Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-14 CCMPOur Alissiow is to Pronide,Onalii), Public ,Ven.i,-es in a 1-'isca4 Responsible Alanner11%1/4 Preseniq the CO !'S Open .S.Paa Charade/ NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Wednesday, November 5, 2014 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Ehno I 3800 Laverne Avenue North AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F. Accept Minutes 1. Accept October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes G. Council Reports • Mayor • Council H. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries 2. Park Commission Chair Shane Weis 3. Rural Area Analysis and Presentation 1. Finance Consent Agenda 4. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll J Other Consent Agenda 5. Approve Ski Trail Grooming Agreement K. Regular Agenda L. Staff Reports and Announcements • City Administrator • City Attorney • Planning Director • City Engineer • Finance Director • City Clerk M. Adjourn LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Wally Nelson, Anne Srnith, lustin Bloyer, and Mike Reeves. Staff present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Attorney Snyder, Community Development Director Klatt, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell, PLEDGE OF AI JIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Member Nelson pulled Item 3 for discussion. Council Member Smith pulled Item 9 for discussion Mayor Pearson added topic of Council Communication to Agenda and announced that it would be discussed on Monday, October 27, 2014 at 3pm. City Attorney Snyder explained that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 4, meetings can be recessed and then continued without further nonce if the time and place is established at the previous meeting. MOTION: Countil A4e,,,ther Blojer moved TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 21, 2014 CIT3' COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Counal Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 1: ACCEPT MINUTES THE AUGUST 5, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WE'RE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 CI .1.17 COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE OCTOBER 7, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINGENT UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE REQUESTED CORRECTIONS. MOTION: Coun4i1 Member Smith mooed TO ENTER THE WRITTEN COMMENTS BY JAY JOHNSON INTO THE RECORD FOR THE 9/16 MEETING. Major Pew:con seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Pearson: attended Gateway Corridor mceung; attended Volksmarch. Ile thanked Rotary, Jaycces, Lions, staff. City raised about $1400 for Family Means; attended FDA meeting; he thought Downtown Summit went very well. He commended staff for coordinating it. Council Member Nelson: attended Volksmarch, finance committee meeting, joint planning commission meeting on growth. Encouraged everyone to view; also attended Downtown Summit and EDA meeting. Mr. Nelson asked Community Development Klatt the expected build out of proposed and approved developments. 5-10 years, Mr. Nelson also asked what the City gained by eliminating the MOU - it eliminates penalty for failing to develop (\Nit's) and automatic density increases. City still has plan to reach the targets. but it has much more flexibility- in doing that. Council Member Smith: attended finance committee meeting, joint planning commission meeting, Downtown Summit; Nis. Smith noted that City was excused from WIFs due to development turndown. Mr. Klatt acknowledged that the City received a five year reprieve; however, the City still would have been subject to \VIFs had development not occurred. Council Member Bloyer attended Volksmarch, joint planning commission meeting, Downtown Summit; met with residents about sidewalks and old village development; City Administrator Zuleger explained the code enforcement; took issue with accusations of recent Council actions being motivated by politics. Page 1 of 6 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 Council Member Reeves: attended Volksmarch, joint planning commission meeting, Downtown Summit and Parks Commission meeting. Sanctuary Park equipment is in as are Pebble Park improvements. Parks 2015 plan of work will be coming to council soon. PUBLIC COMMENTS /INOUIRIES Planning Commission Chair Todd Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Ave., spoke about a recent assertion that approved hoines violate city design standards. There are in actuality only two: Front garage setback and width of garage. He stated the Commission was directed to not propose any additional standards, He asked why there is reluctance to city wide standards when they already exist in several current neighborhoods. The primary focus is on national builders in urban developments- The Planning Commission is not worried about custom home or local builders or in rural areas. The Planning Commission did not attempt to impose any design standards on Hans Hagen, but would support city-wide standards if the Council would entertain the discussion, Susan Dunn, 11018 Upper 33ra St. N., thanked the council and staff for holding the city-wide Downtown Summit meeting. She also attended the joint planning commission and was impressed. Asked for clarification on the recent report to Moody's regarding density figures. She asked that a discussion be held on density. Mayor Pearson asked Mr. Williams to clarify his statement of supporting city-wide standards and if it was on behalf of the entire commission. Mr. Williams stated that the entire commission voted on the recent garage width. Mayor Pearson asked that thc commission propose specific standards that they would like. Council Member Smith stated that there are Village design standards were incorporated in the cotnp plan. The Council briefly discussed design standards. FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $1,777,936.18 3. Accept Financial Report dated September 30, 201'1 4. Accept Building Report dated September 30, 2014 5. Accept City Assessor Report dated September 30, 2014 6. Sunfish Forestry Management Plan 7. 39th Street N. Street & Sanitary Sewer Improvements — Pay Request No. 1 8, 2014 Street Improvements — Pay Request No. 3 9. 10. Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements — Pay Request No. 3 11. Putnphouse No, 4 Improvements — Pay Request No. 5 MOTION: Council Member Smith mooed TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. Counci Member -Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA 12. Encroachment Agreement — 9986 Tapestry Road Trail L3. Encroachment Agreement — 10902 57.h Street N 14. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources XC GTJ Sponsor Resolution; Resolution No. 2014-84 MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE OTHER CONSENTAGENDA AS PRESENTED, Council Member Nelson seconded the molion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 3: ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 Finance. Director Bendel presented the 2014 Q3 Financial Snapshot. This will be a regularly quarterly update. Council Member Reeves thanked staff for putting the report together. MOTION: Coin,:/ Member Nekron moved TO ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014. Countil Member Reemr se(onaied the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Council Nlember Blover welcomed the 4 high school smdents in attendance, Page 2 of 6 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 ITEM 9: LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS — CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Council Member Smith explained that because she did nor support this project she wanted the item voted on separately. MOTION: Council Member Nelson mooed TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS, THEREBY INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $12,427.86. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-1 (SMITH — NA 17. ITEM 15; PUBLIC HEARING: WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING; RES. NO. 2014-85 City Engineer Griffin provided brief overview of the project and the final proposed assessments. Mr, Griffin also explained the project costs and funding sources, Council Member Smith left the room at 8:00 pm and returned at 8:00 pn-1. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:01 pm. A resident asked when payments were due. It was explained that residents have 30 days from the approval to pay with no interest penalty. After that time, residents will be subject to interest penalties, MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COHtlti I Member Weyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:03 pm. MOTION: Council Member Reevcf moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-85, ADOPTING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion.. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 16: PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING: RES. NO. 2014-86 City Engineer Griffin provided brief overview of the project and the final proposed assessments, Mr. Griffin also explained the project costs and funding sources. It was also explained that there have been a couple residents who Were not part of the initial project or assessment, but have since requested to be added to project, MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:06 pm. MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bloyo- seonded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:06 pm. MOTION: Couwil Member \'els©n moped TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-86, ADOPTING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT R01.1". FOR THE LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. Council Member Reeves asked about the total pre -payment water securities. It was explained to be SI.455 MOTION PASSED 4-1 (SMITH — NA19. Council Member Smith stated she was not M. support of project from beginning. She asserted that the phasing plan was not followed and the project opened the area to development prematurely. Nlayor Pearson responded that part of the reason the Council approved this was to add potential commercial revenue as well as reduce thc costs on the Inwood side, thereby saving roughly $400K. This will help pay for entire water system and the risk was minimized by the securities. Page 3 of 6 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 ITEM 17: SECTION 34 WATER & SEWER UTILITY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS — ACCEPT OUOTES AND APPROVE CONTRACT FOR HUDSON BLVD PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE: RES. NO. 2014-87 City Engineer Griffin provided brief overview of the proposed improvement. Ile explained the various pressure zones and impacton the comprehensive water system. Mr. Griffin explained that the Savona developer will need it regardless of who installs it and that is the reason for the alternate bid. I lammes Addition will also need a reduction valvc in the future. Mr. Griffin explained the bid results. Mr. Griffin explained that the water obtained from Oakdale is currently about 100 psi, The target pressure is approximately 55 psi. Council Member Smith asked about impact of $3.5 mil bonding. It was explained that those funds are dedicated to the Inwood project, MOTION: omil Member Nelcon moped TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-87, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SECTION 34 PRESSURE REDUCTION STATIONS TO BE PAID FOR THROUGH THE SECTION 34 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO GEISLINGER & SONS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $113, 853.00 WHICH INCLUDES THE BASE BID AND ADD ALTERNATE NO. 1, CONTINGENT UPON LENNAR REIMBURSING CITY FOR ALT #1 COSTS. Comic/Ale/fiber Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 18: INWOOD BOOSTER STATION IMPROVEMENTS — APPROVE TERMS FOR SITE ACQUISITION City Engineer Griffin provided an overview of the proposed booster station improvement and location. Site consists of 75'x75' area for purchase price of $22,500. Negotiations also include Washington County purchasing 15 additional feet of ROW from the property owner, City will waive $5,800 Lateral Benefit Assessment to property at 2298 Inwood when Inwood project occurs. It was clarified that the Eherhart Trust was okay working with the county. City Administrator Zuleger recounted the lengthy staff efforts in obtaining the site. It was noted that the negotiations sticking points did not involve money, but current and future access to surrounding land. MOTION: AilaTor Pearson moved TO APPROVE THE BOOSTER STATION SITE ACQUISITION TERMS AS OUTLINED IN THE CITY LETTER DATED JULY 10, 2014. Cmincil Member Reem- sec-onded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Zuleger: finishing touches on (IP; working on financial snapshot; working on developer agreements, Washington County Transportation meeting; because of ROW and utility signals will not be installed until spring; future workshops will focus individually on Summit issues. Transportation, Sewer, and drainage. City Attorney Snyder: working on routine matters, development agreements, and code enforcement matters, Community Development Director Klatt: next planning commission meeting will be confuming discussion of rural development issues; working on developer securities and agreements. It was noted that the annex will be sold. City Engineer: 39th St. has gravel on portion of it. Lake Elmo Ave is expected to have holes paved next week. Finance Director Bendel: working on collecting assessments, statistical reports, 2015 budget, and cash flow model or sewer. Audit field work is planned for mid -December City Clerk Bell: working on completing phase two of City office moves. Staff has received numerous compliments from public on new space; those who arc still interested in serving as an Election Judge should contact the City in the next week. Public Accuracy Test will he held on 10/31 at I lam in the chambers. Absentee voting is now underway. State General Election is Tuesday 11/4/2014. Polls are open from 7arn- 8prn. Page 4 of 6 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 MOTION: Comil A /ember Smith moved TO RECESS THE MEET17VG. Canna Member Ne/ron iecondrd the motion, MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson recessed meeting at 8:37 pm until Monday, October 27, 2014 at 3pm. MOTION: Coloh:/7 Member Nelfon moved TO RECONVENE THE 10/21 MEETING. COunci/ Alembcr Reeves J 1"CW/deli ihe MOii0/1. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson called the reconvened meeting to order at 3:00pm on Monday, October 27, 2014. Council present: Pearson, Nelson, Smith, Bloyer, and Reeves. Staff present: City Attorney Snyder and City Clerk Bell, Mayor Pearson provided brief overview of purpose of continuation of meeting. Mayor Pearson read letter from Stillwater Gafzette reporter/Complainant. The letter was delivered to the city attorney on 10/21 immediately prior to council meeting. Council Member Reeves noted that he was present when the reporter came back into the building. She was visibly upset. He is not sure what to do, Council Member Smith does not believe the conversation involved anything inappropriate. Council Member Nelson is concerned that the apparent pattern continues. Ile asserted that the report of naming previous complaining staff person was wrong. Their job is to protect the taxpayers, Ms, Smith denied mentioning anyone's name to reporter. Council Member Bloyer is disappointed that allegations of this behavior continues. Ile wants to know how actions will be corrected. Ms. Smith noted her attorney is present. Mayor Pearson alleged that this behavior is not an isolated event. He stated it is incumbent upon Council to provide safe environment for public and staff, Mr. Reeves noted that it is important to consider recipients' perspective when delivering message. What one person may find harmless, others may take issue with. Mayor Pearson asked if Council Member Smith admitted that the facts stated in the letter are accurate. Ms. Smith disagreed with content of letter. She acknowledged that things could have been done or handled differently, but there was nothing inappropriate in her behavior. She noted that she apologized to paper. Mr. Nelson asked how cotmcil moves forward after this type of behavior. He claimed there have been 4 recent incidents. Ms, Smith denied that there have been 4 incidents. MOTION: Mayor Pedro,' moved TO RENOUNCE THE ACTIONS OF COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH AS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER. Conncil Member Tiloyer/Ne/son (at same time?) seconded the motion. Mayor Pearson stated that the allegations are significant enough that they cannot be ignored. He asked Council Member Smith if she admits to what the reporter alleged, Council Member Smith stated she accepts that the reporter said what she said but she reiterated that she does not accept the totality of the circumstances and disagrees with the opinion that anything Inappropriate took place. She again stipulated that things could have been handled differently. Council Member Reeves wants responsibility taken for actions. Mr. Reeves also explained he wanted to amend the motion to state "RENOUNCE AND REPUDIATE THE ACTIONS OF COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH AS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER AND TO REAFFIRM COMMITMENT TO A SAFE AND HARASSMENT FREE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEES." Mayor Pearson aa-epted the addition as dliiend# amendment. Council Member Smith asked for opportunity to consult ‘vith her attorney. The meeting was recessed 3:23pm. The meeting was reconvened 3:25pm. Page 5 of 6 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2014 Council Member Smith asked that her Attorney be allowed to respond on her behalf, Mayor Pearson asked that comments be limited to the specific motion. City Attorney Snyder explained that there is no formal or informal rules regarding comments but is up to Council. Stuart Williams, attorney for Council Member Smith, asserted that there has been mistaken information. 1 le also asserted that council has violated Ms. Smith's constitutional rights. He claimed that council did not properly investigate the issue and that it was an isolated event. lie urged council to reconsider the motion and recent conduct toward Council Member Smith, He also claimed that there may be political motivation. Mr. Snyder invited Nfr. Williams to offer the referred to different set of facts than those included in the letter. Mr. Williams declined. Council Member Reeves took issue with the assertions claiming any of this was related to politics. Ms. Smith objected on Order grounds. Mayor Pearson sustained Ms. Smith's objection. Mr. Reeves said this is part of a bigger problem including other incidents. Council Member Nelson also took issue with assertion that this was at all due to politics. Ms. Smith asserted no investigation was done. Mayor Pearson recounted the reporter's reaction the night in question. Ms. Smith asserted that this is a case of "she said/she said," Aleyor Pearcon withdrew hie motion. He reiterated that the event clearly led the reporter to react the way she did. Mr. Reeves also affirmed the reporter's reaction and condition following the event. MOTION: (Tamil Member Reeves moved TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Council Member Sm,th seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson Adjourned the meeting at 3:51 pm, Nfl'EST: Adam R. Bell, City Clerk LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor Page 6 of 6 2015 Park Commission Strategic Plan of Work The [bv of Lake 8nnn Park Commission has affirmed their priorities to be: 1) Trails - Develop a comprehensive trail plan, and continue efforts on the Lake Elmo Regional Trail system; 2) Create an updated comprehensive park plan; 3) Create and implement a forestry and park plan for Sunfish Lake Park; 4) Make improvements to existing parks to encourage increased utilization and enhanced taxpayer experience With the broader priorities defined, the 2015 Park Commission Strategic Plan ofWork has been broken down into (6)segments; Planning &Audit; Park Development & Equipping ; Maintenance 0^ Refurbishing; Nature& Conservation; Park Awareness; and Finance. Ua����° Vng � � Mission Statement: the use of diagnostics Isurveys /oudds, carefully plan for the proper equipping o/parks and available pork/bnUYngtnmaximize taxpayer utilization. Develop Updated Comprehensive Park Plan Continue planning & fund development of the Lake Elmo Regional Trail. Complete trail plan feasibility study, and comprehensive trail plan. Create Sunfish Lake Park plan toaddress utilization, safety, forest management, nature center & education, structures and parking issues. (Task Force) Mission Statement: Tu constructl develop/equip appropriate parkfacilities toserve the community generally and neighborhoods specifically in accordance with the open space philosophy of the City. Develop master plan for Reid Park including ADA equipment, and permanent restroom Work with HO4a10create / maintain community connection trail access. Determine location for community ice rink a~ntenance eTur ng Mission Statement. 7bmaintain and upgrade mVpark facilities inomanner that increases park usefo 0% Complete Focus ondowntown park space; transforming into hometown ball field destination park Update park recreational amenities based on park audit, current trends, conditions & typical use. Complete 2014 updates/improvements to Tablyn, Pebble, and Sanctuary Park Mission Statement: To promote the open space character and commitment to the environment via nature observation amenities and targeted conservation programs. Implement forest management plan in Sunfish Lake Park per approved stewardship plan Research the replacement of park land due to landfill remediation in Sunfish Area 3 Mission Statement; 7opromote through public relations & signagethe utilization ofCity Parks. Establish through special events, publications, vvcbsite,e'bbgsand other promotion apark awareness plan Maintain consistency in theming/branding to increase park awareness U�� n �na—ce Mission Statement: To effectively spend dedication funds tomeet the objectives of each year's Strategic Plan ufWork while maintaining pminimum fund balance of$10l000. Funding Priorities 1 Trails &Pathways 2. Revitalization ofCurrent Parks I Destination Features 4. Establish New Parks 5. Parking f&Sofety 6 Nature @Conservation Purchase new equipment for park maintenance — up to $70,000 for a new mower, and up to $30,000 for field maintenance equipment Expend up to $400,000 in the refurbishing and updating of the current park system Expend upto$3U,OOOfor LERTfeasibility study TliE CITY (1F 'AKE ELMO AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: 'THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: AY• COU CIL C U ICAT DATE: November 5, 2014 PRESENTATIONS ITEM # Rural Area Analysis Discussion and Presentation Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Casey Riley, Planning Intern Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson. City Planner SUGGESTED ORDER OF' BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Development Director Report/Presentation.... „ ...... ..... ........Community Development Director Questions from Council to Staff .................... ..... ............... ..... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..... ..................................... ..... ............. Mayor & City Council Discussion ............................... ...... ...............................„. Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ...... .......................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission has been discussing the long range plans for the City's rural development areas at various times throughout the past year or so. This item was added to the Commission's work plan by the City Council last year. and the Commission has been diligently gathering information, reviewing past policies, and working with Staff to identify potential land use changes that should be considered. As part of this process, Staff has prepared the attached report, which provides an analysis of the various rural development areas within the City and attempts to address the potential cost implications of various development options. FISCAL IMPACT: None - the study is for Council consideration and has been prepared by internal Staff. The study attempts to identify potential financial implications of rural development options. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission has been discussing rural development areas, and would like to present an update to the City Council concerning its work to date. The Commission is not seeking any specific direction from the Council at this -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Agenda item 3 - Presentation] November 5, 2014 time, but will welcome comments and suggestions concerning any tuture review of the City's rural development areas. In addition to the Rural Area Inventory and Analysis, Staff has attached the most recent Planning Commission report for review by the City Council. This report includes a summary of the report and previous Commission discussions, but also includes a list of options for further study as recommended by Staff. There is ITO suggested motion to since this is a presentation and discussion item. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the report at its October 27'h meeting and directed Staff to incorporate additional revisions and clarifications to the document. The Commission generally supported the expansion of the RE — Residential Estates land use category to provide additional flexibility for owners of property within the City's rural development areas, and suggested that this matter be brought back for further discussion and analysis. Staff presented a brief overview of the City's history of residential development at the meeting, in addition to listing out the initial concerns that Staff had identified concerning expansion of the Residential Estates (or a similar) type of zoning, which included: Providing new lots with proper road access, especially on County and State roads and along City collector routes. It was noted that many of the City's larger, undeveloped lots have frontage along these types of roads. • Running water and sewer into smaller neighborhoods to serve individual lots. • The future maintenance of private or public streets, utility corridors, and other improvements that are typically public. • The potential for future residents to request that private services be made public. • The potential changes in land use character from rural/agriculture to suburban large lot residenti al. The loss of public open space that is affiliated with open space developments. Staff also presented questions for further consideration by the Planning Commission in advance of any future discussions on this subject. Some of these questions included the following: • What is the intent of the rural development areas? (i.e. agricultural preservation, large lot residential, holding zones for future development, open space, or other) How does access management restrict growth? Should the City be encouraging new well/septic systems in rural areas? • Are higher density uses ever appropriate in rural areas (i.e. senior housing, townhomes) • How does agriculture factor in Lake Elmo's future? Do we want to encourage agricultural uses? The Planning Commission and Staff will be weighing these and other issues as this subject is brought forward in the future. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting fAgendo Item 3 - Presentation] November 5, 2014 The SWOT analysis for any rural development options will be provided when the Commission and/or Council pursues a specific course of action. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is being asked to review the Rural Area Inventory and Analysis and provide any feedback to the Planning Commission and Staff concerning the report. There is 170 suggested motion to since this is a presentation and discussion item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rural Area Inventory and Analysis 2, Planning Commission Staff Report — 10/27/14 -- page 3 -- Rural Area Inventory & Analysis .11 Ir. (TIN LAKE FLMO By Catherine Riley City of Lake Elmo Planning Intern FINAL DRAFT 10/27/14 Table Of Contents Research: Cost of Community Services Lake Elmo Cost of Community Services Infrastructure Road Maintenance Schools Public Safety Environmental Impacts Wastewater Farming and the :Agricultural Sector Agricultural Preservation and Sense of Place Inventory: Rural Area Map Open Space Preservation Totals Residential Estate Totals Rural Single Family Totals Rural Residential Totals Agricultural Totals Carriage Station Totals Scenario Study: RR & A Parcel 1\'Iaps Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Conclusions Appendix A: Inventory Data Appendix B: Scenario Data 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 26 33 45 62 69 70 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 84 Rural Area Inventory and Analysis The City of Lake Elino has conducted a Rural Area Analysis to study parcels with rural zoning. The study includes an analysis of each development and aims to compare infrastructure quantities for the rural land use types, as well as population and area. The intent of the study is to provide background and information to aid in future decisions regarding rural zoning and land uses. A secondary goal of this study is to provide research illustrating the increase of community service costs associated with growth. Four scenarios were developed to calculate increased populations, infrastructure amounts and costs, as well as revenues and expenditures. These hypothetical scenarios aim to generate numbers to illustrate how development could affect the areas with rural zoning in Lake Elmo, The research included aims to provide information to address the issues associated with rural development. The research uses several terms and vocabulary that is defined as: High -density development: High -density development is 4 units per acre or greater. Large lot development: Characterized by low -density and automobile dependence, 1 to 10 acre lots. Low -density development: Density of area is less than or equal to 1 unit per acre. Urbanized; Characterized by areas with a full range of public services, city sewer, and water. Working land: Land used for agriculture or open space. Rural Area Research Successful communities are places where residents can live, work and play. Rural areas are often subject to sprawl, especially as new developments weaken the agricultural sector. Without strong policies to support open space, rural areas can be consumed by sprawling developments with the community's rural identity consumed as well. Nlany studies show that new residential development built adjacent to existing urbanized areas is more cost-effective for local governments than new residential development in rural areas, or in areas without supporting infrastructure, Many different factors contribute to the advantage of placing new development adjacent to existing cities or developed infrastructure, including the cost of public services, environmental impact concerns, and the influence of new development on the agricultural sector. Growth can occur in two different ways: new growth in areas adjacent to already urbanized locations, and development in areas "beyond the urban fringe." These areas are typically in the rural countryside and contain low - density developments (2 or fewer houses per acre) (HeimLich and Anderson, 2001). Thesc areas are often not connected to sewer systems or citywide water systems and require automobile transportation for travel. The term "sprawl" has been used to define this type of land use pattern. Sprawl is characterized by "scattered, low -density development that uses a lot of land, geographic separation of essential places such as home, work and shopping, and dependency on automobiles" (Freedgood, 2002), Low -density large lot development is financially rewarding for developers, but creates a land use pattern that is unsustainable damaging to community development and successful places. While low -density large lot development is more attractive to developers, it is costly for government to provide public services to areas. In addition, low -density development that takes place outside urban areas removes land from agricultural usc and converts it to a different type of open space. This change in land use can redefine the look and feel of a community and the result is impossible to reverse. In Minnesota, the number of acres of agricultural land decreased by 2.2 million from 1982 to 1992, with about 10% being converted into urban development (Duncan et al, 1999). From 2007 to 2012, agricultural land decreased by about 882,000 acres (USDA, 2012). As urbanized areas increase, the land from which they are developed is converted from open space, pasture, or cropland. Today, land use patterns indicate that new developments are almost three times more land intensive than they have historically been (Duncan et al, 1999). 4 Cost of Community Services Fire stations and emergency services are part of public and community services. Cost of Community Services and Cost of Public Services Studies are common ways governments evaluate and study growth and its fiscal impacts. The American Farmland Trust has gathered fifteen years of Cost of Community Service Studies (COCS) from nationwide sources. The studies conclude that while residential development contributes a greater proportion of tax revenue than farrn and open space lands, residential developments consume more tax revenue than they provides. Farms and open space lands consume less tax revenue than they provide, as they require fewer public services (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001), The American Farmland Trust began conducting COCS studies to calculate a community's public service costs versus public revenues based of land use, The studies provided tangible information to disprove commonly held beliefs about planning. These myths are that open lands, such as agricult-ure, should be developed to their "highest and best use," that land used for agriculture receive an "unfair" tax break due to the land being valued for its current use as agriculture instead of its potential value, and that residential development will lower property- taxes by increasing the tax base (Freedgood, 2002), COCS allow the public to understand the fiscal itnpacts of land use and are often used as a tool to inform policy. "The special contribution of COCS studies is finding that working lands are also an important commercial land use that helps balance community budgets" (Freedgood, 2002). Agricultural land actually pays for itself and creates a surplus of revenue, helping to balance industrial and residential sectors. As residential areas grow, the city will need to maintain the expanding snfrastrucrure. Land Use and COCS The American Farmland Trust and the Land Stewardship Project conducted a study to analyze the differing costs of services in three metro area farm communities. The land uses studied were residential, industrial and agricultural. The study found that the different land uses were distinctive by the amount of revenue they produced and consumed. The study found that residential lands used 51.40 in services for every $1.00 of revenue created, while commercial and industrial lands use $0.37 in services for every $1,00 created, and agricultural lands used only $0.50 in services for every $1.00 of revenue created. The study also found that residential land uses were typically producing 90% of cities revenues, while consuming more than 98% of the revenues. In comparison, agricultural land uses produced 2°/o of the cities revenues, but werc responsible for less than 1°-'0 of expenditures (American Farmland Trust, 1994). The total cost of serving residential lands in this study exceeded the amount produced by property taxes, Lake I-IArno Cost of Community Services The American Farmland Trust included the City of Lake Elmo in their 1994 study. The COCS study illustrated the revenue relationships between three different land uses: Residential, Commercial and Industrial, and Working and Open Land, For Residential land, the revenue -to -expenditure ratio was 1:1.07. Every dollar of tax revenue collected required an expenditure of $1.07, For Commercial and Industrial Land, the ratio was 1:0.20, and for Working and Open Land, the ratio was 1:0.27 (American Farmland Trust, 2010). In Lake Elmo, the revenue -to -expenditure ratio for residential land showed that for every $1 in revenue generated, there was a $1.07 expenditure. The revenue -to -expenditure ratio for commercial and industrial land showed that for every $1 in revenue generated, there was a $0.20 expenditure. The revenue -to -expenditure ratio for working and open land showed that for every $1 in revenue generated, there was a $0.27 expenditure. Commercial, Industrial, and Working and Open Lands produced a surplus of revenue in 1994. Surprisingly, thc Commercial and Industrial lands provided an even greater allowance than Working and Open Land. The other COCS studies included in the same report typically show Working and Open Land to have the fiscally advantageous revenue to expenditure ratio (American Farmland Trust, 2010). Infrastructure 1-% Sewer systems are sized over cap c • to allow fbr higher densities, growth, and more users. Infrastructure provides the framework for development and infrastructure upgrades are closely tied to growth. Growth requires road improvements, and road improvements or new roads are a catalyst for new development. At a critical mass, two lane roads often found in rural areas are replaced with wider roads to accommodate higher traffic volumes. These new roads attract more growth, and as old septic systems and wells fail, pressure is added in mass for the city to install sewer services, trunk lines, and city water systems. Sewer systems are typically the last infrastructure investment a city makes before higher density levels are reached (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). The costs accrued by growth vary depending upon where the growth occurs within a city. Low -density development costs more than compact development (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). If development occurs adjacent to existing "urbanized" areas, or areas with existing infrastructure in place, local governments profit. A study was conducted by Real Estate Research Corporation that determined that low -density "sprawl" created 74% greater capital costs than high -density planned development (I feirrilich and Anderson, 2001). The low -density large lot developments required higher land, residential construction, road, and utility costs, The study also revealed that public capital costs for streets and utilities were 120% greater for the low -density large lot developments and operating and maintenance costs were 13% higher when compared with high -density planned development. As densities grow, rural roads will need to widen to accommodate higher traffic volumes. A similar study was conducted in 1998 to determine what costs unchecked low -density large lot developments accrued in various parts of the country, This study determined that infrastructure costs were 5 to 25 percent higher for low -density large lot development than compact high -density development (Fleirnlich and Anderson, 2001). "At typical urban -suburban densities, per capita infrastructure costs fall as densities rise. At very low densities, the use of septic systems, open drainage, and unpaved rural streets without curbs and sidewalks may result in low costs, but the equally low quality of such services becomes evident as development increases and these services prove inadequate" (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). Road Maintenance Land use policies that concentrate new development in currently developed areas will tend to The Minnesota Department of Agriculture's Cost of Public Services Study revealed an inverse relationship between per capita road maintenance expenditures and density, residential market value and percentage of city dwellers Duncan et al, 1999). Road maintenance is the largest expenditure item for local governments. The per capita cost of maintaining roads within a county declines as density, residential market value, and percent of residents in cities increases. The MDA Cost of Public Services Study concludes that the preferred strategy to lower per capita road costs in counties is to encourage new growth to take place in cities and existing developed land, Urbanized areas and high traffic streets often require a more expensive road that is built. to withstand traffic volumes and frequency of use. A typical residential street in Lake Elmo is estimated to cost $158 per linear foot for construction, whereas a typical rural road is estimated at $104 per linear foot. Road maintenance costs vary depending upon the size of the city or township. Statewide findings report that average per capita costs are S58 for cities, and 547 for townships. These costs reflect the higher urban road standards required by cities Duncan et al, 1999). hold down aggregate per capita costs for maintaining all local streets and roads, The MDA Cost of Public Services study shows a relationship between per capita residential market value, per capita road costs and density. The report confirms that as per capita market value increases; per capita road costs will rise. However, as both per capita residential market value and density increase, per capita road costs decline(Duncan et al, 1999). The study results also show a strong relationship between the percent of residents living within a city and the counties per capita outlays for road maintenance. As more residents move to the city, the county's per capita outlays for maintenance of county roads decreases. Similarly, the study determined a linear relationship between density and the per capita cost for maintaining roads. As density increases within the township, the per capita cost for maintaining roads decreases. The road maintenance costs for local government are affected by changes in land use and are subject to variance by available state aid. The study concludes that "land use policies that concentrate new development in currently developed areas will tend to hold down aggregate per capita costs for maintaining all local streets and roads within a county Duncari et al, 1999). Snow removal maintenance during winter months adds to annual expenditures. $ Schools iks development increases, the per pupil operating cost of schools increase. As city populations expand, schools must acquire more students. State and federal aid arc not available to schools with expanding student populations if the new student population is above the poverty line. As a result, school systems with growing student populations must constantly pursue new ways to come up with tax revenues to maintain the quality of the education they provide or find ways to cut spending per pupil (Hcirnlich and Anderson, 2001). Generally, as development increase and population increases, per pupil operating cost of schools increase. The new students require transportation, and thus, the per pupil transportation costs increase. Often, school districts must accumulate long-term debt to manage new growth and as a result, per pupil long-term debt increases. NOTE: The Stillwater School District predicts enrollment to stay level with development. Winona, MN, grew 7.5% between 1980 and 1995; per pupil operating costs increased $34. School operating costs were analyzed within the Minnesota Cost of Public Services Study. Per pupil market value of real property within the district directly influenced per pupil operating costs. In Minnesota, as per pupil market value increases, the amount of state aid the school district receives per pupil declines. The study found that schools with higher per pupil markct values of real property tended to spend more in local revenues, partially due to state aid, and partially due to income levels (Duncan et al, 1999). Winona Area School District in Winona County, MN, experienced a VA, increase of population between 1980 and 1995,. The City of Winona experienced a 7.5% increase in population during this time. It is estimated that 75% of the county's population lived within cities in 1996. Between 1988 and 1997, the Winona Area School District, which serves the City of Winona, Wilson Township and the surrounding cities, increased an average of 0.6 percent annually As a result, per pupil operating costs increased by two percent per pupil transportation costs increased from S382 to $416, and the long-term debt per pupil increased from $163 to S1,298. Schools Prior Lake's growth occurred near existing schools, allowing student to walk to school_ Prior Lake Area School District is another example, with a much higher level of growth. The City of Prior Lake increased 42.7% between 1985 and 1995, with the Scott County expanding only 35.4%, The Prior Lake Area School District serves most of Prior Lake, part of Savage, and portions of Spring Lake and Credit River Townships. Between 1988 and 1997, enrollment increased four percent annually and per pupil operating outlays increased 2.7 percent annually. The increased enrollment rate resulted in an increase in per pupil transportation costs from $358 to $390. A large factor positively influencing transportation costs was that new growth had occurred within the Prior Lake School District and was near the District's schools. This case study revealed that per pupil transportation costs for students residing within the area's cities were much lower than those outside of the cities. In this case, development occurred near existing schools, and students were able to walk to school, keeping per pupil transportation costs low SchoolSchooi transportarion costs are higher in MN due to the severe weather. School transportation costs are also affected by development. Minnesota has severe weather, and per pupil transportation costs statewide are elevated. Density, location and form of development, and costs for pupil transportation are strongly related. An increase in density results in a decline of per pupil transportation costs. Areas with high densities produce lower per pupil transportation costs than areas of low density. As the number of pupils using the transportation increases, costs decrease. Areas of growth that maximize the numbcr of pupils per square mile and create new development in areas located adjacent to existing developments will have lower per pupil transportation costs. Encouraging students to walk to school also lowers per pupil transportation costs, and new development can be strategically built near existing schools to maximize this effect (Duncan et al, 1999). School and municipal annual operating costs for low -density development were found to bc 2-5 percent greater than compact high -density development (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001) 10 Public Safe Public safety is one of the highest expenditure items for local governments. Public safety services include law enforcement, fire protection, and ambulance services. As population increases, the per capita cost of law enforcement increases, as expected. Similarly, as per capita residential market value increases, the per capita cost of law enforcement increases. Lower governmental outlays are typically found in areas with a strong agricultural sector (Duncan et al, 1999). Fire protection and ambulance service costs mirror those of law enforcement. Per capita fire protection costs are strongly related to density, population, and per capita market value. As density, population and/or per capita market value increase, there is a need for more firefighter, firehouses, and other public safety amenities. These additional and expanded services increase per capita costs (Duncan et al, 1999), 14,nvironment t - - As snow melts, road salt dissolves and dows into water bodies affecting water quality. Development and land use change, especial low -density growth, can have detrimental impacts to water quality, air pollution, public safety, soil quality, and wildlife habitats. Low —density growth converts large amounts of agricultural land, natural habitats, wetland areas, flood plains, and aquifer recharge areas into developments. With compact development, the impact to the environment can be limited, wildlife habitats and natural ecosystems would remain intact, and water runoff volumes and quality changes would be minimized (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). Numerous issues relating to water are created with low -density development. The largest impact is the increased impervious surface area and paved areas. Paved areas interfere with ground water recharge and disrupt natural hydraulic cycles (Gallagher, 2001). Sheet flow across parking lots and streets carry pollutants, chemicals, and litter to surface waters. A watershed is ecologically stressed when just 10 to 201./o of its area is impervious (Gallagher, 2001). Stomwater regulations and restrictions are in place and help off -set these impacts. Low -density large lot developments consume large amounts of land and wetlands. Unfortunately, almost half of all wetland losses are due to low -density development. Wildlife habitat is also impacted and wetland areas are one the most coveted habitats as they provide a source of water. Uninhibited growth can have serious impact on natural habitat fragmentation. Fragmentation is the leading cause of the decrease of biodiversity in extreme cases can lead to extinction (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). In cases where low -density development does not destroy habitat, the loss of fragments of habitat decrease its ecological value and can impact migration patterns (Gallagher, 2001). 11 Wastewater Systems Low density development increased chemicals and pollutants that harm water quality. Wastewater Treatment & Environmental Cost: Several studies have addressed the non -monetary cost of different wastewater systems. The environmental effects of susceptible systems, such as septic tanks, can endanger ecosystems, poison groundwater, and damage the areas residents cherish. One study calculated the environmental benefits of wastewater treatment in monetary terms by quantifying the potential undesirable outputs and the costs the outputs would accrue. The undesirable outputs included increased levels of suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, and other pollutants entering the ecosystem. The study concluded that the cost of wastewater treated through sanitary sewer conveyance to a wastewater treatment plant outweighs the cost of potential undesirable outputs to the environment (Molinos-Senate et al, 2010). Higher densities increase the amount ptic tanks and uent within the ecosystem. Density Increase & Septic Systems: In rural areas, septic tanks discharge to drain fields where the effluent is "cleaned" as it travels downward between sand and soil particles. The drain field is designed to filter out potentially harmful chemicals and contaminants, and the filtered water is left to help recharge the groundwater. Higher densities increase the amount of septic tanks and effluent within the ecosystem. Studies show that increased density in rural areas result in ecosystems receiving increased pollutant loads. Most notable are the presence of pharmaceuticals and hormones, with pharmaceuticals being detected more frequently (Standley et al, 2008). The srudy analyzed high -density residential areas and compared water quality results with low - density residential areas, both in rural locations beyond the sewer line. The pharmaceuticals and hormones were detected at higher concentrations in the high -density areas with impacts to nearby bodies of water and well water quality (Standley et al, 2008). 2 ng and the Agricultural Sector Development occurring next to agricultural land increases pressure dcvlopment. Development and land use change affect the agricultural sector and the market value of agricultural land. The land use changes and new developments do not necessarily mean the end of agriculture, however, in order for the agricultural sector to survive, it must adapt to development by changing the products and services offered (Heirnlich and Anderson, 2001). A national -scale analysis of the determinants of agricultural land values predicted the effects of potential land development on agricultural land prices. The study found that a number of factors, including policy, discourage the preservation of agricultural land and encouraged development. Agricultural land in close proximity to urban centers increased in value as development occurred, and landowners in these areas were under great pressures to develop their land, The value of the land includes potential uses, and the land price reflects the sum of expected net returns the land would accrue if changed to its most profitable use. If the land is currently profitable as agriculture, but projected to yield large returns in the future from development, these yields are included in the current land value. As a result, the development of land in close proximity to agricultural land increases the value of the agricultural land, and adds pressure for development. The study found that to conserve the land, or to use the land for agricultural use would require a significant financial compensation (Plantinga et al, 2002) to the landowner. The influence of new development on agricultural land values must be of consideration and should influence future planning decisions. Strategic planning is needed to prevent the loss of agricultural land and open spaces. A :\gricultural land value is influenced by its proximity to urban areas. The study found strong relationships between potential density increases and the value of agricultural land. If the density in a county increased by one unit, the land value increased by S65,14 per acre, and the increase in highway density, or greater traffic, increased agricultural land value by S1264 per acre. Finally, the study determined that if the county had a large amount of agricultural land, the value of the land diminished, allowing the land use to remain agricultural. These results are for an average of three thousand counties across the United States (Plantinga et al, 2002). Agricultural land value is also based on its proximity to urban areas. The closer the agricultural land is to an urban center, the higher the land is valued. Agricultural land near an urban center is more likely to develop than land located farther from the urban center (Colver et al, 1997). It is necessary for the City of Lake Elmo to understand the effects of the estimated population growth within the Twin Cities Metro. The increased density will increase the value of agricultural land in Lake Elmo, and the increased density within Lake Elmo will add to the value. 13 Agricul reservation .Agricultural land and open space help define Lake Elmo's rural identity, Agricultural areas provide benefits to the City as they limit public service costs. Minnesota's Agricultural Land Preservation Act In response to the large amounts of agricultural land being converted to other uses, Minnesota adopted the Agricultural Land Preservation Act in 1984. The purpose of the Act is to preserve farmland for future generations to use, and to help farmers develop long term plans for their land (Duncan, 1996). The Act allows the land to be preserved for agricultural use and the farmers receive tax credits and other benefits for their commitment. The land protected by the Act as the "agricultural preserve" has advantages such as the prohibition of public facility siting in preserve areas, expanded protection in eminent domain actions, and exemptions for local ordinances that restrict or inhibit norrnal agricultural practices. The Preservation Act also provides benefits to the City as it limits public service costs in rural areas and places responsible limits on non -farm development in the agriculture sector (Duncan, 1996). Sense of Place and Rural Identity The costs associated with growth must consider the impact of development to the landscape. The natural environment and open space areas contribute to quality of life by providing recreation, pleasant views, clean air, and an identity. Low -density development consumes open space and the effects are lasting (fieirnlich and Anderson, 2001). 14 - Area Profiles: Rural I,and Use Areas in Lake Kirno Rural Area Zoning Map 7'• 71,47:--irrot-7".5-1r71 = +et - The rural areas of Lake Elmo are zoned as Agricultural (A), Rural Residential (RR), Rural Single Family (RS), Residential Estates (RE), and Open Space Preservation (OP), Several Open Space Preservation (OP) subdivisions have been processed through a conditional use permit, but retain Agricultural or Rural Residential zoning, This inventory aims to guide stakeholders and policymakers by summarizing the infrastructural quantities, areas, and densities of each subdivision. The following provides an analysis of the subdivisions found in the Rural Planning Area of Lake Elmo. A summary of all findings can be found in Appendix A, located at the end of this document, Legend R2-PCD [TR OP RE IRS RR 0.5 I i1 1 ) I ,NLilr I N 15 Open Space Preservation Zoning Open Space Preservation Zoning Totals Zoning Average Number of Lots Estimate Average Population per Development Total Mean Lot Size Roads Average Linear Feet of Road Average Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimated Total 111ean Road Cost Estimated Mean Road Cost Per Lot OP 33 117 persons 0.74 acres Water Estimated Total Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure Estimated Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure per Lot Sanitary System 5,257 LF Estimated Total Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe 156 LF Estimated Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot $861,469 Estimated Total Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe $25,603 Estimated Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot S307,495 $9,760 3,999 LF 122 LF $496,491 S15,116 16 Bluestem at Fields of S Croix Bluestem at Fields of St. Croix Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of lots \[ean Lot Size Sum of .all Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lor Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP Water System Type 49 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 14 0.08 acres 1.12 acres 868 feet 62 feet S142,165 S10,155 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water +}=stem per Lot Sant Type Estimate D\VF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitarr System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 793 feet 57 feet S32,513 Discover Crossing Discover Crossing Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lor Size Community Linear Feet of Road 2,848 g/d 616 feet 44 feet $76,487 $5,463 Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 98 persons No 28 0.86 acres 24.13 acres 3,345 feet 119 feet $548,112 S 19,575 Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City 3,798 feet 136 feet S155,718 55,561 Community 5,695 g/d 3,659 feet 131 feet S454,268 $16,224 17 Farms of Lake Elmo , 3 ' :**-4 • '"'"3".. Farms of Lake Elmo Ibtals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lor Size Suin of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 112 persons No 32 0.82 acres 26.22 acres 6,926 feet 216 feet $1,134,894 S35,466 4 ,4 t 0 200 400 000 Feel Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lor Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City 6,518 Feer ^04 feet S267,238 58,351 Community 6,509 g/d 5,425 feet 170 feet $673,617 S21,051 Fields of St. Croix L 00 - ' Fields of St. Croix 1 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 161 persons Yes 46 0.74 acres 36.53 acres 3,345 feet 119 fcet $1,130,589 S26,752 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sa a $11,922 System per Lot Private Well N/A N/A 3611,000 513,500 Community 9,357 g/d 4,416 feet 96 feet S548,419 18 Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addi on Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Fect of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP Water System Type 189 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 54 0.35 acres 1.24 acres 7,476 feet 138 feet 51,224.935 $22,684 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per I,ot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary S9,455 System per Lot City 5,913 feet 110 feet $242,433 S4,490 Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean I,ot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Community Linear Feet of Road 10,984 g/d Linear Feet of Road per Lot 4,112 feet 76 feet 5510,573 Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP Water System Type 144 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 41 0.73 acres 29.80 acres 6,630 feet 162 feet $1,086,392 S26,497 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Private Well N/A N/A S553,500 S13,500 Community 8,340 g/d 1903 feet 46 feet $236,329 Estimate Cost of Sanitary $5,764 System per Lot 19 Heritage Farm Heritage Farm Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road near Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot Meyer's Pinerld _t v't.tft.1 T-tt:Mf -:".ttitttt - 11 OP Water System Type 161 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 46 0.85 acres 39 acres 5,991 feet 130 feet $981,751 $21,342 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipc Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 3/6,/7/ System per Lot tS0 O606 4o,t City 6,188 feet 135 feet S253,708 $6,515 Private 9,357 g/d * 5,991 fie, * 130 feet * S743,88.3 .n.414144 Meyer's Pineridge Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 44-IF 4-4P OP 74 persons No 21 0.9 acres 22 acres 3,449 feet 164 feet $565,088 S26,909 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per I,ot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 0 100 000 4, 444 Private Well N/A N/A $283,500 S13,500 Private 4,272 g/d * 3,449feet * 164 fie * 3438.201 * 320391 20 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Parkview Estates Parkview Estates Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary z\ ccess Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sze Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot Water System Type 112 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 32 1 acre 32 acres 4,598 feet 144 feet 5753,428 S23,544 0 900 .1.00 000 r.4+ Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Private Well N /,\ N /A S432,000 S13,500 Private 6,509 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 4,998 J'ect Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 144 fed Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S570,918 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S17,841 System per Lot Prairie Hamlet Prairie Hamlet Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of MI Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 56 persons No 16 0.45 acres 7.16 acres 1,426 feet 89 feet S233,714 514,607 -001, 001 - . Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DNXT. (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary S2,871 System per Lot 0 90 100 000 0.01 1 1 I Private Well N/A S216,000 513,500 Community 3,255 g/d 370 feet 23 feet 545,942 * If the development uses p e septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 21 St. Croix's Sanctuary t 1 St. Croix's Sanctuary Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots :\ lean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes 1,inear F f Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 217 persons No 62 0.83 acres 52 acres 7,785 feet 126 feet S1,275,650 $20,575 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City 8,665 feet 140 feet $355,265 55,730 Community- 12,611 g/d 7,887 feet 127 feet $979,243 Sunfish Ponds, Sunfish Ponds Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 56 persons No 16 0.81 acres 12.95 acres 1,660 feet 104 feet S272,008 S17,001 Ncrater System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private Well N/A N/A $116,000 813,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate D\VF (gal/day) 3,255 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1400 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 104 fret Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S206,117 System Total $15,794 Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S12,882 System per Lot 22 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Tamarack Farm Estates grg- g,. =- - 0 r--'4grg "1-=',AfTRK __gg= Tamarack Farm Estates Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot I *VX ,12 4.44 OP Water System Type 67 persons No 19 0,69 acres 13.25 acres 2,044 feet 108 feet $334,848 S17,624 Linear Fret of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipc Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 4 0 to L i Private Well N/A N/A S256,500 5113,500 Tana Ridge Tana Ridge Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Community Linear Feet of Road 3,865 g/d 2,044 feet 108 feet $253,735 5113,354 Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 70 persons No 20 0.77 acres 15,34 acres 3,435 feet 172 feet S562,859 S28,143 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipc per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipc per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City 3,635 feet 182 feet $149,035 51,452 Community 4,068 g/d 1,903feer 95 feet $236,329 $11,816 Tapestry at 'harlotte's Grove -rcr,,i-= -=_-- - ____, -,,,-__*.i--,_=_,,-- ,1_, ,,,_-' --4- _ = -----3_,,-:7-7;t1,,,,?_-_:;:-,_,,=-_-__ ---z.-±1......-„,--- - -----_-_=--_-_M_:---4, - ::," T';;-'cr-1 ____-____ Tapestry at Charlotte's Grove Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 235 persons No 67 (1.99 acres 67,6 acres 12,090 feet 180 feet S1,981,067 S29,568 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 11,452 feet 171 feet 5459.532 S7,008 Sanitary System Type Community Estimate DWF (gal/day) 13,628 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe 7,945 feet Linear Fcct of Pipe per Lot 119 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary $986,688 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary $14,727 System per Lot The Homestead t - ' The Homestead Totals Zoning Estimate Population 67 persons Secondary Access No Number of Lots 19 Mean Lot Size 0.86 acres Sum of All Lot Sizes 16.4 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 6,684 feet 352 feet $1,095,299 S57,647 0 16D2PEt.t Water System Typc Private Well Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S256,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water 513,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Typc Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 3,864,8 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 6,684 fed Linear Fecr of Pipe per Lot * 352 fiel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5829,97i System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 543,683 System per Lot 24 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost vas estimated, Whistling Valtu - - - Whistling Valley Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Peet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot OP 151 persons Ycs 43 1.02 acres 43,81 acres 7,50U feet 174 feet $1,228,950 $28,580 . -20 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 120 206 200 0.1 1 22.22.1 Private N /A N/A $580,500 313,500 Community 8,747 g/d 6,523 feet 152 feet 3809,939 $18,835 Wildflower Shores Wildflower Shores Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per T,,ot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 88 persons No 25 0.63 acres 15.8 acres 5,216 feet 209 feet $854,694 $34,188 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipc per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate MVP (gal/day) Linear Fcct of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 0 100 200 400 Fett 1! till City 4,731 feet 189 feet S193,971 57,759 Community 5,085 g/d 2,788 feet 112 feet 3346,177 S13,847 25 Residentia s es Zoning Residential Estates Zoning Totals Zoning - Average Number of Lots Estimate Average Population per Development Total Mean Lot Size Roads Average Linear Feet of Road Average Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimated Total Mean Road Cost Estimated _Mean Road Cost Per Lot RE 19 66 persons 3,41 acres 3,330 LF 179 LE' S543,799 $29,394 Water Estimated Total Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure Estimated Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure per Lot Sanitary System Estimated Total Mean Estimated Mean Linear Estimated Total Mean Estimated Mean Cost o Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe f Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot S216,266 S11,235 3,330 LF 179 LF S413,527 S22,273 26 irabian Hills Arabian Hills Totals Zoning RE Secondary Access Yes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per I,ot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 3,049 feet 160 feet $499,54-4 S26,292 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot M 270 540 P..t Private Well N/A N/A $256,500 S13,500 Private 3,865 g/d * 3,049 feet * 150 feet * S )78,535 * S19,923 Beau Crest Beau Crest Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lors Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lor Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lor RE Water System Type 56 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 16 1.84 acres 29.5 acres 1,904 feet 119 feet $312,022 S19,501 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/daY) Linear Fect of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 0 100 200 406 F..1 City 1,933 feet 121 feet S79,253 $4,953 Private 3,255 g/d * 1,904 feet * 11 9 fiet * S236,438 * S14,777 * If the development uses private septic systc sanit ost was estimated. 27 Cardinal View Cardinal View Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE Water System Type 25 persons Linear Fect of Pipe No 3.04 acres 21,3 acres 1,400 feet 200 feet $229,404 S32,772 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A S94,500 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,4234 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,400feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lor * 200 fed Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 3173,833 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 324.833 Eagle Point Creek Estates Eagle Point Creek Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lor Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot = 1 4 -7 = -‘00- .”1,tfeNWg.—, WO.? 0 /00 Z00 0/0 feet t / / RE Water System Type 25 persons Linear Fcct of Pipc No 4,33 acres 30.3 acres 396 feet 57 feet S64,889 S9,270 linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water S3,514 System per Lot City 600 feet 86 feet $24,600 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,424 Linear Feet of Pipe * 396 feet Linear Fect of Pipe per Lot * 57 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S-19170 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 37,024 28 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Judith Mary Manor Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lors Mean Lor Size Sum of ,N11Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE 42 persons Yes 12 3.08 acres 37.0 acres 2,147 feet 179 feet S351,807 $29,317 n300 *no ton R.nt ' • " Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/.\ Estimate Cost of Water $162,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,441 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,1-17 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 179 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5266,586 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S22,21 S System per Lot Lake EhTio eights 0 Lake Elmo Elmo Heights Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lor Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE Water System Type 140 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 40 2.56 acres 102.4 acres 6,420 feet 161 feet $1,051,981 S26,300 0 250 500 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot 471 I 000 F5,5 City 6,420 feet 161 feet S263,220 S6,581 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate MT (gal/day) 8,136 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 6,420,feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * /6/fte/ Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5797,150 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S19,929 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 29 Lake F Lake E Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot o Vista o Vista Totals RE 35 persons No 10 3.25 acres 32.5 acres 1,692 fe 169 feet $277,251 S27,725 ,0*4410M44400.4111047? _# '04*:. , = - -=- "-- 0 20,1 406 664 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A $135,000 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,034 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1.692 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * /6.9feei Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S210,090 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * $21,009 Midland Meadows Midland Meadows Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE 46 persons Yes 13 7.87 acres 102.3 acres 4,505 feet 346 feet S738,091 $56,776 0 MO 450 $00 Foe Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipc Linear Fret of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N/A N/A $175,500 $13,500 Private 2,6,44 g/d * 4,504 fret * 346fret * $559,2% * 8,13,023 30 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Park Meado - Park Meadows Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estitnate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE Water System Type 28 persons Linear Feet of Pipe No 8 3.28 acres 26.3 acres 1,290 feet 161 feet $211,379 S26,422 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 2,320 feet 290 feet S95,120 $11,890 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate D\VF (gal/day) 1,627 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,290 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 161 fiet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S160.175 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S20,022 System per Lot Rolling Hills -L1If2 • / 1. -.1 Rolling Hills Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE 42 persons Ye s 12 2.81 acres 33.8 acres 2,943 feet 245 fcct S482,207 S40,184 0 POP .P0 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S162,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,440 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,943,feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 245 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S365,398 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S30.500 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 31 Stonegate ir Stonegate Ibtals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE Water System Type 224 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Ycs 64 2.8 acres 179.2 acres 10,070 feet 157 feet $1,650,070 S?5,789 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per I.ot Private N/A N/A S864,000 $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 13.018 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 10,070 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * /57fed Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S1,250,3.58 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S19.537 System per Lot Torre Pines Torre Pines Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lors Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RE 74 persons No 21 2,93 acres 70,4 acres 4,150 feet 198 feet $656,945 $32,382 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $283,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot $13,500 Sanitary System Type Community Estimate DWF (gal/day) 4,272 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 4.150 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 198 feet * ,C515,292 Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S24,538 32 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Single Family Zoning Rural Single Family Zoning Zoning Average Number of Lots Estimate Average Population per Development Total Mean Lot Size Roads Average Linear Feet of Road Average Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimated Total Mean Road Cost Estimated Mean Road Cost Per Lot RS 50 176 persons 1.27 acres Rural Single Family Zoning Totals Water Estimated Total Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure Estimated Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure per Lot Sanitary System 5,503 LF Estimated Total Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe 129 LF Estimated Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot $659,306 Estimated Total Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe $16,256 Estimated Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot $603,971 S12,161 5,503 LF 129 LF $683,265 $16,037 33 Bergman Addition Bergman Addition Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum nf Al] Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 39 persons Yes 11 0.42 acres 4.6 ;acres 1,025 feet 93 feet $106,928 $9,721 * 100 200 400 rot Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipc Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Private N /A N/A $148,500 $13,500 Private 2,238 g/d * 1,025 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 9 3 ji'd Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S127,271 * S11,570 Berschen's Shores Berschen's Shores Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 84 persons Yes 24 0.67 acres 16,0 acres 2,860 feet 119 feet $298,355 $12,431 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipc 0 :IX) Private N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A S324,000 Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate D\VF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S14,797 System per Lot S13,500 Private 4,882 g/d * 2,860 feet * 11.9 fee * 5'5,117 34 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Bordners Garner Bordners Garner Farmettes Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sutn of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 168 persons Yes 48 1.42 acres 67.9 acres 5,220 feet 109 feet $855,349 S17,820 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A S648,000 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 9,764 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 5,220 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 109 feel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S648.150 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S13,503 Darwin Acres Darwin Acres Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 49 persons No 14 0.87 acres 12.2 acres 3,432 feet 245 feet S358,026 S25,573 000 Fee Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipc N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per 1,ot N/A Estimate Cost of Water 5189,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water 513,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,848 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 3.432 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 24.5 feei Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S426,140 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S30.439 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 35 David Nelson Estates David Nelson Estates Totals Zoning RS Estimate Population 18 persons Secondary Access No Number of Lots 5 Mean Lot Size 1.68 acres Sum of All Lot Sizes 8.4 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 588 feet 118 feet S96,350 519,270 0100 200 +?0,40 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet. of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N /A N/A S67,500 S13,500 Private 1,017 g/d * .588 feet * 118 feel * 373,010 * S14,602 Demontreville Highlands Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 490 persons Yes 140 1.18 acres 83,9 acres 8,345 feet 60 feet 5870.550 56,218 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water 51,890,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot 513,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 28,477 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 8.345 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 60 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S1,036,171 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S7.401 36 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. V. e 7 - : ICEBRE7' Down's Lake Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per T.ot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS Water System Type 7 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 1 1,51 acres 3.0 acres 767 feet 384 feet $80,013 $40,007 if 1 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 446 Fa e Private N/A N/A S27,000 S13,500 Private 407 g/d * 767 feet * 38- lieet * 895.236 * S47,618 Eden Park Eden Park Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS Water System Type 193 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes/No 55 1.20 acres 66.1 acres 4,600 feet 84 feet S753,756 $13,705 Private N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S742,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate IDWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Ftfek Private 11,188 g/d * 4.600 fret * 84feel * S571,167 * 510,385 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 37 Fox Fire Estate Fox Fire Estates Totals Zoning RS Etimate Population 203 persons Secondary Access Yes Number of Lots 58 Mean Lot Size 2.11 acres Sum of All Lot Sizes 122.3 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 9,199 feet 159 feet S959,640 $16,546 250 SOO 1.0G0 Feet Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N/A N/A $783,000 S13,500 Private 11,798 g/d * 9,199 fiet * 159 fed * 51.142.209 * S19.693 Friednel Heights Friedrich Heights Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 46 persons No 13 0.49 acres 6.3 acres 1,171 feet 90 feet $122,159 S9,397 0 200 200 A00 Feet Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $175,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,644 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 7./7/.ftet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 90 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S145.399 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S11,185 System per Lot 38 * If the development uses private scp enis, a sanitary system cost was estimated, Kenridge - - Kenridge Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum or All I.ot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 88 persons Yes 25 0.69 acres 17.4 acres 3,000 feet 120 feet S491,580 $19,663 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per I.ot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 3,384 feet 135 feet $138,744 S5,550 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 5,085 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 3,000 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 120 fie% Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 3372,500 * 314,900 Lake Eirrlo Park raaa I-Cra --43 4- Lake Elmo Park Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Fect of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 256 persons Yes 73 0.57 acres 45.0 acres 3,203 feet 44 feet S334,137 $4,577 a BOO Fr)x) Water System Type Linear Fect of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 3,203 feet 44 feet S131,323 $1,799 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 14,849 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 3,203 jeet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 8397,706 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 55,448 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 39 eville Countr Club Lane's Demontreyille Country Club Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lor Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Fcet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 0 MI •K>0 800.t • RS Water System Type 305 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes/No Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot 87 0,56 acres 48.6 acres 6,050 feet 70 feet 5991,353 311,393 Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N/A N/A 31,174.500 S13,500 Private 17,697 g/d * 6.050 feel * 70 fed * S751,208 * 88.635 Oace Acres Oace Acres Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary .Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lor RS 424 persons Yes 121 0,98 acres 118.6 acres 13,569 feet 112 feet S1,415,487 311,698 0 .00 COO 1 200 rett • • t Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $1,633,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 24,613 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1 3,569 feel Linear Fcet of Pipe per I,ot * 112 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S1,684,780 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S1,3,923 System per Lot 40 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Packard Park Packard Park 'Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Stun of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS Water System Type 74 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 21 1.57 acres 33.1 acres 3,264 feet 155 feet S534,855 S25,469 0 200 FOCI MC Ft. Linear Fcet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Private N /A N/A S283,500 $13,500 Private 4,272 g/d * 3,264 feel Linear Fcet of Pipe per Lot * 155/id Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S405,292 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S19,300 System per Lot Springborn's Green Acres Springborn's Green Acres Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 109 persons Yes 31 1,82 acres 56.5 acres 5,760 feet 186 feet S600,883 $19,383 0 3.00 000 1,200 Water System Type Private Linear Peet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $418,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate MVP (gal/day) 6,306 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 5,760 fret Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 186 feet * S715,200 Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S23,07 I * If the development uses private scptic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated, 41 Tablyn Park Tablyn Park Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of ,-11.1 Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS Water System Type 221 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 63 0,84 acres 52,7 acres 5,920 feet 94 feet $617,574 S9,803 800 iF7e1 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate. Cost of Viater System per Lot 505 City 5678 feet 90 feet $232,789 $3,695 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWI' (gal/day) 12,815 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 5,920 fee Linear Feet of Pipc per Lot * 94 fed * S735,06' Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 3'11,668 Tartan Meadows, Tartan Meadows Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 133 persons Ycs 38 1.6 acres 60.8 acres 4,800 feet 126 feet 5786,528 $20,698 IV 4 5. - Aw.rir-7-7±-4 a Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N / A Estimate Cost of Water S.513,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water 513,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 7,730 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 4,800 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * /26loct Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S596,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 3'15,684 System per Lot 4/ * If the development uses private sept s,a sanit V cost was estimated. Teal Pass Estates Teal Pass Estates Totals Zoning RS Estimate Population 53 persons Secondary Access Ycs Number of Lots 15 Mean Lot Size 1,94 acres Sum of All Lot Sizes 29.2 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 2,304 feet 154 feet S377,533 S25,169 if NO 403 fttf«t Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $202,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 3,051 g/d Linear Fcct of Pipe * 2,304 fiet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 154feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S286,080 Systern Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S1 9, 0 72 The Forest The Forest Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 63 persons No 18 L96 acres 35.2 acres 1,675 feet 93 feet S274,466 S15,248 , —L. Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S243,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 3,661 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,675 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 93 feel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S207,979 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S11,554 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 43 Water's Bay Water's Bav Totals Zoning RS Estimate Population 18 persons Secondary Access No Number of Lots 5 Mean Lot Size 2.39 acres Sum of All Lot Sizes 12,0 acres Linear Fcct of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 440 feet 88 feet $45,901 $9,180 ISX1 Z.V.1 <Orl Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/ A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot S67,500 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate FATE (gal/day) 1,017 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 440 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 88 Jee1 Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 354.633 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 310,927 System per Lot All Other RS All Other Rural Single Family Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RS 844 persons Varies 241 1.5 acres 359 acres 33,870 feet 141 feet $3,533,318 $14,661 Water System Type Varies Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S3,253,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot S13,500 Sanitary System Type Varies Estimate D\VF (gal/day) 49,022 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 33,870 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 141 fec/ Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 34,205,525 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 817,-150 System per Lot 44 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Residential Zoning Rural Residential Zoning Totals Zoning Average Number of Lots Estimate Average Population per Development Total Mean Lot Size Roads Average Linear Feet of Road Average Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimated Total Mean Road Cost Estimated Mean Road Cost Pcr Lot RR 7 20 persons 16,5 acres Water Estimated Total Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure Estimated Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure per Lot Sanitary System 2,616 1,F Estimated Total Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe 468 LF Estimated Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot S272,930 Estimated Total Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipc S48,832 Estimated Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot $110,000 $13,500 2,645 LF 478 LF S328,432 $59,315 45 Rural Residential 1 Totals Zoning F,stimate Population Seccmdary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 63 persons Yes 18 12,46 acres 224.3 acres 3,881 feet 216 feet $404,878 S22,493 0 SO 1.000 2.000 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S243,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 3,661 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * .3.881 fict Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 216 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5481,906 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S26,77,3 Rural Residential 2 Rural Residential 2 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot _ - _ 44,0. - — 4...4 t 144i44 4- ;144. 1.c-r1.14.4 - _414 4-44.444,-. ZORD F.ott RR Water System Type 32 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 9 24.42 acres 219.8 acres 2,477 feet 275 feet $238,369 $28,708 500 ,_000 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 6,970 774 feet $285,770 S31,752 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate D\NrF (gal/day) 1,831 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,477 Pet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 275 fee Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5.34,169 System per Lot * S307.924 46 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Residential 3 Rural Residential 3 Totals Zoning RR Estimate Population 32 persons Secondary Access Yes Number of Lots 9 Mean Lot Size 2.52 acres Sum of .All Lot -Sizes 22.6 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 1,700 feet 189 feet 3177,344 $19,705 0 MO Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Fcet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot 496 70 F•-wt Private N/A N/A S121,500 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,831 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe 1,700fiet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 189 ftet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S211,083 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S23,454 System per Lot Rural Residential 4 r _ 4r4.‘4,44 ,4444 Rural Residential 4 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of Al] Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 11 persons Ycs 3 26,57 acres 79.8 acres 1,630 feet 543 feet $170,042 356,681 4.441444V-_-_ 0 250 4.;Cd t _000 F Water System Type Linear Fcet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type City 1,396 feet 465 feet S57,236 S19,079 Private Estirnate DWF (gal/day) 610 g/d Linear Fcet of Pipe * 1,630 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 543 fret Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S202,392 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S67.464 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 47 Rural Residential 5 s; ,s Rural Residential 5 Totals Zoning RR Estimate Population 25 persons Secondary Access Yes Numbcr of Lots 7 Mean Lot Size 14.3 acres Sum of .All Lot Sizes 100,2 acres Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 1,620 feet 231 feet S168,998 524,143 0r70 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot 1209 F..' City/Private 1,625 feet 325 feet 593,625 City: S11,447 Private: $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,424 g/d Linear Feet of Pipc * 1.620feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 321 feel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 3201.150 System Total Estimate. Cost of Sanitary * 528,734 System per Lot Rural Residential 6 - 2 - - ;71 er= Rural Residential 6 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 112 persons Yes 32 8.29 acres 265.1 acres 11,373 feet 355 feet $1,286,454 S37,077 500 1000 2,000 Ftitt , r Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A. Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S432,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 6,509 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 11,373 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 355 fed * S1,412,175 Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S44,130 48 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost WaS estimated, Rural Residential 7 .s. ss, Rural Residential 7 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of ,N11 Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 91 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 26 12.44 acres 324 acres 8,357 feet 321 feet 5871,760 S33,529 r;k4,1 s sf 1ps 0 5t0 IOW 7000 {rat Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate D\VF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Private N/A N/A S351,000 S13,500 Rural Residential 8 • 4 '?` - 7"ttv It‘ .„ s. Rural Residential 8 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Private Linear Feet of Road 5,289 g/d Linear Feet of Road per Lot * 8,357 fed Estimate Cost of Road linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 321 pet Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * $1,0.37.611 * S 39,908 Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 14 persons Yes 4 30 acres 120 acres 1,326 feet 331 feet $138,287 $34,572 0 000 000 2000,Fp. t Water System Type Private Linear Fect of Pipc N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per I.ot N/A Estimate Cost of Water 5540,000 System Total Estiinate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary S3rstern Type Estimate D\VF (gal/day) Linear Fect of Pipc S13,500 Private 814 g/d * 1,326 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 331 fret Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S164,595 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S-11,149 System per Lot 4 * It the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 49 Rural Residentia - - _ 9 Rural Residential 9 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Stun of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cosr of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 18 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 8 5.66 acres 45,3 acres 1,719 feet 215 feet $179,297 S22,412 0 500 LOW Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City 2,261 feet 283 feet S92,701 $11,588 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,627 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,719feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 215 fret Estimate Cost of Sanitary * $213,408 System Total Estimate Cosr of Sanitary System per Lot * 326,676 Rural Residentia IT 0 Rural Residential 10 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot = RR Water System Type 11 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Ycs 8 20.01 acres 160.1 acres 2,245 feet 279 feet $233,103 $29,138 0 000 0100 2,200 0.1 • Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot City/Private 2,032 feet 2,032 feet S96,812 City: S83,312 Private: S13,5R0 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,627 g/d Linear Feet of Pipc * 2.24. 5 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 279feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S277,450 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S34,681 50 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Residential 1 Rural Residential 11 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 14 persons I.incar Feet of Pipe Yes 10.67 acres 74.7 acres 2,030 feet 290 feet S211,770 530.253 if Rural Residential 12 423„, ,T41, Z Nrir-7 • --30,!i33,3 333 - 0 5051 1.5155 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot 2000 24,1 City 3,330 feet 476 feet $136,530 $19,504 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,424 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2030 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 290 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S252,058 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S36,008 3.5.33,5 Rural Residential 12 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 18 persons Yes 6 7.28 acres 43.7 acres 2,130 feet 355 feet $222,202 $37,034 rT 5/ 000 1 5513 0000 Fett Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $81,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate IDWF (gal/day) 1,220 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,130 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 355 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * $264..475 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S44,079 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic syste a sanitary systerrt cost was estimated. 51 Rural Residential Rural Residential 13 Ibtals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lor Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lor RR Water System Type 11 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 3 6.11 acres 18.4 acres 408 feet 136 feet S42,563 S14,188 Ri ral Residen " 0 OCO 1000 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type 2.tft F.44 City 1,330 feet 443 feet $54,530 $18,177 Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 610 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,330 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 44.3 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5165.142 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot ??,/tral Lincar Pipr jnINA, the City Water pipelinc inctrad ul the road lino. 52 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. al 14 Rural Residential 14 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total * S55,047 Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 11 persons Yes 3 11.13 acres 33,4 acres 2,500 feet 833 feet $260,800 $86,933 Water System Type Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Esfimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City 2,514 feet 838 feet $103,074 $34,358 Private 610 g/d * 2,500 feet * 833 feet * 5310,417 * 8103,472 Rural Residential 15 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lors Nfean Lot Size Sum of Al] Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cosr of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 11 persons Yes 4 5.11 acres 20.4 acres 1,000 feet 250 feet $104,320 S26,080 500 1000 2,000 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $54,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 814 g/d Linear Feet of Pipc * 1,000 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 250 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * ,,C114,854 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 857,427 Rural Residential 6 Rural Residential 16 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 7 persons Yes 2 11.30 acres 22.6 acres 925 feet 463 feet 596,496 S48,248 0250 000 1 000 F.af Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipc N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S27,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 407 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 925 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 463 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S114,854 System Total Estimate Cosr of Sanitary System per Lot * 857,427 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 53 Rural Residen rIc 7 Rural Residential 17 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of' Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 3 persons Ycs 1 1.50 acres 1.5 acres 215 feet 215 feet P2,4"/9 $22,429 2.514 U11,1 1.0e1} rg. t • • • t Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A. Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water 513,500 System per I..ot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 203 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2/5feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 215 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S26,696 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * $26,696 System per Lot Rural Residential 18 :f. ,z-re r_w= Rural Residential 18 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 0 persons Linear Feet of Pipe \'es 5 37.00 acres 185.1 acres 7,290 feet 1,458 feet $760,493 $152,099 x4-j trf' 4,4 _ -;` 11.01/0 Peet 4 City 5,868 feet 1,174 feet S240,588 548,118 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,017 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 7.290 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lor * 1.458 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5905,175 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 5181,035 54 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Residential 19 Rural Residential 19 Totals Zoning RR Estimate Population 4 persons Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot Yes 3 6 60 acres 19.8 acres 1,021 feet 340 feet S106,511 S35,504 0 Z50 S00 000 Zee Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipc N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S40,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 610 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,021 feel 1,inear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 340 feel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5126,774 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 542,258 System per Lot Rural Residential 20 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 7 persons Yes 4 6.60 acres 26.3 acres 940 feet 235 feet S98,061 $24,515 1.000 Fee Water System Type City Linear Feet of Pipe 1,150 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot 288 feet Estimate Cost of Water S47,150 System Total Estimate Cost of Water 311,788 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 814 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 940 fret Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 235 feel Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5116,717 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * SZ 9,179 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 55 Rural Residential 21 Rural Residential 21 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes I.inear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot E.stimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot = 44-P - ft-A, 1_1 RR kVater System Type 18 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 8 18.00 acres 145.0 acres 4,785 feet 598 feet $499,171 S62,396 0 500 IMO Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot City/Private 3,378 feet 1,689 feet S219,498 City; 517,312 Private: 513„500 Private 1,627 g/d * 4,785 feet * 598 feet * S594,1 38 * S74,267 Rural Residential 22 Rural Residential 22 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Fect of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 21 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 8 8.3 acres 66,7 acres 2,727 feet 341 feet $284,428 $35.554 ZSO 1,000 Fftt Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot' Private N/A N/A $108,000 S13,500 Private 1,627 g/d * 2. feet * 341 fect * S338,540 * S42,318 56 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated, Rural Residential 23 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 3 persons Yes 1 8.80 acres 8.8 acres 300 feet 300 feet S31,296 S31,296 0 Z•M} Fve.0 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N /A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 203 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 300 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 300 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 337,250 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S.37,250 System per Lot Rural Resicentia124 Rural Residential 24 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estirnate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 14 persons Yes 7 11,00 acres 77.1 acres Q '2,50 $00 1.000 f.tt Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S94,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot 000 feet Sanitary System Type Private 86 feet Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,424 g/d S62,592 Linear Feet of Pipe * 600 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 86 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 374500 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 310,643 System per Lot S8,942 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 57 Rural Residential 25 -s. Rural Residential 25 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 3 persons Yes 1 —0 acres 57.2 acres 1,590 feet 1,590 feet $163,859 $165,859 0 250 SOO ISM foo • • • Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate IMF (gal/day) 203 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,590 feel Linear Fect of Pipe per Lot * 1,590 fiet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S197,425 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 3I97,425 System per Lot Rural Residential 26 Rural Residential 26Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction "focal Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot ciO0-00.04004.0-s 4- 20 3 44*1 - - - RR Water System Type 21 persons Linear Feet of Pipc Yes 6 13.80 acres 82.7 acres 1,050 feet 175 feet 5109,536 S18,256 250 SOO IOW Soot Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DW'F (gal/day) Linear Fect of Pipe Linear Fect of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N /A N/A S81,000 513,500 Private 1,220 g/d * 1,050 feel * 175 feet * S1 30,375 * S21,729 58 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estiinated. Rural Residential 27 '23 1 Rural Residential 27 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction 'fotal Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 3 persons Yes 1 78.00 acres 78.0 acres 1,330 feet 1,330 feet $138,746 S138,746 0 250 500 1 DOD Fort Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot NA Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/clay) 203 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,330 fief Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * /330fiet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S165,142 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S 165.142 Rural Residential 28 a g Rural Residential 28 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per I,ot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 7 persons Yes 2 11.80 acres 23.5 acres 760 feet 380 feet S79,283 $39,642 0 000 1000 t / 2 140 F. el Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water 327,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water S13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 407 g/d Linear Feet of Pipc * 760 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 380141 Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S94,367 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S47,18.3 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated, 59 Rural Residential 29 rq_ .„4 -17 Rural Residential 29 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Ltneu .t of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 35 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 13 16.5 acres 214.8 acres 10,236 feet 787 feet $1,067,820 S82,140 z000r„., Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N/A N/A $175,500 $13,500 Private 2,644 g/d * 10,236,01 * 78.7 'lei * S1,270,970 * 827,767 Rural Residential 30 Rural Residential 30 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road $88,429 Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 7 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 3 11.7 acres 35 acres 2,543 feet 848 feet S265,286 0, 200 000 1 000 Fkot Private N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $40,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 610 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,543 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 848 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S31,5,756 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S105,252 System per Lot System per Lot 60 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Rural Residential Rural Residential 31 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Nlcan Lot Size Sum of All Lot Size Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 18 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 6 13.7 acres 82.3 acres 1,500 feet 250 feet S 156,480 S26,080 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot Private N/.\ N/A $81,000 513,500 Private 1,220 g/d * 1,500 feet * 250 %ee1 * S186,250 * S31,042 Rural Residential 2 Rural Residential 32 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 7 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 2 19.00 acres 38.0 acres 1,525 feet 763 feet 3159,088 $79,544 0 50 00 r , r Private N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S27,000 System Total 000 Fett Estimate Cost of Water m per Lot Sanitary= System Type $13,500 Estimate DWF (gal/day) 407 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,525 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 763 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary, * $189,354 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S94,677 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 61 Agricultural Zoning Agricultural Zoning Zoning Average Number of Lots Primate..Nverage Population per Development Total Mean Lot Size Roads Average Linear Feet of Road Average Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimated Total Mean Road Cost Estimated Mean Road Cost Per Lor A 5 10 persons 21 acres Agricultural Zoning Totals Water Estimated Total Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure Estimated Mean Cost for Water Infrastructure per Lor Sanitary System 3,337 LF Estimated Total Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe 836 LF Estimated Mean Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot S348,081 Estimated Total Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe S87,263 Estimated Mean Cost of Sanitary Sewer Pipe per Lot S67,500 S13,500 3,337 LF 836 LF S414,303 $103,865 62 Agricultural 1 Agricultural 1 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 7 persons Yes 3 20.80 acres 62.4 acres 3,425 feet 1,142 feet $357,296 $119,099 Water Linear Fe Private N /A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S40,500 n Type of Pipe System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear. Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 500 Private 610 g/d * 3,425 feel * 1,142 Jeet * S425,271 * S141,757 Agricultural 2 Agricultural 2 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot A Water System Type 7 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 16.50 acres 33,0 acres 2,200 feet 1,100 feet S229,504 S114,752 Private N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $27,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 407 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,200 feel Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 1,100 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S273,167 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S136,583 System per Lot * If the development uses priv septic systems, a sanitary cost w 63 Agricultural 3 Agricultural 3 'Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots can Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot A Water System Type 11 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 8 7,3 acres 58.4 acres 2,105 feet 263 feet $219,594 $27,449 114 4, $44441 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A $108,000 $13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,627 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,105fert Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 26.3 leol Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S261.371 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S32,671 Agricultural 4 Agricultural 4 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of I.ots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 11 persons Ycs 3 8.5 acres 25.3 acres 2,125 feet 708 feet 5221.680 S73,893 *44 2.50 SOO TOM Fext Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $40,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 610 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 2,125 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * _708feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S26.3,854 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S87_,95 I System per Lot 64 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Agricultural 5 Agricultural 5 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 3 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 1 0.96 acres 0.96 acres 570 feet 570 feet S59,462 S59,462 250 SCO OM F.. Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A $13,500 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate D\VF (gal/day) 203 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 5 70 fiet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * .570 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S70,775 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S70,775 System per Lot Agricultural 6 ter -0,-/ Agricultural 6 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 39 persons Yes 20 15.7 acres 313.7 acres 10,990 feet 550 feet S1,146,477 $57,324 71, -ja 0'4 =11 005 ti 2 OW Fe. 1 I Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $270,000 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 4,068 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 10,990 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 550 fief Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S1 ,36=1,592 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S68,230 System per Lot * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 65 Agricultural 7 Agricultural 7 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Nun-tber of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot 3 persons Yes 5 35.5 acres 177.5 acres 1,585 feet 317 fcet $165,347 $33,069 0 0a0 0000 2 000 ;mg Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water S67,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWI; (gal/day) 1,017 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 1,585- feel Linear Fect of Pipe per Lot * 317 fea Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S196,804 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S39,361 System per Lot Agricultural 8 Agricultural 8 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Fect of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot A 7 persons Yes 5 2.3 acres 11.4 acres 150 feet 30 feet $15,648 $3,130 _ 00. 250 WO 1,000 0,0,000,4 Water System Type Private Linear Feet of Pipe N/A Linear Fect of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water 367,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot $13,500 Private 1,017 g/d * 150 feet * 30 fed * S18.62.5 * 53,725 1 66 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Agricultural 9 !tt,- rt Agricultural 9 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR Water System Type 3 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 1 40.0 acres 40,0 acres 1,360 feet 1,360 feet $141,875 $141,875 4) 40 SCA) SVC, 441 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Private N/A N/A $13,500 S13,500 Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal / day) 203 g/d Linear Fcet of Pipe * 1.360 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 1,360 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * 5168,867 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S/68,867 System per Lot Agricultural 0 Agricultural 10 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Fcet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot RR 14 persons Yes 5 51.6 acres 258,0 acres 7,150 feet 1,430 feet 5745,888 S149,178 Water System Type Linear Fcet of Pipe Private N /A Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot N/A Estimate Cost of Water $67,500 System Total Estimate Cost of Water $13,500 System per Lot Sanitary System Type Private Estimate DWF (gal/day) 1,017 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe 7„1,50 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 14.30 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S887.792 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * 5177,558 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated, 67 Agricultural z ir i‘gricultural 11 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot • A Water System Type 11 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 4 25.8 acres 103.2 acres 2,700 feet 675 feet S281,664 570,416 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 13??? Zoo0 Fast Private N/A N/A S54,000 S13,500 Private 814 g/d * 2,700 feet * 67,5 firt * S335,250 * S83,813 Agricultura Agricultural 12 Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lots Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feer of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot A Water System Type 7 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 3 32.5 acres 97,4 acres 5,680 feet 1,893 feet 5592,538 $197,513 Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Water System per Lot Sanitary System Type Estimate DWF (gal/day) Linear Feet of Pipe Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Sanitary System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot 1,000 ZPDD tet • Private N/A N/A S40,500 513,500 Private 610 g/d * 5,680 feet * 1,893,feet * S705,267 * S235,089 68 * IF the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. Carriage Station 1 Carriage Station Totals Zoning Estimate Population Secondary Access Number of Lors Mean Lot Size Sum of All Lot Sizes Linear Feet of Road Linear Feet of Road per Lot Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction Total Estimate Cost of Road Reconstruction per Lot R2-PUD Water System Type 382 persons Linear Feet of Pipe Yes 109 0.38 acres 40.9 acres 6,256 feet 57 feet S358,424 $9,405 0 200 400 I I Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot Estimate Cost of Water System Total Estimate Cost of Viater System per Lot . 800 Feet City 8,307 feet 76 feet S340,587 S3,125 Sanitary System Type Community Estimate DWF (gal/day) 2,2,172 g/d Linear Feet of Pipe * 5,897 feet Linear Feet of Pipe per Lot * 54 feet Estimate Cost of Sanitary * S732,211 System Total Estimate Cost of Sanitary System per Lot * S6,718 * If the development uses private septic systems, a sanitary system cost was estimated. 69 Rural Area Analysis: Scenario Study Rural Residential Areas ?",100 4,100 8400 Fro' The scenarios created aim to generate numbers to predict populations, infrastructure totals, revenues, and expenditures, for hypothetical scenarios. The parcels included are all areas with Rural Residential or Agricultural zoning. The specific data for each parcel can be found in Appendix B at the end of this document. Agricultural Areas 0 1,100 4;100 8:4°Ct Fe,t Four different scenarios were created: the first with all RR areas greater than 10 acres being subdivided to 2.5 acre lots. The second with all RR areas greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2.5 acre lots and all Agricultural areas greater than 40 acres subdivided into OP areas (18 units per 40 acres). The third with all RR areas and Ag areas greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2.5 acre lots, and lastly, all Ag areas greater than 20 acres subdivided into OP with 60% calculated open space. 70 Scenario 1 1-7 0 I 2,100 4,200 Rural Residential lots greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2,5 acre lots Zoning Current Number of Lots Number of Lots after Subdivision' Total Area: Sum of Current Acres Current Estimated Population Estimated Population :after Subdivision' Current Estimated Lin Feet of Road Estimated Linear Feet of Road After Subdivision I Linear Feet of Additional Roads Needed ' Estimated Linear Feet of Sanitary Selves ' Needed for Subdivision Estimated Cost of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Current Estimated Tax Capital Accrued Tax Capital per Lot ' Current Estimated Expenditure for ArcajQ Current Balance After Expenditure for Area S1 Estimated Tax Capital After Subdivision 12 Fstimated Expenditure After Subdivision Estimated Deficit After Subdivision " 1 C,Iool7 ,l to Jul/ling Tonl 1ue, he 2 5 2 Clinton p,pulen,=n mulnphod by 3 S 3 Current inn n mulrrpl,ed by RR mad per lot Weir Igt" JuI,JorJorI Ina r« roolapiro4 Ir Rl: road per In, , engu 5 i.F Sudro,drd Honk - IX Current Itond, 6 $ver nndrr n,.uh,^ay >ama :,s tall u,.,ds sing 8,400 Feet ,ul'&''= 7 I h „f ,r, r needed malnpl,ed by 1.I aster rose RR 95 839 2,195.5 acres 332 persons 2,937 persons 40,755 LF 150,181 LF 109,426 LF 150,181 LF $18,647,474 $383,639 $4,038 S103,583 S280,056 33,882,892 S4,154,694 ($271,802) 3 ,Sum rol a1 rurrcnt r.,x eepit.J per lur 7 Corners rn* c ,pit d J,ndcd by cirrus lot rt IU Cwrenr r.,e copaal mulnpl¢d 6y^ 11.2; ?per Corr, t Coannnmm nu.-ct /inch for 1.,Ite Elmo} 11Current rim c,pu+l expendm,n 12 .irergr;e RF. tis per lot multiplied In „ f Inn, dive mt+drcnspn I3 L:.nm.urd ti: crpni,l .dtrr o,bdo-, ,rn (I_) muinp6adby 1 Ui !per Cos, ill Cornenunini <mcly for Lrke Elm/ 14 G'mn red tst, c:,lnnl :,fter oibd,vo, n espcnfiosre .16er nnbd,.•,.,nn 71 Scenario 2: 0 1 I 1 2,100 .1,2,00 8,400 Fr Rural Residential lots greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2.5 acre lots and Agricultural lots greater than 40 acres subdivided to OP (60% open space} Zoning Current Number of Lots Number of Lots after Subdivision Total Area: Sum of Current Acres Current Estimated Population Estimated Population After Subdivision Current Estimated Linear Feet of Road Estimated Linear Feet of Road After Subdivision Linear Feet of Additional Roads Needed Estimated Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Estimated Cost of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Current Estimated Tax Capital Accrued Tax Capital per Lot Current Estimated Expendinrc for Area Current Balance After Expenditure for Area Estimated Tax Capital After Subdivision Estimated Expenditure After Subdivision Estimated Deficit After Subdivision 111.44 RR Jena deeded by 3.5+ 1p;Lrt-s <31n2 iced 13 line 60, oput .pa<c di+^td33163 act Or 1,4 `tzc 2 Current prpul.nnm nwlapbt d bl 3 3 Cr,rre-ne 34, RR a 1- by RR rind per lnl.mrtrc. .nr .%g lot t .1y, rt,Jd per let u edge 4 .ylbJrndrd I.,c k N. by HE n,.3d per Ica 3,1age 51.1'4,hd,vni,d ,rd, Llr t;u,ecn, Red, RR and 103 1,093 2,722 acres 360 persons 3,825 persons 44,187 LF 195,647 LF 151,460 LF 189,805 LF S23,615,164 $448,520 $4,721 $121,100 $327,420 $5,338,566 $5,712,266 ($373,700) 7 LE n( *n,n r ac-ndeci mahiphed by 1.1, :ewer car, N. kin of all currcnr t,x eapaal per Int 9 Current tr.( cipttd elimlyd by mrrrnr Inr 45 Iu Cure( nr to e,prrd m.dnphrd by 02' cper Cosy r.( (.emr r' n,n- ,rrrdy inr Irakc Rime() 11rtCu,n nr in capttil rsprnditurc I Av, rege RE tax per lot #3.1,J13113-dlw # nt Inn altar wbdtnnun 13 I5 l,n, ,ted 1 EY e.,pil.,l -alter nnbtllnnr,nt j 12; mulnpl,td In- 1 (17 (per C.,of C,.mmvmn eruch out 1.11T lilmn 11 Iiertm,trcd re? cepuni after e(11,1131(303 - enpc-ndrhrre after <ubdnnann 72 Scenario 3 1 I � 2,100 4,200 Rural Residential lots greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2.5 acre lots and Agricultural lots greater than 10 acres subdivided to 2.5 acre lots Zoning Current Number of Lots Number of Lots after Subdivision Total Area: Sum of Current Acres Current Estimated Population Estimated Population After Subdivision Current Estimated Linear Feet of Road Estimated Linear Feet of Road After Subdivision Linear Feet of Additional Roads Needed Estimated Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Estimated Cost of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Current Estimated Tax Capital Accrued Tax Capital per Lot Current Estimated Expenditure for Arca Current Balance After Expenditure for Area Estimated Tax Capital After Subdivision Estimated Expenditure After Subdivision Estimated Deficit After Subdivision I I t,) RR Awl .1g.u'¢r dn'ded i 2 Current populm++n nwlt+pI ed h, 3 5 3 r;tnrent lot. RR 0,, It, IiR rc.e.l t.cr for +rrr.g9 rnt:1y, Icts>per lotngr J Suhd:,,tlyd Lot a s, Rli ru,d per lot o-oragr S I.F 5'rI drdR,.rd-,-Lf Cutn nr Rrtd, 4 :tomer ender :ctwar gym, ,, t ral road' .rftrr, I ,uhCrc.. 5,400 Ft., 7 I.Fr1 ,ut.rtuvded mohgrind 44 LI ‘r;,e, 30,1 RR and A 123 1228 3198 acres 430 persons 4,298 persons 52,767 LF 219,812 LF 167,045 LF 219,812 LF S27,293,323 S516,028 S5,432 S139,328 $376,700 S5,683,184 S6,081,007 (S397,823) H Sum of .111 t ornan tax c-tpd.,l pet Int 9 Cu'mn na medal dn',dcd hp nurcnr lot ti 10 Cutrvnr for capnal mulnpI ed h,- Il 27 tpet Etude tor 1,tkr I.Imc) 11-i_ runt laN Ctjntd-ev pcnd,mrr t2. .\,c ,,, RJi tt, 1 r lot mulnpind h.; a t,t 3t.t. xtt,e nbdn,„um I S lit tint +urtl ra <nptr.d abet 4040.10 0100 (12; mulr,pI,td hl 11,7 .ore Cam of C ammimtc ,rn•ire ,,mil• for I.J< Elmo) 14 13atm.nrd tat otpt d die+ .uhdnan n , eapend,nne afar .uhd,e,aon tAnrty Scenario 4: 0 1 2, i (0 a?00 S.400 Fee Rural Residential lots greater than 20 acres subdivided to OP and Agricultural lots greater than 20 acres subdivided to OP (60% open space) Zoning Current Number of Lots Number of Lots after Subdivision Total Area: Sum of Current Acres Current Estimated Population Estimated Population After Subdivision Current Estimated Linear Feet of Road Estimated Linear Feet of Road After Subdivision Linear Feet of Additional Roads Needed Estimated Linear Feet of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Estimated Cost of Sanitary Sewer Needed for Subdivision Current Estimated Tax Capital Accrued Tax Capital per Lot Current Estimated Expenditure for Area Current Balance After Expenditure for Area Estimated Tax Capital After Subdivision ted Expenditure After Subdivision ed Deficit After Subdivision 1 ii , n of RR and ,\g 101, c-:dcraZ,1cd vr, ta:r c „ p>rr, -Fare drc,d. d hy at'o OP k=t ' oo 7, C_,ixrenr yarr13111ar,.01 muit,plod I„t 3 la i Current!otc Rtt;m 3 In RR red prc trot _nrrage tarmac Aya, s Ady, road per it .1,0111: 4 7andm,ded der H, b}' (1)' road per lott-AwaGc Subd vo cd Roads - t.F C.orcent Road, tt St der under rtt tdu•33 came a total n.x9s 9frcr 0' ,nbdn,>n:n 7I.P,dcaner needed tnulnplod h0 1.1- count cod RR and A 57 1,629 2,376 acres 200 persons 5,702 persons 244,453 LF 291,591 LF 267,138 LF 291,591 LF 531,859,711 5194,096 52,043 552,406 5141,690 59,335,799 S9,989,305 (5653,506) A Sum ,d :dl current roc capital per ler n C front rc, raped dnadrd by current Ica H 10 Current on:carnal mulnp Ii;J by 0,7 (per l:r., of Cennnunin +:, amdy let Lake Elmo) 1l Cucccnr ta0 eardal-r,pcndnun 17 \venter RP, tat per lot rnnll,pbcd be r_ ni ltd. JR, ,ubdn,-inn I t Egon Red nr carted after sul I ,,re {I':) melt-41,n1 by 1 0%{per Coat of Comntrulter :Arnica, ch,Jr tin 1. Ike Elmo; 1-1 Etotooted r.,, r troll atr4 r sub.Laa.mm . c\pendlnnr ,irrr.ubolnmeeu 74 Conclusions: New residential development built adjacent to existing urbanized areas is more cost-effective for local governments than new residential development in rural areas, or in areas without supporting infrastructure. It is in the City's best interest to fully utilize the City sanitary sewer system and cluster development around it. If subdivision is to occur in areas with rural zoning, it is fiscally advantageous to use open space preservation zoning and cluster development. The scenario study shows that with OP subdivisions, more lots can be created using a smaller footprint, and open space and the rural feel of Lake Elmo can be preserved* The scenario study revealed that by changing Rural Residential and Agricultural areas to 2.5 acre lots or Open Space Preservation areas, the cost of public services increases. The deficit that residential lands create should be augmented by commercial/industrial land and working and open space land uses to ensure that the City's budget is balanced. It is important to consider the agricultural sector when deciding to allow subdivision in rural areas. Development influences agricultural land prices and creates additional pressure for these lands to develop. Lake Elmo takes pride in its rural identity and the added pressure of development would compromise Lake Eltno's agricultural sector, sense of place, and rural identity. The research provided by this document illustrates the environmental impacts of subdivision as well as the increased cost of community services. It is recommended to consider the look and feel of Lake Elmo and the impact that policy changes would have on the rural quality of the City. 75 Resources: American Farmland Trust, "Farmland and the Tax Bill: The Cost of Com- munity Services in Three Minnesota Towns." Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust, 1994, accessed Sept 30, 2014, wwwfarmlandinfoorg/ farm- land -and -tax -bill -community -services- three-minnesota -cities. American Farmland Trust. "Farmland Information Center Fact Sheet: Cos of Community Services Studies." Washington DC: AFT National Office, 2010, accessed Oct 6, 2014, w\vwfarmlandinfoorg/sites/default/files/ COCS_08-2010_1. ?clf. Colvcr, D., Phipps, T T., & Sh, Y1. "Agricultural land values under urban- izing influences," Land Economics 73(1997): 90. Freedgood, Julia, Cost of Community Services Study: Making the Case for Conservation, contributing Tanner, L., Mailler, C., Andrews, A., Adams, M. (American Farmland Trust,: Washington, 2002), Gallagher, Patrick, "The environmental, social, and cultural impacts of sprawl." Natural Resources & Environment 15(2001): 219, Heimligh, R. F,., & Anderson, \V D. "Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land," Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 803. (2001), Molinos-Senate, Maria, llernanciez-Sancho, Francesc, and Sala -Garrido, Ra- mon, "Economic feasibility study of wastewater treatment: A cost -benefit analysis," Science of thc Total Environment, 408(2010): 4396-4402, Plantinga, A. J., Lubowski, R. N,, & Stavins, R. N., "The effects of potential land development on agricultural land prices," Journal of Urban Econornics 52(2002): 561-581. Standley, Laurel J. Rudel, Ruthann A,, Swartz, Christopher H., Attfield, Kethleen R., Christian, Jcff, Erickson, Mike, and Brody, Julia G. "Wastewa- ter -Contaminated Groundwater as a Source of Endogenous Hormones and Pharmaceuticals to Surface Water Ecosystems." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 27(2008): 2457-2468. J _A Appendix A: Rural Area Inventory Land Use Typ Development OP RE Mean Lot Total Size Linear Lnr Ft. per Secondary Est. Total Road Cost Water System # of Lots Size (Acres) (Actes) Feet of Lot Access? Road Cost per Lot Type Bluestein at Fields of St. Croix 14.00 (1.08 1,12 868 62 No 142165 10155 City Discover Crossing 28,00 0.80 24.13 3345 119 No" 548112 19575 City Farms of Lake Elmo 32.00 0.82 26.22 6926 216 No 1134894 35466 City Fields of St. Croix I. 46.00 0,74 36.53 7510 163 Ycs 1230589 26752 Private Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition 34.00 0.35 1.24 7476 138 No 1224935 22684 City Hamlet on Sunfish Lakc 41.00 0.73 29.76 6630 162 No 1086392 26497 Private I icritage Farm 46.00 0.85 38.93 5991 130 No 981751 21342 City Meyer's Pineridge 21.00 0.90 21.79 3449 164 No 565088 26909 Private Parkvie\v Estates 32.00 1,00 32.00 4598 144 Yes 753428 23545 Private Prairie Ifamlet 16.00 0.45 7.16 1426 89 No 233714 14607 Private St. Croix's Sanctuary 62,00 0.83 51.87 7785 126 No 1275650 20575 City Sunfish Ponds 16.00 0.81 12.95 1660 104 No 272008 17001) Private Tamarack Earn Estates 19,00 0,69 13.2.5 2044 108 No 334848 17624 Private Tana Ridge 20.00 0.77 15.34 3435 177 No 562859 2814.3 City Tapestry at Charlottes Grove 67,00 0y99 67,64 12090 180 No 1981067 29568 City The Homestead 19,00 0.86 16.44 6684 352 No 1095299 57647 Private Whistling Valley 43.00 1,02 43.81 7500 174 Yes 1228950 28580 City/Private Wildflower Shores 25.00 0.03 15.80 5216 209 No 854694 34188 City OP Average 33.39 0.74 25.33 5257 156 861469 25603 Arabian Hills 19.00 3.11 59.12 3049 160 yes 499544 16291 Private Beau Crest 16.00 1.84 29.49 1904 119 No 312022 19501 Citv Cardinal View 7,00 3,04 21.29 1400 200 No 229404 37779 Private Eagle Point Creek Estates 7.00 4.33 30,34 396 57 No 64889 9270 City Judith Mary Manor 12,00 3.08 37,01 2147 179 Yes 351807 29317 Private Lakc Elmo Heights 40.00 2.56 102.39 6420 161 Yes 1051981 26300 City Lake Elmo Vista 10,00 3.25 32,53 1692 169 No 277251 2T/25 Private Midland Meadows 13.00 7..87 102.35 4504 346 Yes 738091 56770 Private Park Meadows 8,00 3.28 20,25 1290 161 No 211379 26422 City Rolling Hills 12.00 2.81 33.77 2943 245 Ycs 482207 40184 Private Stonegate 64.00 2.80 179.19 I 0070 15'7 Yes 1650070 25782 Private Torre Pines 21.00 2.93 70.38 4150 198 No 656945 32382 Private RE Average 19.08 3.41 60.34 3330 179 543799 29394 78 Appendix A: Rural .Area Inventory Linear Feet Linear Ft- Cost Total- Cost per lot- Septic Est. Approx DVVF Linear Ft of Lnr Ft Pipe Total Cost of Cost per pipe -water water- per lot water water System Type Population (gal/day) Pipe Per Lot Sanitary lot=sanitary 793 57 32513 2322 Community 49.0 2848 616 44 76487 5463 3708 136 155718 5561 Community 03.0 5695 3659 131 454267 16224 6518 204 267238 8351 Con -nullity 112.0 6509 5425 170 673617 21051 621000 13500 Cotrunimity 161.0 9357 4417 96 548419 11922 5913 110 242433 4490 Community 189.0 10984 4112 76 510573 9435 553500 13500 Community 143.5 8340 1903 46 236329 5764 6188 135 253708 5515 Private 161.0 9357 .5991 130 743883 16171 283500 13500 Private 73.5 4272 3449 164 428201 20391 432000 13500 Private 112.0 6509 4598 144 570918 17841 216000 13500 Community 56.0 32,55 370 23 45942 2871 8665 140 355265 5730 Community 217.0 12611 7887 127 979243 15794 0 216000 13500 Private 56,0 3255 1661) 104 206117 12882 0 256500 13500 Community 66.5 3865 2044 108 253735 13354 3635 182 1491)35 7452 Community 70.0 4068 1903 95 236329 11816 11457 171 469532 7008 Community 234.5 13628 7946 119 986688 14727 0 256500 13500 Private 66.5 3865 6684 352 829975 43683 0 580500 13500 Community 150.5 8747 6523 157 800939 18836 4731 189 193971 7759 Community 87.5 5085 2788 112 346177 13847 307495 9760 116,9 6792 3999 122 496491 15116 256500 13500 Private 66.5 3865 3049 160 37853.5 19923 1933 121 79253 4953 Private 56,0 3255 1904 119 236438 14777 94500 13500 Private 24,3 1424 1400 200 173833 24833 6(1(1 86 24600 3514 Private 24.5 1424 396 37 49170 7024 162000 13500 Private 42.0 2441 2147 179 266586 22215 6420 161 263220 6581 Private 140.0 8136 6420 161 797150 19929 1350(10 13500 Private 35,0 2034 1692 169 210090 21009 175500 13500 Private 45.5 2644 4504 346 559296 43023 2320 290 95120 11890 Private 28.0 1627 1290 161 160175 20022 162000 13500 Private 47.0 2441 2943 245 365398 30450 864000 13500 Private 224.0 13018 10070 157 1250358 19537 283500 13500 Community 73,5 4277 4150 198 515292 24538 216266 11245 66.8 3882 3330 179 413527 22273 79 kppendix A: Rural Area Inventory Land Use Tvp Development RS RR Mean Lot Total Size Linear Lnr Ft. per Secondary Est. Total Road Cost Water System # of Lots Size (Acres) (Acres) Feet of Lot Access? Road Cost per Lot Type Bergman Addition 11.00 0.42 4.60 1025 93 Ycs 106928 9721 Private Berschen's Shores 24.00 0.67 16,00 2860 119 Ycs 298355 12431 Private Bordners Garner Fatmettes 48.00 1.42 67.89 5220 109 Yes 835349 17820 Private Darwin Acres 14 00 0.87 12.17 3432 245 No 358026 25573 Private David Nelson Estates 5.00 1,68 8.41 588 118 No 96350 19270 Private De:\ loi itreville Highlands 140,00 1.18 83.87 8345 60 Yes 870550 6218 Private Down's Lake 2.00 1.51 3.02 767 384 Yes 80013 40007 Private Eden Park 55.00 1.20 66,12 4600 84 Yes/No 733756 13705 Private Fox Fire Estates 58.00 2,11 122,31 9199 159 Yes 959640 16546 Private Friedrich Heights 13.00 0.49 6.33 1171 90 No 122159 9397 Private Kenndge 73110 0,69 17.38 3000 120 Yes 491.580 19663 City Lake Elmo Park 73.00 0.57 45,03 3203 44 Yes 334137 4577 City Lane's Demontreville Country Club 87.00 0.56 48.63 6050 70 Ycs/No 991353 11395 Private Oace Acres 121.00 0.98 118.58 13569 112 Yes 1415487 11698 Private Packard Park 21,00 1.57 33.09 3264 155 Yes 534855 25469 Private Springborn's Green Acres 31.00 1.82 56.54 5760 186 Yes 600883 19383 Private Tablyn Park 63,00 0.84 52.74 5920 94 Yes 617374 9803 City Tartan Meadows 38,00 1.60 60.84 4800 126 Yes 786528 20698 Private Teal Pass Estates 15,00 1,94 29.15 2304 154 Yes 377533 75169 Private "the Forest 18,00 1.96 35.20 1675 93 No 274466 15248 Private Water's Bay 5.00 2,39 11.95 440 88 No 45901 9180 Private All other RS 241.00 1.50 .358.50 33870 141 Varies 3533318 14661 Varies RS Average 50.36 1.27 57.20 5503 129 659306 16256 RR 1 RR 2 RR 3 RR 4 RR. 5 RR 6 RR 7 RR 8 RR 9 RR 10 RR 11 18.00 12.46 224..34 3881 216 Ycs 404878 22493 Private 9.00 24.42 219.82 2477 275 Yes 258369 28708 City 9.00 2.52 22.64 1700 189 Yes 177344 19705 Private 3.00 26.57 79.73 1630 .543 Yes 170042 56681 City 7.00 14.30 100.16 1620 231 Yes 168998 24143 City/Private 32.00 8,29 265.12 11373 355 Yes 1186434 37077 Private 26.00 12,44 323.51 8357 321 Yes 871761 33529 Private 4.00 30.00 120.00 1326 331 Ycs 138287 34572 Private 8.00 5.66 45.31 1719 715 Yes 179297 22412 CM, 8.00 20,01 160.10 2235 279 Yes 233103 29138 City/Private 7.00 10.67 74.72 2030 290 Yes 211770 30233 City 80 Appendix A: Rural Area Inventory Linear Feet Linear Ft- Cost Total- Cost per lot- Septic Est. Approx DWF Linear Ft of Lnr Ft Pipe Total Cost of Cost per pipe -water water- per lot water water System Type Population (gal/day) Pipe Per Lot Sanitary lot=sanitary 148500 13500 Private 38.5 22.38 1025 93 127271 11570 3241100 13500 Private 84.0 4882 2860 119 355117 14797 648000 13500 Private 168.0 9764 522,0 109 648150 13503 189000 13500 Private 49.0 2848 3431 245 426140 30439 67500 13500 Private 17,5 1017 588 118 73010 14602 1890000 13500 Private 490.0 28477 8345 60 1036171 7 40 1 77000 13500 Private 7.0 407 767 384 95236 47618 742500 13500 Private 192,5 11188 4600 84 571167 10385 783000 13500 Private 203,0 11798 9199 159 1142209 19693 175500 13500 Private 45.5 2644 1171 90 145399 11185 3384 135 138744 5550 Private 87.5 5085 3000 PO 372500 14900 3203 44 131323 1799 Private 255,5 14849 3203 44 397706 5448 1174500 13500 Private 304.5 17697 6050 70 751208 8635 1633500 13500 Private 423,5 24613 13569 112 1684780 13924 283500 135011 Private 735 4272 3 -)64 155 405292 19300 418500 13500 Private 108.5 6306 5760 186 715200 23071 5678 90 232798 3695 Private 220.5 12815 5920 94 735067 11668 513000 13500 Private 133,0 7730 4800 126 596000 15684 202500 13500 Private 52.5 3051 2304 154 286080 19072 243000 13500 Private 63,0 3661 1675 93 207979 11554 67500 13500 Private 17.5 1017 440 88 54633 10.927 3253500 13500 Varies 843.5 4902) 33870 141 4205525 17450 603971 12161 176.3 10244 5503 129 683265 16037 243000 13500 Private. 63.0 3661 3881 216 481906 26773 6970 774 285770 31752 Private 31 3 1831 2477 275 307524 34169 121500 13500 Private 31.5 1831 170U 189 211083 23454 1396 465 57236 19079 Private 10.5 610 16.30 543 202392 67464 1625 325 93625 11447 / 13500 Private 24,5 1424 1620 231 201150 28736 432000 13500 Private 112 0 6509 11373 355 1412175 44130 351000 13500 Private 91,0 5289 8357 321 1037611 39908 54000 13500 Private 14.0 814 1326 331 164595 41149 2261 283 92701 11588 Private 17.5 1627 1719 215 213408 26676 20.32 2032 (1 lot) 96812 83312 Private 10,5 1627 2235 279 277450 34681 3330 4-'6 136530 19504 Private 14.0 1424 2030 290 252058 36008 61 Appendix A: Rural Area Inventory Mean Lot Total Size Linear Lnr Ft. per Secondary Est. Total Road Cost Water System Land Use Typ Development # of Lots Size (Acres) (Acres) Feet of Lot Access? Road Cost per Lot Type r. RR 12 6.00 7.28 43.68 2130 355 Yes 11/202 37034 Private RR 13 3.00 6.11 18.35 408 136 Yes 42563 14188 City RR 14 3.00 11.13 33.40 2500 833 Yes 260800 86933 City RR 15 4.00 5.11 20.44 1000 250 Yes 104320 26080 Private RR 16 2.00 11,30 22.61 925 463 Yes 96496 48248 Private RR 17 1.00 1.50 1.50 213 215 Yes 22429 22429 Private RR 18 5,00 37.00 185.14 7290 1458 Yes 760493 152099 City RR 19 3.00 6.60 19.80 1011 341) Yes 106511 35504 Private RR 20 4.00 6.60 26.30 940 235 Yes 98061 24515 City RR 21 8.00 18.00 145.00 4783 598 Yes 499171 62396 Cit3/Private RR 22 8.00 8,30 66.70 2727 341 Yes 284428 35554 Private RR 2.3 1,00 8.80 8,80 300 300 Yes 31296 31296 Private RR 34 7.00 11.00 77,12 600 86 Yes 62592 8942 Private RR 25 1.00 57.20 57.20 1590 1590 Yes 165869 165869 Private RR 26 6.00 13.80 82.70 1050 175 Yes 109536 18256 Private RR 27 1.00 78.00 78.00 1330 1330 Yes 138746 138746 Private RR 28 2.00 11.80 23.50 760 380 Yes 79283 39642 Private RR 29 13.00 16.50 214.80 10236 787 Ycs 1067820 82140 Private RR 30 3.00 11.70 35.00 2543 848 Yes 265286 88429 Private RR 31 6.00 13 70 82,30 1500 250 Yes 156480 26080 Private RR 32 2.00 19.00 38.00 1525 763 Yes 159088 7644 Private RR Average 6.88 16.49 91.12 2616 468 272930 48832 ,‘gricultural 1 3.00 20.80 62.41) 3425 1142 Yes 357296 119099 Private Agricultural 2 2.00 16.50 33.00 2200 1100 Yes 229504 114752 Private Agricultural 3 8.00 7,30 58.40 2105 263 Yes 219594 27449 Private Agricultural 4 3 00 8.50 25.30 2125 708 Yes 221680 73893 Private . 1 g-ricultural 5 1.00 0.96 0.96 570 570 Yes 59462 59462 Private Agricultural 6 20.00 15.70 313.70 10990 530 Yes 1146477 57324 Private Agricultural 7 5,00 35.50 177,53 1.585 317 Yes 165347 33069 Private .,\gricultural 8 5.00 2.30 11,40 150 30 Yes 15648 3130 Private Agricultural 9 1.00 40.00 40.00 1360 1360 Yes 141875 141875 Private \gricultural 10 5.00 51,60 258.00 7150 1430 Yes 745888 149178 Private Agricultural 11 4.00 25.80 103.20 2700 675 Ycs 281664 70416 Private Agricultural 12 3.00 39.50 97.40 5680 1893 Yes 591538 197513 Private Ag Average 5.00 21.46 98.44 3337 836 348081 87263 82 Appendix A: Rural Area Inventory Linear Feet pipe -water 1330 2514 Linear Ft- water- per lot 443 838 5868 1174 1150 288 3378 1689 (2 lots) Cost Total- Cost per lot- Septic water water System Type 81000 54530 103074 54000 27000 13500 240588 40500 47150 219498 108000 13500 94500 13500 81000 13500 27000 175500 40500 81000 )7000 110000 40500 27000 108000 40500 13500 270000 67500 67500 13500 67500 54000 40500 67500 13500 18177 34358 13500 13500 13500 48118 13500 11788 17312 / 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private P riva re Private Private Private Private Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Private 13500 Est. Approx DWF Linear Ft of Population (gal/day) Pipe Lnr Ft Pipe Total Cost of Cost per Per Lot Sanitary lot=sanitary 17.5 1220 2130 355 264475 44079 10.5 610 1330 443 165142 55047 10.3 610 2500 833 310417 103472 10.5 814 1000 250 124167 31042 7.0 407 925 463 114854 57427 3,5 203 215 215 26696 26096 0.0 1017 7290 1458 905175 181035 3.5 610 1021 340 126774 42258 70 814 940 235 116717 29179 17.5 1627 4785 598 594138 74267 21.0 1627 2727 341 338540 42318 3.5 203 300 300 37250 37250 14.0 1424 600 86 74500 10643 3 5 203 1590 1590 197425 197425 21.0 1220 1050 175 130375 21729 3.5 203 1330 1330 165142 165142 7A0 407 760 380 94367 47183 35.0 2644 10230 787 1270970 97767 7,0 610 2543 848 315756 105252 17.5 1220 1500 250 186250 31042 7,0 407 1525 763 189354 94677 20.2 1398 2645 478 328432 59315 7 0 610 3425 1142 425271 141757 7,0 407 7200 1100 273167 136583 10.5 1627 2105 263 261371 32671 10.5 610 2125 708 263854 87951 3.5 203 570 570 70775 70775 38.5 4068 10990 550 1364592 68230 3.5 1017 1585 317 196804 39361 7.0 1017 150 30 18625 3725 3,5 203 1360 1360 168867 168867 14A0 1017 7150 1430 887792 177558 106 814 2700 675 335250 83813 7.0 610 5680 1893 705267 235089 10,2 1017 3337 836 414303 103865 83 Appendix B. Scenario Data: & A Inventory Parc( I land 1.1A: Type Scenano Total Size Subdivided Subdivided Izits Subdivided lzm Curren( Fstimaicd Scenano l'ax Tax Capital Current Est. Number (Acres) 1..ots (2,3 .lair) i‘,1. to OP 18 lute. (RR & A to OP, Population Estimated Capital Per ,1cri.- Estimated Expenditure if SI&S2 Per 40 .'Ncres) 53 per 20 3cres1 S4 Population .Accrued Expendlture Residentail 1 RR 1, J, 3,4 25.1 10 16 3.3 35 3320 1.33 898 3559 2 Itit 1, 2..3,4 31.9 12 11 3.5 42 4335 136 1170 4038 3 1010 I. 2, 3,4 33.7 13 22 3.5 46 2865 85 774 3066 4 RR 1, 2. 3,4 54„3 21 29 3.5 74 5351 99 1445 5726 5 RR 1, Z, 3 13.5 5 3,5 18 5160 382 1393 5321 6 RR 1, 2, 3,4 211,5 11 25 .3,,5 39 3511 123 948 .3757 8 RR 1, 2, 3 10..7 4 3,5 14 3170 296 856 3392 9 RR 1, 2, 3 11.6 4 3.3 14 3709 320 1001 3969 10 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3.3 14 4302 430 1162 4603 11 RR 1, 2, 3 19,9 7 3.5 25 5319 '67 1436 5691 12 RR 1, 2. 3 11.0 4 3,5 14 3040 276 821 3253 13 RR 1, 2„3 10.0 4 3,5 14 4085 409 1103 4371 14 RR 1, 2, 3 58.0 ^3 3.5 81 7248 123 1957 775S 15 RR 1, 2, 3 19.9 7 5. 25 3290 117 2238 8870 16 RR 1, 2, 3.4 23.5 9 15 3.5 32 5794 247 1364 6200 17 RR 1, 2, 3.4 04,0 25 43 3.5 83 7313 113 1975 7825 18 RR 1. 2, 3,4 41.3 16 27 3.5 56 9108 221 2459 9746 19 RR I, 2, 3,4 30.5 12 20 3 5 42 4356 143 1176 4661 20 RIZ 1, 2, 3 10,0 4 3.3 14 4657 466 1257 4983 2! RR 1, 2. 3.4 22.4 8 14 3.5 28 661 30 178 707 27 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3.5 !4 3733 373 1008 3994 53 Rlt I, 2, 3 10.9 4 3.5 14 3511 322 948 3757 24 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3,5 14 5386 539 1454 5763 25 RR 1, 2.. 3 10.0 4 3.5 14 1250 1 25 338 1338 26 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3.5 14 3038 304 820 3251 27 RR 1, 2, 3 10,0 4 3.5 14 3828 383 1034 4096 25 RR 1, 2, 3 10.3 4 3,3 14 3445 334 930 3680 ,r) RR 1, 2, .3 10.0 4 3.5 14 4336 434 117i 4640 30 RR 1. 2, 3 12.0 4 3.5 14 3496 '91 944 3741 31 B.R I, 2. 3 10.0 4 3,5 14 2976 298 804 3184 32 R.R 1, 2, 3 10,0 4 3,5 14 4000 4011 1080 4280 33 It R 1, 2, 3.4 33.4 13 22 3,5 46 647 19 175 692 34 RR 1, 2, 3,4 39.8 15 26 3.5 5.3 1139 29 308 1719 35 RR 1, 2„3.4 40.0 16 26 3.5 56 6990 175 1887 7479 36 RR 1, 2, 3 17,8 5 3.5 18 4079 366 1263 5007 .37 RR 1, 2, 3 13.7 5 3,5 18 1305 100 369 1401 38 RR 1, 2, 3 11.2 4 3,5 14 3528 315 953 3775 30 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3.5 14 4513 451 1219 4829 40 RR I, 2, 3,4 49.'7 19 33 3.5 67 '11138 224 .1007 11918 41 RR 1,2,3,4 50.0 20 33 3.5 70 8737 175 2359 9349 42 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3.5 14 3650 365 986 3906 43 Rlt 1, 2, 3,4 20.0 8 13 3.5 28 2431 122 656 2601 44 RR 1, 2, 3,4 40.0 16 26 3.5 56 1790 45 483 1915 45 RR 1, 2, 3,4 21.6 8 14 .3 5 2.8 4'23 196 1140 -1510 84 Appendix B: Scenario Data: RR & A Inventory Parcd Land ',Ise Type Scmarto Total Size Subdtvided Subdivided Lots Subdivided Lots Current Ksriirarcd So.:nano -rax Tax (,apital Current 1q. Number (Acres) Lots (2.5 Acre) (.1 to OP 18 lot;; ;,-.RR & .5 to ()I', Population Ksninated Capital Per Acre 1i...sari-Wed rxpendirurc if S1 &S2 per 40 Acres) S3 per 20 ,1c_res) S4 Population Accrued l'.„Npendmire Residentad 46 RR 1,23 13.9 5 3.5 18 5193 374 1402 5557 47 RR 1, 2, 3 18.2 7 3.5 25 196 11 33 210 48 RR 1. 2, 3.4 64.4 25 42 3,5 88 2133 '33 576 2282 49 RR 1, 2, 3 16.6 6 35 21 549 33 148 587 50 RR I, 2, .3,4 39.6 15 26 3.5 3.3 2736 74 793 3142 51 RR 1, 2, 3,4 23.4 9 15 3.5 32 1175 50 317 1257 52 RR 1, 2, 3 11.1 4 3.5 14 3002 270 811 3212 53 RR 1, 2, 3 12.8 5 3.5 18 4325 338 1168 462R 54 RR 1, 2, 3 12.8 5 35 18 848 66 229 907 55 R14 1. 2, 3 12.8 5 3.5 18 .342.5 268 975 3665 56 RR 1, 2, 3 12.8 5 3,5 18 2703 2'7 784 3106 57 1414 1, 2, 3 12.1 4 3.5 14 802 66 717 858 58 RR 1, 2, 3 10 6 4 3.5 14 702 66 190 731 39 RR 1, 2, 3 11„3 4 3.3 14 3215 285 868 34-40 60 RR 1, 2, 3 11,7 4 3.5 14 3201 274 864 3-125 61 RR 1, 2, 3,4- 54.0 21 36 3.5 74 10783 197 2911 11538 62 RR -I, 2, 3,4 54.8 21 39 3.5 74 10822 197 2922 11580 63 RR L. 2, 3,4 21.7 8 14 3.5 28 4286 198 1157 4586 64 RR 1, 2. 3,4 78.4 31 5-2 3.5 109 6712 86 1812 7182 6.3 RR 1, 2„ 3 18.6 7 3,5 25 2790 150 753 2985 06 14R 1, 2, 3,4 30.4 12 20 3.5 42 5130 169 1385 5487 67 814 1, 2, 3,4 37.1 14 24 3.5 4'/ 2046 55 552 2189 68 RR 1, 2, 3,4 44.2 17 29 3.5 60 2651 60 -716 2837 09 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 35 14 .5401 549 1458 5779 72 RR I , 2. 3 I 0,8 4 3,5 14 3827 354 i 0,33 4095 7,3 814 1, 2, 3 12.5 5 3.5 18 .3961 317 -1069 4238 74 RR 1, 2, 3,4 38.3 15 )5 3.5 53 4075 -106 1100 4360 75 RR 1, 2, 3 11.2. 4 3.5 14 2696 241 728 2885 76 RR I, 2, 3,4 52.8 13 21 3,5 46 4656 142 1257 4982 77 RR 1. 2, 3,4 57.2 22 38 3,5 77 2477 43 669 2650 78 RR 1, 2, 3,4 27.2 10 18 3.5 35 4765 173 1287 5099 79 RR 1, 2, 3 10.0 4 3,5 14 3293 329 889 3524 80 RR 1, 2, 3 11.8 4 3.5 14 4004 347 1105 4381 81 RR 1, 2, 3 11.8 4 3.5 14 4000 339 1080 4280 82 RR 1, 2, 3,4 71.5 28 47 3,5 98 9461 132 2554 10123 83 RR 1, 2, 3,4 20,0 8 13 3.5 28 3740 187 1010 4002 84 RR 1, 2 3,4 36,4 14 24 3.5 49 6256 172 1689 6694 85 RR 1, 2, .3 17.4 6 3.5 21 4902 282 1324 5245 86 RR 1, 2, 3,4 21.4 8 14 33 28 6601 308 1782 7063 87 RR 1, 2. 3,4 24.0 9 16 3,5 32 6162 757 1664 6593 88 RR 1, 2, 3,4 32.0 12 21 3.5 42 4248 133 1147 4545 85 Appendix B: Scenario Data: RR & A Inventory Parcel Land 1::.t:e 1\pc Scenario Number 89 RR 1, 2. 3.4 9(1 RR 1 , 2, 3 ,)1 RR 1, 2, 3 92 RR 1, 2, 3 93 RR I, 2, 3 94 RR 1, 2, 3 95 RR 1, 2, 3,4 96 A 3 97 3, 4 98 :5 3 no 3, 4 11)0 A 3,4 101 3,4 11-12 3 103 3 3 10,4 3 105 A 3, 4 1(8, A 3 107 3 108 2. 3, 4 109 A 3 i 10 A 2, 3, 4 111 A 2.3, 4 112 .1 3 113 3 3, 4 114 3 115 .3 2. 3, 4 116 A 4 117 3,4 118 A 7, 3. 4 119 A 3, 4 12.0 ,1 7, 3, 4 121 A 3 122 A 3 123 A 2. 3, 4 (Acres) ??..5 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 37.0 17.9 32.8 11.7 32,7 21.5 20.0 14.11 10,3 16.2 7'9.5 17.2 17.3 65.2 10,1 73,5 67.0 10 0 20.1 11.1 69.4 116.6 37.3 93.8 36.8 53,3 10.0 39,8 47,6 Subdivided Subdivided Lots l_oe; (2.5 Acre) r‘A to 01' 18 lors S1&32 per 40 ..1cres) 33 9 4 4 4 4 14 7 13 4 3 8 5 4 11 6 76 28 1 29 31 26 29 4 8 4 27 311 46 51 14 37 41 14 4 13 19 21 Subdivided 1,oN Current F..stirnated Scenario (RR & A to OP, Population ksninated Per 20 .1.cre:•) 54 Population 14 3.5 3.5 3.5 3,5 35 3,5 24 3.5 3,5 21 3.5 3,5 21 3.5 14 3.5 13 3.5 3.5 3.5 .3,5 3,5 3.5 3.5 43 3.5 3.5 49 3.5 44 3.5 3.5 13 3,5 3,5 46 3.5 7 3,5 24 3.5 62 3.5 24 3.5 35 3,5 3.5 26 3.5 31 3.5 fax Capital Accrued .32 3643 14 3395 14 4672 14 4404 14 3849 14 4184 49 5623 25 4366 46 5022 14 2434 46 8971 28 3370 28 568 18 4532 14 4299 21 452 39 2921 21 320 21 566 91 2914 14 1976 102 5335 91 19336 14 2785 28 0 14 323 95 3651 161 5636 49 4136 13[1 14007 4') 3662 74 12034 14 3949 53 12856 67 1918 Tax Capital Per Acre. 162 283 389 367 321 349 152 Current Kxnencitture 984 917 1261 1189 1039 1130 1518 Est, l',xpencliture Rcsidentail .3898 3633 4999 4712 4118 4477 6017 86 [TEM: 11 I 1i- ELM() PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 10/27/ 4 AGENDA ITEM: 5A — BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2013-036 Rural Area Development Analysis and Discussion — Presentation of "Rural Area Inventory and Analysis" Report SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Casey Riley, Planning Intern SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: At its September 22, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft report prepared by Staff that inventoried lots in the City's rural development areas, including a quantitative analysis of the various residential developments within these areas. This information was prepared to assist the Planning Commission with its ongoing discussion concerning growth and development issues with the City's rural (unsewered) areas. Staff has since completed additional work on this report, and would like to present and review the latest version of the document with the Planning Commission. At earlier meetings this year, the Commission received a broader overview of rural development issues from Staff, which included discussions concerning the status of the RAD-ALT land use category and the potential expansion of residential estates zoning in the community. More recently, the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, voted to remove the RAD-ALT land use category from the Comprehensive Plan. At this time, Staff would like to seek further direction from the Commission on the latter issue of the residential estates land use category, and superficially, whether or not the Commission would like to reconsider certain elements from the land use plan as follows: The minimum lot areas within the rural area development land use category. Al present, no rural development is allowed on parcels less than 40 acres in size without Council approval of a special exception for a development. The usage of a residential estates zoning district (i.e. 2.5 acre lots) as a future land use. The "Residential Estates" land use category has not been applied to any future development in the communitythe open space preservation ordinance was adopted in the 1990's. The attached report is intended to help the Planning Commission weigh all of the issues associated with making any changes to the rural development areas, and to be used as a starting point for future discussions on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — BUSINESS ITEM GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City -initiated action for discussion Request: Continue previous review and discussion of land use plans and policies concerning Rural Developinent Areas Histoty: The City revised its Comprehensive Plan for rural areas in the early -mid 1990's to allow for open space developments. The amendments from this time period limited the use of the Residential Estates as a future land use and instead encouraged any future development of land to be consistent with the City's open space regulations. The RAD-2 category was added to the Plan in 2005 in response to Met Council growth directives. DeadlineDeaclline tbr Action: None Applicable Regulations: Comprehensive Plan — Chapter III: Land Use Plan Zoning Ordinance — Article 9: Rural District Standards REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The below analysis is repeated from a report submitted to the Planning Commission earlier this year. Included in this report is a list of potential actions that should be considered by the Commission should there be a desire to make any changes to the City's polices concerning development in rural areas. GENERAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS One of the Commission's discussion items from earlier in the year included the City's rural development areas in general, and in particular, how to best plan for the future use of parcels that are under 40 acres in size. The City's current open space ordinance allows for OP developments on parcels that are 40 acres or more in size, but would only allow such development on smaller parcels through an exception process. In practice there have only been a few OP developments that have been created on properties with less than 40 acres. Under current zoning regulations, parcels that are less than 40 acres and zoned RR — Rural Residential could be split into lots no smaller than 10 acres, while parcels zoned A -- Agriculture could not be further subdivided. The Commission may also want to further discuss the RED (Residential Estates) land use category to assess whether or not this land use could be expanded into new areas in order to provide alternative development options on smaller parcels. At present, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not identify any new areas for RED development outside of existing developments or areas that were planned for such land use prior to the 2005 land use plan. The Staffcomments below concerning residential development on smaller rural parcels take into account an expansion of the RED classification. Some facts that should he considered by the Commission as it discusses this item include the following: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — BUSINESS ITEM There have been around 20 OP developments approved and constructed over the past 20 years in Lake Elmo. Some of these developments have been recognized nationally for best practices in conservation -based subdivisions. There have been no new OP developments approved by the City within since 2007. This is due partly to the downturn in the economy. At present, there are roughly 30-40 vacant lots available within OP developments. This number continues to drop by each year, meaning the current supply of OP lots will last no more than 2 years without additional subdivisions corning forward. The City has seen several large lot subdivision created in the last several years (10 acre lots) that have removed land from potential development under OP regulations. Staff has observed a fairly healthy market for lots within RS — Rural Single Family areas, and periodically older, existing homes are razed to make way for new, larger structures within these areas. The significant number of lake -frontage lots in the Tri-Lakes area will continue to be a factor in the demand for redevelopment of existing lots. The City has made recent agreements to extend public sewer service into a small rural single family area on the west side of Lake Olson and has agreed to extend sewer into at least one open space development outside of the Village. Staff expects pressure to provide sewer service to the Tri-Lakes area and to open space developments that are located close to the urban service areas will be one of the more important land use decisions that should he addressed in the next major Comprehensive Plan update. The City has rejected proposals in the past to split land in RAD areas into parcels less than 10 acres. Staff has found that it is very difficult for potential applicants to meet all of the City's variance criterion for these types of and use applications. Should the Planning Commission and City Council decide to pursue changes to the minimum lot sizes allowed in rural development areas or to expand the use of the Residential Estates land use to new developments, Staff would like to offer the following as general comments: Maintaining an adequate amount of road frontage for every platted lot will be very problematic for most parcels that are less than 40 acres in size. The City does allow one parcel to be split without road frontage in rural development areas, but this often leads to situations in which a driveway is either shared by two parties or a driveway easement crosses someone else's land. This type of situation may be acceptable when there are over 20 acres to work with, but could become problematic on smaller lots. The cost of servicing developments with lots that are larger than V4 to 1/2 of an acre in size is much higher than in developments with smaller and/or clustered lots. Even in situations in which sewer and water are installed on an each individual lot, the City must still provide roads, stonn water improveinents, fire protection, and other services that are now spread across a greater area. As lots become smaller, it is more difficult to find suitable area for adequate on -site septic systems. Smaller lots also provide less land that could be used to address failing systems, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — BUSINESS ITEM 4 The platting of lots less than 10 acres in size would eliminate large areas of open space that are protected by the current minimum lot area requirements. One of the foremost goals in the City Comprehensive Plan is the preservation and open space and rural character. The platting of lots of less than ten acres in size may not help the City achieve these objectives. • Further subdivision of lots in rural areas into parcels of 2 to 5 acres in size would create an environment in these areas that is much more suburban than rural in character. With additional homes the City can expect to see additional traffic, more buildings, fewer agricultural parcels, and less vegetation than presently exists in these areas. Because the Planning Commission has only recently completed its work on major Comprehensive Plan amendments for the City's future sewer service areas, the Commission may want to consider looking at options for updating the Comprehensive Plan and ordinances concerning rural development areas. Staff would recommend that any such work, if the Planning Commission finds that the City should study this issue further, be considered as part of the work plan for 2015. To help the Planning Commission with its discussion on this topic, Staff has developed the following options that could be considered for further study: I ) Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow OP developments on parcels of less than 40 acres in size. At one time the minimum lot size for an OP project was 20 acres; however, this provision was changed in order to encourage the preservation of larger open space areas throughout the City. The previous Staff analysis that was shared with the Planning Commission noted that this course of action would be needed in order to meet the City's 2030 growth forecasts. The revised 2040 forecast reduces the pressure to accommodate additional housing within rural development areas. 2) Change the minimum lot areas requirements in the City's A and RR zoning districts to allow smaller parcels to be created in these areas. For example, the City could reduce the minimum lot area in RR zones to 5 acres and A zones to 20 acres. A change in the minimum lot area may require the City to reconsider how it manages road frontage and lot ratio requirements in these zoning districts. 3) Expand the use of the Residential Estates classification to areas that are not currently guided for this type of density. Consistent with the Staff comments above, the City's RED developments have a much different look and feel than the City's OP developments, even though the OP developments allow for more homes. The Planning Commission should take this into consideration if it would like to pursue this type of land use change. 4) Create a new land use category that would allow for limited development ofparcels less than 40 acres in size while still adhering to the basic principles for an open space development. A new land use category could potentially allow for clustering of development on smaller lots provided the undeveloped portions of a site are either protected or retained under common ownership. Staff suggests that a new category should only be created if it can meet certain expectations, for instance, allowing for efficient delivery of public services, preserving open spaces, maintaining the City's rural character, providing environmental protection, reducing storm water impacts, etc. Staff is planning on doing some additional research into how a new land use category could be created prior to the Planning Commission meeting and will share some additional information with the Commission on this concept at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — BUSINESS ITEM 5 5) Other options or alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission. Because any of the options noted above will require a fair amount of time and effort to implement, Staff is recommending that the Commission conduct a general review of these options at the meeting and give Staff some general direction as to one or more specific options that are chosen for further study and analysis. At this time, Staff does not have a specific recommendation for action on any of these alternatives. RECCOMENDATION: Staff further recommends that the Commission provide Staff with direction on winch, if any, of the general rural development options should be pursued in the future. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rural Area Inventory and Analysis ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction ..... ..... Development Director Report by Staff...................................„.„..........Community Development Director Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Discussion by the Commission .... Chair & Commission Members Action by the Commission ,.„....„, ...... ..... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — BUSINESS ITEM Ti 1E C1TY LAKE EL,11/10 A YO COUNCIL CO U ICATIO DATE: November 5, 2014 CONSENT ITEM# 4 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $306,678.83 SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item City Administrator ...... ....... ...... City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff ...... ......... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..... ........... ...... ....... Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ...... ...........,............ ..... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: $306,678.83 SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $306,678.83. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [ConsentAgenda Item 4J November 5, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # Amount Description ACH $ 11,087.34 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 10/30/14 ACH $ 5,922.66 Payroll Retirement to PERA 10/30/14 DD5860-DD5886 $ 28,937.07 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 10/30/14 42006 $ 78,724.80 Accounts Payable 10/29/14 42007-42041 $ 181,706.96 Accounts Payable 11/05/2014 2502-2506 300.00 Library Card Reimbursement 11/05/2014 TOTAL $ 306,678.83 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of $306,678.83. ATTACHMENTS: Accounts Payable - check registers -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: Patty8 Printed: 10/29/2014 - 12;25 PM Batch: 011-10-2014 Invoice # Inv Date METSAC Metropolitan Council 3rd Qtr 10/29/2014 602-000-0000-20802 SAC due Met Council 3rd Qtr Total: METSAC Total: Report Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 12:25 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 78,724.80 78,724,80 78,724,80 78,724.80 0.00 10/29/2014 SAC due Met Council - Q3.2014 No 0000 Page 1 Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: PattyB Printed: 10/29/2014 - 1:54 PM Batch: 009-10-2014 Invoice # Inv Date BERTELSO Bertelson's WO-968233-1 10/22/2014 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies WO-968233-1 Total: BERTELSO Total: BOLTONME Bolton & Menk, Inc 0171065 09/30/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 0171065 Total: 0171380 10/21/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 0171380 10/21/2014 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 0171380 Total: 0171381 10/21/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 0171381 Total: 0171384 10/21/2014 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 0171384 Total: BOLTONME Total: BRAUN Braun Intertec Corporation B012349 10/23/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services B012349 Total: BRAUN Total: CARDMEMB Cardmember Service 10212014 10/21/2014 204-450-5200-44300 Miscellaneous Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task 64.99 0.00 11/05/2014 Bath tissue 64.99 64.99 2,275.00 0,00 11/05/2014 2013,132 Pumphouse No 4 2,275.00 1,408.50 939.00 2,347.50 367.50 367.50 29,507.00 29,507.00 34,497.00 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.126 Section 34 Water & Sewer 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.126 Section 34 Water & Sewer 0,00 11/05/2014 2013,131 Well No 4 0.00 11/05/2014 2014,131 39th North 497.50 0.00 11/05/2014 LE Ave Trunk WM 497.50 497.50 59.84 0.00 11/05/2014 Volksmarch Supplies Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No No 0000 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Page 1 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference 10212014 10/21/2014 100.00 0.00 11/05/2014 MN Fall Expo 101-430-3100-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 96,41 0,00 11/05/2014 Paint 101-430-3100-44030 Repairs/Maint Imp Not Bldgs 10212014 10/21/2014 -75.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Shuttle credit 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 46,00 0.00 11/05/2014 Shuttle 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 23.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Shuttle 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 333.75 0.00 11/05/2014 Hotel 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 333.75 0.00 11/05/2014 Hotel 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 450,00 0.00 11/05/2014 Registration 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 53.51 0.00 11/05/2014 Holiday 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 10212014 10/21/2014 468.75 0,00 11/05/2014 Annual e-newsletter 101-410-1450-43090 Newsletter 10212014 10/21/2014 26.99 0.00 11/05/2014 WSJ 101-410-1320-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 10212014 10/21/2014 29.00 0,00 11/05/2014 Finance & Commerce 101-410-1320-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 10212014 10/21/2014 30.97 0.00 11/05/2014 Audible 101-410-1320-43210 Telephone 10212014 10/21/2014 19.14 0,00 11/05/2014 Water 101-410-1940-44300 Miscellaneous 10212014 10/21/2014 111.37 0.00 11/05/2014 Repairs 101-410-1940-42230 Building Repair Supplies 10212014 10/21/2014 80.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Communications 101-410-1450-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 31.57 0.00 11/05/2014 Cash box 101-410-1940-44300 Miscellaneous 10212014 10/21/2014 93.27 0,00 11/05/2014 Pizza 101-410-1320-44300 Miscellaneous 10212014 10/21/2014 85.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Communications 101-41(1-1450-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 10/21/2014 403.64 0.00 11/05/2014 Hotel 101-410-1910-44370 Conferences & Training 10212014 Total: 2,800.96 CARDMEMB Total: 2,800.96 Task Type P© # Close P©Line # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 00011 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Page 2 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # CENTURYL CenturyLink [0192014 10/19/2014 126,99 0.00 11/05/2014 Phone Service -= Library 206-450-5300-43210 Telephone 10192014 10/19/2014 38.44 0.00 11/05/2014 Internet Service - Library 206-450-5300-43250 Internet 10192014 Total: 165.43 CENTURYL Total: 165.43 No 0000 No 0000 CORNELL Cornell Mike 10/20/2014 31,09 0.00 11/05/2014 Expense Reimbursment - MSFCA No 0000 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 10/20/2014 104,72 0.00 11/05/2014 Mileage No 0000 101-420-2220-43310 Mileage Total: 135.81 Reissue 41225 10/20/2014 22.46 0.00 11/05/2014 Water Testing Kit No 0000 601-494-9400-42300 Water Meters & Supplies Reissue 41225 Total: 22.46 CORNELL Total: 158,27 CTYOAKDA City of Oakdale 4386 10/15/2014 1,265.57 0.00 11/05/2014 El brake repair - Air Dryer No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 4386 Total; 1,265.57 4387 10/15/2014 187,50 0.00 11/05/2014 T2 power steering repair No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 4387 Total: 187.50 4401 10/15/2014 66.50 0.00 11/05/2014 CV1 Oil Change No 0000 I 01-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 4401 Total: 66,50 4402 10/15/2014 328.03 0.00 11/05/2014 CV2 Oil change, rotate tires, sensor No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 4402 Total; 328.03 CTYOAKDA Total; 1,847.60 EMMONS&O Emmons & Olivier Resources Inc 0156562 10/15/2014 2,034.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Village Park Preserve 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 0156562 10/15/2014 5,379.75 0.00 11/05/2014 Easton Village 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 0156562 10/15/2014 1,686,75 0.00 11 /05/2014 Hunters Crossing 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 0156562 Total: 9,100.50 AP - To Be Paid Proof List ((0/29/14 - 1:54 PM) No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 3 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # EMMONS&O Total: 9,100.50 Enright Enright Robert Cable 10/28/2014 55.00 0,00 1 I/05/2014 Cable Operations - PC 10/28/2014 No 0000 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Cable Total: 55,00 Enright Total: 55.00 FAMILY FamilyMeans Donation 10/29/2014 1,061.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Volksmarch Proceeds No 0000 204-450-5200-43150 Contract Services Donation Total: 1,061,00 FAMILY Total: 1,061.00 FOCUS Focus Engineering, Inc. 1512-1513 10/25/2014 101-410-1930-43030 Engineering Services 1512-1513 10/25/2014 101-430-3100-43030 Engineering Services 1512-1513 Total: 1514-1517 10/25/2014 101-420-2400-43030 Engineering 1514-1517 10/25/2014 101-410-1910-43030 Engineering Services 1514-1517 10/25/2014 101-430-3100-43030 Engineering Services 1514-1517 10/25/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1514-1517 10/25/2014 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 1514-1517 10/25/2014 603-496-9500-43030 Engineering Services 1514-1517 Total: 1518 10/25/2014 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1518 10/25/2014 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1518 10/25/2014 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1518 Total: 1519 10/25/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1519 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) 1,342.38 0.00 11/05/2014 General No 0000 1,042.50 0.00 11/05/2014 ROW No 0000 2,384.88 247.50 0.00 11/05/2014 Building No 0000 191.10 0.00 11/05/2014 Planning No 0000 1,940.00 0.00 11/05/2014 PW No 0000 494.50 0.00 11/05/2014 Water No 0000 1,267.06 0.00 11/05/2014 Sewer No 0000 1,713.84 0.00 11/05/2014 Surface water No 0000 5,854,00 465.38 0,00 11/05/2014 2014.114 Trans & Traffic No 0000 832.50 0.00 11/05/2014 2014.115 Street System No 0000 413.00 0.00 11/05/2014 2014.117 Capital Improvement No 0000 1,710.88 120.00 0.00 11/05/2014 2012.128 Water System No 0000 120.00 Page 4 Invoice # lnv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # — _ 1520 10/25/2014 129,50 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.125 Prod Well 4 No 0000 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1520 Total: 129,50 1521 10/25/2014 793,60 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.126 Section 34 Water No 0000 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1521 10/25/2014 1,190.40 0.00 11/05/2014 2013,126 Section 34 Sewer No 0000 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 1521 Total: 1,984.00 1522 10/25/2014 1,136.00 0,00 11/05/2014 2013.131 Well NO 4 No 0000 601 -494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1522 Total: 1,136.00 1523 10/25/2014 I ,386.50 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.132 Pumphouse 4 No 0000 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1523 Total: 1,386.50 1524 10/25/2014 18,737,99 0,00 11/05/2014 2013.133 LE Ave Trunk WM No 0000 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 1524 Total: 18,737.99 1525 10/25/2014 3,236.20 0.00 11/05/2014 2013,134 LE AVe Corridor No 0000 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1525 Total: 3,236,20 1526 10/25/2014 7,109.56 0.00 11/05/2014 2013.135 2014 Sixeet Improvement No 0000 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1526 Total: 7,109.56 1527 10/25/2014 2,996.00 0.00 11/05/2014 2014.131 39th Street - Sewer No 0000 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 1527 Total: 2,996.00 1528 10/25/2014 2,016.00 0.00 11/05/2014 2014.136 2015 Street & Utility No 0000 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1528 Total: 2,016.00 1529 10/25/2014 922.50 0.00 11/05/2014 2014.137 OV Phase I No 0000 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 1529 Total: 922.50 1530 10/25/2014 7,959.16 0,00 11/05/2014 Lennar 194 No 0000 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 1530 Total: 7,959.16 1531 10/25/2014 1,150,50 0.00 11/05/2014 Boulder Ponds No 0000 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 1531 Total: 1,150.50 1532 10/25/2014 2,398.50 0,00 11/05/2014 Hammes No 0000 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 1532 Total: 2,398.50 1533 10/25/2014 7,454.28 0.00 11/05/2014 Hunter Crossing No 0000 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 1533 Total: 7,454.28 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Page 5 Invoice # 1534 803-000-0000-22910 1535 803-000-0000-22910 1536 803-000-0000-22910 1537 803-000-0000-22910 1538 803-000-0000-22910 Inv Date 1539 803-000-0000-22910 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1534 Total: 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1535 Total: 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1536 Total: 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1537 Total: 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1538 Total: 10/25/2014 Developer Payments 1539 Total: FOCUS Total: GKSERVIC G&K Services Various 08/08/2014 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms Various Total: GKSERVIC Total: GRAPHICR Graphic Resources Inc 50367 10/10/2014 101-410-1450-43090 Newsletter 50367 Total: 50373 10/10/2014 101-410-1450-42000 Office Supplies 50373 Total: GRAPHICR Total: HARTMAN Hartman Homes 2014-131 10/20/2014 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable 2014-131 Total: HARTMAN Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Amount Quantity PEW Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 354.00 354.00 375.14 375,14 265.50 265.50 968.32 968.32 6,768,40 6,768,40 796.50 796,50 78,214.31 420.21 420.21 420.21 1,248,00 1,248.00 456,00 456 00 1,704.00 5.000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0,00 11/05/2014 Easton Village 0.00 l 1/05/2014 Kwik Trip 0,00 11/05/2014 Gonyea E 0.00 11/05/2014 Eagle Point 0.00 11/05/2014 Savonna - 2nd addition 0.00 11/05/2014 Hans Hagen - Inwood PUD 0.00 11/05/2014 Uniforms 0.00 I I/05/2014 Fall Newsletter 0.00 11/05/2014 Full color Envelopes 0,00 11/05/2014 Escrow Release - 3592 Kelvin No No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 6 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # HOLIDAYC Holiday Credit Office 10/15/2014 358,49 0,00 11/05/2014 Fuel No 0000 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids Total: 358,49 HOLIDAYC Total: 358,49 JSTEELE James Steele Construction 8385 10/20/2014 3,556.00 0.00 11/05/2014 11194 36th Street No 0000 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable 8385 Total: 3,556,00 JSTEELE Total: 3,556,00 KORTHER KORTH ERIC Cable 10/22/2014 27,50 0.00 11/05/2014 Cable Operations - Election Forum No 0000 101-4 I 0-1450-43620 Cable Operations 10/22 Cable Total: 27,50 KORTHER Total: 27,50 LEOIL Lake Elmo Oil, Inc, 5394632 09/30/2014 22.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Fuel No 0000 10I-430-3120-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 5394632 Total: 22,00 LEOIL Total: 22.00 LMCIT League of MN Cities Ins. Trust C0034053 10/14/2014 61,21 0,00 11/05/2014 Claiin - Fire Department No 0000 101-420-2220-45500 Vehicle C0034053 Total: 61,21 LMCIT Total: 61.21 LOFF Loffler Companies, Inc. 1847079 10/16/2014 745 94 0.00 11/05/2014 Contract & overage No 0000 101-410-1940-44040 Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt 1847079 Total: 745,94 LOFF Total: 745,94 M ALM Q Malmquist Greg 10/29/2014 46.95 0.00 11/05/2014 Expense Reimbursement - MSFCA No 0000 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous Total: 46.95 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Page 7 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # MALMQ Total; 46.95 MCKINZIE McKinzie Metro Appraisal 14-I008LEJM 10/21/2014 2,000.00 0,00 11/05/2014 Ryland Hunter's Crossing No 0000 803-000-0000-22910 Developer Payments 14-I008LEJM Total: 2,000.00 MCKINZIE Total: 2,000,00 MENARDSO Menards - Oakdale 57896 10/10/2014 24.44 0.00 11/05/2014 Shop Supplies No 0000 101-450-5200-42150 Shop Materials 57896 10/10/2014 75.46 0.00 11/05/2014 Sander & Tub No 0000 101-450-5200-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 57896 Total: 99.90 58474 10/17/2014 9.99 0,00 11/05/2014 Sign material No 0000 101-450-5200-44030 Repairs/Maint Imp Not Bldgs 58474 Total: 9.99 58658 10/20/2014 167.16 0.00 11/05/2014 Street paint & supplies No 0000 101-430-3120-42240 Street Maintenance Materials 58658 Total: 167.16 MENARDSO Total: 277.05 S&T S&T Office Products, Inc, 01QP7625 10/15/2014 48,20 0.00 11/05/2014 Office Supplies No 0000 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01QP7625 10/15/2014 16.92 0.00 11/05/2014 Office Supplies No 0000 101-420-2400-42000 Office Supplies 01QP7625 Total: 65,12 01QQ0266 10/21/2014 215.01 0.00 11/05/2014 Office Supplies No 0000 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01QQ0266 Total: 215.01 S&T Total: 280.13 SEH Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc 288498 10/17/2014 9,499.75 0.00 11/05/2014 2014,137 OV Phase 1 No 0000 409-480-8000-43020 Comprehensive Planning 288498 Total: 9,499.75 SEH Total: 9,499,75 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1;54 PM) Page 8 invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # SPRINT Sprint 761950227-133 10/18/2014 61.01 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone No 0000 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 10/18/2014 221,56 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone No 0000 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 10/18/2014 43,61 0,00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone - No 0000 101-420-2400-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 10/18/2014 84,63 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone No 0000 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 [0/18/2014 85.12 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone No 0000 101-450-5200-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 10/18/2014 55,26 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone No 0000 101-410-1450-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 10/18/2014 14.68 0.00 11/05/2014 Cell Phone - No 0000 101-410-1910-43210 Telephone 761950227-133 Total: 565.87 SPRINT Total: 565,87 TCREC Twin Cities Recreations, Inc 10281 10/23/2014 6,992,60 0.00 11/05/2014 Installation - Sanctuary No 0000 404-480-8000-45300 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 10281 Total: 6,992.60 TCREC Total: 6,992.60 TITAN Titan Machinery 360098-CL 10/15/2014 3,137.35 0.00 11/05/2014 Bearing Seals Dust Caps 6410 No 0000 101-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 360098-CL Total: 3,137.35 TITAN Total: 3,137.35 TITANROG Titan Machinery - Rogers 100212 08/26/2014 404-480-8000-45500 Vehicles 100212 Total: TITANROG Total: Whiteani White Anita 10/21/2014 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) 6,655,50 0.00 11/05/2014 Parks Trailer 6,655,50 6,655.50 No 0000 55.00 0.00 11/05/2014 Cable Operations - CC 10/21/14 No 0000 55.00 Page 9 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Whiteani Total; 55.00 ZAWADSKI Zawadski Homes, Inc 2014-0042 10/20/2014 4,950,00 0.00 11/05/2014 9717 Whistling Valley 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable 2014-0042 Total: 4,950,00 ZAWADSKI Total: 4,950.00 Report Total: 174,818,11 Task "Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 1:54 PM) Page 10 Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: PattyB Printed; 10/29/2014 - 2:19 PM Batch: 010-10-2014 Invoice tit Inv Date Amount Quantity Pm( Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # DELTA Delta Dental Of Minnesota 5722536 10/15/2014 1,767.85 0.00 11/05/2014 November Dental No 0000 101-000-0000-21706 Medical Insurance 5722536 Total: 1.767,85 DELTA Total: 1,767,85 LEASSOC Lake Elmo Associates, LLP November 10/29/2014 2,461.00 0.00 11/05/2014 November Rent No 0000 101-410-1320-44120 Rentals - Building November Total: 2,461,00 LEASSOC Total: 2,461.00 NCPERS 566200-NCPERS Minnesota 5662414 10/22/2014 160.00 0.00 11/05/2014 November Premium No 0000 101-000-0000-21708 Other Benefits 5662414 Total; 160.00 NCPERS Total: 160,00 RABOUIN RABOUIN, INC 10/29/2014 2,500,00 0.00 11/05/2014 November - per contract No 0000 101-410-1320-43100 Assessing Services Total: 2,500.00 RABOUIN Total: 2,500.00 Report Total; 6,888.85 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (10/29/14 - 2:19 PM) Page 1 THE CITY OF K E ELMO AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: AYOR & COUNCIL CO DATE: CONSENT ITEM # Approve Ski Trail Grooming Agreement Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Adam Bell, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk TIO November 5, 2014 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the consent agenda): Introduction of Item .......... ........ Administrator Report/Presentation............,.,..........................,... ...City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ......................................... ..... ..... ...Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Facilitates 5 POLICY RECOMMENDER: Staff FISCAL IMPACT: Because this is only planned to serve as backup, there should be no fiscal impact. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract with Washington County to provide backup services for Ski Trail Grooming as outlined in the attached contract. The contract specifies that there is no base fee and the City only pays for services as they are provided. As part of its consent agenda, no formal motion is required. Should council decide to remove this item from the consent agenda, the recommended motion is as follows: "Move to approve the agreement with Washington County for Ski Trail Grooming backup services." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: In previous years, the City contracted with Washington County to provide grooming services for Sunfish Lake Park. In 2014, the City purchased its own grooming equipment. This agreement will only be used if our equipment fails or if the City is unable to perform the grooming. The City has no current expectation to require the County's services. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract with Washington County to provide backup services for Ski Trail Grooming as outlined in the attached contract. As part of its consent agenda, no formal motion is required. Should council decide to remove this item from the consent agenda, the recommended motion would be as follows: "Move to approve the agreement with Washington County for Ski Trail Grooming services." -- page 1 -- CONTRACT BETWEEN WASHINGTONCOUNTY AND CITY OF LAKE ELMO FOR SKI TRAJL GROOMING WAemmGTOwcouwT, CONTRACT NO, oEpr PUBLIC WORKS ow|o|ow Parks TERM Signature m12a1/10 This Agreement is made and entered into by and between Washington County, hereinafter referred to as ^Countv^, and the City pfLake Elmo, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55043, herein referred to as "Municipality." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Municipality has requested tocontract with the County toperform ski trail grooming located on properties under the jurisdiction of said Municipality; and WHEREAS, the County is agreeable torendering such maintenance nemice on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I The County agrees tmprovide, through Parks Operations, oN1nai|g,00minghdefnedandUing. b|oding.and leveling ufsnow) within the Municipality subject tothe following conditions� 1. The County will groom the ski trail system as shown on the map labeled Exhibit A. 2. The standards ofperformance shall bedetermined bvthe Parks Manager. 3. The County shall keep record of |abor, nna1eha|a, and equipment furnished, and prepare an itemized statement of the amount due and submit it monthly to the Municipality. SECTION0 The Municipality agrees hopay the County the cost and expense for performingthe ski trail grooming services provided for bythis agreement. 1The Municipality agrees to reimburse the County for County employee wages as outlined onattached Exhibit B. The determination nfhours paid and overtime rate shall be in accordance with the current memorandum of agreement with Local 49ofthe International Union ofOperating Engineers. 2. The Municipality agrees that the rates aaoutlined inExhibit B for County employees may be adjusted at any time within the contract period by an amount equal hothat given bythe County Board ofCommissioners |nnegotiated contracts with employees' authorized representatives. The Municipality agrees toreimburse the County for County equipment used ad the rates outlined onattached Exhibit B. Invoices shall include the time of Page 1 of 3 return to its station. 4. The Municipality agrees to reimburse the County for any rnohena|s provided. 5' Upon receipt mfo monthly itemized statement ofemployee, equipment and material costs, the Municipality agrees 0oreimburse the County monthly. O. Except asotherwise specified herein, the Municipality shall not beobligated to, orresponsible for, orliable for compensation orindemnity boany County employee performing maintenance services under this agreement tothe Municipality for injury or sickness arising out of this ennp|oynnent, and the County agrees tnhold harmless the Municipality against any such claim. 7� The Municipality agrees to determine the extent, nature and level ofservice bo beprovided onsaid ski trails. SECTION |A The parties hereto, the County and Municipality, agree as follows: 1, The County, its officers, agents and employees shall not assume orbe liable for any intentional ornegligent mctoftheK4unkcioaUhyoranyofficer,ogent,or employee of the K8unkipm|itv, and the Municipality agrees to hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any intentional or negligent act of the Municipality or any officer agent or employee of the Municipality, and the Municipality agrees to defend the Cmunb/, its officers, agents or employees from any claim for damages resulting from the negligent orintentional act of the Municipa|ity, or any officer, agent or employee of the Municipality. 2. The Municipality, its officem, agents and employees shall not assume or be liable for any intentional urnegligent act of the County many officer, agent, m employee ofthe County, and the County agrees tohold the Municipality, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any intentional nrnegligent ant of the County or any officer, agent, or employee of the County, and the County agrees hmdefend the K8uninipn/ity, its officero, agents oremployees from any claim for damages resulting from the negligent or intentional act of the County, orany officer, agent oremployee ofthe County. This agreement shall befor the period indicated below except that the Municipality or the County may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice. The effective date of this agreement is from the last date of signature of this agreement toDecember 31.2O15, 4. Notwithstanding any termination cfthis agreement, the provisions pfSection |i Paragraph and Section (||. Paragraphs 1 ond2. shall survive the termination of the full extent necessary for the protection of the County and the municipality. WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality has caused this agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested to by its City Administrator, and the County has caused this agreement to be signed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and the Parks Director. WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELMO Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Date Mayor Date Director, Department of Public Works John Elholm Parks Director Date City Administrator Date EXHIBIT B Washington County — Parks Division Accounts Receivable Rates SCHEDULE A — LABOR (HOURLY RATES) Classification Step 2014 AIR Rates 2014 Overtime Rates Maintenance Worker Minimum $37.58 $56.37 Maximum $47.58 $71.37 Parks Foreman Minimum Maximum $48.32 $65.84 SCHEDULED B — EQUIPMENT (HOURLY RATES) $72.18 $98.76 Description Unit Make Model Year 2013 Rental Rate 1 'A Ton Dump Truck 302 Ford F700 1991 $41.00 Tucker Snow Cat & Trailer 326-363 Tucker 1342 1985 $60.00 Snowmobile 334 1999 $20.00 01Conloict Aamin1ContractsTancs \Lake Elmo $lo Trail Grooming 2015,docx - uJ Sunfish Lake Park Trails KEY Lake or Pond Open Space Wooded Area Fence Sledding Hill GI Parking • Easiest • More Difficult Most Di fficult ----- Camel Back 2.7 K ----- Ernie's Trail 3.7 K ----- Linda's Loop .6 K ----- Morgan Lane .3 K Oak Run 1.5 K ---- Pond 1.8 K --- Rabbit 1.9 K - Sunfish Point .6 K To Tapestry 11 _ 7 - - / = Farm Fields Park Properry) NORTH This map is available for download at www.lakeelmo.org KI El-N10 3800 Laverne Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651- 747-3900 i www.lakeelmo.org Sunfish Lake Private Property