120 90 90 1,800 1,200 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% Total 168 300 160 1,080 120 90 90 1,800 1,200 7,773 1,160 8,893 sPaCe needs Program Office Area Vehicle Storage Men’s Restroom & Locker Room 1 30’x40’1,200 1,200 Women’s Restroom & Locker Room 1 15’x25’375 375 Storage 1 10’x25’250 250 Janitor’s Closet 1 10’x12’120 120 Mechanical/Electrical Room 1 20’x30’600 600 Public Restrooms 2 9’x10’90 180 19CNH ARCHITECTS Space Name Large Maintenance Bay Small Maintenance Bay Welding Bay / Fabrication Size Small Engine Repair Bay Quantity 2 2 1 1 24’x48’ 20’x40’ 28’x40’ 20’x40’ Area 1,152 800 1,120 800 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% Total 2,304 1,600 1,120 800 7,876 1,181 9,057 Space Name Sign Storage Woodworking Shop Parks Storage Size Water Meter Shop / Storage Quantity 1 1 1 1 30’x40’ 20’x30’ 30’x40’ 15’x30’ Area 1,200 600 1,200 450 Subtotals Circulation Total 15% Total 1,200 600 1,200 450 3,450 518 3,968 83,654 Total Area Departmental Shops Vehicle Maintenance Tire & Brake Shop 1 20’x28’560 560 Tire Storage ( Mezzanine)1 30’x10’300 300 Lube Room 1 12’x16’192 192 Parts Storage & Tools Room 1 20’x50’1,000 1,000 Total Exterior Wall and Building Services 10%7,605 Subtotals 76,049 sPaCe needs Program Summary 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. 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. 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. ComParison matrix Lino Lakes 20,862 OtsegoShoreview 25,931 14,524 Hopkins 18,025 City Population (2013 Census) Formula for Comparison: Square feet Population Comparison Factor= Lino Lakes 31,100 Projected Population (2040) Hugo 14,082 Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study20 21CNH ARCHITECTS ComParison matrix Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,512 sf / 20,862) 0 Shoreview (38,410 sf / 25,931) Otsego (18,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (37,800 sf / 18,025) Shoreview (15,620 sf / 25,931) Otsego (4,300 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (13,596 sf / 18,025) Ve h i c l e S t o r a g e Of f i c e Shoreview (13,990 sf / 25,931) Otsego (5,850 sf / 14,524) Hopkins (10,917 sf / 18,025) Ve h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e & Sh o p s Square Feet / Population Lino Lakes (Proposed) (24,359 sf (54,131 sf) / 31,100) Existing Phase 1 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Lino Lakes (Proposed) (13,025 sf / 31,100) Lino Lakes (Existing) (5,742 sf / 20,862) Hugo (15,000 sf / 14,082) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Lino Lakes (Existing) (3,545 sf / 20,862) Lino Lakes (Proposed) (8,893 sf / 31,100) Hugo (6,400 sf / 14,082) Phase 2 Existing Material Storage Bins Main Street Wetlands Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study22 OptionA1 Layout Pros • Re-use of existing Public Works building structure • Use of existing Salt Building • Use of existing Material Storage Bins • Use of existing miscellaneous site storage • Re-use of existing site • Large buildable area 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. Description Option A1 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 A1 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. Existing Material Storage Bins Vehicle Storage W. R o n d e a u L a k e D r . Ex i s t i n g R o a d Main Street Existing Baseball Field Trailer Storage Existing Salt Building Vehicle Maintenance Shops Office 55 Parking Stalls Ex. Retention Pond Wetlands Uti l i t y Ea s e m e n t Fuel Island Existing Cell Tower Existing Building Fence Phase 2 23CNH ARCHITECTS OptionA1Layout Wash Bay Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study24 OptionA2 Layout 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) Wetlands Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 79,503 s.f. • Total 79,503 s.f. • Existing Cold Storage 4,835 s.f. 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. 25CNH ARCHITECTS Existing Material Storage Bins Vehicle Storage W. R o n d e a u L a k e D r . Ex i s t i n g R o a d Main Street Existing Baseball Field Trailer Storage Existing Salt Building Vehicle Maintenance Shops Office55 Parking Stalls Ex. Retention Pond Wetlands Uti l i t y Ea s e m e n t Existing Garage Existing Cell Tower Fence OptionA2Layout Phase 2 Wash Bay Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study26 OptionB1 Layout 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 Wetlands 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. Total Square Footage • Remodel None • New 76,017 s.f. • Total 76,017 s.f. • Ex. Public Works Storage 14,799 s.f. 27CNH ARCHITECTS OptionB1Layout Ce n t e r v i l l e R o a d Birch Street 55 Parking Stalls Existing Fire Station Vehicle Storage Office Shops Vehicle Maintenance Wetlands Wetlands Infiltration Basin Infiltration Basin Infiltration Basin We t l a n d s Fuel Island Infiltration Basin Existing Road Ex i s t i n g R o a d F u t u r e R o a d Trailer Storage Wash Bay Phase 2 arChiteCturaL revieW Equipment Storage Vehicle Storage Vehicle Maintenance Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study28 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. 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. 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. The current Vehicle Maintenance area and tool storage area does not provide adequate space to service the city’s fleet of vehicles. Exterior Brick arChiteCturaL revieW 29CNH ARCHITECTS Roof leakage The existing standing seam roof needs to be replaced as there are multiple locations where leaking has occurred. 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. Current offices and storage areas are intermingled and do not provide an efficient use of space. Gutters Exterior brick on the building has severe water damage in multiple places and is in need of repair. Offices and Storage arChiteCturaL revieW Lunch Room Server / Telephone Storage The current lunch room does not have adequate appliances and chairs to accommodate Public Works employees. 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. 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. 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. Locker room Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study30 aCCessibiLity & Code revieW 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. 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. 31CNH ARCHITECTS 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. meChaniCaL systems revieW - vehiCLe maintenanCe Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study32 Exhaust System Heating Sanitary Waste 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. General heating is accomplished with gas fired infrared heaters. These units are dated and most likely have exceeded their expected service life. 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. 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. meChaniCaL systems revieW - offiCes/senior Center 33CNH ARCHITECTS Furnace Room - Offices 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. Furnace Room - Senior Center 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. Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study34 coSt EStimatE 35CNH ARCHITECTS Low Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water 9,707,342 360,000 10,067,342 (2017 Dollars)Total $ $ $ Option A1 Remodel & Expansion Phase 1 Option A2 New Facility at Existing Site Phase 1 Cost estimate Option B1 New Facility at Fire Station Site Phase 1 *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility Sanitary Sewer and Water 12,195,113 360,000 12,555,113(2017 Dollars)Total $ $ $ Low Cost Public Works Facility 10,040,359 $ $ *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility 12,458,171$ Low Cost Public Works Facility 9,922,715 9,922,715 (2017 Dollars)Total $ $ *Inflation not taken into account in this estimate High Cost Public Works Facility 12,380,093 12,380,093 (2017 Dollars)Total $ $ Sanitary Sewer and Water 360,000 10,400,359 (2017 Dollars)Total $Sanitary Sewer and Water 360,000 12,818,171(2017 Dollars)Total $ Cost Estimate Summary 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 A1, 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 PROPOSAL CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS 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 ARCHI T E C T S ARCHI T E C T S 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 ARCHI T E C T S 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 PROJECT TEAM CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 2 ARCHI T E C T S 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 ARCHI T E C T S 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 ANALYSISAfter 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 ARCHI T E C T S 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 ARCHI T E C T S PROJECTS 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 Renovation Area Expansion Area A First Floor Police Garage Addition $3,961,000 A1 Security Upgrades to Fire Station #3 $60,000 B Second Floor Police / City Hall Addition $2,581,000 Existing Campus Facility C Lower Level Police / City Hall Renovation & Overall Building $27,000 D First Floor Police Renovation $312,000 E Second Floor Police Renovation $205,000 G Second Floor City Hall Renovation $112,000 H Exterior Site Police Parking Lot Expansion $109,000 J Systems Furniture at 1st and 2nd Floor City Hall Renovation $535,000 K Systems Furniture at 2nd Floor Police / City Hall Expansion $150,000 L Moving of Communications Equipment $11,000 Sub-total $1,352,000 $6,711,000 Total Estimated Cost (Revised) Cost Reduction from Original $590,000 New Building Addition $8,063,000 PROPOSED PROJECT POLICE SPACE SUMMARY First Floor Addition Remodel Enclosed Vehicle Garage -35 squad stalls 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 14,300 SF 3,585 SF 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 3,485 SF 1,950 SF Total Proposed Police Space 17,785 SF 5,535 SF 14,300 SF CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 6 ARCHI T E C T S PROJECTS 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 ARCHI T E C T S 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 RESUMES 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 ARCHI T E C T S 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’l; 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 RESUMES CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 9 ARCHI T E C T S Larry Svitak, PE Principal, Engineering Design Initiative, Ltd. 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 PROJECT TEAM CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 10 ARCHI T E C T S 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 PROJECT TEAM CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 11 ARCHI T E C T S 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 ARCHI T E C T S DESIGN INNOVATION 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. Minnesota Zoo Black Bear Exhibit Apple Valley Liquor Store No. 3 Valleywood Clubhouse ABLE Burn Building CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 13 ARCHI T E C T S SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 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. Apple Valley City Hall Apple Valley Liquor Store #3 - Two Green Globes Valleywood Clubhouse - Three Green Globes CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 14 ARCHI T E C T S 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. Accepted by: _________________________________ Name _________________________________ Title _________________________________ Owner (Firm name) Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. CITY OF LINO LAKES PUBLIC WORKS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS AND EXISTING FACILITY AUDIT 15 WS – Item 11 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 11 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: Community Room Expansion and Renovation Background Now that the audio/visual upgrade in the Council Chambers and Master Control Room is nearly complete, staff has turned its attention to the Community Room. Staff is asking the City Council to consider expanding and renovation the room prior to the installation of new audio/visual equipment. New Creations Child Care Center is leasing all but around 300 square feet of space in what was former the Early Childhood Family Learning Center. This space is directly behind the back wall of the Community Room. Knocking out this wall would expand the room by 255 square feet, and there would be an additional 45 square feet for a storage closet. The space is currently being used to store voting equipment and election supplies. If the Council is supportive of this proposal, staff would obtain cost estimates for the renovation before obtaining bids for audio visual equipment. Funds for the project would come out of the Cable TV Reserve Fund. Requested Council Direction Consider moving forward with cost estimates for the expansion and renovation of the Community Room. WS – Item 12 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 12 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: 2018 Parks and Trails Capital Projects Update, Rick DeGardner Background As part of the City’s approved 2018 budget, the City Council designated $500,000 for parks and trails capital projects. The City Council directed staff to seek input from the Park Board for City Council consideration. The Park Board began discussing this topic during their January 8, 2018 meeting and will continue the conversation during the February, March, and April Park Board meetings. It is anticipated the Park Board will submit their recommendation to the City Council for consideration during the April 2 City Council work session. The Park Board welcomes input from Lino Lakes residents during their February 5, March 5, and April 2 meetings. Residents may also email their comments/suggestions to rick.degardner@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us. The emails will be forwarded to all Park Board members for review. An informational memo is listed on the City’s website under Latest News & Announcements. I will provide the City Council an update during the February 5 work session (following the Park Board meeting conducted earlier in the evening). Requested Council Direction For Informational Purposes Only WS – Item 13 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 13 Date: February 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director Re: 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement Background The 2018 Adopted Budget – Capital Equipment Replacement schedule called for the issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness in the amount of $390,929 to be used for the purchase of capital equipment as part of the city’s equipment replacement program. As the costs outlined in the 2018 Adopted Budget were estimated costs, (State bid pricing was not yet available) staff has prepared an amended Capital Equipment Replacement schedule for Council review. In addition to updated costs, staff has removed the replacement of Investigations Vehicle #390 from the 2018 replacement schedule subsequent to the vehicle re-evaluation. The Amended Capital Equipment Replacement schedule calls for the issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness in the amount of $303,900. The reserves of the Area and Unit Fund (406) will be utilized to issue a loan to finance the equipment purchases. The interest rate on the certificates will be 1.00% and a special levy will pay for the certificates in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The levy proceeds will be credited to the Area and Unit Fund. Requested Council Direction For discussion purposes only. Staff would like to place Authorization of the Issuance of 2018 Certificates of Indebtedness on the February 12, 2018, City Council Meeting agenda for consideration. Attachments Amended 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement Schedule 2018 Police Division Fleet Replacement Memo 1.26.2018 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement Budget Documents 7.31.2017 Adopted Budget Amended Department Description Amount Amount Police CSO Vehicle 41,445 37,700 Investigations Vehicle 30,967 25,200 Investigations Vehicle (Will be re-evaluated)30,967 - Total Police 103,379$ 62,900$ Fleet Flusher Truck 213,000 178,000 1/2 Ton Pickup Ford Escape AWD 31,950 25,000 3/4 Ton Pickup w/ Plow 42,600 38,000 Total Fleet 287,550$ 241,000$ Grand Total 390,929$ 303,900$ Equipment Levy -$ Capital Equipment Fund -$ Certificates to be Issued 390,929$ 303,900$ City of Lino Lakes 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement - Amended Future Levy Impact: 2018 Certificates 1% Total w/ 5% Principal Interest Total Overlevy Balance 2018 Certificates Issued 303,900 2019 103,900 5,825 109,725 115,211 200,000 2020 100,000 2,000 102,000 107,100 100,000 2021 100,000 1,000 101,000 106,050 0 Totals 303,900 8,826 312,726 328,361 City of Lino Lakes 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement - Amended Department Description Amount Police CSO Vehicle 41,445 Investigations Vehicle 30,967 Investigations Vehicle (Vehicle will be re-evaluated) 30,967 Total Police 103,379$ Fleet Flusher Truck 213,000 1/2 Ton Pickup 31,950 3/4 Ton Pickup w/ Plow 42,600 Total Fleet 287,550$ Grand Total 390,929$ Equipment Levy -$ Capital Equipment Fund -$ Certificates to be Issued 390,929$ 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement City of Lino Lakes Budget Work Session 7-31-17 102 Future Levy Impact: 2018 Certificates 1% Total w/ 5% Principal Interest Total Overlevy Balance 2018 Certificates Issued 390,929 2019 129,000 7,493 136,493 143,317 261,929 2020 130,000 2,619 132,619 139,250 131,929 2021 131,929 1,319 133,248 139,911 0 Totals 390,929 11,432 402,361 422,478 2018 Capital Equipment Replacement City of Lino Lakes Budget Work Session 7-31-17 103 FORM B-2 2018 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST DEPARTMENT #: 420 BUSINESS UNIT: 402 NAME: POLICE PROTECTION TOTAL REQUESTS = $103,379 1 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $4,667 Description (include unit # if applicable): Replace vehicle #300 with 2018 Ford F250 truck for use by CSO Justification and affect on productivity: See attached memo and mechanic report Additional expenses if purchased: Emergency equipment has been included in the unit cost Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, mileage, and LTD maint costs): Vehicle 300, 2004 Ford, F150 truck with 90,775 miles (as of 6.30.2017) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $41,445 $41,445 1 $41,445 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). 2 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $5,156 Description (include unit # if applicable): Replace 385 for use in investigations Justification and affect on productivity: See attached memo and mechanic report Additional expenses if purchased: Emergency equipment has been included in the unit cost Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, milage, and LTD maint costs): Vehicle #385, 2011 Chevrolet Impala with 106,593 miles (as of 6.30.2017) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $29,065 $1,902 $30,967 1 $30,967 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). Budget Work Session 7-31-17 104 FORM B-2 2018 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST DEPARTMENT #: 420 BUSINESS UNIT: 402 NAME: POLICE PROTECTION 3 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $4,966 Description (include unit # if applicable): Potential replacement of 390 for use in investigations Justification and affect on productivity: See attached memo and mechanic report Additional expenses if purchased: Emergency equipment has been included in the unit cost Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, milage, and LTD maint costs): Vehicle #390, 2009 Toyota Corrolla with miles of 106,775 (as of 6.30.2017) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $29,065 $1,902 $30,967 1 $30,967 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). Budget Work Session 7-31-17 105 Lino Lakes Public Safety Department Memo DATE: July 13, 2017 TO: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator FROM: John Swenson, Public Safety Director RE: Public Safety Department 2018 Fleet Replacement Per the Vehicle Replacement Policy passed by City Council on April 10, 2017, staff identified seven vehicles in the Police and Fire Divisions that would likely reach 100,000 in 2018. After completion of the initial review of the seven vehicles, five vehicles were sent to Brett Olander, City Mechanic, for inspection. These vehicles are: ID Year Description Dept Odometer As Of 6/30/2017 300 2004 Ford F150 Pickup Police CSO 90,775 385 2011 Chev Impala Unmarked Vehicle Police 106,593 386 2013 Ford Explorer 4WD 4DR Marked Police K9 77,670 388 2013 Ford Explorer 4WD 4DR Marked Police Patrol 72,080 390 2009 Toyota Corolla Police Patrol 106,775 Based on the age, anticipated mileage in 2018, and Brett’s recommendation, I am recommending that vehicles 300 and 385 be replaced in 2018. Furthermore, I am recommending that vehicle 390 be re-evaluated by the City mechanic later this year for possible inclusion in the 2018 vehicle replacement purchase as part of CIP. The replacement vehicle for 300 will be used by our Community Service Officers. Staff is recommending that we purchase a Ford F250 truck with four door cab and full length truck bed or similar vehicle. This will allow the CSO vehicle to be used for prisoner transports, animal control, and hauling of large equipment. The anticipated 2018 cost is $41,445.05 for the vehicle and all required emergency equipment. The replacement vehicle for 385 will be used by investigations. Staff is recommending that we purchase a 2018 Ford Fusion four-door sedan or similar vehicle. The anticipated 2018 cost is $30,966.82 for the vehicle and required emergency equipment. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 106 After the re-evaluation of vehicle 390, a recommendation will be made for Council consideration on the replacement of vehicle 390. If 390 is replaced, staff would recommend replacing this vehicle with a vehicle that is not consistent with vehicle models currently in the police fleet. This will allow this vehicle to be used for surveillance purposes. For budgeting purposes staff recommends using $30,966.82 for the purchase of the vehicle and installation of any required emergency equipment. If vehicles 300 and 385 are approved to be replaced in 2018 the total anticipated costs for those purchases is $72,411.87. If after the re-evaluation of 390, the replacement of vehicles 300, 385, and 390 are approved to be replaced in 2018 the total anticipated costs for those purchases is $103,378.69. Attached to this memo for your review and consideration is City Mechanic Brett Olander’s report with photos. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 107 CIP Request 2018 (Police) #300 The City of Lino Lakes inherited #300 from the Centennial Fire Department in the beginning of 2016. It was determined at the time that #300 was in better shape than our current CSO truck #313, so #313 was sent away to be sold. The swap has allowed the City to get an additional two years of use out our CSO truck. Unfortunately, #300 is also starting to show its age. In my opinion, #300 is in need of replacement and it would be my first priority out of the police fleet. After acquiring the vehicle from Centennial, we repaired all of the leaks and broken components but unfortunately, we do not have an easy or cheap fix for the extensive amount of rust that has developed on this vehicle. The outside appearance looks nice from the ground level but the undercarriage of the vehicle tells a different story. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 108 The inside edge of the rocker panels are in very rough shape and the rust will only continue to spread. The underside of most of the body panels are in rough shape and it is only a matter of time before the rust becomes visible on the truck exterior. Once the rust is visible from the outside, you will see a significant loss in resale value. I think that now would be an ideal time to sell the truck before the condition worsens. We are just starting to see a tiny bit of rust becoming visible on the bedside panel right around the rear wheels. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 109 The frame and various support brackets underneath the vehicle are also showing significant amounts of rust Budget Work Session 7-31-17 110 In summary, I believe that now would be a good time to replace #300 in our police fleet. The outside appearance still looks nice but it will most likely start to deteriorate quickly and significantly affect our resale price. Most of the underbody components and panels are showing significant amounts of rust which will likely lead to vehicle downtime and increased repair costs. #300 would be my highest priority for replacement in the police fleet. #385 Budget Work Session 7-31-17 111 #385 is a Chevrolet Impala that was purchased used by the City of Lino Lakes in 2012. The vehicle was driven by the chief of police and then handed down to the investigations department. It currently has 107,000 miles and it is showing some similar issues to the CSO truck underneath. Just like the CSO truck, the vehicle exterior still looks pretty decent from a distance but it won’t be long before the exterior condition starts to degrade. The paint is starting to bubble over the rear wheel-well and it won’t be long before the paint flakes off and the rust begins to spread. The underside of the Impala is starting to show some pretty decent rust. Although it’s not as severe as #300, it could lead to issues in the somewhat near future. The rear bumper supports are particularly rusty. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 112 The rear main seal on the engine is leaking engine oil. This would be a costly and time consuming repair which would involve removing the transmission from the vehicle. It is my opinion that #385 should be replaced in 2018 to help avoid multiple costly repairs, prevent significant vehicle down-time, and to get the most resale value out of the vehicle before the rust starts to impact the outward appearance of the vehicle. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 113 #390 As of July 2017, the Toyota Corolla (#390) appears to be in good shape mechanically. It has a slightly torn boot on the driver’s side cv shaft that should be addressed. It is not currently showing any other signs of failure or any issues that are visible to the naked eye. The corolla is the police department’s next oldest vehicle and it does have over 100,000 miles. Due to it’s age and mileage, I think it would be safe to expect some repairs on it over the next calendar year even though it is not currently showing any significant issues. I think that it would be wise for us to reinspect and reevaluate the Corolla later in the year, as we get closer to 2018. #386 #386 is a Ford Police Interceptor Utility that is used as our K9 SUV. As of July 2017, it appears to be in good shape mechanically. The paint does seem to be peeling right around the rear key slot on the back hatch but this should be something that will be covered by Ford due to a known recall. Otherwise, no other issues were found with #386 at this time. #388 #388 is a Ford Police Interceptory Utility that is used in general patrol work. As of July 2017, it also appears to be in good shape mechanically. I did not find anything in need of replacement or repair at this time. The SUV appears to be in solid shape as of July 2017. #617 #617 is a Ford Police Interceptor Utility that is used in the Fire Department. It was moved from police over to fire roughly a year ago. It appears to be in good shape mechanically as of July 2017 and I did not find any issues or things to address on it at this time. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 114 FORM B-2 2018 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST DEPARTMENT #: 431 BUSINESS UNIT: 402 NAME: FLEET MANAGEMENT TOTAL REQUESTS = $287,550 1 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $11,000 Description (include unit # if applicable): Flusher Truck Justification and affect on productivity: Replace Vehicle #434 (2001 Sterling Flusher Truck) Additional expenses if purchased: Insurance, Future Maintenance and Repairs Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, mileage, and LTD maint costs): Replaces Vehicle #434 (2001 Sterling Flusher Truck) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $200,000 $13,000 $213,000 1 $213,000 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). 2 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $3,500 Description (include unit # if applicable): 1/2 Ton 4 x 4 Pickup Justification and affect on productivity: Replace Vehicle #401 (2006 Chevy 1/2 Ton 4 x 4 Pickup) Additional expenses if purchased: Insurance, Future Maintenance and Repairs Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, mileage, and LTD maint costs): Replaces Vehicle #401 (2006 Chevy 1/2 Ton 4 x 4 Pickup) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $30,000 $1,950 $31,950 1 $31,950 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). Budget Work Session 7-31-17 115 FORM B-2 2018 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST DEPARTMENT #: 431 BUSINESS UNIT: 402 NAME: FLEET MANAGEMENT 3 Account #:5000 In Capital Improvement Plan (Y or N): Y CAPITAL OUTLAY Replacement (R) or New (N): R Est'd disposal proceeds (if "R") $7,000 Description (include unit # if applicable): Justification and affect on productivity: Replace Vehicle #212 (2008 Ford 3/4 Ton Pickup) Additional expenses if purchased: Insurance, Future Maintenance and Repairs Item(s), if any, replaced (if applicable, include unit #, year, mileage, and LTD maint costs): Replaces Vehicle #212 (2008 Ford 3/4 Ton Pickup) Cost (do not deduct disposal proceeds): Unit Cost Vehicle Tax* Total Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost $40,000 $2,600 $42,600 1 $42,600 *Enter 6.5% of the unit cost for equipment to be licensed (e.g., vehicles, trailers; does not include marked public safety vehicles). 3/4 Ton Pickup with Plow Budget Work Session 7-31-17 116 PAGE 1 2018 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REQUESTS Water Tanker Truck ($200,000) - Replaces Unit #434 - 2001 Sterling Flusher Truck with 33,648 miles. Our wa- ter tanker truck is 17 years old and is in need of replacement. The Public Services Department uses the Flush- er Truck in the following capaciƟes: x The Parks Department uses it during the winter months to ﬂood all of the ice rinks in the City. xThe Parks Department uses the water cannon to water young or recently planted park and boulevard trees or any other city trees in need of water. xThe Flusher Truck assists the Streets Department during street sweeping operaƟons. Pre-weƫng streets makes street sweeping operaƟons more efficient since the street sweeper operators don’t have to stop sweeping to ﬁll the water tanks. x The UƟliƟes Department ﬂushes dead end and other low-ﬂow sanitary sewer lines with the Flusher Truck. xAll Departments uƟlize the Flusher Truck for sod repairs. Unit #434 conƟnues to have signiﬁcant rust issues. In November 2011, it was sent out to have large porƟons of the truck taken apart, sand- blasted, and repainted at a cost of $13,000. That work has allowed us to extend the useful life an addiƟonal six years. The structural integrity of this vehicle has deteriorated over the past several years and is be- yond repair. The truck is truly showing its age and at some Ɵme in the near future, it will become a safety issue. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 117 PAGE 2 Various spots on the body have rusted all the way through and the rust is conƟnuing to spread. The ﬂoor on the passenger side of the truck is almost completely gone and you can literally see the ground underneath the vehicle. The front fenders, and fender support brackets are very rusted and they will only conƟnue to de- teriorate. The 2,000 gallon water tank sits on wood boards which sit on top of the steel frame. You can see that the paint has peeled off the top of the frame and that the rust is becoming signiﬁcant. It can be a liƩle concerning to have a fully ﬁlled 2,000 gallon water tank siƫng on top of a rusted frame that will only conƟnue to degrade and get weaker as Ɵme goes on. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 118 PAGE 3 The diesel fuel tanks, which were replaced in 2011, are already peeling and rusƟng. Although the rust doesn’t seem to be extremely deep or serious, it is deﬁnitely something to keep an eye on and something that will only get worse. The air tanks (located underneath the truck) that hold reserve air pressure to oper- ate the air brakes are showing signiﬁcant amounts of rust and should deﬁnitely be addressed if the truck is going to be kept longer. It is my opinion that we should replace this vehicle in 2018 to avoid a large amount of costly repairs and to protect the safety of our employees and the others on the road. This would be my main priority to replace in the 2018 budget year. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 119 PAGE 4 Chevy 1500 ($30,000) - Replaces Unit #401 - 2006 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with 88,920 miles. This vehicle is currently being driven by Brian Finke, Building/Fire Inspector. Unit #401 is also showing a signiﬁcant amount of rust. Various underbody components like this front bumper support show signiﬁcant rust and will need replacement if the vehicle is to be kept in the city ﬂeet. The brake lines underneath the chassis are very rusty and would deﬁnitely need to be replaced if the vehicle is not replaced. The front main seal of the transmission has started to leak and although it is not a safety concern, it would need to be addressed. The enƟre transmission must be removed from the vehicle in order to replace the seal. Also, the front differenƟal has developed a leak where the CV shaŌ enters the differenƟal and it is spraying gear lube onto the frame. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 120 PAGE 5 The rust is geƫng preƩy bad on many of the body components. Both the inner fender wells and the lower rocker panels have rust holes all the way through them. The rear bumper is preƩy rusty and small spots of rust are visible above the rear driver’s wheel. The rusty body components (shown below) are not a safety issue but they do hurt the appearance of the vehicle and the overall image of the city ﬂeet. I would recom- mend replacement of this vehicle for the 2018 budget. It has some cosmeƟc issues but more importantly, it has some potenƟal safety concerns and costly repairs that would need to be done if the vehicle is kept in the city ﬂeet. This vehicle would be my second priority. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 121 PAGE 6 Ford 3/4 Ton 4x4 Pickup with Plow ($40,000) - Replaces Unit #212 - 2008 Ford F-250 with 50,716 miles. Pri- marily used by our Streets department. During spring/summer/fall, primarily used to pull the tack spray trail- er while ﬁlling potholes and repairing roads. During the winter months, Unit #212 is used to pre-treat the roads with brine (saltwater) before snowstorms and plow cul-de-sacs. There is a large tank of brine that goes in the back of the truck and the saltwater sprays out of a spray bar that is mounted just below the rear bump- er. Unfortunately, this setup causes the underside of the rear of the truck to be in a constant mist of saltwa- ter while the brine is being applied. This has caused severe rust on the rearmost cross member that mounts the bed of the truck to the frame. Even the other cross members of the bed are in rough shape. The brake lines are very rusty and would need to be replaced. Budget Work Session 7-31-17 122 PAGE 7 Unit #212 has a few rust issues on the body (rear bumper and above the driver’s side headlight). These are just cosmeƟc issues at this point. June 27, 2017 Budget Work Session 7-31-17 123 Item #15 Monthly Progress Report February 5, 2018 Item Last Action Taken Staff Status Digital Scanning Project 8/7/17 – City Clerk provided a written report of what has been completed Julie Staff is utilizing a volunteer to augment the process White Bear Lake Restoration Assn. v. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) 1/26/18 – A hearing was held for the judge to consider more evidence and to rule on an extension of the stay. Jeff The DNR will likely have to appeal regardless of the outcome of the hearing Upgrade of HD Audio/Visual Equipment in Council Chambers and Control Room 1/30/18 – Installation of the new dais top was completed Jeff Microphones in the bid specs will be replaced with gooseneck mics Culvert Maintenance ACD 10-22-32 7/5/17 – Staff was directed to monitor the culvert and to work with the RCWD on a longer term solution Mike RCWD cleaned the culvert. Staff continues to monitor it. Updates are shown in italics.