HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2009 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, July 6, 2009
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
A special Council Meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. prior to the work session.
The purpose of the special meeting will be to consider
Resolution No. 09 -43, Accepting the Feasibility Report on Improvements and
Calling for a Hearing on Improvements to the I -35E /CSAH 14 Interchange
(feasibility report will be distributed on Monday)
1. I -35E /CSAH 14 Interchange Update
2. Pine Street Improvements - Petition to have the City of Lino Lakes Research the
cost of paving Pine Street.
Review Regular Agenda
Adjourn
PAGE 1
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
AGENDA ITEM 1
Michael Grochala
July 6, 2007
Consideration of Resolution No. 09 -43
Accepting Feasibility Report on Improvements,
and Calling for Hearing on Improvements
135E /CSAH 14 Interchange
ACTION REQUIRED: Simple Majority
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Study for the I -35E /CSAH 14
Interchange Improvements on April 27, 2009. SRF Consulting Group, the City's
consulting engineer, has completed the report and will be presenting its findings at the
council meeting (Feasibility Study will be distributed at meeting).
The interchange has experienced significant congestion problems for the past several
years, specifically at the freeway ramps during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The
proposed project includes the reconstruction of the interchange between 21st Avenue
and Otter Lake Road by bridge replacement and widening, roadway replacement and
widening, reconstruction of existing freeway ramps and construction of new ramps,
installation of traffic control signals, improvement to local road connections and
construction of pedestrian /bicycle facilities.
The estimated cost of the improvement is approximately $23 million including land
acquisition, engineering, and construction. Approximately $5.5 million is proposed to
be assessed to benefiting property owners. The City has held two meetings with
affected property owners over the last month to discuss the project.
Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 09 -43 which accepts the feasibility
study and calls for a hearing on improvements. The hearing will be scheduled for July
27, 2009. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter notice of the
hearing will be published in the official newspaper and mailed notice will be sent to all
affected property owners.
No further action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 09 -43
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -43
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT
AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
I -35E /CSAH 14 INTERCHANGE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution NO. 09 -27 adopted by the council on April 27, 2009,
a report has been prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., with reference to the 1-
35E /CSAH 14 Interchange, to make improvements including the reconstruction of the
interchange between 21st Avenue and Otter Lake Road by bridge replacement and
widening, roadway replacement and widening, reconstruction of existing freeway ramps
and construction of new ramps, installation of traffic control signals, improvement to
local road connections and construction of pedestrian /bicycle facilities, and
WHEREAS, this report was received by the council on July 6, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost effective, and feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA:
1. The council hereby accepts the feasibility report, prepared by SRF Consulting
Group, dated July 6, 2009.
2. The council will consider such improvements in accordance with the report and the
assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the
improvement of $23,000,000.
3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 27 day of July,
2009 in the council chambers of the city hall at 6:30 p.m. and the clerk shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
ATTEST:
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
John J. Bergeson, Mayor
2
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 6th day of July, 2009.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
3
•
•
WS — Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 1
Date: Council Work Session, July 6, 2009
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: 35E /CSAH 14 Interchange Update
Background
Staff will be providing an update on the status of funding for the project. The total
project cost currently stands at approximately $23,000,000. The local share, to be split
between Anoka County and Lino Lakes, is estimated at $10.2 million. Our share, based
on a cost split of 50% of construction and 100% of land acquisition, is $7.8 million. The
cost share, as proposed, is not viable from both a funding and financing standpoint. Staff
has been working with Anoka County to modify the cost share as well as pursuing
additional funding opportunities.
1
•
•
•
WS — Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 2
Date: July 6, 2009
To: City Council
From: James E. Studenski, City Engineer
Re: Pine Street Improvements - Petition to have the City of Lino Lakes
Research the cost of paving Pine Street.
Background
As directed by the City Council at the June Work Session a survey, was sent to 34
property owners along Pine Street by certified mail. The survey explained the project
cost estimate, pending assessment amount and the overall project process including
public hearing and assessment details. The survey asked the property owner to vote YES
or NO in support of street paving improvements for the entire length of Pine Street from
Lake Drive to the western terminus resulting in an estimated assessment cost of
approximately $9,515. The City received back 27 of the 34 petitions with 14 voting YES
and 13 voting NO to the improvement project.
Attached is a map showing the results of the petition. From the surveys returned to the
city, 11 of the 12 submitted west of the intersection of 4th Avenue and Pine Street voted
NO and 13 of the 15 submitted east of the intersection of 4th Avenue and Pine Street
voted YES.
The following comments on the project were included with the returned surveys:
- Two comments and one phone call stated that the project should be
assessed by front footage rather than by property.
One comment and phone call stated that the costs of the assessments are
too high.
- One comment stated that the road should not be paved until all utilities are
installed along Pine Street.
- One phone call stated that the poor ditch drainage should be part of the
project.
Requested Council Direction
City Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on how to proceed with this
project.
1
808 826 844 862 884
556 598 614 8511
8340
862 892900
874
918
1031(17109
302 406
455 1'1
13045
8275
8255
8235
8:- 503 535 551 507 583
ANUALL St
d 0 8285
32:0 8275
5440 8245
8220 8225
8277 8281
8281 620
8264 630
21 640
8224 650
�. s?EVERGREENtTR
8215
8261 711 695 6
8205
8984
8124
8178
8150
8105
81
8125
8121
8117
8113
8111
8066
8093
8076 8107 9105 8101 f' 1ST sr fti'
8075
8059
8071 8074 904
8057 8066 9031 6027
80.11 8061
8039 0040 4' 80608066
t
8023
8032 954
8028 8025
024 8025
80208021
80
8032
8028
8024
8020
PINE STREET AREA PETITION TO RESEARCH THE COST OF PAVING PINE STREET
Legend
C_IT
LN
L
PETITION RESULTS
O F YES (14)
KES NO (13)
JULY 6, 2009
TKDA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
June 25, 2009
Rick DeGardner
Public Services Director
City of Lino Lakes
Dear Mr. DeGardner:
RECEIVED
JUN 2 0 2009
CITY OF LINO LAKES
We are writing to dispute our water bill. We will refer to everyone by name to avoid
confusion. The property in question is at 6383 Hartford Circle, homeowners, John and
Mersini Parker.
Background: The homeowners received notice April 21, 2009 that the water meter did not
work properly and although "the automated reporting system" was "functioning properly,
the water meter itself" had "failed ". The homeowners now owe retro money according to
the city. The homeowners strongly disagree and two major points will be made. Mrs.
Parker called and talked to Mr. DeGardner and he in turn mailed her a colored spreadsheet
listing bills and showing the city's calculations. The spreadsheet however did not include
two bills in the calculations - the first two bills the homeowners received. On the spread
sheet Mr. DeGardner wrote, "call me to discuss ", and Mr. Parker called Mr. DeGardner to
discuss the full situation and was then told to write a letter. We are happy to do so. We
believe this letter needs to be seen by others at the city. We have listed the individuals
and sent them a copy.
Point #1: The homeowners moved into their home at the above address on May 1, 2003.
In the fall of 2003 we received a high water bill from the city. Mrs. Parker called the water
department and let them know something may be wrong and that her bill was very high.
Mrs. Parker requested an audit of her meter and that request was refused by the city. She
further asked for an audit and was told to go to her basement and check the meter herself.
She told the lady at the city that she didn't know where the meter was and that someone at
the city really needed to come check. She was refused again. Several months later the
homeowners received another very high water bill. The homeowners paid the bills
although we were very unhappy with the lack of service and attention from the city.
At the same time the homeowners were in the middle of a big battle with the city engineers.
We will go off topic just a minute only because Mr Degardner questioned Mrs. Parker as to
why she didn't pursue the water problem. The answer is because we were fighting with
the city engineer to try and get him to do his job. That job was to redo the city maps to
show that our home was NOT in a flood zone. Our mortgage company was threatening to
charge us $4,000 per year in flood insurance because of these incorrect city maps. It took a
year and a half of red tape -- phone calls, faxes, explaining and pleading with the city
engineer. We got nowhere!!! We were ignored. We had already paid hundreds of dollars
for flood insurance we didn't need and we were faced with the $4,000 amount to kick in.
Our mortgage company could only do so much for us - they needed the maps updated to
prove we were not in a certain flood zone. Caroline Dahl called and asked Mrs. Parker for
her vote (upcoming election cycle). Mrs. Parker explained the one and a half year battle.
Mrs. Dahl stepped in and finally we started seeing progress. Within months the work was
done and our mortgage company released us from flood insurance payments. Point of all
this - it was hard enough to be faxing, calling, and trying to get progress from the flood
insurance problem. We didn't have it in us to take on the water department too!!! We
don't know anything about Mrs. Dahl but until that time no one at the city was willing to
help us. They said they would and then did nothing. For one and a half years, nothing!
Mrs. Dahl came along and within several months she kept on the engineers and they got the
maps done. We don't know what we would have done. We had no pull or say and
someone came along who did. We wonder - should it be like this? Should the city be
more responsive to the people? Should city workers maybe even be friendly when they
pick up the phone and talk to the people. Instead it seems we are interrupting and
bothering them. That is how we have been treated. We are now considering moving out
of the city. Who knows what they will try to charge us for next?
Point #2: We want to talk about numbers now.
The letter dated April 21, 2009 states that we will be charged $291.15 for the current
quarter and the past 6 quarters. The spreadsheet sent shortly thereafter states that we are
to be charged $283.53 for the current quarter and the past 4 quarters. Using the numbers
from the spreadsheet, one could calculate that we would be charged $371.75 for the
current quarter and the past 6 quarters. The current bill charges $454.09 for the current
quarter and the past 6 quarters. How could one possibly reconcile these numbers and
know what really should be charged? It looks like the city is just pulling numbers out of a
hat.
The spreadsheet conveniently leaves off our first two full bills, which we disputed as we
have stated in point one above, when we moved into the house. The first bill of $106.93
would reduce the "spreadsheet" bill by $8.62. The second bill was $209.20, which was
$97.71 more than our 4th quarter average for the next three years. Therefore, if the city
wants to address adjustments from a malfunctioning water meter, we need to go back to
the time when they refused to address it the first time. So we request a refund in the
amount of $97.71 from our second bill received. It is interesting to note that the city is
willing to change the water meter when it will benefit them, but unwilling to address a
residents concern about a broken meter to benefit a resident.
We were asked to write this letter immediately by Rick DeGardner since it has been two
months since his original letter. We agree that it should not lag on for another month. This
type of thing should have a statute of limitations, which brings up the point of when these
discrepancies started. Our letter from the city dated April 21, 2009, states that this has
been going on since September 1, 2007. That is almost 20 months! That is inexcusable.
Mr. DeGardner just said he did not want us to drag out our response for three months. In
our opinion, he is correct and 20 months is far too long. Let's get our meter fixed, call it
even, and start fresh with a clean slate on both ends.
In summary, we don't know what numbers are accurate on these high bills, and it is
obvious the city does not know. That is not the point anymore. What is the point? We
requested help from the city to look at the meter in 2003 and the city refused. Now the
city says the meters have failed and we owe money. This is very frustrating as a
homeowner. How widespread are the meter failures? It just so happens that many homes
have had meter failures? Is something else going on? Why weren't the meters replaced
immediately? Are we paying for the city's lack of attention to a matter, again? We've
already paid for many months of flood insurance we didn't need because the city did not
update the maps. We don't want to pay for a meter failure - especially when we requested
help regarding our meter back in 2003!
Sincerely,
,p„.4.)
John and Mersini Parker
Homeowners
Cc:
Mayor John Bergeson
Council Member Kathi Gallup
Council Member Jeff O'Donnell
Council Member Jeff Reinert
Council Member Dan Stoltz
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us
July 2, 2009
Mr. and Mrs. Parker
6383 Hartford Circle
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker,
We respectfully disagree with your request for the City to forgo all past due water
charges during the time the meter wasn't registering any consumption. The belief that
since the meter failed, you should be granted free use of all water consumed is an
attempt to take advantage of the situation.
Our water meters work mechanically by utilizing a positive displacement chamber.
Water comes into the meter, turns a wheel shaped measuring chamber, and then exits
the opposite side into the house plumbing. There are two reasons why meters fail:
1. Chamber gets stuck — foreign matter (ie, flake of copper, grain of gravel) or a
long term buildup of calcium /iron impedes the wheel shaped chamber to freely
rotate.
2. Lightning or electrical surge that damages the circuitry in the register head.
It should be noted that faulty /failed meters using positive displacement always register
lower consumption than water actually used, not higher which you claim is the blame for
your single above average water bill for the quarter ended 11/30/03.
I would like to address several statements in your letter dated June 25, 2009. I have
been the Public Services Director for Lino Lakes since August, 1998. I demand that
every employee, without exception, be responsive and respectful to all resident's
requests and concerns. The claim that repeated requests for a meter audit were
refused, just doesn't fit with the Public Services Department's operations. I closely
monitor staffs interaction with residents and I wholeheartedly disagree with your claim
that, "city staff aren't responsive or friendly when they pick up the phone and talk to
people."
I also need to respond to the statement, "The spreadsheet conveniently leaves off the
first two full bills, which we disputed as we have stated in point one above, when we
moved into the house." The purpose of the colored spreadsheet was to simply show you
how we arrived at the lowest actual consumption for each underpaid quarter (by taking
the lowest read for each quarter over the previous four years).
The two bills you are referring to that were "conveniently left off " and are disputing as
being "really high" were $106.93 (for quarter ending 8/31/03) and $209.20 (for quarter
ending 11/30/03). The $106.93 (for quarter ending 8/31/03) amount is actually lower
then every single summer quarter since (8/31/04 was $115.55, 8/31/05 was $166.73,
8/31/2006 was $159.74, and 8/31/07 was $188.79). I agree the $209.20 charge (for
quarter ending 11/30/03) is high compared to the other quarters. Generally, a single,
high consumption quarter for a particular residence is a result of either frequently
watering new seed /sod or a leaky water fixture (i.e. continuously running toilet). A letter
concerning erosion control issues was sent to 6383 Hartford Circle on June 18, 2003.
The extensive soil runoff on your property was causing the street storm sewers to clog.
It was requested that your yard be sodded or seeded to remedy this problem. It is
logical to conclude that the frequent watering of new sod /seed on your property explains
the single high quarter (Sep 1 - Nov. 30, 2003) consumption. A copy of this letter is
attached.
As explained in the colored spreadsheet (Proposal #1) sent to you in April, our
calculations reflect charging you the lowest actual consumption (2004 -2007) for the
quarters 5/31/08, 8/31/08, 11/30/08, 2/28/09, and 5/31/09. Even though the
spreadsheet clearly indicates that the meter failed around September, 2007, we had
decided not to request past consumption reimbursement for the quarters ended
11/30/07 and 2/29/08. This methodology certainly resulted in you paying less for your
water consumption as a result of a failed meter. To be clear, you were charged for zero
consumption for the quarters ending 11/30/07 and 2/29/08. From a financial standpoint,
you would have to agree that you benefited immensely for this six month period due to
the failed meter. I agree with your "statute of limitations" statement which is why both
the original proposal (Proposal #1) and Proposal #2 are only requesting payment for the
quarter ending 5/31/08 to the present (not 11/30/07 and 2/29/08).
There are currently 4,300+ water accounts. On average, three to five meters fail
annually. Our current approach (Proposal #1) has been used since I have been with
the City. This is the first time that a customer has expressed that the methodology is
unjust. Since you feel Proposal #1 reflects the City, "pulling numbers out of a hat," a
second option is to simply use the actual future water consumption (since the failed
meter was replaced on June 30, 2009) for each respective quarter and use that data to
compute the estimated water consumption for the quarters being discussed. Proposal
#2 itemizes how the charges would be calculated.
In summary, our position is that the payment of $282.53 (Proposal #1) would fulfill all
past water charges. Paying this amount will result in your account being paid in full
through the quarter ending May 31, 2009. As an alternative, we are willing to utilize
Proposal #2 to calculate past water charges. Your suggestion to, "call it even with a
clean slate on both ends," is unreasonable and is not something city staff can approve.
Please indicate in writing by July 24, 2009 how you wish to proceed.
It should also be mentioned that since you failed to schedule an appointment to replace
the meter by May 8, 2009 (as requested in my April 21, 2009 letter) we are now faced
how to calculate charges for the quarter ending 8/31/09. Since your meter was
replaced on June 30, I suggest we pro -rate the water charges for this quarter on a per -
day basis and charge you accordingly for the month of June (30 days). This is
calculated in detail towards the bottom of Proposal #2.
Lastly, it is important to be clear that you are not, "paying for a meter failure" (last
sentence in your letter). You are being charged for the estimated water consumed from
March 1, 2008 - May 31, 2009, when the meter failed to register any consumption.
I would also like to address your remarks about the flood plain issues on your property.
Portions of the Clearwater Creek Development were identified as flood plain in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps of Lino Lakes. Only FEMA can
change these maps. The City Engineer worked extensively with the developer, the
developer's engineer, and FEMA to generate the required data to prove that homes in
the development were not located in the flood plain. This was a difficult and time
consuming process due to FEMA's procedural requirements. Once this information
was completed to the satisfaction of FEMA, it was readily made available to property
owners.
Sincerely,
iez,1
Rick DeGardner
Public Services Director
Attachments:
Proposal #1
Proposal #2
Request to sod /seed Letter (dated June 18, 2003)
CC: Mayor John Bergeson
Councilmember Kathi Gallup
Councilmember Jeff O'Donnell
Councilmember Jeff Reinert
Councilmember Dan Stoltz
Lynn Francis, Utility Billing
Lino Lakes Public Services Department
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439
www.cilino-lakes.mn.us
Proposal #2 - 6383 Hartford Circle
QUARTER
ENDING
CALCULATION
AMOUNT DUE
11/30/2007
No Additional Payment Requested
$0
2/29/2008
No Additional Payment Requested
$0
5/31/2008
Actual 5/31/10 - $73.59 (already paid)
8/31/2008
*Calculated 8/31/09 - $63.59 (already paid)
11/30/2008
Actual 11/30/09 - $63.59 (already paid)
2/28/2009
Actual 2/28/10 - $63.59 (already paid)
5/31/2009
Actual 5/31/10
*New meter installed 6/30/09. To calculate consumption for quarter ending 8/31/09:
8/31/09 reading divided by 62 days = Avg. consumption per day
Avg. consumption per day x 92 days = Total consumption (6/1/09 - 8/31/09)
7/1/2009
CITY OF
IN. KE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
June 18, 2003
John & Mersini Parker
6383 Hartford Circle
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
RE: Erosion Control
Dear John & Mersini,
The City of Lino Lakes has experienced extensive soil runoff onto the city streets. This runoff
causes clogging of the storm sewers. Sodding or seeding your yard will help to remedy this
problem.
If you have not already started, please provide soil retention by sodding or seeding as soon as
possible. Per the City Zoning Ordinance that was in effect when you were constructing, you
have one (1) year from the date the Certificate of Occupancy was issued to provide sod, seed, or
ornamental grass.
If you are not planning on sodding or seeding in the immediate future, please provide proper
erosion control. Some means of erosion control include, but are not limited to, silt fences, hay
bales, or sodding the first three rows from the curbs. You must provide erosion control as soon as
possible on the front property lines and wherever run off can occur.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 651- 982 -2420.
Respectfully,
Ccuu mLtout
Carri Lee Villella
Building Department
cc: Address File
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Building Department: 651 -982 -2420 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499
Cvillella @ci.Iino- lakes.mn.us
PROPOSAL #1
John Parker
6383 Hartford Circle
Consumption
Lowest Reads
Cfl
L
O
1-
O
ER
O
tR
O
M
O
M
co
O
0
M
a-
r
0)
O
CO
N
N
(0
O
O
co
oo
O
co
co
co
O
r
co
10
C0
0
10
O
(f)
O
Ef)
0)
C7
(0
Ef3
N
O
Efl
0
M
O
69
ti
O
O
E9
0)
117
M
ti
ti
H)
10
O
CO
Ef3
CO
L0
Ef3
oo
co
co
EA
(0
O
cd
I� O
r r
(d K)
a)
O)
(B
0)
0)
5/31/09 Billing
E
N
C
0
N
U
O
O
0
a)
0.
I $105.16
4
00
O
69
69
$115.55
N
O
r
69
L$108.47 1
$111.47
r,
CO
co
69
$113.24
$113.24
O
Cfl
Ea
$1 59.74
00)
O
a-
ER
00)
O
r
69
00)
co
_O
69
$188.79
O)
L()
M
N-
En.
0)
(.f)
M
1,-
Ea
0)
10
(h
I,-
Ef3
0)
LO
(h
CO
EA
0)
(0
M
CO
E4
0)
Lf)
M
C0
<A-
'
CO
r
r
N
LO
N
N
N
r
N
r
N
49
N
N
N
N
CO
N
45
20
O
N
0
N
0
Co
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0)
N
N
5/31/04
8/31/04
11/30/04
2/28/05
5/31/05
8/31/05
11/30/05
2/28/06
O
r
CO
LO
O
r
(\
C O
11/30/06
2/28/07
5/31/07
O
,--
CO
O
O
O
M
T-
O
0)
N
N
5/31/08
8/31/08
11/30/08
2/28/09
5/31/09
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
Prepared for:
City of Lino Lakes
Prepared by:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
PROJECT NEED 4
PROPOSED PROJECT 6
IV. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 8
V. RIGHT OF WAY, EASEMENTS, AND PERMITS 10
VI. AFFECTED PROPERTIES 10
VII. ASSESSMENTS 10
VIII. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES 14
H:1Prujects\Fi807 \tii -Mu \Final Lino Lakes 14 -35E Feasibility Study.docx
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page i
I
I. Introduction
As ordered by the Lino Lakes City Council on April 27, 2009, a Feasibility Study
has been prepared for State Project (SP) 02- 614 -28, CSAH 14 & I -35E
interchange project.
The proposed project consists of total reconstruction of the existing interchange
which is located at the intersection of Interstate 35E (I -35E) and County State Aid
Highway (CSAH) 14 in Anoka County. The project also includes the widening of
CSAH 14 from two lanes to four and six lanes as well as replacement of the
existing CSAH 14 bridge over I -35E, Bridge #020803. See Figure 1 for project
location.
The proposed reconstruction of the CSAH 14 & I -35E interchange is a
subsequent phase of the proposed improvements along CSAH 14. Anoka
County is currently upgrading CSAH 14 to a four lane divided facility from I -35W
to CSAH 54. Washington County recently upgraded CSAH 14 /CSAH 8 to a four
lane divided facility from just east of I -35E to TH 61. The CSAH 14 & I -35E
interchange will provide the needed link and complete the improvements in this
area.
The purpose of this report is to document the improvements as well as the
estimated costs proposed under this project and provide a recommendation
regarding the feasibility of the project to move forward and be partially funded by
the City of Lino Lakes and its property assessments. Appendix A contains a
detailed summary of the Feasibility Study process timeline.
II. Summary and Recommendations
The proposed CSAH 14 & I -35E interchange reconstruction project, SP 02 -614-
28, as outlined herein, is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an
engineering standpoint and conforms to the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive
Plans.
A detailed description of the needs is included in Section 111 of this report.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $23,025,000. A detailed
construction cost estimate is included in Appendix A of this report.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 1
PROJECT AREA
r 9
J
M
I
•
•
/^
GOODVIEW
C3�
CV
N.
NOIONIHSOA
X00 VNON't-
AVE. N.
1
CCI
4
•
a-1
e
CO
N
W
Cr
w
Cn
w
'3AV Hlz
I--
e
u6p-d`df4 NOIIVOOI i32robd \4Jodaa A ;iiiglsea \s3iydei0 \f1W -IH \6059 \s;oafoJd\:y
a
Below is an estimate of cost components for the project:
• Construction: $15,000,000
• Right of Way acquisition: $5,600,000
• Construction Administration: $1,200,000
• Engineering Design: $1,225,000
Funding sources indentified for this project include the following:
• Surface Transportation Program (STP): $5,775,000
• Federal High Priority Project funds (HPP): $980,000
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (ARRA): $4,800,000
• Mn /DOT (In- Construction Services): $1,200,000
• Local (Anoka County /City of Lino Lakes): $10,270,000
o The City of Lino Lakes is proposing to assess $5,506,415 of their
contribution to property owners in the immediate vicinity
It is recommended that the City accept the Feasibility Study and schedule a
Public Hearing for the proposed improvements.
III. Project Description
Existing Conditions
The general setting of the proposed project is developing / urbanizing. Most of
the land surrounding the interchange is currently agricultural and undeveloped.
Two businesses within the City of Lino Lakes corporate limits (Dairy Queen and
Bobby & Steve's Auto World) along 21st Ave. will be impacted by access change
at 21st Ave and CSAH 14. Several other businesses within the City of
Centerville will also be affected by access changes at 21st Ave. and CSAH 14.
Within the project area, I -35E is a four lane divided freeway with a posted speed
limit of 70 mph. CSAH 14 is currently a two lane undivided minor arterial with a
posted speed limit of 45 mph west of the interchange and 50 mph east of the
interchange.
The existing CSAH 14 & I -35E interchange is a diamond configuration. CSAH 14
passes over I -35E on Bridge #020803, a 210 foot long bridge with two 12 foot
lanes and no median. To the immediate west of the interchange, CSAH 14 has
two 12 foot lanes with no median and 8 foot shoulders on each side. At the
CSAH 14 & l -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 3
interchange, three of the ramps have 16 foot lanes with a 2 foot inside shoulder
and a 2.5 foot outside shoulder. The southeast exit ramp was recently widened
to two 12 foot lanes and 2 foot shoulders to provide additional storage for
vehicles waiting to access CSAH 14.
The north ramps connect with I -35E approximately 1,500 feet north of CSAH 14.
The southeast ramp exits I -35E approximately 1,500 south of CSAH 14. The
southwest ramp enters I -35E approximately 3,700 feet south of CSAH 14. See
Figure 2.
Project Need
Need for the project is identified in the Anoka County Highway Department Five
Year Highway Improvement Plans: 2005 -2009 and 2007 -2011, and the City of
Lino Lakes I -35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the
northeast corner of the city, which is approximately 4,500 acres in size.
Specific needs identified for this area include:
• Provide capacity to address the growing transportation needs associated with
the current and long -term development in the Cities of Lino Lakes and
eastern Anoka County area.
• Improve safety in the vicinity of the interchange. Currently, traffic queues
back onto I -35E during the afternoon peak rush hour presenting significant
safety issues due to the high speed of traffic along I -35E.
• Provide system continuity along CSAH 14. Improvements to CSAH 14 to
both the west and east will be connected by the interchange project.
Currently, the CSAH 14 & I -35E interchange is experiencing poor levels of
service in the morning and afternoon peak periods. With continued development
in the area, congestion is expected to worsen.
With a single lane in each direction, the existing interchange creates a bottleneck
for traffic along the multi -lane CSAH 14 both east and west of I -35E.
The existing ramp intersections along CSAH 14 are controlled with stop signs
and create significant delays both along CSAH 14 as well as the exit ramps
resulting in traffic queuing onto I -35E in the afternoon peak hour. In addition,
traffic control at the ramp intersections is necessary to accommodate Eagle
Brook Church services on Sunday mornings as well as other special events at
the Eagle Brook campus.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 4
h \projects \5619 \ HI—MU \Graphics \Feasibility Report figure 2.dgn
rX
_21ST RD-'`
S.W. RAMP
�-F��
cz
•
C.3.A.H. 14
N. W. RAMP
1^
/
\` '
—'~ �~ 1„,,,,` . `
S.E. RAMP
`
OTTER LAKE RD.
.��
°
.
�
C.5.A.H. 14
N.E. RAMP
/
I-35E
--------- _ j'
- ---- --- -'-
__.
0 200 400
sca le In feet
Consulting Croup, Inc.
Existing interchange d Roadways
|-35E &CSAH 14 Interchange Reconstruction
S.P. 02'614'28
Anoka County, Minnesota
Figure 2
As part of the project development process, a Project Memorandum (PM) was
previously prepared to document the purpose and need of the project. The PM
was submitted and approved as part of an Environmental Assessment (EA) done
for the adjacent CSAH 14 project (S.P. 02- 614 -24) to the west. The EA was
published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on October 9, 2006. The
EA was signed by FHWA on June 5, 2007 and the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) was distributed on June 18, 2007.
Included in the PM was a traffic analysis based on the AUAR. This traffic
analysis produced expected levels of service for the existing, 2030 No- Build, and
the 2030 Build. The 2030 No -Build analysis showed the ramp intersections
along CSAH 14 to fail under the increased traffic.
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes total reconstruction of the CSAH 14 & I -35E
interchange into a partial cloverleaf configuration. The project also includes the
widening of CSAH 14 from two lanes to four lanes, between 950 feet west of the
west ramps and 800 feet east of the east ramps of the interchange, and the
replacement of the CSAH 14 bridge over I -35E, Bridge #020803. See Figure 3.
The new interchange will include directional ramps in all four quadrants plus
loops in the northwest and northeast quadrant to handle the significant turn move
demand for the morning and afternoon traffic. No improvements to mainline
I -35E are included in the project, however, the inside shoulders along I -35E will
be replaced due to construction staging.
The CSAH 14 profile will be raised approximately four feet to accommodate the
new, longer bridge over 1 -35E. A Cast -in -Place (CIP) retaining wall will be utilized
to eliminate direct right of way impacts to Bobby and Steve's Auto World property
located south of CSAH 14 and west of 1 -35E.
The Southwest Ramp will include an HOV bypass to accommodate a future Park
and Ride facility planned for the future. The HOV bypass will provide an
advantage to mass transit users since it will bypass the metered signal along the
ramp. (The future Park and Ride facility will be funded by Metro Transit and is
not included in the construction or right of way costs for the interchange project.)
Traffic signal systems will be constructed along CSAH 14 at both ramp
intersections as well as the 21st Ave. intersection. The traffic signal systems will
be inter - connected to coordinate traffic flow along CSAH 14.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 6
21ST RD.
FUTURE PARK N RIDE
N.W. RAMP
LOCAL RD
CONNNECTION
(BY OTHERS)
I-35E
ID
S.E. RAMP
0
OTTER LAKE RD.
C.S.A.H. 14
N.E. RAMP
0 200 400
scale In feet
CluisultingGroup,Inc.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I-35E & CSAH 14 Interchange Reconstruction
S.P. 02-614-28
Anoka County, Minnesota
Figure 3
Access to the southwest quadrant will be served by a future roadway which will
connect 21st Avenue to CSAH 14 at a new location. The new roadway will
connect with CSAH 14 opposite the ramp in the northwest quadrant. (This future
access road is not included in the construction or right of way costs for the
interchange Project.). Access to all businesses will be maintained throughout the
project construction phase.
The proposed new bridge will follow urban design standards and be 250 feet long
with a 6 foot median. Westbound, there will be 8 foot and 4 foot shoulders, two
12 foot through lanes, and a 12 foot right -turn lane. Eastbound, there will be a
14 foot left-turn lane, two 12 foot through lanes, an 8 foot shoulder, and a 10 foot
pedestrian /bicycle trail.
A 10 -foot wide bituminous trail will be constructed along the south side of
CSAH 14 providing an ultimate link between the regional park to the west and the
rush line corridor to the east in the City of Hugo. Cross walk striping and signing
will be included at both ramp intersections as well as other local road
connections.
The project is proposed to be constructed over two phases. During the first
season, the north half of CSAH 14 as well as the ramps and loops will be
constructed while traffic remains on the current roadway. The north half of the
new bridge can be constructed during the first season. During the second
season of construction, traffic will be switched to the new pavement and bridge
while the south half of CSAH 14 and the bridge are completed.
The construction plan set lays out a detailed sequence of stages and temporary
connections to provide a reasonable and safe method to construct the new
interchange while maintaining traffic and access to motorists.
IV. Roadway improvements
a. Roadway Improvements: The Roadway improvements were developed as
part of the Geometric Layout which was reviewed by several agencies and
ultimately Staff Approved by Mn /DOT on October 2, 2008. Roadway
improvements include increased capacity and access management along
CSAH 14. Improved intersection operations are also expected. See
Figure 3.
CSAH 14 & l -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 8
b. Storm Sewer Improvements: Several governmental units hold jurisdictional
authority over surface and ground water for the site. The project site lies
within the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), and roadway
improvements take place within the City of Lino Lakes' and Mn /DOT's right of
way. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulates both storm
water and erosion through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II rules and the Stormwater Program for Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). Each has regulations concerning
floodplains, storm water discharge rates, and storm water treatment. In
general, the rules of the RCWD govern most of the water resource - related
design and are the most stringent. While both the RCWD and MPCA require
the use of storm water treatment BMPs to improve the quality of storm water
prior to discharge to receiving waters, the RCWD rules are most restrictive
and, thus, have been used for design. In addition, the City of Lino Lakes' and
Mn /DOT's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) require
demonstration that no degradation to surface waters occurs.
The RCWD and MPCA require that storm water treatment BMPs be utilized to
treat runoff from the site. Storm water treatment ponds have typically been
the BMP of choice where possible. This project presents opportunity for their
use. Adequate dead pool storage must meet RCWD requirements by utilizing
the 2.5 inch storm event for the proposed hydrologic conditions. Infiltration or
filtration BMPs are also widely accepted as excellent water quality BMPs;
however, the presence of high ground water throughout the site precludes the
use of this type of treatment method.
To meet RCWD and MPCA requirements, treatment ponds were designed to
settle and treat pollutants from adjacent roadways. By implementing these
stormwater treatment pond measures, it is expected that the water quality of
the discharge from the site will meet non - degradation requirements when
compared to the existing condition.
c. Sanitary Improvements: The project includes an extension of a 21 inch PVC
sanitary line north of CSAH 14 at 21st Street and minor adjustments to
manholes.
d. Watermain Improvements: The project includes an extension of a 16 inch DIP
watermain north of CSAH 14 at 21st Street and minor adjustments to valves.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 9
V. Right of Way, Easements, and Permits
The proposed project will require right of way from several properties adjacent to
the interchange. All four quadrants are zoned for commercial development.
The northwest, northeast and southeast quadrants are currently being used for
agriculture while the southwest quadrant is experiencing urban development.
This project will require only partial acquisitions from parcels adjacent to the
interchange. No full takings or building structure acquisitions are required for the
project.
Some temporary easements for construction will be needed from adjacent
properties. See Figure 4.
The following license and permits will be required:
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for sanitary sewer extension
• Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for water main extension
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Storm Water Permit (NPDES) (to be
obtained by the developer for site grading)
• Rice Creek Watershed for the Watershed Permit and Wetland Permit
VI. Affected Properties
The properties affected by the proposed improvements and requiring notification
of public hearing are those properties that are being assessed as a result of the
project (see Figure 5 and Table 1).
For purposes of public hearing advertisements, the total project cost being
assessed is $5,506,415.00; while the total project cost is $23,025,000.
VII. Assessments
It is proposed to assess a portion of the total cost of SP 02- 614 -28 to the
benefiting parcels on an area basis. Each parcel in the immediate vicinity
benefiting from the proposed interchange improvements is assumed to be one
assessment unit. Assessments are summarized in Table 1.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 10
h: \projects\ 6509 \HI -MU \Graphics \Feasibility Report \Figure 4.dgn
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
21ST RD.
C.S.A.H. 14
PROPOSED R/W
I -35E
OTTER LAKE RD.
C.S.A.H. 14
EXISTING R/W
0 200 400
scale In feet
Right of Way Impact
I -35E & CSAH 14 Interchange Reconstruction
S.P. 02- 614 -28
Anoka County, Minnesota
5619
7/2/2009
Figure 4
Legend
Interchange Geometrics
Developable Areas
Wetlands
- Map ID Number
Aerial: FSA 2008
CON, I
Affected /Assessed Properties
CSAH 14 / I -35E Feasibility Study
City of Lino Lakes
Figure 5
Table 1
CSAH 14/1 -35 Feasibility Study
Property Assessment Roll
MAP ID
PIN
OWNER
DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE
LAND USE
TOTAL ASSESSED
UTILITY STAGE
1
133122230004
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
39.54
Mixed Use
$246,320
1A
2
133122210003
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
38.77
Mixed Use
$186,592
1B
3
133122330001
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
38.32
Mixed Use
$238,728
1A
4
133122230003
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
38.00
Mixed Use
$236,686
1A
5
133122310001
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
37.40
Mixed Use
$232,940
1A
6
123122340003
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
37.12
Mixed Use
$178,680
1B
7
133122340001
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
36.81
Mixed Use
$229,293
1A
8
133122210004
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
31.48
Mixed Use
$151,525
1B
9
133122320001
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
19.55
Mixed Use
$121,784
1A
10
133122310002
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
19.53
Mixed Use
$121,632
1A
11
123122330004
EAST LINO LAKES LLC
9.02
Mixed Use
$43,413
1B
12
243122210001
SCHREIER RICHARD J
20.75
Commercial
$238,657
1A
13
243122240007
LESSARD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
0.67
Commerdal - Existing
$5,978
1A
15
243122240002
REHBEIN GERALD L
2.23
Commercial
$25,593
1A
16
243122240008
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
0.67
Commercial
$7,728
1A
17
243122240006
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
1.05
Commercial
$12,072
1A
18
243122240009
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
15.19
Commercial
$174,630
1A
19
243122310001
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
26.82
Commercial (industrial)
$308,399
1A
20
243122340001
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
27.53
Industrial
$92,353
1A
21
243122240005
WILLIAMS ROBERT
2.49
Commerdal - Existing
$22,084
1A
22
243122430007
ARNT EUGENE
0.67
Industrial
$2,259
1A
23
243122420009
ARNT EUGENE
1.54
Industrial - Existing
$3,984
1A
24
243122420016
ARNT EUGENE
1.66
Industrial
$5,584
1A
25
243122420006
ARNT INVESTMENTS LLC
1.80
Industrial - Existing
$4,658
1A
26
243122430015
ARNT INVESTMENTS LLC
2.35
Industrial
$7,885
1A
27
243122140003
CONST LABOR EDUC & TRAIN FUND
12.31
Industrial - Existing
$31,900
1A
28
243122430011
GARGARO PROPERTIES LLC
9.15
Industrial - Existing
$23,719
1A
35
243122410009
LINO LAKES LLC
0.10
Industrial
$345
1A
36
243122410010
LINO LAKES LLC
8.44
Industrial
$28,293
1A
37
243122410008
LINO LAKES LLC
18.48
Industrial
$61,983
1A
38
243122440001
LINO LAKES LLC
36.29
Industrial
$121,734
1A
39
243122130006
LINO LAKES STATE BANK
1.43
Commercial - Existing
$12,724
1A
40
243122430006
MARTINEK RICHARD & CHERYL
6.88
Industrial - Existing
$17,831
1A
41
243122420012
MILLER PAUL K
8.05
Industrial - Existing
$20,853
1A
42
243122430014
MILLER PAUL K
10.00
Industrial
$33,554
1A
43
243122420004
MILLER PAUL K
12.94
Industrial
$43,390
1A
44
243122430013
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT LLC
3.93
Industrial - Existing
$10,185
1A
47
243122430010
OTTER HOLDING COMPANY LLC
3.35
Industrial
$11,242
1A
48
243122430009
SCANLAN WAYNE D
1.26
Industrial - Existing
$3,261
1A
49
243122130002
SCHREIER RICHARD J
1.20
Commercial
$13,775
1A
50
243122130005
SCHREIER RICHARD J
23.15
Commercial
$266,223
1A
51
243122140002
TAYLOR CORP
18.10
Industrial - Existing
$46,902
1A
53
133122440001
BERNIER FAMILY FARM LLC
42.40
Commercial
$487,557
1A
54
243122110006
CM PROPERTIES 14 LLC
14.10
Commercial
$162,145
1A
55
133122430002
DALE PROPERTIES LLC
10.11
Industrial
$18,493
2A
56
133122410005
DALE PROPERTIES LLC
22.96
Industrial
$42,003
2A
57
133122420001
DALE PROPERTIES LLC
29.94
Industrial
$54,780
2A
58
133122410003
GRAETZER DAVID H
10.28
Industrial
$18,799
2A
59
133122410004
MC NEAL DENISE L & ROBERT
10.28
Industrial
$18,816
2A
60
243122110005
REHBEIN PROPERTIES
14.23
Commercial
$163,609
1A
61
243122120001
SCHREIER RICHARD J
22.15
Commercial
$254,777
1A
62
133122120002
WINTER LESTER J & DEIDRA A
5.49
Industrial
$10,048
2A
63
133122110001
WINTER LESTER J & DEIDRA A
21.83
Industrial
$39,946
2A
64
133122140001
WINTER LESTER J & DEIDRA A
24.58
Industrial
$44,977
2A
65
133122130002
WINTER LESTER J & DEIDRA A
29.38
Industrial
$53,754
2A
66
113122410004
EAGLE BROOK CHURCH WH BEAR LK
68.08
Institutional
$489,341
3
SRF No. 0096807
CSAH 14/I -35E Feasibility Study
7/2/2009 SRF Consulting Group
Costs were allocated to the appropriate parcel based on future land use
projections contained in the City of Lino Lakes 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Land
use types and sizes were estimated using the I -35E Corridor AUAR for the
respective area. The land uses identified were generalized into four categories:
Commercial, Industrial, Mixed -Use and Institutional. Existing uses were taken
into account that fall within the affected area. A cost per square foot value was
determined for each respective land use type based on the impact these
potential land uses have or will have on the adjacent roadway network, resulting
in the need for the proposed interchange improvement. A real estate appraisal
firm was engaged to confirm the assessment methodology and to review the
proposed special assessment amounts for the properties based on their potential
for market value increases resulting from the project. Lake State Realty
Services, Inc. reviewed the property assessment values and confirmed their
validity.
Furthermore, the parcels were prorated based on their potential to develop due
to City utility staging plans. The City of Lino Lakes has identified when City
services will be eligible for extension into areas for future development (see
Figure 6 - Utility Staging Map). This will impact the ability of these areas to
develop, and as such may impact value. Therefore, parcels located closer to the
proposed improvement and provided with utility service sooner will have more
value and pay a higher portion of assessment.
VIII. Project Funding Sources
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $23,025,000. Funding sources for
this project include the following:
• Surface Transportation Program (STP): $5,775,000
• Federal High Priority Project funds (HPP): $980,000
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (ARRA): $4,800,000
• Mn /DOT (In- Construction Services): $1,200,000
• Local (Anoka County /City of Lino Lakes): $10,270,000
o The City of Lino Lakes is proposing to assess $5,506,415 of their
contribution to property owners in the immediate vicinity
A detailed preliminary construction cost estimate is included in Appendix A of this
report.
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project
Feasibility Study
July 2009
Page 14
if ...01,„,.. r---- o"--- Peltier • I 1
I 2 •
•
..,
Lake - ,=
I Mimi
• .*. _ 1
_q 4.,
I
r t.
4.
F„ : 1 aka .,,e' •
,:•••• — .,,,,
: 4
..:9 ... j-- -
i,....4 .- .-Nor.:4• :"••"--' - .1 14 I , "4:: l F rail, _
a) hi
.•• •••• i ■ . ,,.. '1''''. Al
, , ^ a
.....• i 11*•.4 ..kt i 1 I .
■ C
'.... li ,
. a
PeNer , 10 ,
,
el_ Fnin2r.r..r_EI,
.,, — Lake roma i
•• ..claki45.... r--447 41.
_.... -....
? si • mil ii v il NI is t / •
• .. , ..
..1: e...... ! f‘ I
: ..." ../ . ..... • F__________a . . il
BE ...., tgi.:,1.,.. ? "
,...... .
? -.4 •
•
...
c., „:,. •
i li r
e ..- •
. 1..
Peltier i
I al, Lake skit
• • • AJI.MAJIM • 111Cdrp a rii.111.41-1/J111.11 ILILJLICA.1.111.1.11)K.
2 , ■ ,
: Moir, Lae -City of Centerville I I
_ ,
E141 SI e L,k'
f : Rie4 Cincl. 744 j!!!!' S'/.' al 1
.1. • to 7 im
-I: Chain al al.,.
canon*, _ ',b.+ 8+ LA N
La
.., . --,--•-;r* , ..
yttifLPIrikkelt-Ilill- ...... ' '
.....m.ipp.o.:kg suirijr, ,;hi,„,..4-11,6
Raping/Al Peat R....covo ke : -
. lilt - . . ..."4.41111411,11N ■•=91:11116EIPETIrc ale ale ra = .11 _N••••,
' ..". —...
.. —loll 1 - ..:- . t',e,.... 4,1 et7,117 ir?," .71E . 7 -.1111r2 = at
, firafsztvi..ir.UPl ''-er,s1.V. ": 64
... .... 154 j alli ;
!a.-1114r...,:42 at
.. Ili i,„.213:731-. in g a Z A
; i. •
, ,....,...„,..0,„.,= „.....i. ,,.
•
.. ,......: •....
....• ..... v_. ..........?..5. ZIIlli, Za. ••••• EE at
i
• • . : -12a Vail i 1 it i El a fil -: Q a ,
% ; •,./ : : : : ', IN ilitul 0 ,.:7 ii iraimil I- - 1
" • Centerville • t.,QAE0:1•7811 alit• vall; 641 Pre 14
'--:; 74 I . ; ; . Al au' 14
i.. Lake il Em 2 4 1 AlarmarsiolEivill 1 .. - . ....m
,t" '.. i' *1:.'10:, I"
, _ ...:;,,,.....1--• .4., ,,,,I ---__ .... F'N • I
Ealayor : .,,,,
• g'
r .. ,,4
, - • . •
•-• •.
0,,*„. lig: atirkra.-..113.-1101 tt..."kal:fhl
. • - . ... :.: .... : • , , , • , .. Cinleyeavrio_
..,...: 4....; : , ....
,.
, -(. i ti r-luirit.t.. Ell TA 21V.11"WvOltql
: .:, t...etr: i .... .............. ., • ••• ..., ,,, ff., • . 0,14 .. ...___ ...... .. ______-a,....._ 0 r : jid
,, .....%
..• i i
i 1 a ke , . 441• ••%,_ ../FLpi,L
.. -NI... . ...
•
;...: ....„, .. ,.i.vm.i...A "-...., , ..%i .... - pal .411—
: \ :1/4.,„!..) i , Le,' : .... I u" 04- . • -ork .12, ..1.70,711111111111 MN II
..... yttibirii,bi.r. IllitlAkti
- — ...... A aaaaamassaaaaamazaaaamahaaaali ..... ....,..ravraira . : "J•liiiiir-7 Ilit7a II IL !
Utility Staging Map P-',. • usa. ,f,:., a ..-• . • .6 a
6).: f
City of Lino Lakes 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 1-4' INP re-
r ' ';' =WHO' LI • ,-;,...e. s .,
er P',, _. ,- i .4.-.11.1 ._., i____.: . ". •
r •
1,e'lli. , _,.i 0 - M.1.1A• di ILIUM • Ig , •
:
f...-.1 Slaw 1A Planned Sandman. (20552015) 1=ilanktipal Ropndary . >'-r.iir-
a' 2 -IC; a 'SfilP t'a,,
ir Maga 1 B Pkrnfted SarvIca Area (201E2020) ■ ACES Intern-0plus i • , 1_1 M 11.<1.;
A ,z,...)...g. 2A Planned Senaca Area (2020-2025) 11111 Regional Palk Re
4:7; silage 28 Planned Service Area (2025-2030) , Wetlands
gj..71 Slap 3 Planned ServIce Area lilost 2030) Open Water rr -''. -;
,_
, , ...-
'
1.
• •
-I,
. 2 1.,11..- :rt:•`,,......
i . ,l_Cl• I • 111_••• IN II le:1. • • --; a* mow.* Ily. 'a,
N Ell. No Saraka Araa stiaht at WDY 11NOL KES Aril" ", el CIA ill A 1 ,,,021 'i • ..-.',4 "e112.5.; r.r.t1-r4utit
kk..4ey 27, ROW
I 000 0 1 000
Fr-lat
Affected/Assessed Property Area
rr
........ :4•Ifrevtlarml—'"'"'""
...
..........
UTILITY STAGING MAP - AFFECTED/ASSESSED PROPERTIES
0)
CO C‘4
CO (1)
• D
0
0 -3
Appendix A
CSAH 14/I -35E Reconstruction Project
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
CSAH 14 & I -35E Interchange Project July 2009
Feasibility Study
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -M U\ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
I ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1
$525,000.00
$525,000.00
2031.501
FIELD OFFICE TYPE D
EACH
1
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
2101.501
CLEARING (P)
ACRE
13.4
$1,500.00
$20,100.00
2101.506
GRUBBING (P)
ACRE
13.4
$1,500.00
$20,100.00
2102.502
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL
LIN FT
90495
$0.50
$45,247.50
2104.501
REMOVE PIPE CULVERTS
LIN FT
510
$10.00
$5,100.00
2104.501
REMOVE WATER MAIN
LIN FT
15
$10.00
$150.00
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)
LIN FT
3374
$10.00
$33,740.00
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
LIN FT
1850
$1.00
$1,850.00
2104.501
REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE
LIN FT
8230
$3.75
$30,862.50
2104.501
REMOVE GUARD RAIL -PLATE BEAM
LIN FT
1720
$10.00
$17,200.00
2104.501
REMOVE TEMPORARY PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIER
LIN FT
70
$6.00
$420.00
2104.501
REMOVE ARMORED CABLE
LIN FT
5000
$1.50
$7,500.00
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN
SQ YD
910
$5.00
$4,550.00
2104.505
REMOVE PAVEMENT
SQ YD
14030
$6.00
$84,180.00
2104.505
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SQ YD
40710
$3.00
$122,130.00
2104.509
REMOVE PIPE APRON
EACH
13
$150.00
$1,950.00
2104.509
REMOVE BOLLARDS
EACH
20
$125.00
$2,500.00
2104.509
REMOVE LIGHTING UNIT
EACH
19
$200.00
$3,800.00
2104.509
REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
23
$285.00
$6,555.00
2104.509
REMOVE FOUNDATION
EACH
1
$950.00
$950.00
2104.509
REMOVE LIGHT BASE FOUNDATION
EACH
19
$425.00
$8,075.00
2104.509
REMOVE CABINET FOUNDATION
EACH
1
$150.00
$150.00
2104.509
REMOVE MARKER
EACH
13
$25.00
$325.00
2104.509
REMOVE SIGN TYPE C
EACH
25
$55.00
$1,375.00
2104.509
REMOVE HANDHOLE
EACH
11
$165.00
$1,815.00
2104.509
REMOVE ECCENTRIC LOADER BCT
EACH
4
$200.00
$800.00
2104.511
SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)
LIN FT
2590
$5.00
$12,950.00
2104.513
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)
LIN FT
19050
$2.00
$38,100.00
2104.521
SALVAGE FIBER OPTIC CABLE
LIN FT
7790
$1.00
$7,790.00
2104.523
SALVAGE GATE VALVE & BOX
EACH
1
$600.00
$600.00
2104.523
SALVAGE HYDRANT
EACH
1
$800.00
$800.00
2104.523
SALVAGE TEMPORARY BARRICADES
EACH
13
$50.00
$650.00
2104.523
SALVAGE MARKER
EACH
9
$125.00
$1,125.00
2104.523
SALVAGE DELINEATOR
EACH
14
2104.523
SALVAGE FIBER OPTIC VAULT
EACH
1
$425.00
$425.00
2104.523
SALVAGE CCTV HARDWARE
EACH
1
$600.00
$600.00
2104.523
SALVAGE CABINET
EACH
2
$500.00
$1,000.00
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN TYPE A
EACH
2
$650.00
$1,300.00
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C
EACH
51
$3.50
$178.50
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN TYPE D
EACH
14
$70.00
$980.00
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN TYPE EA
EACH
5
$65.00
$325.00
2104.601
REMOVE CABLES
LUMP SUM
1
$6,500.00
$6,500.00
2104.601
SALVAGE MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES
LUMP SUM
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
2104.601
HAUL SALVAGED MATERIAL
LUMP SUM
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
2104.603
ABANDON PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
1029
$6.00
$6,174.00
2105.522
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P)
CU YD
349.5
$10.00
$3,495.00
2105.522
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW MOD 10% (CV) (P)
CU YD
750
$20.00
$15,000.00
H : \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -M U\ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
2106.607 EXCAVATION - COMMON
(P)
CU YD
2106.607
2106.607
2106.607
2106.607
2106.607
EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE (P)
COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) (P)
GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) (P)
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) (P)
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT MODIFIED 10% (CV) (P)
CU YD
CU YD
CU YD
CU YD
CU YD
2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)
2130.501 WATER
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 1 (P)
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 6 (P)
2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (4.0 ")
HOUR
M GALLONS
CU YD
CU YD
SQ YD
2232.603
2357.502
2360.501
2360.501
MILLED RUMBLE STRIPS
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)
TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B)
LIN FT
GALLON
TON
TON
2360.501
2360.502
2360.502
2401.501
TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,F)
TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B)
TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B)
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43)
TON
TON
(P)
TON
CU YD
2401.513
2401.541
2402.583
2411.501
TYPE MOD F (TL-4) RAILING CONCRETE (3Y46)
REINFORCEMENT BARS
ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE SPECIAL 2
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1A43)
(P)
(P)
(P)
(P)
LIN FT
POUND
LIN FT
CU YD
2411.501 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43)
(P)
CU YD
2411.541 REINFORCEMENT BARS (P)
2411.541 REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPDXY COATED) (P)
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE FINISH (SINGLE COLOR) (P)
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE TEXTURE (BUSH HAMMER) (P)
POUND
POUND
SQ FT
SQ FT
2451.501
2451.501
2451.503
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS E
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS U
GRANULAR BACKFILL (CV)
(P)
(P)
(P)
CU YD
CU YD
CU YD
2501.511
2501 511
2501.515
15" CS PIPE CULVERT
24" CS PIPE CULVERT
12" GS PIPE APRON
LIN FT
LIN FT
EACH
2501.515
2501.515
2501.515
2501.515
15" GS PIPE APRON
18" GS PIPE APRON
24" GS PIPE APRON
12" RC PIPE APRON
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
2501.515
2501.515
2501.515
2501.515
2501.515
15" RC PIPE APRON
18" RC PIPE APRON
21" RC PIPE APRON
24" RC PIPE APRON
30" RC PIPE APRON
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
2501.515
2501.521
2501 561
2501 561
36" RC PIPE APRON
128" SPAN CAS PIPE -ARCH CULVERT 8 GAUGE
18" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006
24" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006
(P)
EACH
LIN FT
LIN FT
LIN FT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
ESTIMATED
270574
33541
275862
72334
26166
3551
260
600
16
39080
280
16670
11630
1760
6040
12940
1760
9320
70
397
17350
397
304
331
22410
41560
4635
4635
300
1471
601.9
18
160
11
4
1
6
2
5
4
3
6
8
2
20
60
118
ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5.00
$1,352,870.00
$5.00
$6.00
$12.00
$167,705.00
$1,655,172.00
$868,008.00
$16.00
$20.00
$418,656.00
$71,020.00
$100.00
$26,000.00
$25.00
$30.00
$15,000.00
$480.00
$20.00
$1.50
$781,600.00
$420.00
$0.15
$1.50
$2,500.50
$17,445.00
$40.00
$70,400.00
$35.00
$211,400.00
$45.00
$55.00
$40.00
$500.00
$582,300.00
$96,800.00
$372,800.00
$35,000.00
$70.00
$1.40
$145.00
$400.00
$500.00
$27,790.00
$24,290.00
$57,565.00
$121,600.00
$165,500.00
$1.40
$31,374.00
$1.50
$62,340.00
$2.00
$8.00
$9,270.00
$37,080.00
$20.00
$2.00
$10.00
$6,000.00
$2,942.00
$6,019.00
$30.00
$540.00
$40.00
$6,400.00
$190.00
$2,090.00
$210.00
$220.00
$230.00
$840.00
$220.00
$1,380.00
$450.00
$900.00
$415.00
$2,075.00
$500.00
$550.00
$570.00
$756.00
$2,000.00
$1,650.00
$3,420.00
$6,048.00
$990.00
$400.00
$30.00
$1,980.00
$8,000.00
$1,800.00
$35.00
$4,130.00
Page 2 OF 7
PRINTED: 7/2/2009
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -MU \ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE\ 6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT I
QUANTITIES
ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2501.561
24" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
146
$36.00
$5,256.00
2501.561
24" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006 CLASS V- JACKED
LIN FT
97
$350.00
$33,950.00
2501.561
30" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
175
$60.00
$10,500.00
2501.569
18" GS SAFETY APRON
EACH
2
$350.00
$700.00
2501.569
18" RC SAFETY APRON
EACH
1
$500.00
$500.00
2501.569
24" RC SAFETY APRON
EACH
3
$650.00
$1,950.00
2502.501
4" PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL
EACH
31
2502.541
4" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
690
$5.00
$3,450.00
2502.541
4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN
LIN FT
21020
2502.601
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2503.511
12" CS PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
181
$25.00
$4,525.00
2503.511
18" CS PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
84
$35.00
$2,940.00
2503.511
24" CS PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
623
$40.00
$24,920.00
2503.511
18" DUCTILE IRON PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
53
$100.00
$5,300.00
2503.511
18" DUCTILE IRON PIPE SEWER- JACKED
LIN FT
53
$400.00
$21,200.00
2503.541
12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
12
$28.00
$336.00
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
2564
$29.00
$74,356.00
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III
LIN FT
80
$27.00
$2,160.00
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS IV
LIN FT
212
$28.00
$5,936.00
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
237
$26.00
$6,162.00
2503.541
18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
800
$31.00
$24,800.00
2503.541
18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
238
$500.00
$119,000.00
2503.541
21" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
276
$35.00
$9,660.00
2503.541
21" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III
LIN FT
93
$31.00
$2,883.00
2503.541
21" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
190
$36.00
$6,840.00
2503.541
24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
275
$39.00
$10,725.00
2503.541
24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS IV
LIN FT
93
$39.00
$3,627.00
2503.541
24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
211
$39.00
$8,229.00
2503.541
24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V- JACKED
LIN FT
101
$550.00
$55,550.00
2503.541
27" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III
LIN FT
170
$52.00
$8,840.00
2503.541
27" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS IV
LIN FT
24
$60.00
$1,440.00
2503.541
27" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
1244
$68.00
$84,592.00
2503.541
30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006
LIN FT
330
$52.00
$17,160.00
2503.541
30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III
LIN FT
245
$54.00
$13,230.00
2503.541
30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
110
$72.00
$7,920.00
2503.541
36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
LIN FT
416
$89.00
$37,024.00
2503.541
36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V- JACKED
LIN FT
62
$600.00
$37,200.00
2503.602
CONSTRUCT BULKHEAD
EACH
1
$350.00
$350.00
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
EACH
10
$550.00
$5,500.00
2503.602
21" PIPE PLUG
EACH
1
$200.00
$200.00
2503.603
21" PVC PIPE SEWER
LIN FT
75
$90.00
$6,750.00
2504.602
INSTALL HYDRANT
EACH
1
$500.00
$500.00
2504.602
ADJUST HYDRANT
EACH
1
$1,100.00
$1,100.00
2504.602
INSTALL GATE VALVE AND BOX
EACH
1
$400.00
$400.00
2504.602
ADJUST GATE VALVE & BOX
EACH
3
$200.00
$600.00
2504.602
16 "X6" REDUCER
EACH
1
$250.00
$250.00
2504.602
16" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX
EACH
1
$450.00
$450.00
2504.602
6" MEGALUG
EACH
4
$100.00
$400.00
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -MU\ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
I ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2504.602
16" MEGALUG
EACH
3
$150.00
$450.00
2504.603
6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
5
$60.00
$300.00
2504.603
16" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52
LIN FT
95
$100.00
$9,500.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN F
LIN FT
205.3
$205.00
$42,086.50
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G
LIN FT
28.8
$250.00
$7,200.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H
UN FT
83.5
$190.00
$15,865.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SD -48
LIN FT
2.2
$300.00
$660.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48 -4020
LIN FT
24.0
$230.00
$5,520.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 54 -4020
LIN FT
108.6
$285.00
$30,951.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60 -4020
LIN FT
30.0
$330.00
$9,900.00
2506.501
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 72 -4020
LIN FT
26.3
$425.00
$11,177.50
2506.503
RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
LIN FT
31.1
$200.00
$6,220.00
2506.516
CASTING ASSEMBLY
EACH
77
$590.00
$45,430.00
2506.521
INSTALL CASTING
EACH
2
$400.00
$800.00
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING
EACH
1
$330.00
$330.00
2506.602
CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
4
$675.00
$2,700.00
2506.602
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1
EACH
1
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
2506.602
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 2
EACH
1
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
2506.602
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 3
EACH
1
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
2506.602
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 4
EACH
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2506.602
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 5
EACH
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2511.501
RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS II
CU YD
189.8
$70.50
$13,380.90
2521.501
4" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
51300
$3.25
$166,725.00
2521.501
6" CONCRETE WALK
SQ FT
965
$4.00
$3,860.00
2521.511
3" BITUMINOUS WALK
SQ FT
25360
$3.00
$76,080.00
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B424
LIN FT
14510
$12.00
$174,120.00
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624
LIN FT
40
$12.00
$480.00
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN D424
LIN FT
150
$11.50
$1,725.00
2531.618
TRUNCATED DOMES
SQ FT
270
$60.00
$16,200.00
2533.507
PORTABLE PRECAST CONCRETE BARRIER DESIGN 8337
LIN FT
12350.0
$12.00
$148,200.00
2533.508
RELOCATE PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BARRIER DESIGN 8337
LIN FT
16300.0
$3.50
$57,050.00
2545.511
LIGHTING UNIT TYPE 9 -40
EACH
32
$1,615.00
$51,680.00
2545.515
LIGHT BASE DESIGN E
EACH
32
$550.00
$17,600.00
2545.521
2" RIGID STEEL CONDUIT
LIN FT
35
$10.67
$373.45
2545.523
3" NON - METALLIC CONDUIT
LIN FT
985
$5.37
$5,289.45
2545.531
UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 2
LIN FT
140
$1.85
$259.00
2545.531
UNDERGROUND WIRE 4 COND NO 4
LIN FT
11762
$6.21
$73,042.02
2545.541
SERVICE CABINET SECONDARY TYPE L1
EACH
1
$4,455.00
$4,455.00
2545.545
EQUIPMENT PAD B
EACH
1
$816.00
$816.00
2545.602
HANDHOLE
EACH
1
$698.00
$698.00
2545.602
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
EACH
1
$3,615.00
$3,615.00
2550.511
CABINET FOUNDATION
EACH
1
$1,725.00
$1,725.00
2550.511
CCTV FOUNDATION
EACH
1
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
2550.512
HANDHOLE TYPE -PVC METAL COVER
EACH
18
$710.00
$12,780.00
2550.523
1.5" NON - METALLIC CONDUIT
LIN FT
5200
$2.30
$11,960.00
2550.523
2" NON - METALLIC CONDUIT
LIN FT
3520
$3.50
$12,320.00
2550.523
3" NON - METALLIC CONDUIT
LIN FT
500
$8.25
$4,125.00
2550.523
4" NON - METALLIC CONDUIT
LIN FT
50
$10.80
$540.00
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -MU \ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C. S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
I ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2550.532
POWER CABLE 3 CONDUCTOR NO 8
LIN FT
200
$2.90
$580.00
2550.532
LEAD -IN CABLE 2 CONDUCTOR NO 14
LIN FT
15080
$1.20
$18,096.00
2550.601
FIBER OPTIC CABLE TESTING
LUMP SUM
1
$10,138.00
$10,138.00
2550.601
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
LUMP SUM
1
$3,330.75
$3,330.75
2550.602
INSTALL CABINET
EACH
2
$721.00
$1,442.00
2550.602
INSTALL CCTV HARDWARE
EACH
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
2550.602
FIBER OPTIC PIGTAIL TERMINATION
EACH
2
$755.00
$1,510.00
2550.602
FIBER OPTIC CABLE SPLICING
EACH
3
$2,382.00
$7,146.00
2550.602
RELOCATE SIGN
EACH
17
$89.00
$1,513.00
2550.602
INSTALL SALVAGED STRUCTURES
EACH
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
2550.602
INSTALL FIBER OPTIC VAULT
EACH
1
$1,635.00
$1,635.00
2550.602
LOOP DETECTOR DESIGN PREFORMED
EACH
8
$724.00
$5,792.00
2550.602
LOOP DETECTOR DESIGN SAWCUT
EACH
6
$910.00
$5,460.00
2550.603
REROUTE CABLE
LIN FT
300
$2.00
$600.00
2550.603
ARMORED FIBER OPTIC PIGTAIL 6SM
LIN FT
650
$1.70
$1,105.00
2550.603
FIBER OPTIC TRUNK CABLE 60SM
LIN FT
8100
$2.50
$20,250.00
2550.603
2" BORED CONDUIT
LIN FT
780
$11.15
$8,697.00
2554.501
TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN SPECIAL
LIN FT
50
$60.00
$3,000.00
2554.501
TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN BULLNOSE
LIN FT
200
$60.00
$12,000.00
2554.501
TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN B8338
LIN FT
435
$15.00
$6,525.00
2554.509
GUIDE POST TYPE B
EACH
43
$45.00
$1,935.00
2554.523
END TREATMENT - ECCENTRIC LOADER BCT
EACH
1
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2554.602
IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS
EACH
210
$250.00
$52,500.00
2554.602
RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS
EACH
264
$50.00
$13,200.00
2554.602
T- BARRIER BRIDGE CONN DES 8318
EACH
2
$250.00
$500.00
2554.602
TEMPORARY BARRICADES
EACH
11
$100.00
$1,100.00
2554.615
IMPACT ATTENUATOR
ASSEMBLY
1
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
2557.501
WIRE FENCE DESIGN 60 -9322
LIN FT
8060
$25.00
$201,500.00
2557.522
METAL BRACE ASSEMBLY
EACH
24
$250.00
$6,000.00
2557.527
ELECTRICAL GROUND
EACH
8
$50.00
$400.00
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LUMP SUM
1
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
2563.602
RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY
EACH
592
$2.00
$1,184.00
2564.522
STRUCTURAL STEEL -POSTS FOR TYPE A SIGNS
POUND
4582
$2.00
$9,164.00
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE A
SQ FT
334.3
$30.00
$10,027.50
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE C
SQ FT
332.7
$25.00
$8,317.50
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE D
SQ FT
162.8
$30.00
$4,884.00
2564.531
SIGN PANELS TYPE EA
SQ FT
145.1
$25.00
$3,627.50
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C
EACH
39
$120.00
$4,680.00
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN TYPED
EACH
8
$200.00
$1,600.00
2564.537
INSTALL SIGN TYPE EA
EACH
1
$150.00
$150.00
2564.550
DELINEATOR TYPE X4 -6
EACH
8
$40.00
$320.00
2564.552
HAZARD MARKER X4 -2
EACH
3
$80.00
$240.00
2564.553
CLEARANCE MARKER X4 -4
EACH
4
$100.00
$400.00
2564.602
INSTALL DELINEATOR
EACH
9
2564.602
INSTALL MARKER
EACH
6
$75.00
$450.00
2565.511
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM A
SYSTEM
1
$173,000.00
$173,000.00
2565.511
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM B
SYSTEM
1
$204,000.00
$204,000.00
2565.511
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM C
SYSTEM
1
$210,000.00
$210,000.00
2565.601
EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM A
LUMP SUM
1
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \HI-MU \ EXCEL \ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14/35E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
I ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2565.601
EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM B
LUMP SUM
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2565.601
EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM C
LUMP SUM
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2565.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERCONNECTION
LUMP SUM
1
$43,000.00
$43,000.00
2565.616
REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM D
SYSTEM
1
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
2565.616
TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM
SYSTEM
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2573.502
SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY
LIN FT
300
$2.75
$825.00
2573.502
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
LIN FT
2410
$2.50
$6,025.00
2573.505
FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN TYPE MOVING WATER
LIN FT
80
$15.00
$1,200.00
2573.530
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
EACH
101
$300.00
$30,300.00
2573.540
FILTER LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER BIOROLL
LIN FT
70
$4.00
$280.00
2573.550
EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR
LUMP SUM
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2575.501
SEEDING (P)
ACRE
38.9
$250.00
$9,725.00
2575.502
SEED MIXTURE 310
POUND
780
$30.00
$23,400.00
2575.502
SEED MIXTURE 350
POUND
2485
$35.00
$86,975.00
2575.505
SODDING TYPE EROSION
SQ YD
157
$2.35
$368.95
2575.505
SODDING TYPE LAWN
SQ YD
3015
$2.25
$6,783.75
2575.511
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 3
TON
45.6
$250.00
$11,400.00
2575.513
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 9
CU YD
135
$25.00
$3,375.00
2575.519
DISK ANCHORING
ACRE
24.3
$200.00
$4,860.00
2575.523
EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3
SQ YD
70450
$0.50
$35,225.00
2575.532
FERTILIZER TYPE 1
POUND
4670
$0.50
$2,335.00
2575.532
FERTILIZER TYPE 2
POUND
250
$0.50
$125.00
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 1
ACRE
1.3
$400.00
$520.00
2575.570
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 2
ACRE
6.8
$900.00
$6,120.00
2575.571
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 3
M GALLONS
4.5
$575.00
$2,587.50
2575.572
RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4
SQ YD
14470
$1.25
$18,087.50
2581.501
REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING
LIN FT
3765
$1.50
$5,647.50
2581.602
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) REMOVABLE POLY PREFORMED
EACH
2
$200.00
$400.00
2581.602
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) REMOVABLE POLY PREFORMED
EACH
1
$200.00
$200.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW) PAINT
EACH
3
$125.00
$375.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) PAINT
EACH
7
$125.00
$875.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW) PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC
EACH
12
$125.00
$1,500.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC
EACH
12
$125.00
$1,500.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW) POLY PREFORM - GROUND IN
EACH
2
$125.00
$250.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) POLY PREFORM - GROUND IN
EACH
10
$125.00
$1,250.00
2582.501
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (HOV DIAMOND) POLY PREFORM - GROUND IN
EACH
2
$135.00
$270.00
2582.502
4" SOLID LINE WHITE -PAINT
LIN FT
43145
$0.25
$10,786.25
2582.502
24" SOLID LINE WHITE -PAINT
LIN FT
530
$4.25
$2,252.50
2582.502
4" BROKEN LINE WHITE -PAINT
LIN FT
5630
$0.25
$1,407.50
2582.502
4" DOTTED LINE WHITE -PAINT
LIN FT
130
$0.25
$32.50
2582.502
4" SOLID LINE YELLOW -PAINT
LIN FT
27430
$0.25
$6,857.50
2582.502
24" SOLID LINE YELLOW -PAINT
LIN FT
530
$4.25
$2,252.50
2582.502
4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW -PAINT
LIN FT
3110
$0.50
$1,555.00
2582.502
24" SOLID LINE WHITE- PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC
LIN FT
540
$0.40
$216.00
2582.502
4" SOLID LINE WHITE -POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
LIN FT
1170
$0.40
$468.00
2582.502
8" SOLID LINE WHITE -POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
LIN FT
2710
$0.40
$1,084.00
2582.502
4" BROKEN LINE WHITE -POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
LIN FT
2800
$0.40
$1,120.00
2582.502
8" DOTTED LINE WHITE -POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
LIN FT
130
$0.40
$52.00
H: \PROJECTS \6509 \H I -MU \ EXCEL\ ESTIMATE \6509_SEQ_printable.xls.xls
SRF NO. 0086509
By:
Checked:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
C.S.A.H. 14135E INTERCHANGE
By: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
TOTAL PROJECT
QUANTITIES
I ESTIMATED
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
2582.502
4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY
LIN FT
39280
$0.40
$15,712.00
2582.502
8" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY
LIN FT
1240
$0.40
$496.00
2582.502
24" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY
LIN FT
60
$5.00
$300.00
2582.502
4" BROKEN LINE WHITE -EPDXY
LIN FT
1740
$0.40
$696.00
2582.502
8" DOTTED LINE WHITE -EPDXY
LIN FT
250
$1.50
$375.00
2582.502
4 " SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY
LIN FT
32720
$0.40
$13,088.00
2582.502
24" SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY
LIN FT
210
$5.00
$1,050.00
2582.503
CROSSWALK MARKING - PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC
SQ FT
1890
$6.00
$11,340.00
2104.601
REMOVE REGULATED WASTE MATERIAL (BRIDGE)
LUMP SUM
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2301.553
BRIDGE APPROACH PANELS (P)
SQ YD
482
$110.00
$53,020.00
2401.501
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1A43) (P)
CU YD
474
$400.00
$189,600.00
2401.501
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43) (P)
CU YD
635
$500.00
$317,500.00
2401.512
BRIDGE SLAB CONCRETE (3Y36) (P)
SQ FT
29162
$15.00
$437,430.00
2401.513
TYPE MOD F (TL -4) RAILING CONCRETE (3Y46) (P)
LIN FT
291
$70.00
$20,370.00
2401.513
TYPE MOD P -1 (TL -2) RAILING CONC (3Y46) (P)
LIN FT
291
$75.00
$21,825.00
2401.513
TYPE P -4 (TL -4) RAILING CONCRETE (3Y46) (P)
LIN FT
291
$60.00
$17,460.00
2401.516
RAISED MEDIAN CONCRETE (3Y46) (P)
SQ FT
2029
$7.00
$14,203.00
2401.541
REINFORCEMENT BARS (P)
POUND
42700
$1.40
$59,780.00
2401.541
REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPDXY COATED) (P)
POUND
274190
$1.50
$411,285.00
2401.601
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION
LUMP SUM
1
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
2401.618
BRIDGE DECK PLANING (P)
SQ FT
25100
$0.60
$15,060.00
2402.583
ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE SPECIAL (P)
LIN FT
288
$145.00
$41,760.00
2402.584
STRUCTURAL TUBE RAILING DESIGN T -2 (P)
LIN FT
291
$110.00
$32,010.00
2402.595
BEARING ASSEMBLY
EACH
54
$900.00
$48,600.00
2404.501
CONCRETE WEARING COURSE (3U17A) (P)
SQ FT
27041
$4.00
$108,164.00
2405.502
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS MN63 (P)
LIN FT
3421
$230.00
$786,830.00
2405.511
DIAPHRAGMS FOR TYPE MN63 PREST BEAMS (P)
LIN FT
687
$70.00
$48,090.00
2411.618
ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE FINISH (SINGLE COLOR) (P)
SQ FT
2454
$2.00
$4,908.00
2411.618
ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE TEXTURE (BUSH HAMMER) (P)
SQ FT
2454
$8.00
$19,632.00
2442.501
REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE
LUMP SUM
1
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
2452.510
STEEL H- PILING DRIVEN 12"
LIN FT
7110
$3.00
$21,330.00
2452.511
STEEL H- PILING DELIVERED 12"
LIN FT
7110
$34.00
$241,740.00
2452.520
STEEL H -TEST PILE 70 FT LONG 12"
EACH
3
$6,000.00
$18,000.00
2452.520
STEEL H -TEST PILE 80 FT LONG 12"
EACH
6
$7,000.00
$42,000.00
2452.602
PILE TIP PROTECTION 12"
EACH
117
$100.00
$11,700.00
2502.502
DRAINAGE SYSTEM TYPE (B910)
LUMP SUM
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2514.501
CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING (P)
SQ YD
640
$125.00
$80,000.00
2545.509
CONDUIT SYSTEM (SIGNALS)
LUMP SUM
1
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
$15,034,409.02
Appendix B
CSAH 14/I -35E Feasibility Study Process Timeline
CSAH 14 & l -35E Interchange Project July 2009
Feasibility Study
CSAH 14/I -35E Feasibility Study Process Timeline
ACTION
Timeline
City Council initiates study
April 27, 2009
1st Property Stakeholder Meeting
May 29, 2009
2nd Property Stakeholder Meeting
June 25, 2009
City Council Receives Report &
Calls for Hearing on Improvements
July 6, 2009
Resolution Published twice, at least one week apart,
no less than two weeks prior to date of hearing
Mailed Notice sent two weeks prior to hearing date
July 7, 2009
July 14, 2009
July 13, 2009
Public Hearing
July 27, 2003
60 Day Waiting Period Expires
September 25, 2009
Council Orders Improvement
September 28, 2009
H: \Projects \6807 \TS \Meetings \Prop Owner Mtg 2 \CSAH 14 -35E Potential Timeline_Revl.doc
VNE A k (sc tvA
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Mayor Bergeson
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
HAND DELIVERED
July 13, 2009
RECEIVED
JUL 1 3 2009
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Honorable Mayor Bergeson,
To increase Lino Lakes city information available to citizens and to promote transparency in our
local government, the Charter Commission voted on 7/9/09 to recommend that the City Council
adopt the following by Ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 410.12 Subd. 7.
The following amendment would be added to Charter 3, Section 3.01 of the City Charter.
"All regular open council meetings, the Open Mike portion, and council work sessions shall be
televised. Should the City Council determine it is necessary to exempt a given council meeting or
council work session from this procedure, they may do so by motion."
Cordially,
d
Caroline Dahl,
Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission
cc: Council member Kathi Gallup
Council member Jeff O'Donnell
Council member Jeff Reinert
Council member Dan Stoltz
City Clerk Julie Bartell
Acting City Administrator Dan Tesch