Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity - MNDOT SCRCP Correspondence March 2011 to Aug. 2012 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 24,2012 Mr.Jon Chiglo Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 ***also via email-ion.chiglo@state.mn.us*** RE:Layout Approval Dear Mr.Chiglo: I have enclosed for your files a copy of the City's resolution(12-08-32)passed by the City Council on August 23`d,2012 relating to the July 2"d,2012 layout submission as supplied to the City for the St.Croix • River Crossing Project. While I realize you were present at the meeting,please utilize this letter and its related attachments as the City approval as outlined in the resolution as passed. I will provide to you a fully executed version when I have the opportunity to meet with Mayor Beaudet and provide him a chance to sign the resolution(12-08-32).The signature element is an administrative formality and does not alter the commitments made in the resolution as passed and supplied here. As I am leaving on vacation for one-week I simply however wanted to be sure the Department has a formal comm ication as to what was completed on Thursday,August 23`d,2012 and in a timely fashion. ank you for y r time and consideration. ind re 4s, ric Johnsso City Adm' istrator Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Adam Josephson, MNDOT- East Metro Area Manager • • • RESOLUTION NO. 12-48-32 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS APPROVING THE SUBMITTED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING AND ITS APPROACHES,FINDING SAME TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AS GRANTED MUNICIPAL CONSENT FORTHE 1995 LAYOUT WHEREAS, in 1995 the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights (hereafter referred to as the "City") approved a particular layout for the construction of the various roadway and layout approaches for the St. Croix Crossing Project, and; WHEREAS, in 1995 the City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation signed a Memorandum of Understanding that documents actions related to a specific layout, the execution of the project, including costs, timelines and statutory provisions,and; WHEREAS, the Department has continually worked towards the resurrection of the Project ultimately leading to a July 2nd, 2012 submission of construction plans to the City as required by Minnesota Statutes 161.177( 1995), and; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the MNDOT submitted construction plans from July 2, 2012 relative to the 1995 layout plan approved by the City on August 14'E', 1995, and has had the input of their City Engineer, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the changes existing between Layout Plans as approved by the City in 1995 and the construction plans are insignificant or otherwise beneficial to the city at large, and; WHEREAS, the City has received and acknowledges the commitment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as set forth within correspondence signed by the Commissioner of Transportation Thomas Sorel dated August 23,2012, and this City approves of same, and; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have benefitted from the input and participation and the resolution of various issues by the intervention of the Honorable Mark Dayton, Governor of the State of Minnesota, and acknowledges and is grateful for his input and commitments as outlined in his correspondence to the City dated August 23, 2012, and the City approves of same,and; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has previously been benefitted by the assistance of the Honorable Kathy Lohmer, member of the House of Representatives of the State of Minnesota in securing additional funds for the City in this project to address financial needs as presented,and is grateful for her input; and, WHEREAS, the City has been benefitted also on the federal level by the participation of the Honorable Michele Bachmann member of the United State Congress and her staff in addressing Federal funding issues relative to this project, • and is grateful for her input and continuing assistance; WHEREAS, the City has been benefitted also on the federal level by the participation of the Honorable Amy Klobuchar member of the United States Senate and her staff in addressing Federal funding issues relative to this project, and is grateful for her input and continuing assistance; WHEREAS,the City has been benefitted by the diligent work of its City staff, together with MNDOT staff, and Project Director Jon Chiglo in working to find solutions to the various issues that have been presented relative to this project and the various renditions and changes that have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. That the City Council approves the construction plans submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to the City on July 2, 2012 as being in accordance with the 1995 Layout Plans as approved by the City on August 14, 1995 in Resolution 95-08-39. • 2 • 2. The City of Oak Park Heights approves of all work associated with the St. Croix Crossing Project as the City finds the plans as submitted benefit and are in the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Oak Park Heights. 3. That the City of Oak Park Heights waves or releases any claim of statutory non-compliance by the Minnesota Department of Transportation with the submission of the construction plans on July 2, 2012. 4. That the City Council authorizes its staff to begin work with the staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to negotiate and formalize Cooperative Construction and Utility Agreements consistent with the commitments and financial projections agreed to between State and City staff.. 5. The City of Oak Park Heights is committed to working with MnDOT as an active partner through the development and implementation of the St. Croix Crossing Project. - • • • - Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this 23`' day of August, 2012. David Beaudet,Mayor ATTEST: Eric Johnson City Administrator 1111 3 -.. STATE:f ' OF MINNESOTA ^R 0 \sq..,_ ? -u -•, Office of Governor Mark Dayton '! 4N, f,-' 130 State Capitol•75 Rev.Dr.Martin Luther King Jr:Boulevard•Saint Paul,MN 55155 August 23,2012 Mayor David Beaudet Councilmember Les Abrahamson Councilmember Mary McComber Councilmember Mike Runk Councilmember Mark Swenson Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Dear Mayor Beaudet and City Councihnembers: Over the last six months,my Administration has worked closely with the City of Oak Park Heights to advance the critically important and time-sensitive construction of the St.Croix River Crossing between Wisconsin and Minnesota. A crucial next step in this process is the passage by the City on August 23,2012,of a resolution expressing unconditional municipal consent to,and approval of,all work associated with the St.Croix River Crossing project. Working together,the City of Oak Park Heights and the Minnesota Department of • Transportation have successfullyrresolved many issues associated with this project. These agreements are outlined by'MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel in the attached letter. In addition,the City has asked for help covering the cost of utility betterments associated with the project amounting to$2,871,997.90. In the 2012 session,the Legislature appropriated $1 million in state General Obligation bonds from resources provided in the Local Road Improvement Fund(Minnesota Laws 2012,chapter 293,section 16,subdivision 3). The City of Oak Park Heights has agreed to take responsibility for$351,828 of these costs,leaving a gap of $1,520,170. With this letter,I personally pledge to requesting approval from U.S.Department of Transportation Secretary LaHood for the federal government to commit$1,520,170 for these project costs. If Secretary LaHood informs me that the U.S.Department of Transportation is unable to provide these funds,I will request and do my utmost to secure an additional State General Obligation bond appropriation equal to$1,520,170 during the 2013 legislative session. The Minnesota Department of Transportation will work with the City to ensure that cash flow and Focal payment timing provides sufficient time for the 2013 Legislature to take action,if necessary. I understand that,with these commitments,no issues remain that would prohibit the City of Oak Park Heights from passing,on August 23,2012,a resolution expressing its unconditional municipal consent to,and approval of,all work associated with the St.Croix Crossing Project In addition,the resolution will state that the city finds the construction plans provided to it by the Department of Transportation on July 2,2012,to be fully in accordance with the layout plan it approved in City of Oak Park Heights Resolution No.95-08-39 on August 14, 1995. Voice:(651)201-3400 or(800)657-3717 Fax:(651)797-1850 MN Relay(800)627-3529 411 Website:http://governor.state.mn.us An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on recycled paper containing 15%post consumer material and state government printed • • • Mayor David Beaudet and City Councilmembers August 23,2012 - Page 2 This agreement allows us to move forward with building a bridge that will support the economic development of communities on both sides of the river. I thank you for your diligent work on this project and your continued service to the people of Oak Park Heights. ly, Mark Dayton Governor Attachment Letter from Commissioner Sorel cc: Senator Amy Kiobuchar Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Chairman Mike Beard Chairman Joe Gimse Senator Ted Lillie • Representative Kathy Lohmer '�°r, I %% Minnesota Department of Transportation ( o,,,„ 395 John Ireland Boulevard 410 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 August 23,2012 Mayor David Beaudet Councilmember Les Abrahamson Councilmember Mary McComber Councilmember Mike Runk Councilmember Mark Swenson PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 554$2. Dear Mayor Beaudet and City Councilmembers: This letter reflects and further documents the agreements reached,between the City of Oak Park Heights and the Minnesota Department of Transportation related to the St. Croix Crossing Project between Wisconsin and Minnesota. -. • 1. Final design for Lookout Trail at TH 95 will provide for a right-in/right-out configuration. 2. Lookout Trail: The pedestrian and bike accommodations will run up Lookout Trail and be continuous between Beech Road and TH 95. This work will be incorporated into a turn back proposal by MnDOT to the city of Oak Park Heights. The turn back agreement will include funding for the city to design and reconstruct Lookout Trail. The turn- around in the current plan will be eliminated from the St.Croix Crossing project.If a turn back agreement cannot be reached this work will not be done. 3. The Omaha Avenue right-iWright-out at grade intersection with eastbound TH 36 shall be reconstructed as part of the St.Croix Crossing Design-Build project. 4. North and south frontage roads within the city of Oak Park Heights jurisdiction remain under MnDOT ownership. 5. As provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 161.45 the relocation of construction impacted utilities will need to comply with any applicable city ordinance, unless waived by the city. MnDOT is committed to working with the City to relocate utilities to a point as close to the right of way line as possible to minimize potential impact to these facilities in the future. 6. Work on Oakgreen Avenue shall be extended to the south from the proposed southern termini of work depicted on the construction plans to approximately the northern termini of Oakgreen Avenue at 58th Street. A southbound right-turn lane will be constructed at Oakgreen Avenue and 58th Street to facilitate right turns from Oakgreen Avenue onto 58th Street. All work upon Oakgreen Avenue will consist of an urban roadway section, with concrete curb and gutter and construction stay within the existing right of way. • An equal opportunity employer • 4 7. All MnDOT trails constructed as a part of the St. Croix Crossing project and within the City of Oak Park Heights shall be owned by MnDOT, with the city having minor maintenance responsibilities thereon. Any trail reconstruction shall remain a MnDOT responsibility. Closure of the trails by the City of Oak Park Heights will be in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and City Ordinances and Park policies. 8. The layout for Oakgreen Avenue will be adjusted to provide a pull back of the frontage road from the Pine Grove Gardens development MnDOT will increase the distance between the townhomes and the south frontage road by approximately 30 feet This provides a total distance between the townhomes and frontage road of approximately 50 feet. 9. MnDOT will implement and complete reasonable maintenance to the Scenic Overlook as committed to under the Section 106 mitigation requirements. 10. MnDOT will install appropriate TH 36 at grade pedestrian crossing elements at Osgood Avenue and Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley per MnDOT standards. 11. Western project limits for the St. Croix Crossing project will be established to ensure reconstruction of TH 36 mainline not constructed since the 1990s and ensure the project begins where the previous phase of construction ended. 12. The Holiday gas station shall retain its access point on Osgood Avenue, 13. A reasonable access for the Home for Me Townhomes (Oakgreen and South Frontage Road)shall be maintained. 14. The storm water design will meet the volume,rate and water quality requirements for the project. MnDOT will coordinate the St. Croix Crossing storm water design with the Browns Creek Watershed District and the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. MnDOT will be responsible for pond maintenance and any fixture reconstruction. 15. The total cost to the city of Oak Park Heights is $2,871,997.00, This is computed by adding city defined betterments, city share of construction impacted utilities, Grey Area utilities and city responsibility of traffic signal costs. After applying the$1,000,000 from the Local Road Improvement Fund and the City responsibility for Utility Betterments MnDOT commits that the total City of Oak Park Heights financial obligation as a result of the St. Croix Crossing Project will not exceed $1,520,169.00. This total obligation does not include the cost of the "Moelter Site"utility relocation which if elected by the City will increase the total obligation to the City.This figure does assume the relocation of City utilities between Oakgreen and Osgood as part of the project 16. MnDOT and the City will review a list of new driveways or streets and determine which will be classified as a public facility or private facility. • • As you are aware, in March of 2012 I appointed Jon Chiglo as the St. Croix Crossing Project Director. With this appointment, Mr. Chiglo has full authority to negotiate on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding all elements of this project. The Minnesota Department of Transportation looks forward to enhancing our partnership with Oak Park Heights by working together to successfully complete and open the new St.Croix Bridge. Sincerely, Thomas K. Sorel Commissioner Minnesota Department of Transportation 4 • • • Pa C Z . pz . m m xi m pz r i 7) m z M A w N N N N N I-1 I-1 I-1 co n CT D) rD Q A CS D) rr C- N = I- Y 1 S= -n ,, a m -I 7o� D D >o TI D 70 o 73 cn n n 77 -I 70 73 * -0 =o v a 7o O D X D m -n D m 7o -0 rn N m -I C O m O m m m m O D a = T A 3 m D 0 3 0 3 G1 3 z 73 2 r' 0 3 3 D Z IT -< D 2 Z D O -I a D O -zi 0 0 O O n m Z 0 N Q 0 Z G1 7n0 W m A� Gl ^' D Z Z = r ^' 2 m r m O r O r m r I,, O r r Gl 70 3 '� �i 1 p O m O D O N O 73 N O O O 70 O v Z v O O O m Z O P 7o r < O D „ v �+ .0 O to 1+ -I " rn n m Z Z O CO m T A -0 > D D O D 2 z v D O O Z D D -� < m O y O C 70 r) _ A p �' A to o O - Z T -1 A A 2 12000 I„ D I., O 70 t^ O A Z A T - A v+ 70 z O 01 2 A A O T T Ix = tD -I < m D N N N N Z = N ? D N y > Z 2 DO 070 �' _ � v, p � -1 K . -I --1 -0 Fc = vz+ -I n v77 � A m D v N n T O 0 O -1 O m 1- 7, 71 -1 7o Z O O m X xi _ 7° Z Z X O Gl z = v _i D Z O a O m 0 D ^' 7mo Z ID Z m Z n m Z O m ^ a7 � C >O n a O O D 0 D D m C O * „ p Gm 72 c !p � "' Zy � O m7o O m0 D 0 z -I D W 171 z Z Z cn C N D GI cDi► Z O v 0 z X vi D 3 rn m m m ul Z „ -i D C = n m acn -I 0 Z tp 0 D (nu- D D -I H Z D 70 70 -o O r O „ 70 v 0 K O m - �vm Z � mp � � p = � � � p = ZZ -< nO w -i C0 Z z = 3 z z 0 p rtOrl n- -+ Z 3 c� 1- 0 ~0 70 w > -ai n z D yr _� 70 E z 1-D GI C O > O Z c G▪ Nl N m O Z Z R° v O = 70 r v, E Z ^' 0 o z 7, p N < -1 n v w O m = OD 1-n Z '� 2a ZD � � v - GI �° Z -I � m D O -1 y m D m 0 c oo El 73 -i < r 77 m Z 0 m 0 co O D C = Z 2 C Z = T Z_ O ^� OX �' O v D -� m 7aC ?o Co = 0 v > vm D m 0 Z O Z O ,can �' A O Z O ,�,, v 700 Gvl73 Z -I mA ;2m ^' �' N x _1 * 02 ,70, Zr', Z zm ulm Z m = 70 Z m o D Gal v' C n 0 O O ^' P to 2 O n Z -1 m p v Z O< - m A C W O a Z D m > C � = Z -I 2 Z -< x N ^' a O -1 > N n N v v, Gl r D 0 m D —1 m O n T 70 = 0 0 m m v' m (.71 n1- Z O < Z 0 _ < z 2 70 D = 70 D C X r N Z N D * -I > m N 0 O m D mw D vm Z m C O N O0 N d m p { O O O m 0 0 v C X r m Z 7O = Z 7) Z O S z m Z Z 2 -1 D D G7 O 0 ^' D Z m 70 = r Z m O > * t=o 2 m N m n Z N D r > �I ,o m O m < N vi m Q° 'i °� m Z m G1 N Z N D C R o m p 2 m 2 N n m m O D = a z O O Gl D v 0 ? ^ 7o a v v C D O N n * Oc xi s O O 7o O �n t1- m Z '-i O Q° = n O xi Z O -i 70 m N 7o v N N I v Z m -i N O 7o O n < 7o D N 70 N D N -I m D N -1 Q° D R° m p n O H 0 = m O. O n Q° 0 n m n-1 c r 07 m 70 D 2 0 to m 7o D r Z O N N m 700 vi vi oo O D n r' n 0 m T m p O Z Z m Q m D m •= D D p 0 v z Dv 23 m --1-1 Z O -1 N O n N m y O C TI > -I +n Zr O = 0 C p 2 0 Z m O -1 m Z GDl = 2 Gl rn G. N m 0 * Z m C 70 y X 2 7o m 0 O Z m p Gl m = 0 D = vin 023 0 n7° CO xl y = OX Ooz 0 m OK m C O z 70 70 Q° Z r Qo O O D D = > Gl '4 co v = < 0 700 m n 0 N y D -I m 1-n -I GDj m Z 73 Z m m 0 m D -i Z m n 70 -1 O 2 m m D 0 = 0 Po D * O t-2 rn Z in xi z v D 70 0 -0-I 'n 1-n r 70 > z O D -1 7o m z —1 —1 -< 0 v 0 m n C 0 v z n p O O n m > 0 C O z Z D mm 0 O 2 m -I x 0o N rn C m 2 -I > O 0 = vi O v -I -1 O w > 70 m 2 - 7o m (� O m 2 0 O O -I m Z " -Ti n D N O • 0 -1 Z Q° > O * Z - Z = m Z O O z n O 7i n 57>1 O Z O O 0 70 D O Z >' 70 C O r N z N to m D -1 Z Z 2 > 0 -I Z C -I N 2 Z 7p Z = D O z < 2 co m O Z 0 0 m 3 D 0 O D -n AC 3 o TI D -I N m D C m v rn 2 = c�i� m p t1Oo co 0 v' > -n * > -I D n n z 0 m O m D 3 vVi D C (I, Z V) 770 O rn O m 1- v' D O m z xi K=- p D A . = y N rn 1° w C7 z C m Z 0 Z D D m -i * N D_ P- D O N Z 0 O czi► v -o r- z rn t=0 3 0 m m D O A VI Z O m < v N T CPI „ 0 > p Z n C in m Z v, m m OZ Ti, N Z chit D 0 2 O to D m A -1 Z I- m m r rn N Z m -<N 0 Z O m 0 vi = -n D -I C E 0 0 = m 70 Z z 0 n = O O cn >- I O m N -I O go O O -I D al 0 D O = K Ov 0 D Qo • • • El XI C Z o m m oco 0700 ZO 7C Q rn cn c',° O cs a 0: d = ■■' M C) I r- 7o D D 1-' > „ -I 70 0 13 70 70 13 70 70 70 c7 70 0 Z n rrn O m � p t0 p 70 2 m m m m m m m C m m O N 00 > 0 O 0 VI 0 Z Z C. n � Z rD- r- m 1- > 1- m o n O u, D O _, < 0 O >-1061730 70o Z -0 V1 O Z Z Z Z Z Z _1 D 'O O Q° ' z o z z z ,,, -+ 3 -1 1 .-1 3 3 n 3 3 3 -0 r" -I 7C * O O N O • O 70 2 m O m m m C m rn m O p Oc � " Dp c ; c � O � � Z � n -1 2 ° -zi 2 --I Z > Z -1 02 N m rn u' 70 7o C 0 Z O O C O 0 N 0 0 0 m n O -D O 7o r T rn rn D T -n rn Z A 'n 70 _1 y p:, 00 Z r^ Z -0 a m -1 -I RI -1 -1 O N G D < 70 Z "1 Z D - A A - Z 2 2 x 2 2 v, H r C y m D 70 2 m n T -I w w �' w w (1.) N -i T to rn r v+ a+ 2 0+ o+ o+ 0 Z n T n m S C �n O N 70 = W 20 m RO 20 120 -i co O 70 GIN vi xi P C Z 0 -i 0 O Z a Z o -I ' z i z T z ,7J 73 � D Z 0 n ; m 90 3 rAn Z oft G m 73 m to to O T m< vi � � Zm -0 vr0 vD -0kon m � < m oVI Z Z -I Z 23 O m u, n m * D = 0 C v, z G1 > O Z H D 70 D D D rn O In ,; O x 73 C Z vi D O A -1 c rn = D g K E D c m Z cr) O m z m F D T 2 m z m m .. E D -I Z Z -i 0 O C D D m 7o m 7o D T JP 17 > G m y 2 �► pa 0 la 73 I K D p Ti D r -4 Korn ,' O cn -0 N D m Z p v' O < O O jZ O O Z D Z z m O< 0 n N C p rn m D T rrnn 70 rn m rn m m G1 r<n m 0N00 < n PP a) 70 n v 0 n C to C xi Z N A D m -I to F m m D O D [� n ter+ Z v D 0 n C xi H 770 '0 to N -I m -I 2 p v1 -I m m Z co -I 70 0 • m D * z -1 r- Z = n O OT xi Z O U N m Z G� � = r m Z to 0 m O z °- C D �' Z 2 = Q0 0 v' C 2 m T, T LA Z 7o n > E -1 = Z c A xl m G� Z CO A 2 C 70 m N 0 m U, >vi D 2 G Z m 2 O O C D = ? -I N 73 n 0 D m n " A G D C 0 n 0 D 7x0 0 73 0 w) z 70 O v Z „ O v) > Z D rn = 0 X v) D rn Z 113 m A 'n v' n O Z m X N 0 GI Z N O 0 N n p 73 m p O co N N m -I = a > Om v) D v' N O O Om m 0 C O 2 Z 70 = D 7o Z Gl T, c Cn D v, 0 z 0 Z m O z D ID 0 O y D -I -I n Z = P -1 > m Z cn N = m Z N 0 P3 m = m D r Z m ut Z Z A -1 Z 7p r m 0 Z m to 0 m r- y = O -1 D ° z 0 c q - Qo > O ul C -I m m Z D C D D E -I 20 O O [� z n D 2 Z rn 0 O z O m r 0 7o C -1 0 70 D -1 Z m Z D -I D- z D m 7o N m m m D -o 2 n m O 70 -I - I 70 D 0 -o 'v t0 F) 0 = - A q 0 0 O< z x -I m O * v) PP O * E m m • 0 m = , > Z = -I D N v Z 73 GZ1 = 0 m D n m -1 m ko m 0 = u, < - 2 C N m > m - < _ m Ln xi Z p m Z -0 - S O N0 2 O n C 0< Z VI tl0 T C N D 0 2 2 A m N til rn Po 0 D 0 Z m co Z 70 m 0 0 lf) 7Co Z c m D O Z u-1 73 Z Z m 2 0 Z D m -n -i A m E * A Q U, U, U, U, A F n E 2 D 2 0 n G) E E Gl 0 r- m m U,411 in y v+ 3 =+ -1 -1 = --I 3 O 0 = z A Z 0 > > > > Z 0 •' > m 0 Gl Gl G1 GI - v, 2 D 2 N T Z Z Z Z IN w v m v, 0 73 Z 7o n > m m A 0 z D ri D z -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Z p n 0 N K n n n n N 0 73 i i I n m 03 A m I D D D A t0 m m Z C -1 Z Z Z Z C m O 7o n Z U,m m m v) v) (AA Z m A - crnn m Z 0 H N N 2 0 _1 z fie n Ro O n cn 0 to > GIA A Z A -ZI m m C rxi7 N C 2 0 70 n N 0 R3 O -I o rn D m VI Z o o o rn Z m z 0 v * > in I 0 0 0 n -1 m 2 > 73 1- Z 7o GI rn F- D • • 0 = Z (I A w N N O 0 S cr ° > N D 73 co 70 73 -I D > n 72 c� 7o D -I D D 70 ° Dvy 0n > mvp Cr"g DD ODp N n 0 m 0 r -1 O r Z 0 . m 0 G1 G1 Z r R. q 70 O Z G) Ez O O m z m Z D < O y v Z ° Z 0 O n o m •n C m = 0 t- O r T z 'o 0 0•w Z v._ ,o T 5 T O Z ° Cn T Z 0 Z -I O * -I O n D -o Al _ � 00 -o n n = O Z N O Lli r m I D V► r I G up v) Qo Z O m --I Pf 0 Z of C m m = 0 n >tgl`1 0 Z gn � mm 2c) p o = ul Oc0 m 0 m 0 -I CCn v -I 770 0 D D - _ °m Z m 0 70 C v C n rn -+ v n Z 0 ° D n = D z - O r1 = z 00 O vmi -I Z z z tmn u�i ^� D z Ro D Vnf C C O rnn ° 2 r' m co > P. O n '' = m Z = m T rn � D 0 CI T uuii x) IN+ n m O rrl O O Z -o C m v 01 m D = Z OO -I m CA = Z D • C = ° xi m Z 1-1> C 70 N H v m 0 cn = D v H O r M Z C O m u D D w cii 0 cDi� CO n -I n 0 m G m Z m z z c z = z -I 0 n -I G) G O - m ° -0 • -I ° = '�,° K 0 z 0 W -I Z ( Z vi CD Da ZC7o U1 f7 c 2 Z m n Z Z D 73 ,z 70 2 'O D D D o 55 0 ° = 73 v, 0 � z °— o � zo ° cn m = O Z v 0 F Z 2 -1 Z ° m 007o 0 ° n 0 • y `^ Z D D < D n "� „ 72 Z D G m r = �• T 2 v v z o O '0 m O m N O --I m z 0 O 0 7v m ° 0 m u' m Imo m D O = ° O m Z 0 p �I m 7o n_ 0 O D -I tp VI > 2 p cl 0 m m u O G _ w. zo D = 00 CO 5 T v) -I spmz ; 0 o2 2 - I1% (A Z 70 0 H 2 Z O m T m -I D • L� w C m N m m n m * D D z n m z n m �" y D m Z D m 0 -I m 0 Z 7o N n m N N D „ I- z D 70 0 m , < D O C -1 D n� C 7 C m ° -n N w Z m cn Z m ° Z -1 D GI -1 ° 2 0 �' Z m N Z 2 .� * D Z m A -I r 2 N > v = D ° T m 0 m ° f2o N v D O m m ° z 0 > m = p m ru Q Z 73 O m X C ° N m Z > > K > m n -1 N r D F' ° _ _ O _ m n tmi) O z C N Q Z r 7o Z m m O * 2 D Z Z O z D O ° =1 O O O Z 0 Z -1 --I O Z ° z -1 0 m z n r = 0 0 O m z O v -I C 2 3 m * 71 D 70 CO m 1- m F O 1 r Z O 2 K -1 r -I Gl > C _ -I _ z O z Z m m u' Z m Z O D_ 0 * 7o > -I ° T Z Z 77 0 0 Z C, N T T a T = rrn n A Z 0 K C m cv) 0 = z v 0 v, Z z = -4 `' -1 v O ru m C N W 70 Z rio m •`' °° m D D A n v o m O c m Z -I 1- E D O 11 m m 0 D H D I O -1 m I 2 F) N = I- I- () • • C C Z zZ Up Oro Z V O' I— W N I--� Z /� U' W N F, a • _ O • YJ Yl 2 C= Z r I Z oD Z —1 -I —1 -1 p G) D N C7 O D O O D O Z C7 -1 p O S 2 2 2 m 2 2 2 2 2 m C 'v O O N Z to D z › () cirri a m O to to t0 t0 m m to W m to Vf I C G) D G) 7< D 7C D 0 7o W N Imo 0 La cn to to C to to m D cn A m 0 X "1 0 i 0 = m rn m z = Z T W N O 2 m C to m _� 70 G 20 fl p Z m D Z m -_� O N O O Z Q 0 7o m D yam+ D 0 Z D Z = g" —1 0 01 O z 0 3 = z p C D n < m O Z I . Z D < < D Z m 0 z D —I 0 m Z 2 m r+' Z z W tp -1 —I m m N < C co • F.: C T m !A TI T D O Li' 0 m m C m m Z 70 —1 70 0 D m 70 to D Z 2 -0 m D m m n D rm- 7o m 0 -I s Z 1 0 " O to r WI r W m m 7o Z 3 7o Z C N 2 Z f7 rn u' N rn D Z 0 D 20 7Co 2 Z 0 ? 171 O< - D 2 0 rn > m N rn n cmi� D C N O G) 0° 7o D v n 20 520 I m Z - m D OC Z 7, 7o Z rn O C .r^ Z m r 7o m 2 7o G m -r1 7o Q m N Z m C lO vmi D i° > Cr) O Z D O ^' G) 0 O an D 0 70 m Z Z I O Z C - Z 7o m D C m n D Z D n m m 2 D 0 2 = 0 C Z 0 m 73 n 0 D 0 0 D D D m G) -1 W co Z Z m D Z Z Z - Z r -I C D m Z O m 0 G) r A D p -i Z Gl m 0 2 Z m z 0 p, D N D 0C D 0 U m 2 0 0 -n 7Co O n O G) 0 Z 2 O OG m N 11 _ 0 7Qo D Z m W m Z m m -o m a z z C O W 0 Z D S a Imo S go C NI m r" cmi� S 0 D O C Z Z G) D Z Z Z ro Q Z m m IT' m m r N C m Z cn O = m f7 0 T Q m n m 02o p D = m m Z m N Z Z 2 X m ' n m 7o D rn m Z T ?' m N D Z C D p 0 Om �_ Z O C C 0 O = m m m D �+ y Z m �mj D m m O p ,N' 0 m G) 0 Z G7 0 Z rn ° - —I 0 0 2 z 2 m 2 m C 0 m C - O 2 D 0 „ 0 m D io 73 73 >17 f) vi G) 0 S 0 m C) 0 m p C "' m 0 0 D Z 0 rn rn 0 C Q° O = 0 7Co m D - O D op Z a m to m 0 Z S m G) - C m Z v m O m m 2 m 2 O 0 D D m 0 Z 0 0 -1 O Z �^ 70 73 cn m OC 2 Z r O O G7 7m 0 m N Z D t C_m2 0 70 rn - Z 0 O D m to O 0 r Z O (-n 0 0 D N m >o O D O O O m O rn 7o Z D 0 7o 0 z m m 72 O = 0 0 D O Z m H Z 1- Z Q Co 2 0 O m Z o X m 0 D �, 7o O m r" Z l7 Z 70 -I o 2 O 0 70 0 „ -Z rn z Z 00 2 D Z - C I C rn ?o D Z G7 n -00 m 2 m O 70 rn Imo -r< _ - N rn to O C co N GD1 Z m 0 F-+ 0 O Imo 2 m „ 2 D Z -i < O _ m m m D vm i v 7 D O O O i > D C o Z <0 D Z Z Z 0 O 0 -v 2 0 = m two C m 0 2 r D 0 m 0 [ Z co tp D C Z m Z Z -n D < < D -I O O Co 2 Z D G) rn 2 m m m Z C D 0 -0 rr' rn 0 C Z 0 S 0 N Z O N z ~' 0 ~' 0 N D C) Z Z N 0 3 0 r^ 2 Z m N two 2 Z 0 O< < D n p rn u' u+ ►v_ m C = > m to D co• rn 73 co O < " m w Z Z D- D C 7J Z S 0 O Z D Z _ n m 0 D n N m 0 Z 0 Z v) 0 1-' Z 2 D N N m Z 2 Z m m 2 Z A 3 = 0 z o m n -I N N C H Hgo O r^ C m C C m rn m z z H 0 N go go C H 0 O 0 N Z G) m 0 410 e -1 '- ,I C C C -0 -0 12 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 z 7ZC Z -I -I -I --I -I -I Z Z CO v CT to w N N 0 0 N N N N N 1 N N to CO V a, -I -I Ni Z .. • = m V 01 cn A w N O = N 0 to CO rn vi A w Ni N Q = •~ M 1■1 I I I C C s C m 70 ,3 x, m a O O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a o 73 p z z O z m z z z z z z i a w w w w w w w w w N -1 D D D Z D w w N .< v v w C w w w w w w W A rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o rn A D r= r -I r= rn rn A m m rn Z f2o fto Sp fp Sp Sto f2o SZo fto A pD m D Z D Qo Qo 70 v v Qo m D S0 90 f90 90 90 90 70 W 2 2 2 2 2 - I c v K o m p _ _ �1 7707700 O 0 0 0 0 2 2222 > > > > to to to tc 7c O 70 0 O 0 �' my to to O D D GI O m > > > > > > to v+ (A cn cn G) G) G) G) 'w m < Z r r D p Q D i i ■ i z 73 73 Z O z W m > O W vi vi Z O O p Gl 67 O G) G) G7 Z '� C3 D D D D m m m m .i m p r ,p m Z O O , z 73 73 z z 73 73 ° ° ° ° ° Z Z Z Z Z Z = y 0 m -� p D D m m m m m m p m o G� pp PA' r m r. c> 2 , 01= Z il m D 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z 1y ° OOODOOOO n mZ � > -<z O -I V� vmO > DPD DD O v v -o -o v v p p Z v, v v D z o 2 Z 2 0 0 0 0 I xs, _i D -1 oZ = po = v C o V = o 0 °v g °v vv = D v v p v m -NI `=' p m D r p = -1 D m 0 0 0 GI 0 0 OC p 0 0 0 Z "< Z Z v' pm D D m Z T v' D -1 ° x pz z Z z ---I Z N v 13 v G r D D O 0 Z r GI m m r 0 -C-I D > D D D D 2 -1 m Z O -� O fl1 m < m T m v 0 D S r r Z r ° oAApvZ V ° GZ) D = = -I -Nl � m in = 0pm v RI = Z 71 Dp D y p o * 2 Ln Ln K z y cv, S m D O 0 Z o0 w v T T O N D D N D -I O N N -1 mp N -1 rn y z 7o m A m nC n D7o D D D N 1o0V' v'G) pov, cn -Ip m N � m � Z z A A p p r^ co C -I 2 m p p p O Z DC 7o D D O T' X Z m m 0 m 2 p m m N D m -0 T O O p Z p Z ,J rn„ O z O D T m O O ^ m r O T xj T T A n Z D "i ~ r -�j -0 -I 2 m O O -1 -i C A p 0 nC v► m Z D m D T m C D v) '= rT, m �T Z TO _4 OT N m m m D to z v) -1 o C GDl O > D Z p 0 r xi v, z O Z O Z oi, -1 77 Z r vi D O D N Z m D z z N �o A m m v) m 71 -I 71 -I = G) -I r- -I F C G) G) G� 70 D m Z D CI 71 r,-I 73 z Z Z 3 v D D r ° D 2 xi O x D -I -I . v) -I ° -o O p O m m m m vmi m -0 n y o 7 O v O v D m D Z 7o m m - m p Z O Z Z m - m 0 ... -1 O -I m = 2 Z m 0 O y° D 0 q Z _ Z O n NO Z m D Or 77 -0 p O vI 2 C > m v, G) m v) O Z D > 120 Z 2 0 0 2 N O O v O OC m -I m Z 2 pm pz 0 0 C T m N v 0 = -I m D C CO O O Q m p Z -1 5 O m G) x, D o m D 71 2 0 0 2 � of < 0 0 vt C Z 7p g = N m m T GI p O m v v, Z * -I D z O G7 m 1 N -1 0> fl -I m n m -<0 vi 0 > C D = z x, n m v,m 0 z c z D -1 2 Z c m CI 2 77 0 0 n m 0 Z o m > y _ N L0 - W r 2 y 0 r 70 0 N v K O -•I m z 0 Z N > D 2 n 6-) m m r O ov -1 Z > 20 F < m 3 0 n 3 3 3 Z m m Z N `N N Z A 0 0 N Z cn A imp m m c A A m m Z Z N N m N RO A Q° Re A c c A m C -1 -I 0 H Z O N H • 0 0 • M 70 -"' 70 Z Z = Z z 7C K K K K K K K g z X O * * * 0 1 N ° N zo 7C o to 0• = 00 v Ch cn w n) N 0• = m w N N Q N , o = GI CI 1 GI I I a > = a O � a p m m _o v N = p x m p - v < v O v r v v v m O vN o. rn '< v !^ v Dv O O_ rn C rn A m m p v v v A Z v n O n WP. 70 m = � 7 v v v� v p p N mpZ r c v z Z O CS' y3. - x Z x c _Ix m r- _ I v D C D D -1D -I x D GI N > _ col W r co N T N N N z O O v v N N Z 3 x C 70 7o z v Z = 0 Q 3 D ao O O - O D w D O Z p Z (A p ,°T° x = x Z p - Z m m N Z O 70 G1 T p �I 71 O Z Z Z x'11 Z D m m > N 0 n " O O O > Gl im Q D r v __ D O D m = D v r T T T Or = Z n Z -1-1 S m O Z N 2 p 2 x O 5 D D D 0 m x I z -I Z o m rZ -Iz � � Zn n Z y * * * * C � Z p C m C p O O D -I D to Z -I Fri v F ,- F m N D GI 70 70 = --� N = Z (7 m r r r w' -I Z x C D _. x C 1-L17 D m = > C Z m m m V1 O PJ T O z to v n D z m 7v 70 70 0 70 C A C N m p m 70 Z c -1 GI v rn m m = zn Z n Z- � 17 D X 70 = v Z C C C -n O { N v C D f1 m m T 33 F -1 T N O m 2 r Z D 0 to a m m to my m O m -I n F- rE o3 c* ZO pzr D Z Z S 7Co W m DD ? n to z x x x / -I v m m to ? N = -I > v z m -0 > 0 0 -0 C C C m Z rn C) m 0 -v S p O 0 z m m m N z N Z p z co O 2 -I 0 -I -ZI O z a fl Z m m x n "0 "0 r m t7 O z o f7 N Al c n m O N 2 2 Z N n < -- m rn 2 0 O m T T -1 m (5 F, 2 n = _ 2 ,3 0 m m N m 0 ? v -I -I D x O O TI m = m D Z D 0 2 m C 0, Z z Z N Z > Pa z = I I > -i > 0 0 -I -I C > =-0 D m C) m I > 7 K z = to m 017 -I N 0 A z -n xi to v 0 O v 0 z Po m Z m CD N T x OA N O D Z uvi 0 0 tit) -1 q -I 6-) a al n-I Z Z x O -1 z p N N > � 70 0 C m m N m 0 D r= a C Z ITI m xi 0 0 0 m z m m p, Z c OC O O ._ 7v -� O N c > -i G 0 r N N F Z m Z T m C - I D Z v D _ m m Z m r m Z Z r = Z > 0 X -1 v -G Z G7 E "' -I n < v m o m _ r = n trni, O ^' pa Z ‹ C -1 m n D Z m a m 00 2 73 0 v3 -i P3 xx m 7Do 0 m z m v Z w = > Z Z n D o -I y O -a z < T v 0 G� m z D !^ m m m m Z Z r 0 v m m -n 7o A 1- z A p3 A A m r 3 m m z :n z v N z N {4/1 z A -I A m A A m m N 0 N N m m m C m co m 0 m 0 C rn C 2 < 2 W 2 Z A m A > A A m m > m m :A m N 2 N 4 Re z 0 Re Re T C * C O C C O N 0 0 H 0 H N r m m 73 m N v = D m m 73 MSA • PROFESSIONAL August 16,2012 Eric Johnson, City Administrator Mark Vierling Esq. City of Oak Park Heights Attorney At Law 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Eckberg Lammers Attorneys At Law Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 1890 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: City of Oak Park Heights—Engineering Input TH 36 Layout Process Gentlemen: Thank you for your kind invitation to meet Tuesday morning and providing MSA with a quick study on the City of Oak Park Heights experience with MnDOT and the TH 36 highway and bridge project. We also had an opportunity to visit with Mr. Chris Long PE, your City Engineer and gain his perspective on the project. We understand that the City is seeking the services of an advocate to press its arguments with the state • concerning the Highway Improvement project. Also, this project has a very short timeline in that the arbitrating panel has six weeks to review and adjudicate the City's position vis a vis approving or denying the current proposal offered by the Department of Transportation for improvement to the roadway and frontage roads. Should the construction as detailed by the present "2012 Alignment and Layout plan" proceed there are significant financial impacts that may accrue to the City. We recognize that to undertake this commission your advocate must have a thorough understanding of the project history and documentation from 1995 to date. We understand from Mr. Long that his file of correspondence, engineering drawings and reports is quite expansive, he estimated that somewhere around 60 hours of document review may be required to absorb the technical details of the project. He further offered that another 10 hours of review and input from City Staff and City Attorney would be extremely helpful. From our discussion yesterday we believe the City's position hinges upon the differences between the original layout approved by the City in 1995 and the current 2012 Alignment and Layout plan. Mr. Long was kind enough to walk us through a broad picture of the project and provided us with a four page summary of significant variances between the two plans. Attached is Mr. John Stewart's Curricula Vitae which shows that during the past 12 years he has been working on behalf of the City of Newport managing relations with MnDOT on the 1-494 TH61 upgrades. During this project Mr.Stewart worked with state and federal reviewing agencies to help the community MSA Professional Services, Inc. • 60 Plato Boulevard East,Suite 140 1 St. Paul, MN 55107 (612)548-31321 (866)452-94541 Fax:(763)786-4574 www.msa-ps.com ©2012 MSA Professional Services More Ideas.Better Solutions.® • Page 2 Eric Johnson and Mark Vierling Esq. August 16,2012 obtain funding assistance including $13 million in HPP monies $10.6 million in state and local funds to offset costs associated with eight miles of local roadway improvements, a$850,000 enhancement grant and $1.15 million in a state TRLF low interest loan to help fund construction of trails and local roadways in the City. Mr. Stewart proved to be a very successful advocate for the City negotiating the local roadway improvements as offsets for City infrastructure expenses. Mr. Stewart and the Mayor made seven presentations at the state legislature to progress these funding allocations. They were instrumental in adding two pedestrian crossings to bridge the TH61 and rail tack barrier that splits the community in two. We invite you to call Mr. Kevin Chapdelaine the former mayor at 651- 458-3422 (home phone)should you want to gain the City's perspective on the assistance rendered by Mr.Stewart. MSA anticipates that there could be quite a variance in the level of service required for this project during the next three months. We are certain that we can be of great assistance to the City of Oak Park Heights on this project but we need to spend enough time to understand the history of the 1995 layout and the events which advanced the project to the current 2012 Alignment that the City has been asked to approve. MSA will commit the efforts of four employees who can be available to assist the City in this commission. We will set aside employee availability of up to 240 hours of which 50%will be dedicated by Mr. Stewart. We understand that the City Attorney and City Manager will be developing strategy • along with input from MSA.We request that the City develop a process whereby we can quickly prepare and get approval for task orders that will define the ongoing service you will require from our firm. We propose that the work product MSA provides the City be on an hourly basis with reimbursement for direct project expenses. We have attached corporate resumes for Mr. Jim Stremel, PE, Mr. Lucas Jones, PE and Mr. Kevin Ruhland, PE these individuals are to assist as needed. Our rate schedule is also attached for your review. Thank you for this opportunity to explain our credentials and expertise in the area of MnDOT negotiation and project advocacy. MSA is excited about providing these services to the City of Oak Park Heights and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, MSA Professional Services,Inc. Atat David Wierzba John B.Stewart, PE Client Service Manager Project Manager Enclosure: Curriculum Vitae:John Stewart Corporate Resumes: Mr.Jim Stremel, PE, Mr. Lucas Jones, PE, Mr. Kevin Ruhland, PE MSA Rate Schedule i ©2012 MSA Professional Services More Ideas.Better Solutions Curriculum Vitae: John B. Stewart, PE • CONTACT INFORMATION PERSONAL INFORMATION John B. Stewart Married 184 Washington Street Spouse: Patricia E. Maier Saint Paul, MN 55102 Children: 2 651-226-8091 johnbstewart@q.com EMPLOYMENT HISTORY WORK HISTORY 2001 - 2012 City of Newport: Designed and administrated construction of BDM/MSA,St Paul, MN 10 miles of roadway improvements, funded by federal highway & HPP monies. Provided construction administration of St. Paul Park Bridge. A $5 million structure spanning two SOO Line tracks and •county road, funded by state&federal monies. Negotiated effluent limits and discharge permit, developed joint powers agreement for the Cities of Brainerd & Baxter, ($25 million WWTF) and for City and Township of Rushford. Administered $8 million FEMA flood disaster program for the City of Rushford. 1997—2001 MnDOT coordination of TH 61, 1 494 Project, negotiated $10 City of Newport, MN million in local improvement projects. Secured two pedestrian bridges across TH 61. Developed seven mile trail _system using state and federal funding. Provided seven presentations to MN House and Senate for transportation funding and tax relief. Prepared White Paper and discussion document, visited with MN Federal Delegation petitioning USACE funding. 1980- 1997 General Municipal Engineering/City Engineer; Newport, MSA, Inc.St. Paul MN Centerville, North Branch, Lindstrom, Chisago City, Wyoming, Consultant Cities of Hastings & Elk River. Annexation Testimony, North Branch, Centerville, Minnetrista, Highway Design &Project Management TH 5 Excelsior, Hamline Avenue Ramsey County. Negotiated the establishment of Chisago Lakes Sanitary District involving three cities, County and Substance Treatment Facility. Designed and provided construction administration of $8 million wastewater collection &treatment facilities. CV/John Stewart, PE Page 1 of 2 S 1988- 1980 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Koochiching County, Ayers&Assoc, Inc.St. Paul, Formation of MS-116a Sanitary District, Waste Water MN Facilities design: Washington & Carver County' Big Lake, Morton, Onamia, MN. 1977-1978 Highway Design: CR B Siren WI, CR F Grantsburg WI, EIS National Biocentric Roseville, Beulah-Zapp Coal Field ND. MN 1975—1976 Wastewater Collection & Treatment Systems; Cities of Mateffy Engineering Elizabeth, Earhart, Beaver Bay, Grand Marais, MN. New Brighton, MN 1974 (Intern 3 Mos.) Survey Crew. Houston Engineering, Inc. Fargo, ND 1973 (Intern 3 Mos.) Harbor Improvements City of Peterhead, UK. Wallace Stone&Arcubus Ltd. Glasgow UK 1972 (Intern 3 Mos.) Preliminary Layout&Alignment Roundabout Design TH A-4. 411 Angus County Council, Forfar UK: EDUCATION University 1970-1975 Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK graduate BSCE with Honors High School 1965-1970 Montrose Academy,graduated with 7 A-Levels& 11 0-Levels PROFESSIONAL Professional Engineer Registered in Minnesota, &Wisconsin. QUALIFICATIONS PROFESSIONAL American Society Civil Engineers MEMBERSHIPS Minnesota Chapter Public Works Association Waste Water& Environmental Federation INTERESTS: Blue-water Sailing, Chris Craft Restoration CV/John Stewart, PE Page 2 of 2 • • S Jim Stremel, PE Proposed City Engineer EDUCATION: Mr. Stremel has more than nine years of work experience in municipal, commercial, and B.S., Civil Engineering, residential engineering, inspection and surveying. He also has extensive experience with civil University of Minnesota design software including HydroCAD,P8,AutoCAD/Land Desktop 2011,and Bentley WaterCAD and StormCAD systems. REGISTRATIONS: PROJECT EXPERIENCE: Professional Engineer, MN Ravine Stabilization Projects,City of Newport,MN Completed the construction administration duties for the 4th Avenue Ravine project funded by State Trunk Highway funds. Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation,City of Elk River, MN MNDOT CERTIFICATIONS: Completed cost estimates, plan and specifications for pavement reclamation and Bridge Construction I& II handicapped access improvements on Main Street with a cost of$500,000. • - TH 61 Bridge Improvements,City of Hastings, MN Bituminous Street I& II Completed cost estimates,plans and specifications for the City portion of the TH 61 bridge improvements over the Mississippi River. The project directive included the relocation of Concrete Field I& II existing water and sewer mains and services affected by the proposed bridge construction with a total projected cost of over$700,000. Downtown Redevelopment,City of Hastings, MN Grading& Base I& II Project involved the extension of 2,500 feet of 12-inch water main along the Mississippi River front from TH 61 east to Bailey Street, storm/sanitary sewer improvements, and Aggregate Production concrete street placement and bituminous street rehabilitation. 2007 Street Improvements,City of Elk River, MN Erosion/Sediment Control Developed cost estimates, feasibility studies and related documents for preliminary project approval.Aided in the completion of construction documents, including plans and specifications. US Post Office Projects,Cities of Kasson, North Branch, Elko-New Market, Richmond, Zimmerman,Albany, MN and Cities of Somerset and Elmwood,WI Successfully completed civil plans,specifications and construction administration for eight post office projects. Duties included utility extension design, traffic planning,site grading and temporary stormwater pollution prevention plan preparation. • MSA Professional Services,Inc More Ideas.Better Solutions. S I Lucas Jones, PE Project Engineer EDUCATION: Mr. Jones's background includes land development, municipal, commercial, industrial, B.S., Environmental recreational and residential projects. His project experience includes hydrologic modeling, Engineering stormwater pollution prevention planning and stormwater best management practices. He University of Wisconsin- also has experience with site geometrics, grading, sanitary, water and stormwater systems design. In addition, he has also prepared facility plans, and environmental and engineering Platteville design reports as required by state and federal agencies. He has provided inspection services for utility and wastewater treatment construction projects. REGISTRATIONS: EXPERTISE: Professional Engineer, • Commercial, Industrial, Recreational and Residential Land Development MN, WI • Construction Staking and Topographic Survey • Hydrology Modeling • Municipal Utility Design • Stormwater Management • Drainage Systems Design • Utility System and Wastewater Treatment Field Inspection PROJECT EXPERIENCE: Willow River Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade,Willow River,MN,Engineer Performed existing conditions surveying, construction staking, drafting, pond design & sizing, yard piping, outlet control structures,specifications, correspondence with funding sources&client and construction observation under the supervision of the project engineer. Rice Creek Trail Extension,Shoreview, MN, Engineer Provided wetland delineation,surveying, design,permitting and construction-related ac- tivities for a portion of the trail system. MSA also conducted a flood plain study of Rice Creek to determine elevation of the prefabricated bridge and culvert sizing to accommo- date a larger drainage ditch. REI Parking Lot Expansion and Stormwater Management, Roseville,MN,Engineer MSA helped Roseville Properties to add parking spaces at the REI store in Roseville, Min- nesota. Site challenges included gas pipelines and overhead electric transmission lines. The design includes several features to reduce stormwater runoff and improve water qual- ity. MSA's strategy included a retaining wall,storm water drop structure,rain garden,and permeable pavers. The parking lot improvements added 23 new parking spaces. • MSA Professional Services,Inc More Ideas.Better Solutions. r Kevin Ruhland, PE Traffic Engineer EDUCATION: Mr. Ruhland specializes in helping communities evaluate traffic control options and make B.S., Environmental informed decisions.He has contributed to several urban roadway reconstructions that included Engineering roundabouts and understands the need for community education and involvement. As a University of Wisconsin- WisDOT Qualified Roundabout Designer,Mr.Ruhland has the technical expertise to design safe and efficient roundabouts. Platteville EXPERTISE: • Intersection Control Evaluation&Design REGISTRATIONS: • Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation and Review Professional Engineer, • Highway Corridor&Access Studies MN, WI, IL, IA • Traffic Signaf&Roundabout Design • Traffic Signal Warrant Studies • Institute of Transporation • Speed&Traffic Calming Studies Engineers Member PROJECT EXPERIENCE: WisDOT Certified TIA WIS 26 Intersection Analysis, Rock County,WI, Project Manager Analyzed three key intersections along WIS 26, comparing roundabouts,signals and stop Preparer signs. Designed two roundabouts and one signal-controlled intersection. STH 58 and STH 82 Roundabout,Mauston,WI,Traffic Engineer and Roundabout Design WisDOT DOT Level 1 Analyzed two intersections, comparing roundabouts and signal control. Designed one Qualified Roundabout roundabout and one signal-controlled intersection. Designer WIS 16,Oconomowoc,WI,Traffic Engineer Evaluated traffic control options for a major intersection. Designed a roundabout with features for pedestrian safety. Morse Street Roundabout,Janesville,WI, Project Manager Winneconne Avenue Roundabouts,Neenah,WI, Project Manager Main Street Corridor Study,Sun Prairie,WI,Traffic Engineer Covance Expansion Air Quality Modeling,Madison WI, Project Manager • MSA Professional Services,Inc More Ideas.Better Solutions.® • RATE SCHEDULE 110 MSA MARCH 2012/2013* PROFESSIONAL SERV ICES More ideas.Better solutions.® LABOR RATE John Stewart, PE $120/hr. Kevin Ruhland, PE $115/hr. Jim Stremel, PE $100/hr. Lucas Jones, PE $85/hr. CLASSIFICATION Architects $114-$134.00/hr. Clerical $40-$71.00/hr. Draftspersons $50-$93.00/hr. Geographic Information Systems(GIS) $59-$111.00/hr. Housing Administration $45-$99.00/hr. Hydrogeologists $89-$123.00/hr. • Planners $71-$123.00/hr. Principals $116-$160.00/hr. • Professional Engineers $77-$160.00/hr. Project Manager $59-$160.00/hr Registered Land Surveyors $79-$129.00/hr. Staff Engineers $70-$102.00/hr. Technicians $45-$99.00/hr. • Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator $61-77.00/hr. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Copies/Prints Rate based on volume Fax $1.00/page GPS Equipment $40/hour;2 hour min. Mailing/UPS At cost Mileage—(currently$0.555/mile) Rate set by Fed.Gov. Nuclear Density Testing $25.00/day+$10/test Organic Vapor Field Meter $100.00/day PC/CADD Machine Included in labor rates Robotics Geodimeter $30/hour;2 hour min. Stakes/Lathe/Rods At cost Total Station Included in labor rates Travel Expenses, Lodging, & Meals At cost Traffic Counting Equipment&Data Processing At cost * Labor rates represent an average or range for a particular job classification. These rates are in effect until March 1,2013. After March 1,2013,these rates may increase by not more than 4%per year. • Page 1 of 1 f , rls 395 Minneso John ta Department Ireland Boulevard of Transportation 04,..p, „® Mail Stop 120 Saint Paul, MN 55155 S August 9, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: St. Croix Crossing Project— Omaha and Oakgreen Avenue Issues Dear Mr. Johnson: The Oak Park Heights City Council requested MnDOT to reconsider closing the right-in right-out access from eastbound Trunk Highway 36 to the south frontage road near Omaha Avenue and to review the alignment of the south frontage road near Oakgreen Avenue. MnDOT has reviewed the Omaha Ave request and agrees with the city that the • access provides benefits to the Osgood/Hwy 36 and the Osgood/60th St intersections. The current access point near Omaha Avenue handles about 4,000 vehicles per day and averages about one crash per year. MnDOT will allow the access point to remain in-place. This decision has also been conveyed to businesses in the immediate area. The attached figure shows the configuration of the proposed right-in/right-out. It should be noted that MnDOT retains the right to remove this right-in right-out access, if at any time in the future MnDOT determines there are safety or operational issues related to the access. A second issue the city requested MnDOT to investigate further is to shift the south frontage road alignment away from Pine Grove Gardens so that additional buffer space is available between the frontage road and the townhomes. The current layout shows about 25' between the edge of the trail and the end of Oakgreen Court. A slight shifting of the alignment allows us to double that distance to 50' and will provide more room for vegetative screening. The transmission tower in the area limits the amount the roadway can be shifted to the north. Moving the frontage road to the north side of the transmission tower 0 was considered but would negatively affect the signal operations and other An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 Mr. Eric Johnson • August 9, 2012 Page 2 aspects of the design and is not supported. Fifty feet will allow adequate room to provide vegetated screening for the development. The attach figure shows the proposed alignment shift. If you have any questions about these issues, please let me know. Sin r ly, / 6 Jon higlo, P Project Director St. Croix Project S I An Equal Opportunity Employer CI ilt. ' 4i-ill (PD W r• i :11,1,',\ I 1..DSO r e .. of sy^,..--, a-- —4-- 1.�`1,1 I. \ 1 �1,1--- 11 00050 8S r 1 ,j Odbs `J• a -- 4_ a- ---4 -3a1ht�tl! H1a0N I 1 I r� I. I I' 1—C. 1 3, oa 3— I�l 3.l w . . c—I I I I k N9N0 rye --: / Y , d n i C I E.11 I a s = „ as d z N G T `d i I a., II ae�"�� I a a s o: ■ } Pi :I 1 I il pli ... 1 7 I• . 4 l 1 a� 1 � 11 t 4� s• a i II* . • _:c - 1 / 0 . ,_, ,0 , . 1 - 1 L'I' L o P O 1 I.L i I I ' II i:: a __-1-- 111 _ ..iJ:D ° s S i I q 'LS' 0 1..! % 1 L. I 1 1 3 z 1 1 f 1 1W II 1 ,il 111 I=IP 4 . a ! I$,r, el.'. I \ slid z !jiTi i 1 V d > II ., r.„ .---- a I' N; O \-. 3 1 4,4 4 S ri 4 Ike I r i -_---1 OZ'OI ZIOZ-TV fri'ZOO Z62297 °•"~'Ll- L L0 u6p Iii-tnoAOl-.13-TM,.10.12■5105I140 dMd dl•3713 M9S30 —Alln!4Oy Wield 'r b—'H'1 'd'S —AAI^IAOO SWdd 'f'tl—'H'1 'd'S x/41.�,�_�{T1n, -Q6n,41!100 SWdd19986r'f'tl-9C'H'1 b71-biZ9'd'S ?PZ^-` 'iiiLLMa K....i.� Atltl3d Ni1SM 09 '�.l /" •wady !0 OS 4Ou1 I'AA.4.5 3103 A b4'Ce,Otlo..d ' 39501 I/, - 95801 114018 95 HI 93 0N1001391 3M 00090 10 0008 3001909)H1f10S 010 95 HI 93 93395139 SS3000 000 •■O 0000•9 W... ad10•1 1 IILS/SDH0I3H M801 M00 JO AIINIJIA 9£'H'1 1VA021ddV dV1.I 1f10AV1 Z 18A91 I 09 AdOD 9£'0N 130001 JO Z 1011 1110001 r L / / L mt7 �I /C/ \ \ / J ZDa z m mom L� lT�_ um 001 ~ _ rm Tmf <� s1-z i�� 1 -CPC / 1 CH I 1 rn - I q Illu 1 PARCsLS I 8 a. I 38 NOT ACO_IREDeI ------ �� �� _ \\``` IS -in - -`` .�-— �. ■1444444L4 N / 4l/ D a om J-1 n n II1ti� � s° 1 / I )4* :� 11- 1 / 1 /• I I 1 II III ( I - I I T.33 ' \\I / A 114 I II I at/ _� � 11 I / \ \ \\ \\\ // n \ �\.-_ \\_,, -{ A , \ '", .____, ------__ rn z <- .,,,,,, ■,,................:..-..-----:--- N --------- rn /:// 1111\-- ___.71---- ------_,_:___7. 1/4.'' ' z Z n t.�� Z. r n rrl C tr ❑ l / n ...--------.. ❑ : i I I Le 2 LAYOUT LAYOUT FLAP 2 OF LAYOUT No.30 COPY No.I Level T.H.36 VICINITY OF iA" 'A'K H T A R R o r g 0010 FLAP APPROVAL • ADD ACCESS BETWEEN EB TH 36 AND SOUTH FRONTAGE 'V a / ROAD AT OMAHA AVE INCLUDING EB TH 36 RIGHT TURN / � 2017 - LANE Prepared BY .`rw%, , opener, Prepared "II Y nl Scale:Her.1 inch 50 fit. /',y ,�. _ By II ISTTN PERRY I � / y 2�°Z Staff Approval Ro IOwOd By o,.wf.f'raffle The dip-meat and Oradea Shown tentative Opro, ` �/1 le m p r o c nge 7 4- 2�� ana wplacr to anan9a Ago egad Br Trce m 1 ro I.a 1.,....._... CLL1- .,rapt norm.. S.P.R214-114 T.H.Q. A.J.7_9164 1PPMS Activity1L42 S P T.H.__ A.J. PPMS Activity_ S P T.H. A.J.__.— PPMS Activity_ DESIGN FE 0475315\Omaha-Ave-Flap-Layout-cll.dgn D.TETSP7 E I1 o Te —V- wc.N0._1111-q-2 __ DATE:24-XL-2 012 10:20 LB Teat PREPARED P u gv DER WN N LDi tNE LYICNLOA.OS l m o lit 1 1 1 1 11111 — 111111 N Ip I Ii I h 1 ;g ci F. OLENE AVE e" I m - of 1 r " fill I. ——— C , l-1 t � m 0 IA — a a�� _ 6- I ° :yea j:ã 711 Io I €4\;• o> cI I ( I A• la 8: r xIj a i4 G -" 1 ril a vvc°c9 c , I ;� _ 10 I Iu 99 I i �:lin till, 1111 l 1�1. I— z - �• jI 1 I ®.1 � ——0 1„- III I ) � T A : i = I z 1” g< u �— OM' A .� ° a w a = \P. a 5 ti 'Ill a 0 l m m fl III I ----- L i I1 CO 1 I % ._ II 1 I I I V fl I� 1 ilI = I II • y .I I ° 'f'11 1 I I 9E9v'e I M • •yZ _� ^ I J n I I b � V J�� :i :á \ ICI e �. � �— � rr1 11 a — ii c I Z I • �'�n S . a �ga m1 I i�—, r s, ' 4 k. . 1 . . ,� a v 1 ,I a 1 , , ,, — I iIIi.; .j l9 I I, I 1 °� • o� L -- 1 i I 1 I i I 111 I ° 1 J,I — I N ■ s `& =1= I a as o a I tk. tip A 0 e n r �a _Ni9, . ,. ,,, , .,.. „.. I< OD �1 F= E= 171 Z 1 �'.I r ;1,` B 711 1 , I �Q G o A T I I F m c 1 O �� I ;; VE N a y MK 3 1 d 1 1 4 eP D D a n 907.54 EL. 907.54 II I y • VPC •85.00 50 D I I I II I I �'II\ - Ti vvI •ID.oo I 1 ors, �. EL. 901.15 - 8 m I I I VPT •35.00 .11 EL. 907.30 ? rt [} O EL. 907.38 11 �d T EL. 901.78 w1 I' ` a 1. I 1 C) •80.1/ T J` 1 r' I I ,'9 IT e 1 r EL.• .23.05 91 f u fit' O NEB FTLS1 VPI •35.05 EL. 908.30 BI EL. 908.60 Y • 5 V� 908. I i 17.0 II '88 1'/ :'''r ,.„ . [ i 2 , , . , \ , . ,, . 3 p I —— r OREN ..: e -- ol I� I I I I_ ` ° f \t,,,,,.: 17 �i III L--1 I I •I, \RONTAGIIE RD �e- 9 fl 1 1 I° ���I I I NORTH FFikE—R�$- I 'II 1 I II II I :. � J I I "r N N N o � \ i— I —� I o // 3 � �� c � � I 1 IIIN�© -- ¢ p p 0<GMb r" n '- A I A C SB OSG00 El —— J , �.-.8 'U 12,D' THRU �� di �� �® e a.o a OSGOOD AVE N ��e'asc.o a Waliffainir r 20 ;z.o LT TURN.1 TOFU.—► —_$' 12.0' LT TURN �J/ l2 0 �^�--� 111.1111111.111111111.11.1.11 =11.11111111 ,. — —'—' _ %1 I r DISTRICT•:METRO • (PLOT NAME:frod_pl PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-20I2 09:00 y y b::',:: ::O W ... .A w 0..... . Q N W Q Q W P O o o. to y . ........... ......:: -, 0 z _ •0 m .rte--r .... ...... us ch rTI ';'-i.1-.77. o n . X. o -n o ..o x w QI 0 ma ... .. ., .x on m Q.-.. .. . ._.. ._ . .. .._ .... o° ■.. DISTRICT•:METRO • IPLOT NAMES front_xpll PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 090I . • • ■ : ! -i I : , . ' I ! .. !it! !. . . . :.'1:H :. • . uVa .: • . :.• • r • , i10..1. • •iL;o. L g p t F g o . .,• . . . . • • ; la";. ; ; „; -; • , ;• . • ' • • 1 , , i . . .,. . . . ; .. .i, . . .1. . . . , . . i ±•• 7H-- ---4."-----.-1-•'• --i-H- .--4. •:-1------,— --,------1-----,--Ft, --r.- !--i---!---T---, ,.-I.- -14!!-* . , !. . . . : .!. . . , . . . 1 . . • : . . .1 E , :-1 i . !. . ! I , I . •. i .:. . .i . I . . . .:. . . . .I . . '. . ' • ,......:.1-,..,.,..,. -1....,.. . . . . . . • . . I : . . ! ' . 1 ' 1 1 1 1 I 1 I i 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ri I I ,I I ■ 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 • • . . . .1. . . .c . . , 1 1 . : . . . . • . I i 1 I 1 . t . 1 I ! 1 1 f •...-112.----1*--*---.-1 . r-..-.--,--------...t-t-,...--,.----,.±..:.-.,-..,-t-.-,-,----,.-1.,.--,.---. .----1-,--,....- t-?+t-,-----+--•:-.HH---',.--.-------1-,.--,.. . :. . 7---.--,--H---'----,.t••.-- : i .!. . 1 • . I : i• . .i 1 . • 1 1 : I I . . r F. ' . '''!-!..- . .,. . -. I.: . . : •:-" ,•+i+-. ':--'-i.i.----—.1" • .--- I. 1 i t 1 1 I • , •...-4---—1----- - 4I.---I .•.. :1.-,4-.4.-r-44-.44 .-.••f--.4-44-4///1-4 4-.4.4-i-4 .... - I: 1--•44.4-.4,,-14-/ -:-•-•ff4,- .-C444-4---41-- --4I-14-••4-1-1--;-----:- - ! I ' : . 1.. . I 1' i ... 1. . • •I ! i : i • i 1 ! I i I ■ I . 1 I I ! ! I . ..',1.• • . • 'I I . . . : . • - ,- - • 1 i. . . ./. ...I •1 1 . . . . . .. 1 .. . .;.. .c• i. . .I ... , . 1 1 1 . , ! I I ,. . . . . .:. . . . .1. . ..;. . .,. , . . . . . . . . . .. ; .. . .1.. ... . . 1. . ....... . I. . I i ■ I - 1 : . . .I. . . . . 1 1 . : . . , I , . . i I I I I 1 1 1 1, I ...,--!---------,-----,.....-- • 1: : •I • . I .• .! : . . .1. . I . .!. . . .1 1 1 i - ■ I . 1 .. . 11 . . I .•. . .:. .. . .. .. . .... .i. . .. . . I. . . . . . . I 1 1 .:,... • I •,. :• - 'V.:-1 I ! ! . .I, .! . • •1 r I . i ! I : ' •. . . I I 1 I 1 . . r •1 • . .... /• 1 1 I i I" . .: . • - •I 1 1 . .1 • I , 1 : I 1 t 1 ........_..„_...,...,-/_-...c.„-.„...... .....,......,.c.i.,.-_,......--rf__—„L.-_,..,-• f-I -_.......,4_........,...,... .-,-,—,-,—,-,-,-,-----1,-,-,--------,--,,--.—..,--4,—.-,-,-4,- . . .; --,-•-- . .... . , ... . : i - . 1 , .. ■ .. . . . . . . . .. . . . , .. .. .. . . . . :.. .:'':t,.. ' ... • I , , , i Is 1 I 10 . 1 • . ,..,..,..-.,-4.,.. 0 .. •i.I ,0 i..■ 411 - 1 ' ■ ' I 1 io Lo ;i ; 0 I , . . 4..co . • 8 W: 17`A ??,■ 18 : 1 ; I, na co• h..!• : ' 1 I.. . • I F'1.-• R. . . i • , 1 1 V 0 1 1 8 . : :I 1 0 1 . .' • . . . . . • 1 : , , ■" .i" " i. . f t : .j . . 1 • 1 1 1 • - I / 1...._ ,_.__L. _____.: _i„..........__+___ I i • • . ; . I I i . . . .. . . .! I I : I: „ 1 . .1 . 1 i . .. •I 1 I i i I.. . . ,. . . .4-..„___T.,„...,..,I.,.—...„ ,..•—,. 4--.„..-1---, i,-....„„....T,„__,_. . L,:1,1,.___,_.__„ ;_...., ...,...._._ I ; , : , : I • , . I T .I 1 I , I ' ' ■ :.. .. 1 : I : ' I ; , ! I • : I - ' . . :. .. .I - . 1 . ':"`:1 - • -I ' 1 : i 1 , : . • X'' I f . .. I •II.:I 1 • 1 I ,I I I - /...1 • /.... 1 1 .. . ' 1 / 1. . . .I f t I I. 1 I : i. . .i. . . :1 •:- i 1 0 : . - '' • ', I ■ , . , : : !. . . , • , , 7 I . , -,.--.,—,-- i -T--- ,—. . —. , _i_. 7.__...._ 1_____• . . . , . . . • . I P ': • , ..L.........— ........--. -....._-..• . ., _...I. ... I I • sa I i 1 I I ' CO I I 1 I I i ! . I I ■ i I .... --! ... i• . •!. !- , I ! ! , , ,. , I 1 ! 1 -!. - - ! . ... . . .1:•: : . .'. . 1 . . .I• • • ••1 • .,. . . , ! . . , •, ,„ • . ... . . ... . .•. . . . . . : _ ......4....,:-.....-...- .. '. .1, I. / / . . .1. . , I. . .I. . . . i..... . .;. . I 1 .,. . . . .i. . . ...I. . . .I/.. .. ...... ..1 -1. .. . I I I; •; . I. . .. . ! , ! I f 1111 1 i .-.,-- _- 1 -L__.-- _----,_____L_-___I____________I I f 1 I • -' . i 11 i CO t 1 t I In :1 : • 1• 1 . • 1 1 ■ i : . . . . I . i 1 I i • 1 . f I I 1 i 1 / • I PI 0• I : I 1 I i ! I I. 1 I ■ i 1 • o I i I I 1. . . . . . . , : I . : • I I• . . . . . . . :c4...___....,_.............4.___ : ._...._r_____...4. .:....._:...„.......,...,_4. .:......__:.,. . _.4.:......:_.• .I, •_,..__-_,..:.....,_:._.,...• • ._,_.._, .. .I . . .. • • .I. • I., : : : . . : . :+f , . , . . .,. . . . . . . r- ):( Ul . . . : . I : 1 : . 1 II . . .i. . . . . : 1. . . ... . . . ... . . I N.)\!) . . . • ' • 1 ' i. . . .i. . . . . i,. . .i . .I: : : „„ : : ,! : .i . . .. . . . .I: : : I: • : . .. I .I i . , I '--1,----,-----4-,--- ----j-----------•--.....--.4....--:.--.......L...,.... .I•--..:.. .. . _.,....I, . . _.I I I i I : : . 1 I I ! ! • i I ---...— ........_ g X . I . . : ■ ,1§9 i 01 -'. . .1 • ! - . 1 , : -1 i 1 I ! ;. . ... 1. ..... . . I r, i • ! • - . . .I I I ! ! =2 i 1 I I ' 1 • • . . .: Fa 1 , , . rn -7-cot,—-.L--. •I'i--• .-j•iI:-.-1,-I-H-I-1--,-7.--. ri"..-.7---.-.7-17-' 7.-777-^^.--•-7.----7---. -••-.+-,--^--""i-ri•-: h--‘...'-.-4.‘----‘-‘-i-••--,---:-1,----....----•,--.,-• .....'. . ... '.,-,-,•-,- "..--,-------'-i--- .•'' . . . (-A . . i ... i • i i 1 R -I • i . • • i 1 ' • ' 1 • I ' 1 • : • •• I 1 I .. . . .... .. .,. .. . ., ' i ! I I I • • • DISTRICT.:METRO • IPLOT NAME:front_xpl2 PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 090I o . i . : ! :65' ' ki lo • : • io. . . in , in in • • - a, to , • la 1.12. ; . , : P -2 0 !.. 0 C,' ; ko, . . : : V. • .'s!; - . :- . . E • •8.. .. .6:: : p. . . Ig. • i ri ! :. . .:.. • . . . . . i. . 1 I. ..„..:. . . . . .. . .i... .. .I .. . .... ...:...... : . .. .: . . . . I."1 :. 1 • ; 1 . ..., ; ! i i , - - • •I. . . , . 1 . . ,.: . :. i. . . ... . . . . . . . :1... . .1 . . .. . ... . • - -: . . 1 i__ ....i _ ..,_ 1-- . , ...,...; .. - .,-,--4 .,..,.....4,,, . , .. i-,4.....,-;-,..,-, . . . , -,,,,,-,-.i -...4-: --., . ,:-.,.. ,t..,.. : .i ,.., •t--, . , I . ■ . . . .I . . .. . '. . .• I .....,...1.:.,...-.2.22..,I.7.;',..2...2.22.; .. .--.1.,...-,-..2-,..,-!--.........-.2,-,;-,.........;.-,7-......;....,.i.......!....:2,........... .........-....21.,...--...--;2 I.:-..........2,22.1.2.,.....,.......-..-,...".2.2--• -,--..,-....—• ..•-•i.-:.' ........--,.•.2,-.." ...............-r.......... ! 2 2 2 1 - 2 - 2 • I .I ... . I I . . . ... . . .. . . • . • . . . . I . . . , „ .7 . . ! .. .I. .! ... - 1 , I : ' ... ! • . I. . . .2 . . :!: . •.. . . .; . . . 2. . .I. , . ... .. . .. . . . 1 • I I i I . I .. . ,. .. ' ' 2 • . I. .1 , „ :1! . !: ! 1 .. . . • . : • : : • • . . I 7 - i I . . . ! . I I ! . . . . . . . • I • 2 2... . . . . 2. . , . 2.° : i : ; I - I : I 2 12 .. ... .. I . : H-----4------- -:- -- I ! I I 1 : I I . ' : ;;:;: • .: I;.•,,1 . :•,1,::., .• .„:•!.,:,;,: .• 1,1 1 .:,•;: .... . I 2!,.,,;• ... ..•... .....•:..:FI:,,,,1•........-. 1•...,•... ..• .. :•..1,1,,.., ....•. ..-. _ ... .•.,•1,;!,, ..•..• .. i,,:.:. .... ....-_..__ . .. .. . . . ; ..,2,..•;,I:: ...... 2 222._..... ; , ,ii,A • . , , , . , ,,__ ---_,-•-•----....--, ,. -----r------t^—‘---4---'---'-'--.'-.---‘...1-----. .' : 7.‘7 7+74.--,---H-',.2-'-'--,..-'-•-.;2i'frI-,-----..+^."-..--,±24-2-;..-- .2:--i- . .! . ---1..'..‘-`.....--1--;--+.7-1-.-‘.---..,-,. ; . . .- - .--, . } • - . , . . i \ 1 • , • . I i i • . i „ . 1 - .. . : : ! . : • ..I.. .F 7,,,S.-,,--,.--,-•,-+-‘.-.--44.--,7.--1,---,,..,--,-.---,-..',.4.---.-.,..-..,44.••-..-.7''I. - ,-#."-- .---.-÷ir-,- . .v -.'•----s---,----+.,-,.---,--- -•--1.---1.-----,------4------ • . ' \. ', , ■ . ,,,,m, . . „ .i : : i•:„ • I. . .. . . ! i ' I . . •I ! • • i 1,,I• i: .. .i . 1 i . \ 1 I I A -----*-"-^-"--T-.-'-----i':''—'.'^^^+---.""•- i I • •I .I . , 1 • , . . . , . . . ,. . ,. . . , I ! I . !. . ,. . • •1 It r I • I . I + : . . . , . i . . . ., . . I . . 1 I i I -••I i 1 ....44,........._„:•__ __ . _........,._ ... ._._.:4...._....... •__!........____ .. . : I -_....:-..L.--- I i ; .. t. 7-- ... . . . , ,. .... . . 1 ,. ... i . i i . . . . .. . . , . .. 1 ' i . .i ' . . I 1 1 :-.1371---1-, . ' i , • . ; • 2,,'. , I ,,.., 1 ! . I . . .. . til! .i ......„..;.j.C. ,--,---......-...i. . • , , cm■ . • .!. .. .I i . '' . ."-H--,-h..."-hf-t-'"-A-I---7. .; -, g.i.41 • . 1 0 I . •' •--. -4,..:—____2,„_,....,... - ... ... .. . • . ..; .. . - . . 1 :1'.,S,' .-, . I • . . i -.--•+.4:-.-.--s-!!--•---L_._...._, _3"?.].."•.___,..! ____. : _ I -1-•----I----•-•,..-* --. . a ---I--.-71 . _ii..._._: . ,_ 1.--- -I-- i. . i. .,. ' ! 1 - ; • , I ! , , , . . . , , , . . . . . , . . i • i i I , ,._ ! . ■ . . . . 1 . . . , . . . . I• . . 1 , . I i I I , . . : I ) I ; I I 1 ! ; i I i .. I 1 1 , t 1 I -.---+--- -1.--,.•---,---•---,N7.--:-.....,...1--:-_-:-...!,__.•_._.._,.,.._;_•.4.,......„..„.„..L..„. . .._ . I 1 ! L.) • 'I., ' • : ' . :.1 .,....„..._„_,.....,_,.....,..,... ' . . : . ' .... -"::.--`-':• '',...."' I 7.-1 . . .r...... 1 . 3> I :I. . . .I. . . :.Z . ' i -I : i : , -V . ., . . .:. . . .I M - i , --;-..--.......- .--,7.. , . . .. • • . . . +6 .1-•- : 4-----4.—. 1...F._....__.,z. ..„._..,__.... .I._.._._;. 44,--T-- ----,- i Is . ■ -0 ! ! c . .■ : , .I. . . ..7. . 1,----- i " ---------"--'-----------L . . ... .. 1. . ,,t.,-- ■ . . .I ---.1.------,.--- 73 i• I I I'2,: i . . :1 :. I I 0 ' . ! : : ., 1 : : :I. . . .1. il I ', .; ■: I: ii : : ■ . . .! : ! I . i . I I ■ I ■ 0...'4 i • 1 • I i I . • • I I i 1; I :I . , . 1 . 1 I , ,C.:. _.....*,..,...._..,.,..„.+_,,,...„..___...,. .,.. :i ",,,i.....i.._.,,l..,_, I: 1: .'±,., :. .... .. . . . 1 ■-• : , 1 I . . .. ..1: : I. i I 1 i . . . .7. . .I I : j : • :i: .. . . . .,. . .. . .,, . . I: : .. . . .I: . •I: '. .. --: i : -: : ! ■ : ! : : ::: ... I : . I 1 • , . . ... . ., I . . -I, ! I . --I-----1- — . -.._ -,-........__.--....--,------__.•,..._ ._ . . .: i I • i .1 I . . I I 1 - • M ! ._..,--._.......4_,_-....,....____ .,_,„,_ . I . ... . . .1. i I ■ I 1 . I i I ! • I i '. . ! -----:•-:-'-m,---1.,---:-....',4,-- 1 : ,...,, •. . . 1 !• 1 i I i I I Cl, i • I . 1 1 !: , i i--. : : :.• : -E, . .[ : i• • I- • / 1::: •: : 1. . '.1. . :, : . : I. . I- .. .I. . I 1 : :1 : ,1 1 • - .i 1 i , •r, ,. . -4,.....,-. i. ---+--....-.-,--,..- ..,-....-,—!-.1,-,-..... I I I . I • ., • I I 1 I m co: ! 1 . 1 1• . . .! • . . ., I . ,-, - • I : :-,1---- ,!----- _..._...,._ _. ,_, _.,_, .,_ . . . .; ._4 , . . I. I I I ! • ! I i ! . • • .1 . . • I :• i. ... . . . ..... ... .. . . I. ; . .! 01 , I • 1 2 . . 'I : I . . . . •, . .2 >( a . :. ; . 1. . . . .. ■. . . .! . •. . i . i • LA • I ., . . . ,. . . ., . .. : :, ■ .i . . . .i • 1 : . ! i• ' .•- ■ I .. . . . . ,. • i ! , ■ I I I I I g -n . I : 1 ! ., • I• . . , . I . + =,, x crizi i :i ■ • . ' , • 1 • 1 ., . i. . i. ! . . . i . . .. ., -ci ,L.,,,t,. • : , .■ ! : i : „ :I : i . ;. . . . .!: .. .1 i . -.1 -,,-., , -,,.-,..,-..,-,-.4.--,,--,■,-,,,.----,-,----..,..,..,,-..,..,-,i...r.:- cri 0 . .1 • •, . . . i . . .• • ,. • .i i . . . . . . 1. • . . . • -, . • •i• . . .: : : '.' i: ' ' F'' ;••-. ' ' ' . rn I I ci- ; ; ; . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . •.. . . . . .f f . . ... . .-4/02 Col -I i 0-- -' " "1 ' .. : .. ' 1-. . • •! ' ' I•':-..----4---::----1-."":"--": i +:-:M::::---1+--,-'l'‘....'..-2 . . . . . .-,-I"-... ...:71i-"-'-'--.-.'.''-''-7 . .7 .''''.-..-i---".------'-'-'- ----..."' ' .In I ; . • • ; , , , 1 I ; ■,.. . _ . DISTRICT-•:METRO • 1PLOT NAME front-1,03 PATH&FILENAME PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 0901 L . I - - : le,' . !1 :: . . , . : 1 io• : • Ig • ••8 • ' H. • 0' • •0 : 0 : : ' I . g lig! b I : I .: ' : . ....... . .,, : i . ! ; .. . . , , , ,, • • I 1 1 1 •. . . .. ! " . : •. . I . . ... . : . : . ...1. . . ■.. . : I 1 I 1 I ! I . . . . ...1 — I i I i ; . I ' !. • - . ;. ' • I . ;, . I . ■. . . ; . . .1. . . ; . ; . ... . . . I -7----i---,-----:-1,-,--'.---,-1----.-" *i--..-----rf---.------+-• . .1. --..--r- : . .-177,. . 7 71- I i 2 . . ■ . . .3, . i . . I I I . I• ! I ,0 : II ' ■ . , • ! . ! ' ■ i I .. : . . . i ■ i 1 ' - - ' '' .. I . . .3 . ■ . . 1 . . I. . . , . . i . . . . . ......4.....,. : : .I.. ._,.,..,„.. .. . ,. i: ., . • - - : 1,.. . . .... . ...... .. . . . ., . ' . . 1 . , • : , • ' !.: . . • . . . . . . .1:• . ..I... .. . . .. • . • „ . : 1 , , , I 1 I .. .. . .. .• . I , .. .. . . .I I , . ., 1 , : 1 . . . . ... . . . . .,. . .; . .'. ... ... . . .... . ..!,.. .. . ., , . , : • , , • 'I • I: : I, : :, : . : , . . . , . -1 • - -I - I• .. ' 1 I I t ■ i i . i .. .• : . • - . i . I I . t • . . , i I I I I : . . t • . . .; i • . i •' - . . I . . • •, - i ! ■ • I i . 1 .1 . . : . . ... . I I. i • , I \ • : I I - - 1, I. , ' : \' , • ' ". . - I ." , . i , , v. : • I ... . .... . I 1 • • , • • I . • , . .: . .. . ,: . ••• . . : • I I ' I f: ! : .. : ,..' '• :.. . : • : i ;: I . . . .. . . . - .. , . I . .t• 1 . . -I--.7...----4,-•---,.--1- -:—.---r H 1: . . . . ' . . . . ; I • • :t . . . ,1. . . ; ; • I : ....--- . !...,--,- ' ... . . •-•----- • . . ,.. . t... .. • . . :t I ,: : : i • : ..,1 , . . I•. . i'-.' .. i ''' . . . I 4 ' : 1 Ur.. .. . . i . ' tA 1 1 ■ I ' 3 • 1 .?!..: I T • ■. I: - . i ,:0 : i ! : I 5.1°'",,, in? : . . i b. . . 1 1 v,0'1 hi I . ° '. . '' III it g 1 1 • - i i• • ..0. I i ' 8 1 1. . 1 41 rg' 4 1 •. . •1 ig g 4 ' ..L i . ,7--'0--- i ----..------1--—:. i 0 ' • 1 1 . I • : i i I ; ! ; ■. .. • I . . . ! I 1 I I: : ;1• 1 I Ili I ; , i . .,. . . ., . . . . .; . .1 , : :. . : . ., . . ,, . . , . . • , ...._,...4.H_____±.....____ I ..,.:._, , -..._,' ._.L.,..,L. ___,:__..L.,_,....._,:____ _____,. , •___,:,..,__,__,__,_._,_.: _ i : • , , I ' i i I , i . ■ :.. .. . . . .1 ; : : . I . . . . .7 . :. : i ' i • ! . . i i . I - 1. • 1 i : • • ' ""-'-^ ..'''-'•.'''''-•-..“ - • ' ' . } V/ , I• ,. , . . . . ' 1 i ' •147 ' 3 . . I • ' L , : .:: : : . -- 4:'7 i ''' ' • . rn .t . 1 i : 1 1 I0 .• - - - i I . : : - • •----, '7--.1.----. i , i , . , , I. . • . : , : •. : ! . . ,: : : : ,,: , : : :,, :i: . •, :.. . 1.. . , .,. . .. ,.. . . . , . . .; .. .,. . . . .. . , . ' I , . :. o , . . . : i • I , . . 0 , , J , • , , , • : I i I I ! I . : i 1 i ; % 1 ! 1 _..._...,...;____. .1: : : :i : • i . I j ; . . . I I. L. . •. . . . . . . • . • - i - I i . -,?' ■ 1 1 ,: ! 3. __-- ,....,....Hi ....___4_._••__..1 __,..,..____......,...____.1-...... 1. . . .,. ="1.."..147,="-L--_....:..........L._1........__. i 1 --.__,-____ •_..._--1____—_--__.,__ 1. .. '. .I. . . .1. .. .. ■ •!• ", ' 1 I . . , — i . . I • • 1 . • i. :.: i • . ;• • ' .i• -. .i : • I q - ; . : ! ; . I i • 1 : ■ I . ::. . , • : ; ,I- •- ••__i : :i ... I i !• _.• : ! ! '.-^., , :• i -, I, 1 ! 1. ;. . . . . . .. . . . ., 1 I I ch • ;: 1 : !• I I .. . . .I... . .I :. . . . . . , 1 . . . :! ,.,•• • • • , I . ■ ; ! , ; ; : . ,. ...; (A •:: i;:I I , . ; i : ; I = - • I I I 1 I I ! P1 . . rn : i ! 1 I. . .i. I . ' 1 , I . ..' ■ . , I I I i i ■ ! 1 • '. 1 . . . , i .c. 0 .• • :. . . ... . . .. H . . ,-i •*. . . I :. . '. . ' . '• . . 1: • ' 1 ■ : i , . .. .I .. .. . x .; ., : ..,_......,..,_. _..._I ' • . I i i : • - . I i i 1 . . . . . t-,-.•-,-,-------r--------,----- !-,-----„,--,---„,.„--.,--,--'","-",...-....... ..I, :EA . i 1 0 X . i ,VI • • • • . .; . . . . . .i. . 1 i . m d- I . I 1 1 i i ' .• i : 4 I . ' I : . . . . . i i ■ I I • ... DISTRICT•:METRO IPLOT NAMES front_xpl4 PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 0901 ! • , - ■ . , • ! L. • .. to, • to •••lo to to to io i to itg ....FS ..- 8 • ...'8 '8 . . i L:1 ,. P• • P :!P t . . . . . 'p, . . .. ... .. . •-••131.------4--..., :. ---.-14.-----...--...i.4-•-•-.4 4-1---•••••,..4-.•: •4-4.--..- .'i.,-.-4-:-•:.--•4.4.4.-44,4-;-•--i44-----.----4-i---4.4-4.44,---- ..;-',.4-,--.4.-------.-4........--,-..r--4- tp •. • .. ,.. . ;.: . . . .. ... . .. : . . 1: : .. ,. . . .. . , ; t t I. i.. . . . .. t. , . I I .. . . . . . . . . I : '. i g • • ..... ... . I , . . . . . . . 1 .. ' • i ;. I 1 . • ,. i ! g. , . . I i i '. • ' I : . .. . . g. r„ . i , ., ■ '. .. Ig g i g - .- . . 'i. . ■ . i . i . g : . . . . ;. . . . .. . ; . . : I ' . g' . .1 . . g g . . . . .. :. . .. . .■ g . r. . . . .•!-.---. ^-i•r• • 1 : • : . . . . . ! . .I : , •1: . . . . . ...: I. . .■ i ! !: , , ,i• : 1: • . : • I . . t . . . . i . I i I j . . .,. ! . . . I . t I i . . I I . ' . , . . . ... I t: , . • I , ... ',.! . •- r-T-r-. -;.• ... . -r-. .-. . . . -.--,-. . . ..-..-.:,. . . . .t. . .T-1 . . 1 .- .,. .,. . . . • I . . . . , , . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . ...:. : , 1 , . . . . . . . ..I . i . . , .._,____ ______:• . , . .,. ,. .. . . . , . . .,. .1. . . . . : ' : i . , . . • . . . . . . . • 1 • ! . . 1 ' • ; i . . .! g,. . : . . . ..... . . ,. .. , . . I . . .g. .,. . . .,, ., , I —4-L- —:,-- I I I 5 ! I I I 1 I I I i • . , . .; . . , I • I . .I. . . ! • 11 I I 1 I ! ■ , . . i 1 I • - , . . . ., . ; : . ., ! I . ;" . "1 • I . i . ...,......1...•..._____.__•.__;.'_ .__,_•1_•__••••_•_...,..__.__,....4.:______,;.____:_t.__.:._._+.• .,.. ,........,__..__.:__• ..__4:_.:... . .•1 ._.,____,__I ..,..........1" ,..:_,....,_...,.,__• . . ..1..-__ . —_,_.,-- i . ' : , , i ' . .i. : . : :: , .• • ! 1, • , .. .. . I. 1 I • I I . .. 1 i • II : 1 • : 1 : .•••: ! i • 1 . • • i. . :,, : .!: ..., ... . . "!: : : • • . 1 . . I .. , !. .. 1 ',• . . .1. . . • '•1: :: :: 1 1 ; 1 ! ! •' i :: : !.. .. .. ...... : : 1 1 _ .:: ', :1 1 1 . . ! ' ! . 1 1 : !! 1 : : 1 • i . . . . -.1 - ! . .,!' :' ', 1 1. , : i 1 .. : . . .: . 1 .: 1 1 i i i : t i " ! • tt t I-4 .. .1 . i I L.:, . 1 7,, I '. i:t2 .. t . . It' .. -, I . I •'-tI54° I I y ' . Irp q,t,, ,,,,t....____,f,,-.4--••-_±,...--i____.i.,_ ., : -f•-•• _,.-,_____-t__:„--4_,___,_i__ ,,... .„:,+_:... . ., : ., i sma.41 -.) I ! I ! o'!! ■ g i .. .. : V.•-! g 1 • • ...“.. -! I .... z! I . . i a it -II ■ I : : :... .. . . . I I I .. 1 i II....,i 8 '.-.'i I 1 1.0 .: i , ,•:: .. . . , 0- 1 ; I . ,,. I :I,: *I . i • I ■ . : .. i - • ; : . I i 1 . ; __ ___1___ 1 1 : ;• . . ..i. . ..r-., . ^1,1 . r-l-T- i , I ! I • . :. i I ! 1 I I. - 1 1 . . • I I ; . , , 1 : , . .. . . . ., . . • ‘,-. . _......._........... _, 3. I I -I ' • g,-.• t ; . . • • I -0 i 1 = - : t I ! .... —- • • • I ; ! 0 g g gii: . .. t I r. ... .1. . . . . : i : I --r- • • - : ; i . i- .: • i • ■ .I 1 , . :I I , ■ 1 ; . . ... : , , i. ... .;. . . . . . . • I : .. .• . , . , .! i i •. ... .,. . . . . . .. I. ... .•. . . . i '—'*"."71-'-'- - ; . •.i . . 1. 1,.. ; :. :,I,, i. ,:i I : :!: .' h" , i I ; I 1 • .i . : ; I • I i .. - 1 ! -1 .. . . . .i . . I. .; I . ., I I ; : ... I . .. ' ' . . •! . . ' ' I : I . . I 1 I ' i 7 "—.-----.----"-'-.---T • .-----..----- .- .,-.. -..' • • . II ; 1 i 1 = -;,--4---------.-----.-4....— —t• . ; .. . i I ; ■ I 1 1 ; 1 I • , , . .. 1.. .. l'. , , , ,i, 1 , I I 11 . I • , • . . I, • i• • , , •r. I I I , . [ 1 i 1 jPj j [ I 1 .. . 1 I 1 i I I I i I , . . Pi i Z i . I I: . • .I I • " I 1 . . •: . :1: • ... . .. :: :1: :! f . 1 co i .. . ... . . . . .; 1 1. . .,. : .1 1 . . ; . . — - ; : . • - . : .; ii t tit : ; i—---1---------,----7-.1-----t--t-.----:-t-t--,---- -t..--.-:-:.1-,...,.---,f--..,----1.-t------..-1-.- -t- -1.-.---.;-.---'I . x Lrl - • .,. : • • • • :1: : ::: . ti: : :it . . in . . .t ... . .,. . . i :;: . :1. . : : : : :t: ... . ... . .;. 1 . • :0 i '1• : :•t. . • : : i I •F• . : • : : • ... -.,-1- . . . r...,....._.+......_,.......t_..._...,......________.......+..;_,........ -1, - 274 . 1 1 I ! • - , ! •. -, x t'1 • • .1. . : . . . !. . I 1 . , ox - • - . . ... .,. . . 1. . . . .1 . . o . : I• . . ' • - . . . •••].4.1 ut cn • : . .i i.. . .. . ! .' . . . .1. ,c .. . g I: . .1: r t .. .. rn _...o.t.,_,.______......_..,_.___,...,.;___........_..„......,_____7.,..,.........„.--....,,-,......:,.....-1---....----..i....---,.....:, . , ;: -, :1, ,,,„:„,71_,,,,-.,.. . .. . ,.7,_,,.•..-rf,,,,,,..„,,, .1 . .,... Ff, . . . '. r • I X -■ I • . . , . . . ' . 1 [ 1 I . . DISTRICT•:METRO • (PLOT NAME:fronLaTIS PATH 0.FILENAMES PLOTTED/REV1SED:07-MAY-2012 0901 . • I . I . ; . ki 6 • li: ' ••: 42 40 .. :. .... 10 10 02• . 10 . :.10 10 1.0 10. . •10 I. i , ,. . . , .. . !. 0 p o . CI, r;' , t. . !ft , i"-.:, `,8 g 2' ' ' ! '41 •••:. •`.4/. P. P . . fS . . ' . . • 1 ! , ! . ! 1 ■ . • ; I 1 . . ! . ' .■. . , : 1 j r i I ! 1 . : • ... ... . .. . . .. . . .1. . . i: : .'. . - 1 : • ■ ! : t 1 . . i ' '• . . ;. . L._ ...1. .:_..__'.....4.,.....-.-__: _,...:_._,..._.i.._._.......- L......-_. 1.---,..-___.,:..___,-....,....,.......-..--A.: I . ., --4:-------,÷----:--i-:--:----,.-,:: ---4.--I.---:, 1- -4:--- 4-:---4:::-1----ti - :-,-14-4.-----•-1--4:-- -;-:-÷,-.4,•,--, t ! ■ i :, • i 1 .'• I 1 1 1 • . 1, .;. . . ...! : I 1 • : ':•,.., . I i • ;0:. ..;' • . . I'' ' ' 'i . . .1 1 1 . ,' : i ! ! • I • I : i I . 1 i 1 ' --,--.-.-.....-....-9' i 1 . • • : 1 I i i 1 : i . ' : *. Z.'" • 1 , 1 • --: . . . ., • . " 1 : • . . P:' .. . . .... i ' r, • i • • 1 • i : I . . ! :• •i - • . .! t. . - t i I ... .i i ! 1 i i ■ 1 . I ■ : ■ , . .: 1 : : . 1 1 1 • ---t•---•:••••-1-* • I''"1- ---1-7'---"t---- 1-'-'----1," r -,-1 -----r ''''''1-r....1-1- 't**t ' •"' l'" ', "-''t^.--**..f*t"'.'''''''-'+'''''"'-' •:+"':' • i. 1 I . . 2 -o , ,. .. ... , • . 1 , . . . „ , . .! .. i .. , i . 1 i 1 1 -I ----4-f7 —±---I -r- --- . ., . ., 1 --i• . '• • 1 .' . ! i . i . '.. ■ : • _...___.,__ At._.......4_....._:..,..,1__,_:_......4,.......t._._.b. i. . ,..,,...........„..,__,____,„.._____.1.._.....,.......T. ___ I i 1. . . !' /41 . ■ 1 ' . :. • . . , j, ,. ' 1. • T i , :. . : i• 1 .: : : : ! : • • i . . . , r 1. r I .. I . .I ' i r • 1 ...1 , . I • 1 I I . 1 i I I I ! r r r I I II I I I r • • I 1 . . .r . ... .• I I r I I , ", I • r I r r r: • :1 1 , r i• ---,, : ,. . , I ; . 1 • ,. . , , I. . .I • . . , , :,• : .. . . . : . ,. ., ' : .. . ..,. • • •1 •,• . .i• ...., . : • : , • I. . . .. i . •• : • • i • . . ; 1 i , , • . , . . • , , . . ; ; ,. . . .. .. ., . . ,. . . : 1 , • , ■ , •,. 1. ' .. , 1 ! . , . . ., .. . .,. . . ., . , • , : . ..,,-•-•,-- 7 "1".`1----h-77-711--1"`"1-1'77-••-71---- --17-7'-7-1-:---- ------4------71- *,- -- , . . :-----!-------.- 1 ; 1 I . .. .u.1 ■ 1 il • 6,:i . . , i I ' :. 1 g,'. . .■ -21 I. ! eo , . 1 .: . . +• . ----I.C"---8r:r'.--'-- ' I • w. 4, ,i,---t'-'-'*7---"'""11--'-----4,- -- ' -..-1,-- ,-......-i•-*,` -0,.. 4- ' . ,;g,1 : : 1 ■ I 13.41,4 ,.>, ' ' . . .I' ' •01 i . .i.. ,., 1. . . !' ' 2 ! : 1 . v.,• ..,, I.,. . ., , . I . . ! i4 t't`.t 2 ■ - 1 .. 1 • :' i... . ' TThTT I ■ 1 -...1 m -, 1. ■ 1 1 '2 r..-----177-.- . 6 ---,-- - . -1---7-. 0 ,. . ; • . • 1 tt ; • i • ...; t .. : 1 ; 1 I . 1 • i I ' i I , • i . . . i . .-I.. •' i 1 •' • 1 .' _ ' i ' 1 . i• I, 1 . I. . . . .:. . . I. . . . .1 1 . . : 1 , ' 1 1 . 1 • I '. ! 1 1 I . 1 i. . . 1 ----.---4.-""--"."----:' ""'"---. -"""•,1-----"-• - -ir '''''".1-7-"' ""---nr-r-.-----!•7,'----1"----- 7-r-:-..77,17-7--""."---"•-•" "'"' --• (A ! ! I 1 . ; .• 1 I !! I . I i \ I > ! I I I i I . I I I . ! I . . . 1 t - ; rt. • I .. . H I I ....... ... ................._,, .....i -,, , •, . , : . . , .I• 1 1 I I ! ! f o i . . . .!. ■ • i . . .i 'V -I . . i : . . 1. I i:A . : • 1 . 1 • . ' i 1 i . 1 1 0 : . . , , . . .! _ _ 1 . , .• •---r--,-•••-•-.----. . •,-••,-.---„-- . ....,„.._;___..............4..... i __........... i. . ■ . • . ! i I I " ■ 1::, : :I • • • • - •. . . ■ • : i 1 . 1 1 ■ I CO •, .. . . . .•... , i-'1 1 I ' I -I. 'i I • 1 I . . . .1• • , .. =• .: I . .1 •-.4t. -,,,,t-.--. ^--,•••1---7-',--1.--,-r -- -- -- .....• L-4...--41-1--:-....,..i.L.••.:-..‘..L.1.4.-*4.--:-....... .. . . .:-..--, : .. • .1,„: ..I. . .i . .;. . . .i. .. . .■. 1 ■ i .i. . . . 1 . .1 I ! I : i . ! • i ' 1 1 1 i LN .• 1 : ' 1 : . .1. . .I. . . . . . .'. . I I. . . , 1 i I i 1 1 1 0, . :• . ::i-, . . .r . . .,. . .! 1 1 ' I i !. . . . . ." • i ■ I 1 m o• ! 1 i I i I : t • --I •-,4-. ..- -,----- 1 1 i 't .,. . . . , • li 04 . . ; ; . . .■ , . ; ____ ....____.... ! . .. . .• x ,,,+1 ; 1 . . . .r . . : : :r:-. . !.. .:.*:•-.----.'".-1- , • t• . .,. . . . ., 1 . . . . .tt . . It : '1, • 1 -n •:1 7,_ . .r . . . ..___.....,,.._______, „.,..,_r_____...............................4„..4. .,,. .__,........._,..„........_____,.. 0.1 ! , . 1 ,-A -8 •-tfl-.,-•---1- 1- i -,--------T;•-•,..-4---Lt-it--,..t,--,....,:„...,-;._...--__.;_t t.,__ :_.:.,,_: ., I ' 1 I. . i; ' ;1 it -• ;: i • . ... . .: . •," . . . • • ! 1 '. . . .t :--7 1 .77 I:77 7.-T7 7 I'. IIII'I-"-II--"1-------17----1---*---7--7-t-', •c24 • " . ! i . , , . .. . .:. . ..1..... ...,. . . .,. : :, 1 F'' 1 ; . , . , , i ..1.. .. ...,. . . , ■ • ..-rm . I ■ I ! ; ■ : • t : / I 1 1 i , I ,, 1 • . 1 . . -- DISTRICT':METRO (PLOT NAME:front_xpl6 PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 09:01 . • . . ■ I Op. ' '19 IP.. lig 19 , , . . 6, 1.9 le L. 14, LI ig i.., -• .. 6, ,.. P P. 0 . P . . 0 • P g:'°. . . . : '•0 P 8 1 • p , • i - ......,.;.t=7:....-.,..,....i-..,...„..,.....4:,..•,..-...:,_...--I, •,....,.I.; .. ..........,.......•._:-.-4_......--.,,4,.-• -....; 1 .1-..-',__•.1.:,.. • I ; . .; . . . . .!. . . , . .. . .. . . ., 1. . . . .i .. . . . ., . , . ; . .■ . . .. . I I • i . .. - - - - I • ;- - - •1, . . . -1- - .1 ■ ' I • I ' ! ; 1 . . . - . . . . ' . .. . . . . .. i i•' . . ••' ' . .-!' i i I . i ' • i I i - i . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ... . . ...... ... . . .3. . . . . .. . .. ,. . . . . . . . : . i. . : . . .... . . . . .:.. '---..---:,--•-+4-4.•:...—14:-,..--.--R- •-•--r44-4--4•-h..j.-••••-•,--',-Hd.----1---1.---.1--±---d.-j-. :;.-+,••,•••:-d-. --47---. :. . --1,---7-1,"",-,-7r-......- 77..-:-.7-7177.7.-1-..7 7,7!...-77."71-177"-7 . 1. . . 1. . I I i- !. . .1 1 I 1 i. . . ! .... . .. ! i I : i 1 ! • . . 1 . . ,.. . . . . . .!. . i I .. ■ .. . . . . . . ., 1 1 1 . . .l• ' .' . . 1 •• i i. . . .,. . . . , : . . .. . .! . . .. . i . . i i . , I ' i . . ... :... . . . • .; • 1 I t .i : . 3 3 3 • . t . . . 1... . . . . . . i . .••• r-------..---- I I. . . .1 1. 1 I ! ' ! , . Iii . _ 1. -.--4------1,----4.-1-4---4-•--,--,:.1----.F, -4 : -4444,... .I---.,------4--- I • .i I 1 i I i i I ' 1 . I I . ■ 1 1 i T i•- . „ . ,. . . . . ' . • I . . 1. 1. I I.. . !. . .; . . ... .. .. . . .. ... i .. ...I: : : , • , ._- ___ ,. . . . .•.. : : . : . : ., : : __ --- i :. .. .1. . . " . . i / I 1 1 .• , i i I . • • • ii ' . I . i . . .•• .1 1 1 1 • • • • ., I . .. I 1 • i . 1 1 . • 1 ! : . . I 1 1 . . !. . !• . . 1 .1: i, . il 1.. . . • I . .I . I i i i I ': . . j ■ i . •i r I I I 19/ ' I 2, I. . . .I : •1• 1 : 1 . 1 • I . . I 7- -_ 1: j." • - • • . . .1 I ;. . I i '. . • •'i :• •:: 1 --4--.- . , ;. . ..-•dj--: +.1-j•• • • - I. .: i 1 . . . . j 1 1 . I • ... , . . . 1 i' • I . . .i •-. 1. : ''' . '• ji i . . " i. . ; . .. . . . .j 1 . ' j 1 I I j 1 • j li• . 1 t i I :. .. ... . j'' jj: .:`4:' •j•• ., I' j' 1 !, ..1 1 i 1 . ,.,,' I e I C°:, • 1 ' .. .. ..,.„, ... . 1 ,;,' . . . . II. . .I • •1: 4: . . ••. ,. .....: .::: : ... . .. . ..- ...-.1.0.......:Ig- ..,,.... : ,—, : 4.-----4-7 -1.4-._. ;_ 140,---t...—,.. • ...., _ .....,--...—., — —0.,----, —...71 11,,n.I. 4.- --.1 -Tr. s 1 i i :.•.,1 • 1 I , 0 I I : 1 I -. ai :-.1, r.: iii . .i. . . . .1 , I T.9. ._1. . . . . 1 . . I 6 0 1 __ :: ::a .I . . .,. . ..., .. - - . : , .i 1 I • i . 1 I i , . . 1 . . .. . . I . ■.. : I 1 i ! • I I. :_4.i.._4_,_:..__i_ __________.4__..:__:.._ _________d_____.4.-_ : _--,I---t---- 1 i ' • i 1 1 . 1 i . . . .. . • 1 ; i . . . .i: . : , i I ', 1... . •i i. i 1 i i I.. I i. I .i. . ..I I ' .. .. ..1. ... . .' •• I ': 1 . .i. . . .i. • -•• . . , ! . ... .1 .. .. .!. ... . ., . I. . . I ' k 1 ■ ! ... .i .. .. ..I.% I .. .. . I . , • ■ :.. .. . , , , .—....., _ ..... ± L ___ •_ __.....,_ i...__ .._..i..–...,— ......,......._ - • I I I -I • ' I • ! I I I i 1 .. ' I. . • • i - rn ! I ! 1 • I \ i i 1 . . , ■-■ •, I i . . i . , . . - . • . . , .. i . .I ' ----'-t-'.. i i . , , ' . : • j Z : : , : -- .! . : ............-.„-.--..4,.....,-,.--:-.-- -..;,....i.:,-.........,. ..;...,...-,-;.,..i.....i.f.....,....;....:...;.......",..-_-:..,..;-...,.:-.. .- —.-"-;-:..-..1.,-:....;44----.!..--.--- ...-:-.:.-.i.......--:-:..L.L--...-..-.-L..— • ' ! .'. . . . ... . . . .. . . . :. . :£ :'. . . . .1 I . .. . . . , : ! . i• . 1 ! .. . I ! I 1 . . .. . 1.. ■-• i. ... , ' i 1 t ' . . ''' '• " • 'i" . '/ -1?.. , ,i' '": 1 . :, • I j 1 , :j• •,' I . .J . • - - 1 i i ,- ..:........1.,...• • .L__;._ - . I . 1 . . . i i ; 1 i . I i .• • ... . . .1: . • . .. : ,;-• ;. : : , , -I ! :I -. i •. !... . • ! 1 ! I -"...-4.1-7.7-7..."--i7 .7..-''''....44''''!7'• -4""."..-.74---7----....7'• .:1. ..-: : ' ' ! . .. . . . '' ! 1 1 ' 17 ' ' ■' " 1. . ...1 ■ • 1 m • i ■ i i 1 1, . . .1.. . .I. . ! . . . m cel; I 1 i -i •---f....I.4----1---i-±4----•±-----t-7^7'".*^..---;-t-,-44-I•ti4.-I-t-i--:-:--:.--•Is. . I7t--F4-----I--4;•""I''''''j. ... '-'-^-•'-'—'4-''' . .j'''''''''`''.j•'''''."-•'-'+' ' j• - 'j ?>1 ' • ' t . • I I • CO. : . ., : " i . . 1. . :. . . --, " ' . . . .;. . 1. . .,. . . . . ..• i .. . 1,. ,,. . . .,. . . . , . . . i I . . ... . . .1 • , 1 0 .....g.... .:_-4,............_..,._i_.• .,,... .,...,_____i_..:.:_.L.............-..,..,_ . ._...,...:..... . 1. . ......k,..,.....1........,-.L.• • . .I...::- - - - -1 . .I. . . .; • . . .•- . . .;. . P- . -n .L-1 • I I . . 1. . 1 . . ,. . ,..!!!!!!!!!!!!.-,..-.-.-!!!!--!!!.7,--,---•. -,-,-!-!-.1--------1 ----------------------- ,-. i. i, i ■ 1 1 1 . . : i • 1 i i -c2 I : . . .1. . . . I . ■. P.,, '-' .--a,..--.. ' ; . •-_1.. , , , 1.4_, 4--.4' ".• 442,-,. ,---i--, . '•,: -4 : '.., I;--:: I: :,:i-;-;t4-' 4,--.4-44-;-..-;--;1---;-44-4:-I-:-.4. •-I-:-41-4.------1-;„---„---.I.,... ...: ■ I v) 0 i: - ; .. . • !, • 1 I 1 . . ■ I ' 1 '.? , ,,,,,i, , ;. ..... ,, . ...„..,.----_----.-7____,_•-:..........---_—r ....-__.i.-.._.___i___--.4..:-.:_...:__t--.-,-4.--.4-_:__:_._._:..F._".L...._.:.-:.i.,......,.. .._-..L.....___,...,._i_____1_, i."`_ . - . I 1 • - i ' , I . . I ,. . • • I i 1 I : . -. . ., DISTRICT•:METRO IPLOT NAME:f ront,p17 PATIO N FILENAME PLOTTED/REVISED: 07-MAY-2012 090)1 : ;. : . I ! .1 • I 1 1 ! :.: L0•P...'. .'. ::. 14P: ,-._.... :.1P:;9. .• •P 1 i0 i.D. .•. i i ,I Lr P:. -,--• • itP o f, k o.:- ••• k o•-.. :.• ._.—i : : . L.P`•I-, --•,-lU 1—a--... .-1b1i0-.:■' • p 1..:.-... ' : ■ 1 , : , . , i • I I• : • • I : : • „ . . ' . . . .. . .;• . . . . . i : : I 1 . • . . . : : I • ; i . . . ., • , I i I 1 1 3 . I - I I I ; ' 1 : • 1 I , . . I 1 I . . 1 • ' :I. .. •:• . . : . r . • : : •3. .• .1. . ; :: . :. ..• . . ... . • . . . . .. • -1-"' -'-•• . • I I 1 1 . . . . .j, .. . . I I i I • i I : 1 • : . ! j . •,• i. 1 j . .I• • 1 1 I 1 ! I ! I ! : . I • • •1 : I • 1 3 I . , : 1 I : • 1 1 ! ..... .I I , . 1 . • ' ■ : ! : • ; . . •1 : j • : 1 . • 1 I . i • 1. . .i • •! . •• 3 • . ,. .. . . . . 1 I . • • I • . I. .• I 1• . .1• . - ' ' 'j. . j• • • •j . ..:. . - .:1--r. .I.r. ..•-,... j• • •1 , : . ., . .! . . : ! : : 1 •!. • . . I I . . , . 3 . : . I . p : • . I I I . .1. . .' • . ,..••••••,•••••_••••• : I i • 3 I 1 : I ! 1 I j I I 1 3 . I . . i I- •' P . P• • ' r I. •1*. .• . . . . . 7r-•••••77771--- 7 i '7' : • : 1 • : I ! I :. . , . .: .I. .. • . .: . i. . ,. . . 1. ... .. . .. . . . I •. ' • . . I I : : 1 ' . . .. . . 1 . , : . - i " ' • . . . . , 1 • / • 1 . . . / i I • : 1 : I I . 1 . I •i P•• 1 I •• 1 I ' ! : : I 1 . ' 1 . Vell 1 : •I : • /. 1 OM I • 3 : "Ir • • • . P 1 . . . . . .!.. 1..j... , , . . :. .... 1 I . . • . . \ . , . . . . .1 r : • I . . . • I ! I : • : . ; . . . 1 . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! .., . . : . . 1 1 . . .r. ...1. . .I . 1 I • 1 • . p • I - i I 1 3 I I I 1 I • I •.• . I. . . I I . 1 . . ; : I 1: 7H7.• ••--4"7 ''7•''•-7-7I•I 7a'.t 77*.+Hi' "7.77-'''..':*+•••;.••'•7**7*-77-I-I"•'• •"•'••••-'-'""'••••'"•••••"I•i•I'-'-•- •1 I'''•''`---1----- ff-----1-,-..--.---4-7 .: . ..col . i! '6 !. : 1 - • !"4:' I. .. ! . , 1 ' , :•-. ' I I !;.! I ! :: . . ...I. ,,,.e! ! , ! ! •-•• !. .. I . . 1 . ., Ili .■• . .. : .;"'.1 !'!! I• . .+: : ..........1-6,!--..,.....-....-----......-. ' ... ' ,i4.:.-...,.....i....+.--+'!.+.---.-,..--! ---wr',.,.+4,----,.--i . '•,'.. '.-r=!--4-,-!.---3-,!----..----4---.---.;-* , . . .! ! ! •0. ! ■ g. :. ; . . .I ; ; . . .;. . . .. i. ::::-.1-----,:-. 1--------1---... -.4-::-.-......7 7i7.7.7 7:":77•77,7177'777E7 7•r-_-•71:7_-+: , ......4,, .....,_,_,-7177-77.'74-7.:-.--1-'....-:-----1-:-..--H-1--- •--'igt.--i--'.--"---: : , ,•, i . . . . . . • i. . , 1 I 1 i . . • . I i , . . . . •. . 1 1 . , .. . . . . .. :. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ., . . . -11 I I I I . .,_4._,, _. , . . -. I:: 1 ..,. j_.,_• 1 • . I :1 1 . . , . I ' I I 1 ; • ; ,. • ! •• . . . . .. , .. t i : ! • ' ! 1 . . i . . . . . . .. I . .1 . .i in ; • ' . 1. . . , .. ... .. . . ,, . . f,. . .1 , . . . . • ... , . .,. .. . .: ,r-------7----`- --1 j • ' I •• j 1 -.L.-,• • :. . . . !. . . . . 171 1 • . I i : I • : I I I I j I ..-.4-1,3....3..---4----..-- .4..........___..„._...... . _..1.-.......,_.:..i._._.._.._.._.;_.......,.......1...,.._. .' I , ! .. . ' • • : , . '! 1 ! I I• I I , : . I I I I I I ! I I !■ . . . .. ... . ..1... . . : . . .: . . • . . .. CO • ! 1 1 1 , ..!....,.---,++,-,-.....-t,...-t-m..,..-t+,.,-,.... ••4+1,,--......,-,4 ••---,4—...,-,4,---,•-•!-H.----...!-,..!-.. ....- - +1- . I I I 1------,4 -,----1..,---.- ,- --,---,--- I • i I 4,▪. ! , . !, :: : , . . . . .,. . . .. . . .. , ■ , • I I , • ! . . •. .. . . . ! . ! , ■ : ! • • • : • !--- •.7-.r.-.--.,..-.•----!..-....-!---4,---!...,-...---,-P.-....!.-.-...-,.!: -,.-•--..+-----•----‘..-;----!--s-,.,-.1---- •.!.-,.!--c-,-,1.:-...,..-,......-.4.:-•:-...-..1,....,----: .!. ..!• . ... . . .1. . ..; • ! , ;. . .. : . . . ... . , . . . . • I I ! ' i • • . . . . -1 - •! 1. : - : . I. „ .. I I I ! . • •! = : ._ _ __!!_, .. . . .•_ : : . . . . . . ., .. . .1. . . . .. . . . .'. .. ... . . . 1 . : : . . .. . . . .. . . .:,.......... ,._„. . 1 . 1 I • ,. .I : I 1 I . . ., . . . . ! . . . ... . . . I. . ■. . . . , • , .. . . . • I . 1 I . . . . i i I • !■• I 1 i ! I I I 1 i . I I' - . 1 ' . ',. . fq vi . , 1 1 , ....--F..,..:._......-...__-__....,___-. .__...........,. ._.44*..3..-.... .1.. . 3-3.4.• I' • .. ! .1-..........-.3. I 1 • II 0 !A I . . I i • : I I i 1 • :::_,L° ___:_!!!!!!:... !!=,___ _____! !!!!,!,_ ... . . „ . . ... . . .. ... . . .. .. . ! . r-t-: . . . . . . ■. . . ., . . •!. . . • . . .. .. - 03 0 . . . . . . .I. . 1. . .j . . . .: . ... . . . . . . , . . . . .!. . . .1. .. . 1 ' . . . ..,i . 0 -2,-----.,..,..--4-_-_--_-.-...-_-----,-,•::. .-..1•:•••-••-•-:-,-.1...--:•••,••.. - .. .... ..-• :li ..--4-.--.11-,.---:•:.----:-:••••-•:.-.--1.-:. . .-;:t ..:.-..i: :---. --,1,..----,-:•-•-i---.---,-.-4-;-.1:•,••:;•4--4-1••--1 i• • ! , 4.1 . i I ! I 1 . - _Ni...__ .:, , .• . 1 • • . 1 - ' I 1 . 1 . : : . , c. V1 01 . i I ;c5 = •-! :!. . . i I 1. . . • •I ; ■ . 1 - • I ' 9 Pi •--cro -.7-7-3-..-.--7.-7-1--.3,--s---.......--•-j, --.---..1.3:-.:-.---3.--r314-7..,..."-:-:.‘:-....3.4....-. .. 1............-.3.--.3-.--3-..... ----.-- .--.I...-.-..-.. - -.L.. ... ! . .,, _ . ! i . , • i '---ii------r---!F, z ; ■ i 1 , DISTRICT•:METRO IPLOT NAME:front_xpl8 I PATH&FILENAME: PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-20I2 0901 • . : 1 i : r • .•,.,- , , • . ... ID ID i0 . . ' '.4 iD•• . . 6, ig, : , : .-0 hi • LO 1.0 8 . . . p'1‘. 82 • : .. . i 0 .. . . `6' if; 0 : . ' ' P ° ° : P - .1,:- • . . . . i i. I . . „. . . •P; • ; I : . • i . , : • ,• 1 - - ! • . . . . . . : : : I .. . ; •.7 i . ' ' • . . ;: II i .. i . : ' . ' . 1 . . . . . . . . . ; I. . I . •. . : I. . ; . 1 I. . -r"- ---71; 7 I • -;—'--I- I ' „ 1 . ! .. ; . . . . 1 t . . 1 . ; ! ; . • . . I / . t : .................- . --; ; ; ; ; i . . . . • ; ' I ; ' . • : • 1 • i ; I • i . : .. • ; • : . . . . • . • 1 • -1- I ! . i . . • !. . .: . . ■ I . ! • , ! . . . ' . i . I ! ''. ■ ! 1 , l• I ; . . : . , : .. . .. . , • : 1 i• ; , , ;1 I ; i I • , . : I , . . . . ; ; , . , i . I , , . , , I i 1 ! , . . . , . , . . i. . : . .!. . .. . .. !. I ... . ... . 1 1 I 1 ■ i : ! !i : i .• I • • 1 . .i 1 : 1 i . , . ! i i i I ; ! ! ■ , • 1 I ; ! ! . .. . . ... • . ... . . . . • . •. . , I . 4,_' . : ! I . . . . i . • : i I , I . . . . 1 . .! . . . .I. . . I I .. . ..! I. . .. • . " • • • ! . . . . . • „ . .1. . . .. . :. • • • ; . . - . , . , ! : I : .•• . • . .... , . . . • : i • I I ---. .. ,. . ... . . . I . . ; . • . I . • i • : 1 1 I . . . . ! . • . . . • •I• - • : : . I I 1 i I ' • -_--.----------..-- ,-- ,--.- • . I . I. - ...I I 1 I ! I I : . . • i .. i. ,I\••' I . ________, • • . 7:.• bo '! • '',' . I • i ! : . . • :, ! \I I :• : I .!. . . .■ .... .,. \''' ' • - . I . I • I ' . • : ■ \ I i 1 . . I. . . .■ . . . . ' : .. . 1: I' 1 . •. . . ' 1 I ■ I . 1 : ''. , :• . . :, 1 , . s . , i I - r.• - ' .. . i .. . .. . 1 I . . . ...I 1 • . . . . ''''''.':---).-•-7-7-77... ., : il 4.-7 • . • ,: . ,• . • 1 i i. . -1-----.. 'I • •• •-' ' • I I !i• I ! i i I • , I . - • 1 . I . , . . , ! . , . . . . : ::: :: ::!. • . 1 _. ;. . 1, . 1. , 1 , t • ; , I : • : . ! ••••••!-:"••!-!"'"' ':.--"•••.•-•.•!!'!---;-!!!!!!!!. !!'!!!!.!!!!!!! I . ........-....,. .... .1 .... . . I '''!1 Il ! ■ . I i 4 ■ g. 1 . ■ • • 1 I , .:•-•••:•••••:-.4,:::•-.-;-:• 4;••:• --•: : , !.....,...._,.....i...._ . . : -.-. . . . ,: : .,, - . , . . 1 12 •n ,s., . i - 1 ki;14 133 i P:' r ! 4. ', °I " , ! gl r> ! , I ! ! re klo 1 • gi . . .., .. , I :°. '-',4 :2 •:: :.8 I i 2 1-' -=2 '. ! . I ■ i 2 k---j---- 0 ; : ! . : . • 1 • t 1 t 1 1 ; . . I ' ; I ; I 1 ! 1 1 . ! . 7 • . ' . . i . . ! . : I ' ', • i. I : 7 7 • . : . .-.-.-......—......-'....- ....-...- , • t 1 .• I I I . . I i t • I . I .... . I i 1 ' I 1 . . . : : 1 . . ... .. . 7 . . . . ! .............,..-4..___-_.-&_-...........4,_,"-..+,•_,...., I. . .-1,-._ ...1_......".„..1..,,.,_-_,_-_,-,-±,.....,-..,,,...„„„......;....!.....-. - . - '• • . -----4-); I • 1 I I . . ;i ■ 1• . . , • I • . • , : . i• ! i ;. . . ... . . . ,. . . , . i • • ; • . - ; i ; i )'I I , i • -_,_._,____-___--4____.,.. -• ),_ . ___-_,4_,_.)........,_I. . ..••.• - • • ••• •. • . cn - : - , I . , : : ,••, !. i ' 'i 1 I , . • • xo I:: : I . . I ; i 1 ::: I , . • ..I . I I I •'V : I • 1 7 • !--- --,- 1 ----- , . --• : . . ...; — .: . • • i ! i , ! • : , . . . __ Z ' •s:•• • . : ! : 1 • •i • • • • I • • • t ! t : . - • • . ! . . ; : ; , . .; . • ... . •: - • • ;• • ! - ! I . ■. . ... . . . ,. . .1. . [. . . .: . . i . ...E . 7 I t • t 1 1 .1 . 7, . . . . . . .. . .'. . ... . . .4; . . ; . • ",1 ,,,„_.,_,_!, • I 1 I . 1. . t . .. : t I' ' . '" ' • • • • .... . . . . .; • 1 • .' : ' t • •" . . 1 . I 1 I 7 . . . . . . i. . ..I . . . i. . . . ... . . . .,. . 1.. .. .. .. .. ......, ., , , . . . . . ! ▪ . . . . . . .i. . . ' . 1 • ! i • I i . i . : : . .I . I I 1 • • -i . ." . . i i I i . 2 .-:,.L.4#.:-..:....L.....-...i..---..----—.-—.:-:......:-.,......:.4.--- .,• • . .,. . .1. . . ' 1 . ' --.I • , i (,J , I 1 • . 1 • 1 ■ , I I I 01 i'• • . ; . . ,,. . . . . . ., i 1 i 1 r ! •,-. , : I • ../) - •I,, - .. . I , 1 :>,,' . - . ..• - •.. . . . .. . . : . . . .; . . ■. ... .r. . . 71 -- i —.-, z •:,.. . . .'. . .1 I I 1 • 1 i . • • i : i I - .. 1; I . • o i i 1 i i .._4s4.:..!.____±.___....._..:......_,,,_._ ...._—____. :...........„.•:•. ..,].......,„....;_.„. .,,,..._.: ..,......_, . ...!. .. . _.i.,_,_.._.;._ _..._..,.:. . . . . ...:• .. :!. „ •-,Si I. . . • ! 1 i • . i •n---..-F--, •I•- ... ' ' 'IT . ..-"I''' • ; . .' .... LD ci ! I 6.1 , I ' • • • I. -n •-., I ! I 1 ■ . 1 1 .. . . . .,. .--.,...;,. •i: ! , i ■ . i i i . ; F« x Loul . i i I I 1 42 1 2t . . . . . . . . i. . . ... . . ., I . . i rL-,, .......c,t,...-77-H...H.,-...,..:1,....,..:..,..„),_.,... .E..._.,__I____....:.__1_....:__.,._.:-1.).___,.._;__•..),_•_,_......,..,:..1.....:..:_:_.‘-.),.)_)_.•,..:_:_,..1....)._-.■.:.i..--.-7.-.......... ....:..,-1.;..,.,..,...,-!-,-;-4.,...,...-,....,-;-!..-..:.-:-.-....■-:---, 4._-:_....;....r.... ; - . -,-,--,:•-•,--,-,1 •, : , , ; I : I . . i . !. . . . .I - X ' • " I I ! . ■ DISTRICT•:METRO IPLOT NAME,front_xpl9 PATH&FILENAME PLOTTED/REVISED:07-MAY-2012 0901 : , ,. . . ..... . .. ,. . . .,. .. ... , . . .i. . . .. .•• i ■ :.. ', i : E I ' ...:.. • :.. . o• .. .to 4', . p . o • . . ..•,..--- • L.P. • o to 4, . .. to. . .io , • • , i : . , ,. ... 1 . . ...,. ...,... . . , i,_„„ , i • : . •••,,,,••:_d ______+____,1_,_,...•-,--4----,---.-4-------L,-:-:,----h--.-,,-L,------ ,,.----, 1 • 1° - . ' • I . 1 i ;, . • : ■ , , : I I I ' . ... : . . ... . . .,... . „ 1 ' , • : ■ I - . . . . . . 1 1 I I , '. . . . I. : . ... : • : : : . ' • ' i • . 1. . I • • .I I = ... . .. .. . . . . . . i: : :: 1 ! • I ., . .. ., I I I . . • i : 1 I • i , i ., . .i 1 ! . .' . .' ■. - I 1 . • ... • ., . i 1 I i . , . . ..i. . .. .I ■ ..I • ' ! i ; . . . '.. . :... . ,. • I••- . I i , . : . . . .... . ., . • 1 i . : . : 1 . I I 1 1 ; ! , .. . . . . ., i I 1 ! • . •: '..... i i I • I I ■ i ! : i i I . . . ---,:gr-77-r•••--.--"'+'.".'I.I'.....-.'"'"'-"•t..."'+'"'"'t-t•-•r-ti-i-ft'' . ., r . 7/7^....^.77,7 . .; . . . 1. . .. 7;7.'7-..''-'...l'''7. .-".7"i-------.-,---- '-'-'-, --•.--.---,--•, ---..----::.---• •-h.-•...7 777177777 77'7'I '•7'7•7 . i I . i ' ' ' 1 . I I 1 ; • I 1 . .. . . . .; .. . . . . . . . i '' i i ■ : - . . i . .; . . .,... . . . . ., . .. ... . .; . . . .. . . .. . . ;. I . • : i 1 . . . .1 ... ..:I. I , .. . ., . . . . . .I... . ., . . . ., ! I I I i - ■ . i i . : ! ' i • , ' • ! -r- : : : , , , : : . r, ,,• ... , : : :I : , i : i , : : :,.. . .....; •...• . .;. . . - 1 ■ .. .. .. . . " l• • : . . .I:__ ..i• •-. ■ . i . i ! ■ i t I ,..-.-7.-,... .. -...-,-..--„ , i i . . .. . • . .I . ; I I ' ' 1 1 i i ' ■ ----',-------.t------4- ,--4,-,',- 7,,i.--',' .,,,- --I. 4-4---; '4--1-.---- .--t---,.•:- -1-,;.t*,--,1•*-*•:-'-'++'•--.--*--'1-•-•-•--"-"1------•-r-------I--'-'7--ml''t----I----'-t-f--'- .. . . .r:. f • . . .. . I. I I 1 1 I ■ ■ . .I : . ... •. , . . 1 . ... •■ - - - l• ... . ... . •, : : : I i , , .........4_____....i..._:_.......:.......L._,.._,...._.1 . ..._-.4....„........,....•...,..,..:_.._•4..-...............:-‘i-.....•-•-•:-L-,..........,.......1......,...,‘._.‘1..........,........H....,..,.....:,+,.......... _.......4.._.,.. ..:._4.,.........._....1.._.._—_,_—____.!.................—___—_4,..!... . . ! : —___, — i • , II . 1 .1, . I 1 I • I • I . I ! , 1 i . . • - ! • •1 . I •..•.. ..........,_F....._•__..t.;_,..____,...._.....__,L......--........L_ . I ; , , •.. ' ' I I •' . ; ••• ' \■-•• . I i • I I • • I I ; I ; I I I i i .' • • ; . , ; ‘. ; .. .. . . . -, ' .'. . ' ' • \ : , , I ,' : ' • 1 • --4-...'-'"-------'"''---- --'-4-- ^-1--"------'-,Ft'-'..."•---t--'..-- - ---.^-^1---.—; —^-1-.^^-^--'-^-^"---'--',-i-H-t'''''- .I--..-. .1. ... 1"'-'-'----'-',----"-- --,..---- .. , . t . . .1 . .. 't . . . . ... ■•:. . i t , , • 1 I . • - - 1 :• : .. II ! , i .. . • ! ; •• • : . !. . .. . . . , I. : ... .! , . •• I::: :. : 1. : . ! : , - 1 , i . . .. .. . . I 1 I i . . . . If-LI , I.. I i Th I 1 . ■ • •.. :.:_•,.;.. :1 : ,__;..,.._. . 1+ ■ • . W w •14''-'--7-'7.---' i '-'-'-'"TO-"'-'-'-'1"--- - - , 9,,A.q e,---,---i-,--,,--.--:,----,-,•-,:,...7,-",`,-, *t'---H.'-'-^-1'-----, th'-'7--. I I i i •I i 0.0 0. i 0 • •• , I 0 I! E • . ! 1 : : •:0. - . .. .. . .. , ...+: 1 1 I ... I . . ' 6 1 i : : 1 : ::: j • : I : I 7.IA 1 i i ____;,,,_,__,•,_,___1_,_________1,____ ,,: __, ___. .. t...,,_. I.. I. .. . t.,. . .. I. ._ __ 1 ..9 —_.......L__...............____i : ---8- - - 1 , , . --.. ., . . .. . . ., , I I... ... ., . . I I . , , • i I I I • I • : I . • i: • ' . : .. I... !.. ■ --.- -:-.-- • I l' i. i 1 I LI I . ' • , I ' . I 1 ., 1 ..,...,...,. ..1-____.... ....,,..... ._........,....•.{ •..j.,..,,_.L.-I,' L ' ! " ' •1 1-, I ' • • I • • ' • •'1 . . . , . . ,,: 1 . ,,. . . •1. . .1 . . . . . .:. . .I.. .. •i• - . • • i . . . I I I • , I i I I . o : . ; : ' : •' •• .,. . . ;. . • i. e ,. . . .,. . .i I 1 ' • . • ' : I I I . i I . . . . .,. . ... I , 1 I , . 1 !. .,. I. I i ,... t I I.. • .• I i ▪ i•N•"- ! • t . 'V : . . . , . . , I i: : ' • I ; ,. . .■.. . . . 1 [ 1 1. . .,.. 0 f , c.., . . :- • ', i ; : 1' ' 1 I. , i . . 1 I i i ________„..._ , . .C. , , , - • - . . . . . . '. .... • • I ■ I I ! ct 1 : : ! I ! I . ,I . - , i.• . . . . , I , i ,-• '. I I I 1 i - i.:. . . ..I, • , I . . . ::. . . . ! I 1 I I I , I I , . . , . . ; ,--• , , . I. • i i • ! ' I I , •, •:, . . .. . ' •, ••• ,i, , ' i . 1 . . I . . ! , ...--- I ■ . I . , i ,. . .. . . . . . . ., ,., . . . . . . .',..... . • : . , . : , I • I , . : 1 I I I I i • ' , • - I ' ---1 .• : : : .. . . ., ... . ., , : : 1 i I = : :- • - .. ::::. .: .. ...:. . , . . i . ,,---.--,--r------r---r,--,,,---.-,,,,--.-.-----%-...r -,--I-.-- .,. . . ..1-:--------,-----4.-..--,_ 4---.-- . I I I i I I I 1 I • I . I I I... . • ; i i '. . : : . . ., . , i . i . . -,,-- • .----„,:_--,._--_--.*.-.. . ,„_—_-,,,-;-,!,•-■-■ -■•• .,,,,-,-,,,-',4.,.,4--, ■ I i I • • I i : I :. ' • I = • I rn vi : i i ■ : ! , : . -717'. . .. . ,. ... . . . . ... . . , ...--....-........,-.......-.,.....,-,.. I Z •: I '. 0 6,1 i I • • i I • LC1 . i I ......414._._.„_2.;.............„„_...!_ .. : ,______•,: •,...,_ ,.. . . •, , I: ... . . . . 1 . . .;. . .. I.. . ., . , . .,... . . .. . . . . . . . . .,. . , ,+: : 7-i. - _ - ----;---,-,+,.-- ---I- ----,--,--,--,:-.H7-4.,-:-.-..- ,-.. a . • 1 I ! 0 a : ■ 1 _ _ ; . . .... . . , ... . ■ • ..: i 0 •''• : ' ...:. .: . ' . „ . 1 ' i I I 0 • 0--------—'.--F-----"-‘..-•- -i------,-±-, -4.;-., ......,....,- -.. ... . .i-,--,- ----;-,---,--r-,-,---,-,--,4-,---,-,---,4-,---1-. . 1 ....,......,-...4-;--.,----4.. ..--..:..-L...:.,....,.....:_i..,:_...t 1, , - ; . ; . t , , , I . . .;. . . ■-- - , • - , ::..1 ,L11 I , •i• ; • ' I i 1 . I I I . . .. . . .I. ... .I I. . i . • I.. ...I • • • ■ . ,... , . . ... . . .... . . . i . ..:. .-1-• • . . • • . cri I . 1 I. I • i ■ . . . I • crl I 1 ! IA 0 '.. . I . 1 i . Zi M d.. , • , I ! I i 7.371t----- '- ' -'''' ------- -..- -------- -- i ---1--.--,..-------.-----,---...-.L. -__h ____L__ 1________'_. _;___ An - .. . . : i . - i ftl I 1 ...:.. .. . ' . , . . . . I I . . . . : : I I : I I i I I I . ' _ Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651)636-4600 Fax:(651)636-1311 Stantec ,cv's6D try sire August 2, 2012 /N ASitel Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project—30% Utility Plans Summary Stantec File No: 193801366 Dear Eric: We have completed the 30%utility plans for the St. Croix River Crossing Project.This document provides as a summary of the utility design.This summary references the attached plans and cost estimates which provide further details of the design. 30%Utility Design Purpose In preparation for the potential St. Croix River Crossing Project,the City and MnDOT have been involved with several meetings and discussions in regards to the potential impacts to the City's utility infrastructure. Although several meetings occurred,there remained a very large gap in the associated costs with the impacted utilities.The purpose of the 30%utility plan was to further identify the impacted utilities, provide maps displaying the location of these utilities, and prepare an updated cost estimate in efforts to narrow the significant cost discrepancy between the City and MnDOT. Utility Categories In order to determine responsible parties and funding,the utilities were identified(see attached plans and cost estimate)within the following four categories: 1. First Move—utilities identified to be relocated or removed at no cost to the City. Utilities cannot be within this area boundary(shown as a purple color on eastern area of the city).This also refers to the efforts required to reestablish a fully functional utility system, induding any required loops to complete the system. No costs will be the responsibility of the City. 2. Construction Impacted—utilities currently identified by MnDOT and the City as being impacted from construction. Responsibility for these utility costs is not known; although,discussions continue on potential utility funding with 80% High Priority Project(HPP)funds and 20%City funds. 3. Betterment—utilities upgraded or replaced with functionally superior facilities.All costs are the responsibility of the City. 4. Gray Zone—utilities with differing opinions between MnDOT and the City in regards to project impact (refer to attached letter provided to Eric Johnson on September 9,2011, and primarily to the "Recommendations and Comments"section which discussed the potential impacts to this zone).The utilities in this zone are located beneath or closely adjacent to the roads being proposed for reconstruction. Responsibility for these utility costs is under discussion and has not been determined. • $ta11C Page 2 of 4 • 30%Utility Plans The plans were prepared in color to show the four different utility categories as described above. Following the title sheet,the next 17 sheets(C0.01-00.17)are the Demolition Sheets which show the utilities being removed or relocated. Existing utility information such as pipe size and material can be found along the pipe segments.The final 17 sheets(C4.01-C4.17)are the Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Sheets which show the new utilities with connection to the existing system. None of the removed or relocated utilities are shown on these sheets. The existing storm sewer is shown on the plans, but the design for the future proposed infrastructure was only briefly reviewed as part of the 30%Design Plans.The storm sewer improvements were reviewed with MnDOT and the associated costs are not expected to be significant,or with possibly no costs at all to the City.Adjoining City cross-streets with existing storm sewer that ties into the frontage roads may be the areas with possible impacts(possible associated City costs).All other City-owned storm sewer impacted by the project has been discussed as being MnDOT's responsibility.Additional design of the storm sewer will occur as the project proceeds. Cost Estimate • The attached cost estimate shows a detailed breakdown of the quantities for each utility category.The table below shows the estimated total sanitary sewer and water main replacement/relocation costs for each category,including indirect costs: Utility Category Total Amount First Move Area $2,037,000 Construction Impacted $1,465,000 Betterments $263,000 Gray Zone $2,917,000 Total $6,682,000 Below are additional details explaining some of the more significant cost items: • Sanitary Sewer Cost Estimate(p. 1) o Bypass Pumping is estimated to be$700,000. Due to the high flow of sewage through the trunk sewer lines,flow will need to be bypassed and may include long runs of bypass pipe with heavy-duty pumps. o The 24"PVC Pipe is shown at a high unit price due to the deep runs(some 30'-45'deep) east of the Moelter fly ash site.These pipe segments were realigned in efforts to avoid the First Move Area, but still allowing for ease of City access to the new manhole structures(see plan sheets C0.08 and C4.08).This pipe was realigned and connects into the MCES structure to the east of Highway 95. o Weathered Rock Excavation is anticipated on Lookout Trail,as identified from record plan boring information. o Casing Pipe is required across the trunk highways and county roads. MnDOT has discussed not requiring casing pipe for the frontage road crossings. • Water Main Cost Estimate(p. 2) o Temporary Water Main is estimated to be$100,000 and will be required during the • construction of the new main.Service to the businesses and residents will need to be maintained. S1tec Page 3 of 4 o Existing water main is cast iron pipe(CIP)in the majority of the project area, and is more susceptible to future maintenance.All cast iron pipes within the project impact areas were identified to be replaced or relocated. o Two Pressure Reducing Valves will be impacted from the First Move Area. o Casing Pipe is required across the trunk highways and county roads. MnDOT has discussed not requiring casing pipe for the frontage road crossings. • Lookout Trail Sanitary Sewer Reroute Cost Estimate(p. 3) o Provides for the rerouting of sanitary sewer on Lookout Trail due to the First Move Area impact. o The proposed MnDOT Reroute was a shorter distance with less structures required than the Lookout Trail Reroute;therefore,the Cost Difference was calculated and applied to the First Move Area(as a deduct)and Betterments(as an addition). o Lookout Trail Reroute allows for abandonment or removal of existing lift station located on the north end of Lookout Trail. • First Move Utility Preferred Route Cost Estimate(p.4-6) o Provides for the preferred sanitary sewer and water routes to avoid the First Move Area(see plan sheets C4.18 and C4.19) o Sanitary sewer route includes bypassing the existing sewer around the Moelter fly ash site with connection into the MCES structure to the east of Highway 95. 411 o Water main route includes redirecting the existing water main to the south around the First Move Area. o No City utilities will be installed or continue to be operational within the First Move Area using the preferred routes. o The cost estimate included the addition of the Preferred Routes, and deducted the previous routes through the First Move Area along 60th Street North. • 30% Utility Design Summary(p. 7) o Summarizes the total sanitary sewer, water main, and indirect costs for the four utility categories. Design Assumptions Several design assumptions were used in developing the 30% Utility Plans. Below are some of the more important assumptions used in completing the design: • Did not include costs for relocation of utilities outside of the MnDOT right of way. This concept stage estimate was completed previously in August of 2011,with construction costs estimated at exceeding $12,000,000.The majority of the utility relocation was designed to stay within MnDOT right of way for the 30% Utility Plans. • Storm sewer costs were not included in the 30% Design. • No utility casings were used on frontage road crossings. • The existing utility information was obtained through MnDOT survey, City record plans, and MCES records plans. Further information will need to be obtained during future phases of design. • Soil boring information was obtained from records drawings from 1967.Additional borings were not available for this phase of design. 4110 Page 4 of 4 •• If you have any questions with the 30%Utility Plans or Cost Estimate, please feel free to contact me at(651) 604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC 40/441444, Christopher W. Long, P.E. Attachments: 30% Utility Plans, 30% Cost Estimate, Letter to Eric Johnson — Follow up to meeting with MnDOT 9-9-11 copy: Andy Kegley— Public Works Director, Mark Vierling —City Attorney; Jason Petersen, Mark Hanson, Kevin Hoglund, Katie Warner—Stantec. • ■ \ ® } 0 0 • § M _ \ 0 8. g } [ - 07 § r. g AM ■ m m m § - q ■ 2 P / ■ § % , } _ ■ 4. t § § m @ 7 s ■ - + / 'D . # k co § _ , , § § - § E � B § gg ill §§ s� § , [ } ui d § § � ) / I §§ i i } ( I k § � §/ at 0 � Ki § § § q a 5 0 d . bzz , r ■ § m § ice 0 1 b E § # q k m m ! � o � � o z § 0 } a K A § z . § 2 $ k §_ A. r § w B § § b 8 k k t S ( / § K 20 B &ra o` ; - § ® §i t I a. I `§ \ k � k X . § L2 2 8 k }1 a g k kcc§ §§ k kk F% • E osp 5 $ g E s s pimp g . m o § § 1 40 .. 1 M N O ti H N .N. ti N w N M M M K M M N M M M M M M M M t t W i g .. ". .. -+ O 83 .+ m 8 OM O m o T I. Oo gp m 01 1l1 m N ^ N 7 O C 9 O� f R E : p g . § °s p5. 5 0 p v, t4 E CE E R N M R 0 N M n N P ti 8 m If S0 NM M M M M M M M M M M p x IU e- 8 A W z O M 11++11 l'1 0 0 0 E M " "N° m N R f O O . pO O 4. $ tV N ..4- O ON1 O O O O �D p p o p a M M M a N a M M M M M M M M M a i W .W G =i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W▪ g ILI $ W W w• CL 0 'A'e § $ 8 g $ M § 8 8 a § M a a a § $ n yyrWr11 M N N eOl Ill ti Yl O NI'. /CT y O Z f M M M M M M M rt h . M 0 y � !Ill E 1 $ M N 5Zu1ou _ ~ I- 0O W 0 i N IQ rn El (9 E 4 0 0 V D O Z N ,M, AI .NM. .NM. g o n 8 0 0 0 0 o N 0 W ZZ Z Y` G O O O N N Ce M W W a O 8 X 8 it 88 8 i� 8 8 8i is $ .pµOy O N 1fl O pepp.� m tz 0 V)} d 0 _d M M M AT M M tlF M AT W M M 1C " a W 1 .t 0 $t` M N W Q ). W Q 10 N N N N o e o N 80 0 n N v o 0 N.el M V L N t b O O opO ooO Ol op pp pp N N p 8 a O O M O O a O a E t N N E, M 10.f ire M M M h At g g 1 D D D D 5 6 6 6 6 t 5 5 5 5 5 b 5 5 s in $ z } Y z S r.. n In o * a z 6 g �8t & = g R N _ '' N s, - i 10 .4 1 Ptct now i - N m Q of t. 1. m O. O .. V. rl H H ti ti •• Z y M W g �ZQ Z z t Q Z M O W u 6 3 O U 0 0 =� Q o .N� t YQ ii LLI I m o` 8 .O " �b N;6 f W R�:IL:M1p p i W �s 0 e N m vF N H N F O :0, M M G F �aa M W M O pp M ^ g O a 0 O 8 18 �F•N i S O F-M e$n Z N'8 O M 1 F�m Q W Z 3�N P an- J N M Q CO S i S C Y �N N b M O M$g O op,CO Z WpQ G S N CA- 44 S QO O F F CO§ CO. g M O O M O N N crZ F N F 6 F ;O vo NQp J U N 'O H g W F O F•'�mm x W N N'N�°F�N p F 0 F C I Ln pt F pp O N N.F m i O N F 5 6 �N :8^1;F a F F N 6 6 6 10ce 4 6 5 a M A 1F 5 �OM p�I N F y C N In fn M M M • U 8 w § 8 8 §S E § $ z cii I « ° Al 5, AA a Ek 1.. 0 0 U § § 0 p 0 LA p avp N 0 It VI 0 In a W Fi. '+ 0 pp W Fu at W W W 1' zco f•1 .-1 0 LO 1n 0 0 4t 0 ti IX z a w X W U N g O g 8 8 8 8 0 8 § § 1 LV u�f� w o�COZ 0b LA zg z Vw • X d Z• z CC w O VI j Y N M0 -I fh' O C W 1 0 Q VZ = -- F' °, Z L 2 Q 8 8 8 8 8 P V N 8 IA S v� 0 0 0 NN in v+ k W LLI C t ur 4A- u O lon O o• v ) d O 0 U W ILI -14 F a LL !a a i = a � W 1... O w u 6O W V g a o r Cie $ g m d 0 E w f i g a > 4 i ii H u z > >- >- I u z ce 4 c'2 a E a o_z z u l z o .4 g IQ Wg µg g b ffi o ° 1 > > > Z E Z I- 0 6 CC Cr U C CC a- � GO 0 ,'S CJ F B .+ N M v in 1D N CO 01 2 • 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 cu. 0 0 0 2 ® — 7 8 — 0 0 § N 0 CO / / 2 O. N - / I § 4 — - — _ § 43 I � cc au la 0. $ o o CO 0 g N. 0 f 0 0 $ 0 0 f 2 / - \ Z d o o - § g 0 o 0 N \ a 0 a N 0 o 0 I- 0 0 d o a \ _ _0 _ + _ _ ® 2 $ $ eg ird \ 2 § § tu la iv ) § $ z q I § \ § ® \ a 5 § e • ° a x m 8 - - > boo ¥ / w z z ig 2 M cc t. )§ E§ \ u Ce Z § § m / [ u E § / IX 0 0 b � § al 0 o 0 § _UJ IX tu § 2 $ J E ct ■ VI z § § z § } ) ) z Let § / k [ / L 5 u u u u s § oz § § § / § § § / f \ § - 0 » I z Z E m L k § k § ) Ln > > > z X § § y § 0 § 2 § a. et j X / 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 [ 5 ( a 4 I w@ CO @ er et '& 0 0 0 0 � § i - m * lA U) N co R S - e - 2 - - - • • - - 2- » _ _ § ° a 2 a § ; 8 a p _ § a f §f I } # § « ... i 14! 7■ $— 0 0 ] Co CC O § 0 _ § _ 0 . OOCO ba cci 2 § § 8 § _000 # § & { § § § § § ! $ °_ _ 7 - _ – ■ 5 ■ - b � § US .lc s. \ Az — • § / � ) \ $ , , , 5 6 5 5 5 § a e a a § a 6 5 . _ 52d § \ _ . 2k Ubk � c' uu ' . 777 ) § 2 § § § 2 u , 2 . z ) ( k k )r4 tx a § § § § § § el / § § § ( 7 ' / Li `lo k § , k f § § $ g R -I < / 4 « § ; § m g [ ] § § i 9 ` / Q b ( . § § �� f § § & \ 7 ) ) } 5 ) § § § Z s - a g q n & N m m CO m R r, a R & m • • a ° g Ill 01 .-I e4 as ,ei MI iti- _ / J § S k § 2 §z - E Z t CO o Q. ■ 1I I © 1 o K f § ■ ®- § i § CnC' -_ Mr B U t § 5 o Le \ z • \ 1 q ( g \ d \ 2 2 5 e § § R 2 d 9 \ —§ .§ o « Z ce / • g4 u§ ( i 4 e § W. § § / o & & S as K § o § ILI ° § § � z- C•1 u § ' § z 8 1° d ( § § ill §_ i ■ (9 § E )" 1 § § 0 0 z t > 4 _ t z § ° I- § - § § ° § § ■ § ag § g k < - W - N M & u Q@ 0 e tC de ot % § q f. 4 4 - © § § 1 $ k k )cc§ § ¥ § ■ z m R R m 0 ^o von °'x' uum 133HS 31171 $ ' r-I VI _N � p�r . 3 9NISSOND?I3A121 XI021J'15 O t= NW'S1HDI3H X JVd)lVO ffi 5 6 4 • 4 F 3 0 oii a den ■L � l : " w ' o 0 0 5. g i i',^,§ p YY ^ S a �6 Ma^' & d $$gs _= _ r . . Go - �� GGG F £ OO wNGGG� °° . ;FFm,gg go O z PtiiiniireAln dg 6 08888U8 6 88 8688666 € h y r 'i • //I. _ A . .1 c LU• t 1st !.I '� cc I sI rt•■I. 'lll ll�■ Fes-- - tom °!'a mum w ce I,I .r �u .1 I 11 O•�^ 11.th g 0 1,.s hiskill a Ze 'r tJC � ca �� ul i G 9 4� a11' l � 1 a 1• , a FEEEREfffE=r l' =I O V Y e ? F l ltil r l^C :�m�'' r 2 �- W Q o T a i27'!! 1i i�. a ■'=s I ®$ • Z > a g •3 3t:' �,Ti, , i ..° 111 4 t �� UJ Z •' Q a ;T i g--1 tt l f 1f('7 l 9 T N -� r #1 l k f-1 1, O a0 F. " I li ,_, ir,It �vfa JI ,�6,, I:„'� CL �/ LL Ali i ii ■r, , �i:,tmy �n.@�� ® ,V; ' ,I ■, 1 i 0 Q vI) `{'ll ;'OE r ,C:i l a Q �n �,�au 1171 m° Z U1 ',7 ,,,,„..7, yn.,,TifiN.,Q h-1 IL.,„..^ 1 N 0 Lii `�'t�r ��c ��C7.11 < ,' 1I ( '�n■y 30'6 • - >Y ... �' Jr x aT* I_ iik I . I _ -19 - o 8 0 AO w 1 i ° �j ao�d • , : � i L ��■ �, e s€a I � x«.SE,ZIOVO'E rwo=us aN.,b."U,O o\99E,UBEstow\E6,,:n y a -- ox n' — 00+5[E Ol 00+E9£N011tl15-9E/AN 3 1 d°a 6 R r+ e= 3 �' Nbld NOLLIlOW30 o O �ssoa�aanta XIO 3 IS 9 o ",>,e . „.,F x"ndo�,x",��x..�x.bun3�r NW'S1H`9I3H�Ilvd NVO 3 W U "te 00 OD 133H5335 —/ Ill I I In In _.PAIR Iel�snPul— - m M / • ____— _ ,, m' I 8; I/ f,'�p d. ~� aapp 1L • V sE „ zI i w F il. ,,� T ' . — -- I I I Io 0 I act 15 j a7°� I I 1- h ` ic; — — , c ' °'1■ •g-T,1%.g € �I ' c I 'A 1!? ,, `£ II . T' I1P III n "1"' ' 2 LU II- - fa r`.-i t a m m m ^- o, a d - g it 3 t M� _ 0 NayI a905eAON a -» 8 cet� I(s--12 z i Q1= I Ii 8r o> _ _ �. III,. 0 3 $ o ¢ 1_ 54 ' a - ro 1 W wF a z + U S 3 . II, a. 1 II. .. . — z " i . , L. . il I N any w21sam41JoN I1 la, s 1 4 4, i I! a it' Iu3r I I s$ o I _- - I I. a4, 1O a r p a & 1 I wv. # 3 a c n• 1 t v v °' gym y cL) mz- E -pci ,ig. ,§ i' 2 ,2„ ,05 0 0 J Y_� d3 8 8 ,o 0 g' f x LL iI III11I X114 I i I-I = IIil • i - T _ N any.;,, oN N I f iI �- WVxsra„3,ov9,6xj3"[,0906„ ,,,v9S0I0016I0. ,.f,,A A4� A y 3,� rrTr nx,n rrrr _ 00+68£0100+SCE NOI1V15-9£.1MH 3 4 ft N xm�, Mild NOI11OW30 _ O wa ,,o�nx , ONISSOaD a3n12i XIMID 15 a v • • 111) N.x e [ xx��xxbum„�3 NW'S0HE IJH)IbVd)IVO ��$C 3n ao xou SO'W 133H5335� _ / ^ L ff • E• � .. e g R 3 n A 3 3 v E v E B ma- = o r 7_51 —m w� � � I � I � I � Ii � 6 = � M M N any uaa16�eO \ 3 '9 • -• m IAN '1I' 0 I u \ \ 3z r9I • I re'�. = —fir — — = I II L_—J L--r� I 1 _ � � � boa Ir-- 158 r-L �� I ya 3 , -- l — � I i / 1 / /r�pl I —— PA I9 1e117snPuI—— 7 , J ��' I /� \I J�,1 TO 133H5 335 I ON to:sou 1.00)0,1 dw I®O091I OKnari v9I0x<snwMecs,I.n 00+17017 0100+060 NOIIVLS-90 MAH R ( NV1d NOLLI1OW30 r£ 9NISS 5 010 213n111 x1010'1S Ea, N:e° NN 1S1HE flH NliVd )IVO A° one I 1,0'03 133953351 I I 'I •gd,, +�► ' - -- I L---- I! I i I i1 • IT ∎V IN env aua10 — --_ �s t may, d}Sn'e es, - -- I ! c V c 1 0, I � S o ~ g� • = 1 aLL I II t II 51 I • / �o £�s� s �I II Ij I� I g I II gI S A II 1 1 zc L5 T w▪ r N l III P � z •-an1J0 a6uan1 • — e 1j q / _____-z---- s - IJV- N BAY PIaIP10 IM sd --&•�i 8s € (III B� I 3 v c E 9 - o y p O I-----1+`r- t E �' I "E3I1 gg ° Ef ie, SSA A " I • g0 1 % 11 I 1 1 I �LL 1 Zs I I o tipym �i I I F 11 I cr- m m M 1 1 1 I 00'OJ 13395335 Hy 11 90 11 01009/1 9.10YJA9[10&61\9xg09.N991109[61\14016/\n m 00+bib al.OO+bO,NOLLV15-9EAMH 3 izAgl N71d NOLLIl0W30 R O PAR 9 -_ o,, ,,,,siw,-,6...E 9NI5S010113AR1 XIO110'1S p "�€s a ,—=`,'„E=1,====1 N W'S±H JI3 H>I21 dd NYU I E i u a SO'OJ 133HH5335�I \ /� i ._'°�L ,• N env poobsO ` • _s_.. 3 y 8 E 5 ▪ pl any poobs0i 8 8 a •111 I W. (T1 � \ 1 I I I E q ,. 83 \ I , I / 1 I N any uaJO...„ 1_=1= I I �i I - a �I II^ 11 a , .E..,E;� 1"�o'� .. ,Rgo .lJ c F- h ' '4� ° 1 Q 6Z I^ •1 Fa O 0 lie I w z 5 1 i'. 1 k 1 I i1 ,, - 1:i • —6...... ...4.1--_--7-_-_:-..,,7� 0 1 75 ii Allill L N any ual s p�' r 1 Ii 1 1 I� 11 - i-• m 1 1 11 1 ‘ I! `- 111, 11-1 Ei ;_ IM g •1 f. i I. Z• I. 11j lk o N : i� ' - z 1 i • r 7= t' 1 I y II I � 3 A A . ,. ? i ii : • v � •' I I I L, € hq a' (I-' v I I 1 1 3 1 x 3 Q' c 1 I it•_—a 3 p8m v € S A 3 t $ lI `" v go —1 > > ; esN $ E8 ' CL s 1 8w ;Atf_ _ �_ 2 2 > � SS2 9 p p p yw /. I ��� _J i 1 �a�°� 13 3 IL Ii 8 8 U�' S S Z f •I Eli -m = ,�,xhy S1H9I3H)121yd NVO d0 1 I .....,7 .- — ( - ( 1 i ---- 'A- _ uI_ - I � 1 _ 1 _ 11 : 1 • � b31bM�1 HO'LLD 1N any eyew0 � / r T I 50 05 133145 335 WI 12 60II ZI02/9/Z 6.10'100J99[1o8E611o&M0D56EIOSE611.a'N8(66\'n m 00+£07 Ol 40+611,NOUYIS-9£)M14 Ntld N011Il0W30 9NISS020143Ar XI0113 IS IIIll'JJ1II NW'S1H9I3H)121Vd>IVO p nN a u ,roar ro xwnmores 90'00 1331-15 335 1 1 1 , II I • i ,.. ---- � II z y°? _ _ _ _ _ _ el 14! a Ilt 1 -----1 1..ci I I�I'1 1 � � I I any eWeued I �__ � + —1 —— IA I I Ill t I ii m \ j —w— 1 I ! \'�` F p LTi a r l Lit 1:1 R 2 .i �� Y i :41- i I (- .T —J / I YI 1 8 aoe �» e I /ii I o 0 12 A`l _ L I ,iwR 3 A I1; I- 6 Z .i ,(1%. \ 1 N aAy°Jpgx0 a --— a l \1 t Ixl e 6 w C 15 71, Y 1 K C r ■ -&-M.Bi I 1(\, 1 —I-I—I $ I S .,� a, � I I I it t ' I 1 i 11 . tt E � I l o I i � A I Z II 11 a-1 a c Y^s i � � i �I i 1 � ii q �.� i .i _ 1 IIII F = z ; n ` w m■E c ! 3 P3 � , , S v . $ g i . 3 '� a `\ a1" ' ; 1 L1 iR 3 3 L �� I II a s � ' � S ° , o J \\ 0—„ J P m m Z f A . N N E Q F f Q N �.j — .\ 3 LL� LL'S u'S V U V' i ' I "I 4:ill .I i11h 1 ! I ! I I A I • ■11 ` - liI ,i\\\ - _ I N any pears° 1 ... - Hr„.0,I,xv9t6»-0,0x099,199x„ 999,OKs,�m,>r,x,b,,: �,�. �¢z b0'0, 133HS 335 Sn ` NVId a Lb £0000599 9£AAAH awvx ;Rath Y ONISSNDTi3ANXI021J'LS 's El. �x,x..x N.x3.x,x3 NW ISIHDIJH N21Vd)IVO S U • u I LO'OJ J93H599S I . r�� 7/ 1 (i7 ' � 44 I "'z I I $ 1 n n 1 C O I I � � I z I 1 1 I I 1 II o / \ I / 11' a 1\ I 1 I o I 1� g 1 J 11' 1 I m m \ I v v \ � 1 I / I 1 ++ 1 1\ I ° --_� 1 \ I I z & 5 N any sned /1 \ I — I „-, 1° 11 ; C / / I ID 1 �I Iic $$ E -p 1 n n n >3 JJ\ t7 1 '. v < l7 tgi J > > {; .f; c c oyE� s S +- .- f f t T O O f I �v _ c c N. S S 7 7 i C y = � n9. _ u u iL IL i I II I —II I • Hi1i1Ii1 .� T [ son 133145 33S I wr a eo i�z�au>iz�w�ao�ssnoraons,.mma�vn��oeccn�wnecsi�,n I. m E ry\ S II 1 3x.x VRI V 3AO44 1SNId O 3 t a A g yy 101d N011flOW3a o 0 ONISSOLO aanra xroID 1S s 1 411110„,„ sll c r; e a — ,NW'S1HSIJH N2Jdd Nd0 n I v 7 110 ....,-, ^ 7 4 z B o � d I / , I 8 — ,�Ar �� g S / / I 1/ y ` LL B/ L /t_ / ` I \040 „, / 1 - ---- -' — —-.,_. Z--- I'l /,1, /, z, 4____——— \.\--"1"\T- 10 „7" 7—.-- . . I 1 11 I ii 11 'Ik 1 I 1 1 11 1 —TTT—I e\ '-- ' r 1 I I r l Z I I 1 6-4 I I 1 �I I a� o g I i 1 1 — _"� I I I I Nany� J _ 1 I I I� 1 1 I 1 v I I i !!� I I I I I I I 1 I i t l I I I 11 A % z i s l e I 1 Il q 3 E I I 1 I � ' �. 11 I _ �( ,a, vX 33 .$ € € 3 .sc I I _.— Z € E E 3 t c — ——_ —_ r,, _ �— ,calm — I a) i 2 € ` cf _ = v S — J rn m 8 8 ° S w o _ i _—— �zl I N � ae e m a—u� o 0 L^IzI ? N11 I I I / ■ / w nn 3 3 6 U�' & i E T. 1I 1 y l I I ,' k,c)" i i 0 I / / N any A�4ea�l L I,,, o / / -r•,a—r `- I I 90 CO' 133HS33S1 I+vls eoil Z\aL9/[d•+V'\W']9s t\oe[bl\bnAMJ\w[\aHbl\NNMa[6\Vn I _ ON.� — v3av 3AOW 1811 b o Wild mou.nowm An a>uoss�rw�, 9N 15502!7 213�R1 XI02iJ'15 V DM a:€s I ,.o .hdob.�,,.,�,. bu.,,..=, NW SJ 9I3N)Ibtld)ItlO am �� \ "a° ,;..0.242.'''' _ :/ ,. -,-- ./ --r- - I- I °t\ \ 8 B \\ \\ ;'g 1 °"3' 1P4'I / il \ \ .,E 8 1111 1 Illi ---\> .... ....; --its‘j\if „,.•-io' — o— 4I% �_�«ice i1 nl A2 \ ¢�5 J °€ \S \ !--, N kL�— \ \\ / ' ° E \ 1 —,-- \ \ \ ; 8 f v t v \ \ \ \ \ i. w1 \ • \ —:.— any asoJUad— N T --1--I-- -t--1 f t, I eQ — t II I I 11 b I . II � I I �° i I I I o I, om 18k I! I I i I I � I 183 I I I 8 I t z1 T Ill II I Z - �i /l I a 9 li : 1 NI / x I I I c >? ar 1 l_I (4; + II I I � I -.32* . — - - �——— -1-——— `< N any Ialyd -- % \ -- / / Y Id<1,,,, 3 / 3 E Z / / I I I fv g'M 5B ,R38 ° E I / I ICI I R 3 I �/ /// I ill, —AaIIV w D B € . . - - ,R 3 3 � m° v/ / / I i I a � ffg � rHBSf �� / s� I 1 I 66gLL853 3 g $ ELL/ / LL - $I II i I I i 1H I I I I I w x,e w v I • i $ �1 I r �i I' _ _ I \� I 4 I i -1- — —_ rn,ow„t,ovv.ww,oax.lwcenaaa..nss„oxu,vwmK«n:A 1 — '4I3/1 V 9 AOW.1.9JH NYld NOLL110143C E ' 10 •(cr I I 088 ii ,N, ozp,,ortA“A yf 9NISS0113 il3Ard XICM3 IS g 1 I *g U NW'S11-19I3H)111Vd NVO i Mil id , 441/I ri,,, 1 1. ..listigstEazzlisE I El CO 123HS 335 i .... I • I I I ...." I 1 i 1 \ - 2 _ . I b 1 I ,--''- 0 I I — 1 — 1 E ' ___--j------- -----'------- _,. -- I Z\ I -----'-------- _ 1 :le------ '-'-'-pis--\ 0xs --1 NI ______-------"--r- I I J_ .._ __--------ib:L„-- — 7 - - 1— — — . - .-.— N @AV Jail;c171 T r--— _ztri jr___T____y_ _T_ 1 T* 14 I I) li 1 1 II , p - ': "" _- I ili 1 L 1, L L---- -I--- ----I-- • 1 0 ■-• 1_1 ——.- • I- -- -, I / i 1 z ;:ii 4 13 61te. • L.' ■ . - 4 F-- -r-- . •. t I I. I N. .. i 't I \ I— ———i — 0`.8 I .\ ii 1 8 I \it..\: 1--- ----i t ?. \ I- A 1 1\ \v 1 \ \ I N - ,1 1- II II- _I \• 11 11.--- I -,-ii'- ■ .1 1---N.- / \ / / ----......„ --"'-'"---:------1 / ro .., --- --------- b A __- ., . I L ai . gi5. s 1 r / )j' ,,--- -- 0!TI 1 .L_ /' - ' \ LB In 3 LE LEOB 1.7 6 c0 MM X Hill• - \1 1 ..„ - § I I . I , 1 - II x 10811 1 - 1 ' k I I I 4110 1,. .' .'%.<-.° ,LA-.,- 0 '>1 5!i I I__1_--_-J-- -1- ..-0 ,,1.,7 ,=._--77 - --- ..---- 7 1 0 N V pled VIV 11 AO II VOA 9 A.P1003.9(108(610.0.9KINEMAM.AOr61\A ■■•■■■■MMMM.1..11...11....MMEMMIMMIIIIII.111.1 II. U NO11 laAgili W110 9NISSOIDIGAIII X10210 IS 11 :6 it!, NW'S11-1913H>111Vd>IVO •4_4)7 5]61 g ° ,..17—itS•'••=17n.F•:1:+azi 2 i il CD 123H5 335 I 0 LtS . 1/1 L.L.I Ul E --- --- - --- ---------------- --- ---- c.0 . 1.1-1 CC . / s..'• ' \. ' Ul 53.314 .1-----------.4 jt ;CrAda3°4 4 .\ ae? a.7 .--... 3 — .1. . - -a a 2% - 1c-'1 \ -\ k-\ ... _ ; \-•\ / I ,,...-' ..■ / ,.., ,, \ .... „....• I , ......., / 1 \'.A .... .......,_.....• ....\''''' ......'"...• . ".........•••..c.. 1 a E 2 ... ...... .,.. ' I ‘ 1 g i 1-- -- ,.. --- ', L f ,---- , ,- ,.. _--- -- ,____ _-____ „.„....- --__- ...T. - .._ 'I— —r—:---e-- _ — 1 I k It1 I 1 11 2 1 'b 2 , — 1—11 1 _ 410 a ."-.■-----1%, 1-------- —-- I ____.------ -------- -- '...... Z .--I 1 5 1, 1 ■„a .§ --- --....... t — T .---•.-,.. v, ---• ,-,z ..... — i I f— ---•.4.....1 0,, 1 7,,,,„ I ( .... 1 ...... 1,, 1,7 s.,5, dl ■ i II \ I I ':..` i •.•.. g.,,''' i I g . I I -... N any Apotrad-I x _1 '. 1 . ry---T.--,....‘‘,—,,„In, ) 1-11171_----170-I ■ I I .1 ) t A t 22`A t g 1 - V- c q '2t6Igt i 5 , u. I I 00 . I-I ■- 1i 1 .... 1 I I - I _El. C t3 . ' ' . . L'• 1E, 2 ' . 41 ti-I, ■ .... 1 1 1 8 I I a) r ? oitEgggt .q. ' c 1 _II — 12 t n' g 2t .e227 . u8 °3 : 2' 2' 2gEggE8 'a m RJ i s / - 1 - I I. • 2 A -. I - -- i___ i. 7512 I I I I I i I I I I 'a- 1 -,, —I? - KIR,.t 1105/WV .010.900K 61,6.CVD 99C 0.61.1..fit A ----. ■■•■11■111■IMY _—_ iw wail/636001 56 AMH 31615 $ .--I tNI� by Mild NRAPJX30 € gvp d a. 9NISS02p 213AI21 XI030 IS U .4, e;x }e ro ....,V.t.� NW'STh flH J121Vd VIVO -I 111 dx • ' a 1 z Q ,_ w 0 Z t- -, 5 •l'-5-- t. cei 1p 8`ePtOI ;', Seaga „n 1 = � R_-- 1 - 3 ,,,,,, • ,i • ,,—, �i / ` Z4 S61.MH e�paS z Eg a Sza 3 og __ _ __ - (-- / m tq E A € 3 z3 - 2 0,, 3 to H TN z- € �i E E E E 3 1 2, — V �' — — -1 3 m v -Z B 2 v € " 8 f e o —i � G m p I w " . 88860% S f E z III � IIi ' I a'w II i IiI1i III i1 • 4e ; 1 • c' _�o 1 a = —_ a'n — aw. v3av snow 1.51114 S 5d € R NVId NOUFlOw30 N JNISSOaD a3AR1 XIOdD'1S s � ® U � JHJdt ls \ `Y.�End of First Move • ''.. \ Demo.of Watemain I \ ■ \ i 1 \ \ t\ \ ~ \i ry10ES SEWAGE' \ t -''5- \ 1 TR€ATMENT PLANT' \. \ \ — \ \ Construction 1 - Limits1 - \ N\ . • 1 I \ \ I — --.\I ‘ 1\ ` ?\1 \ 1 \ \ I • --- --1 _\ \\\\ —\-- — MNDOTROW,\ \\ \ \ \ • \ i �� ,'- , \\\\\ . \ \ ` _7____\_ , �v\: t i \ / 6m \\ n. Ni a 3 Construction � � �e�t9�`�2V �� Limits \ ♦ , yyy''' � First Move ! y l �� � � � � Boundary l \ = c & // �I WW—�// ` ''R 3 v� c Z'—il MNDOT RO -p v y 5 3 E € = ' c ' 8 ` ,1 ; N A 1 1 c ,R 3 3 4 . m° \ c L -. 7 — -\ � cc aa � z z ir. \\ \ \ ;A \ y 1 A I t i l I I I I cif \Sh,)% 'N: '‘• \IIN i • — I I • ■tet \ \ , \. _ I SEE SHEET 00.08 I rn a w\\2100950 0'^0'1007 43(50e.61\0.0SA99[100[6I\0?9)ESO6I\-n ;9r, �igial UIO Oa a/5a 6 xAMlN 3.0/1.5 rNld N011OW30 £ p e£ .0 m Nlssoa�a 01131: 0 BO'l IS %IIIIIJJJ. ! all1/ Y M NW'S_LHDBH IiVd VO °R e nm u w,:iw r , „ \‘-- \ • Abandon/Remove----I '` ` \\ Existing Lift Station \\ \ [s -z°. Construction Impacted Watermain \ 1 \ .,,, MNDOT ROW -_ ' J _I 1 N `\ `Cq I lip ; • Remove&Reinstall � , Watemrain as Betterment•I ' 1 \ \ q ; �, \ Construction 1 ' /14 Limits_? ? 1 i� 1 I I , 11 � SCENIC / ''1, OVERLOOK 1 " f 1 III � 1 = z° \8 • 1 4 / \i 1 1 a 1 1 Nit j I J:SLLI�1 - - , x �.trbIS9F- - 1. >.'l ' I 1 {�.I._I 91 _ I I / I -I E1 i -. --..it i 1 '^ r - I ?•_ r _I F f m{ I R I MNDOT ROW I - J € '� $ I a C 3 i / i /1 \ • Remove&Betterment - _�- i 3 A i I ti ? No ~o f wE W Betterm as i I -- _ Betterment - A—Construction First Move .5 a 5 ' c c n B °z z rg Limits Boundary ._ w w 1+ t i i ' I 15' i I LLI I ' / Existing Pressure 1 i I I I _ ' I e I � I � I _I�' ' Reducing Valve I 1 End of First Move - / -I_ Demo d Watermain W • �-'a ' - Remove&Replace �tipper 61st St N - p,, Watermain as Betterment --- - � ��..•�� SEE SHEET C0.09 wft:sr:t n071&1 5+c'[m'Imn®[5[[aw\an[Wnre[5r\rex[n[n[\:n 1.101.111111.111.....M.........M. — 4ill l l NDW N I'NSSOS1N.0H2V30 lD5d 2 2NI31O133N1AH/I11-N33I13I9100 VN 2Vd 0 O N'J 1N 1 fI — agfg 1 NVO 111110 1 11633mwou rzeilEsi _ .7 1 of Stillwater Watermain • _ -380- 11 ' 1 -_-----_____----__ 385 I I L X ______- ---------— CI •-/I 1 ,----- ----- N ;. 380 .'Ir.._ginn9946;RCP I i ---385------I- 1/,,,,s• '''' 'I 4 7-,,-Ini 1 r- .1111111ii .1 '///' 1 . . ,. / ,, i.• 1 _ , 1 f.,"' 1 \--Ex.tr to r Reducer ;// . i / I L.' / , I 1 11 1 i //I' 1 irplyii ./m// 1 i il / / Watennam 1 I Tie-In to Existing ; / / : it \ .. i'• I / ,/ r r-y-1.-7 I- 11 / 1 / i 1 I I I I ; 1, lill- 1 / 1 I I I I I I II /I ik 1 . ,. . I • *.d" I I II I il / i /I / , i / 1 / /4\__Construction I I 1 1 / ./. i / • boots r-1---i 1-11--1 1-- / 1 1 • iii 11.111 \ 1 / j ,' III End of Gray Zone I I I L Sanitary Sewer - j / / / / \ / / / \ 1 ./ / / i , / / 1 • - i\ \ ' • / / I I •/ ,. - ' ' . • H 1•1 jN\-, . — . / MNDOT ROW- / _ .- i I if -1 -.■ 1 _ -____ ■ • N 9 i * I '<--Z. •■ ---..............;:----------------=------------------ ---------- . . . I I 1 I • / I ``‘--.. **-.___._ _..... 1 ._.,---/ • i----7 ,/, I —-1 , 1,I 14 A i\_6st-Tucti-;,--1 r \I -- q 1 /. 1 Limits 1 I - 1 1 _ i__j L_- A = I 1 . i/ '7 Li —i rilv -1 I __Iv___.,.._!_11 • r-./-r-i--r--r---r--1 2 . - 1_ u_l Y111111111E-- A g LZ I , .s. !, ), /, ii 1 1 i 1 1 I I 2 A . 'i3311irtigg. , 11-1H L 1 i _L_L_Li - 1 L___i . ZNiiEga- Q .6S2 ‘. 3 -- ,± t,-,, g 1 It ik....<1.1„.'I--1_ ...-,=:2-42:f.--—1—,--- ,, 840 , —r----n L: • E 't ..„ •g. •i• K. E al r; B 2 0 '0. II,H Oakgreen Ct N 6 6 6 ir. x 8 a 6 6 ct m 1 it I II f- 1 --1 ill r: I ■ 1 1 1 1 {EI - 111111111. 1 II III I I • -\la) •II1111111 .111 I I > I ' I I - I I 41, 1111 li \ ri_ kic i II L_L_J_.1__L J_J____11: _.I --11----1__LT_ cu_r__ _1_—T - 111 -11 -11 -111 .11 Endi of MNDOT Citruction rl'.13,, I Tie)In with Oakg n Ave N I ■ ■ I iry low it MLA,545A 100.7.1000,1055000549005015440.58015 A -.- NOI1D35M31N1 N33LONO C g p E, 1.,',,,,' NAd NO1111ON30 •-' q, r r' it 3..,«,m DNISSOdD 213AI21 XIO21D'1S 9 8 a U 01101 10 011110.1511143' r.a; 1 a ..,,.E I 3., NW SIH9I3H NI1Vd)IVO A 1 1 1 I e - End of MNDOT Construction Tie-In with Oakgreen Ave N - _ I I , I II End of Gray Zone I 1 Sanitary Sewer l' I. 1 R,. I - i l . 1 1 -€1 _3 I 1. 1 I 3 \ 3 I x 4- ■; 11 I - 1111 - I 1 i - - II f \ i - - ; ', _ , 1 MNDOT ROW —— I' —y . �� -'--`- 1 i i I 1. • 1 . 1 1 1 i 1. 11 MNDOT ROW a 1 �� / , 1 '1 1 I Construction Limits I ` 8 i ) ' I . f F. / / / s I N " / I \ I I I 3 i { I 1 // l II I / 8 1 Ii I I ' 'I I ?. i I I 1 1 Y N 11x6 _ 0 I I- 0, q = _ a City of Stillwater Watennain I L. _ _ > 17 v� 3 3 = J . v , H v 385 _.. J aF �, ; 3 t = v o .._... ll..._. m P c E I " N N . F ~O f 6 I I A I t', N v C ai iti Exi ing36"RCP w '� 3 c9 co f i 'I an ing Pipe 1 I I i w w 1 1ili � w el i --s>�-- =I I i [ — I I • � B�� I111 III lil 11 EE SH 60.14 �J/ I SEE SHEET C0.02 I / rEET 00 01 01 11 01511,/I 650 ioow,r1 0 01 6 11 0 5111 m'l 50110Bt611*0161\:n ---=._ _,3iw 3 m 1Vi E„ --�__nu L131C 1 I ai ---------50,r3.5,31. ; ' tss ll a : w l o3�; m NW'S1HJI3H1latldNtl0 1111111111111111111111111111 ®"° u n I III - --1— z I \ __� I q a i l _ I esv yy.,rr / G`T 4° I � wi 11 it\\ I �,, I t0 I v \ 1 i . 1——— J > I , �, I Fire Hydrant Impacted W I 1 Construction I __ I ,. B I,I ____---T ———— y1 s IL 1 1 I �\ —— —I'l I �I 9 it I Construction Limits I\ i '� I IL 1II - �/ p 1 59th St N ----,—_____,_--1--� 4 - Endof Gray Zone Watermain End of n 4d hT Construction Ave N 1 it w 1 Tie-In�Rh Osgood 1 - �.1 MNDOT ROW- I I I 1 ---T • I--__---1 I' I I I 11 It I I I I11 1 11 I II I : I II I II 1'-"=-- II I L--_1 I I , L_ 11 II 1 li 11 I II II II i it ill it r— I I I I I° I tttt 1HIN+ s A 1 Il 1I I--- 11 I I I -- 1 ',', 1 I 1 1 � I I I I I 1 I v 1 . 11 s I 1 _-1� o 9 E -------> —> --»i-4 II 9 $ 0, ,t n r r _ $ 3 __T___-----7---____. .---, �— Iryy ; _--- I Z N z E i i E E - 3 . 2 In°CU// I li I I 1 c J u ° S i > $ • a) c o g I I I I II o 1 3s 3S3SLL88 � i i LE II II i II II I \--_ _ I I I i I i 1 _ 1 1 1 Il „��I \ __\____ 1 - 1 i f l I�r I • // i i I �'/ I �� 1 ill II II 11 II i 11 I� s n A:or:n:,ovsie wr,arovx,oc snn rna nvsnoe aro o ersn:n io � • 1,101.1_13SalLNI GOODSO il:j l'''.^. 5 E" -I-1----- NY-la Nounovaa (Cr\1 li: 2 q 3 fi t -----orsricianziamo-4.4.,... ONISSOND/GAIN MOND aS 1 1111111111111 ' 1 V aa.1.1.30.3...1 S./11141.0.1.1.111131.1 I 0111111111•11••• CITY OF STILLWATER • m.• 1 ■m.. , ■■, ...'. - '''''— '—'n'"---. '".-6TY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS :__..-- —__Ii.-- e--'-----'' I- imm '4 I 1 I 1 I I .....— .. » — .. I ..._i_dr..„ ,----_?a .» " iii-I I II 1 I 1 __.1 I I do---» »—»—»—»—4d- __ _J End of MNDOT Construction Tie-In with Osgood Ave NH F if li . 1 ,f ! I 1 Construction Limits,-\/.' 1 I I I • 1 I 1 1 1 I I I '• I I 1 • 1 r_ 1 I - 7-' 1,.. 14 j.4„, 1 [ I I I[7! I (1) al ...._ ll_. .---t1- - [ 1 1 .[1 fl, ) I 1 i 1 -1 i ill 4fr o, I --4 11 I I , , 1 a \ • 1 1 (4,601:42.,'‘ .conszi.ri.,Hpy.dctraend,—,14 . ,,,, Construction Limits— 1 •E Beginning of Constrtiction • I i Impacted Watdrrna›• "'t I L.'.----...-Z ..,,.3.- -c---,._.7.-,--.\ v 1_ --- t- -)-------, — S Begifning of on Gray Ze _/ ii i i I , San.Sewer Main I , ' 11 u •s z- ; I_ -- I.__, z- ; 415 n. -1- --•..._.. t -? .il ' •i'n ; 1; c ,.. State Highray 36 i.Endf ocf Gray Arioea Beginning o onstruct n I Impacted Watermain 1 .g .g. , 3 g 2 ••• 8 415 % t „ = g , 6 ; ____,,._•___---- --, 6., 6 - 5 5 9, t' e `g § & I i, - g"222E- LggEl§' § f., - [[ 1-, or 0 00 66. tii ,o_ ._ —- 1St . II ■ [ al- ,t' r.t Lz a a d 0 H11' 1_ 11111. 1 Ault____,-, _ [1. T___:.;,..___,,...7,---1.,..,„.,."-,---„ 1 1 I I I I - I I r— , • -,..., --... ----. 1 ,,,,,,. I -----___ ,- „-- i r 2 ''"--- ------ '-..----- I k . \ 1 11 .il .------- .." ...• ' _ , 1 i I 1 1 II il ...., OP .....- .r/. ...- . ....... .."\ ' mmami .1.1:II i100911.4 10079.108t6100.1.9q100[61\.R*1.1\4, 10111111111111111111111 ,q,5:-.4: gym. 00+SL£0100+Z9E NOI1tl1S-9E AMH _ C NNWS311M ONS NSM3S AStl1INVS �� 2 r .w 9NISSO213 a3nla xtoaD is • a v frth a t!eLL Ia „ „, , Ntl19'2..L"FAA, NW'S_LH`JIAHMVd>IHO q a3 F n w n m 50 173 1331-1S 335 1 w ——— Pn�/np�I M I� r=—:: 111..__ - i it . ._ I • 1.11: v I 1 } '1 g II I. III � $v as Ii I 2 i ‘63 E 11 ° u 3 I`y m m a g il tA 1 m c 9 Y I - w 1 i 11\ 1 ! N any ei�oo5 enoN_ + I Q—.. z y £ ~ I $i iY iii _� � LL c 8Y Ito I� gF LL O z£ 3 u I� w w .,ilil , — N any waasaM4I3oN I,I.,<' I ��y; ■ I I 3t' � lam- -5 ,� E 8 8 � 1 II. Sw v c s III f 3 i I _ 3 8 8 3 li 11 c. t S v E d 0. 'F' a a ' Y" Ii � � J Nu vpv ctg A • 1 1 _I— c c c f i 2 V O £ I Imo' _ o T _ - � ins c °z °z LE, w w LL � 8 3 � � m f f LL �'I o 11111 ; ; 1 I � IIIIi , II II I; I 1 I I ; I - T I I,y N any tPInvON jli I 1 � 1I4i - 1 ! Wa0.1.I1105/50 no,01799003(61\ l0.\CW1D06VD0\&60.5 1 s� W+68£Ol 00+SL NC/GAGS-9E AM N al , till a NIVW1G1VM ONV N3M3S A1V1INVS 9NISS020 b3AI21 X1020'IS °it II 111 L I I I _ 1 t i XL°"' NW‘SIHDI3H)121Vd VVO g - •••• 1 II IN anti PP,9 Ti ri g • cl _ J � � � 1 9....^.././. 1 (I. 0 w I I VI 00 f ,i . 1 m 1 4,„,,-1 - . . N any uaa.16)1e0 I g 1 __T______1- ---- - • ) ,1 o •� 1 \ 1 1II \ o li , A \ r r1 - m co: �� I \ m i 1 11 I s,N }.,,� s L� 2n I t 3E 1 1 I�_- _— Ei3 \ \ / -o v = iI1uIni 3 i 11. - -FY d� ?,:p% J 0, rn ,n > b 2 r9 r2 € ~ S f y � . LL � a�o ��o e' � °zL 4,;9., w 6 U V U' U' Y E II u-- t!- -„-- ii I I I I 1 f ! i 4 I / ' " - I i l l I I I I i I e „ , I I 1 ;1 , , i ,, , , :.____,..„.„ •:., i ,to I I / ' PAIS le c% I I L i ,_r- e j _ :inn vs 00+y0b 0100+06E NOI1tl1S-9E AMH 7 - NMJN31VM ONV N3M3S AtlV1INVS 9 I!!! ', I r a I ww "'"x+vv......uvm. 1 arimumo { 1! [iii - i 'i,!. - ti-- -- i 1 i. W i �d N h !�3 i 3t i tl C 8 IN env aual0 7 _. )I rte I - m ------ ��•i• o6 Pi s 83 • Il i_il v l �y 8.' a_o `, --Z I=to I.i - rn z 21 �F L o1o1 II t 1 sl —jii 1 ;o I I • . - °�� it I` _._ ii i i II !'. i % `i I —— ,f 1 it _-° 7 r --- - — x 0 `+ 1•• g • i N anti PIa3P10 ` I. -' R, ;, 11 . P. 2 w .' <I`9 ,` 3 ,R 3 3 rod`p c4 (Dip 38! 1 . w11G 5813 Ii _ i • N 8 m ° : 1 1 ° l i t 2 a s o0 In C F Y N N € po S . 0, i—-- _.—ur- w LL �j p pp Z Z iz V U l0 < Y E —_—_ �e . qE �� W W ► I l l l l l , i l �' 1111111 • 1 • ` LL,. g :poi, i, i iZs -g� ,, I Fd • I + I� m LI �. 11 and llaPO,:j("- l 16,=.,=,a,re, m n o.. _.. 00+130 0100.00V NODALLS•9C AM H o :. ka 1 ;!m NNW931yM ONY N3M3s AOVIINV$ O r ,w ,„,a N9W NsSs1oa�9aI71.H x211otlad D 11ds 0-En c LL 1111; 16 SO 97 MIS MS /l '...' J N any poo6s0 ..—. • -- ,=--'T------ ---I_^ i a I I I I 1 8 I — I iI ._ z ,I II 11 �3 I __1k l__ / / 12 i \ ‘ I \1— ro _i___1\_._ v C \ 1 N ff U N 41 I n / 1 ' Ir, II oo _ , _ , may^ I2Ay ia1Q • fi ' I ', S 11' I <�r- ti, 11 ;-119 tv = d II . I "2 ao li, _ Z =a y r I _I Ia I . S° I 1 I ..t£„ y- II L I 1 Iri , wi. ,1 � ° I ! A • _4,T, DI FI ICI y ua.6 ,, I „ e N an ---,— I I j ` —.--.. 1 ' I , I I i `� i . m 9 s� Iil I I N L-1 I il_,�LLc� e = on t I � , Ig I . I z , i s 0,1,,,.5 I! 1 I I � Y o I I 1 3 b 6 c I e-Lil I A 3 . . A g 5 • I .1 I c A ` v 8 a F8- 10 1. - 1 I II Zs 66EEIi E 1 a' °' f f 2 2 r7° rg ^E p p S A "g ,I I S° . ww 33 � Q i f ,8 ii z 3 i I I I I I ./ ' _ s I ' Ililliii . l f— S1H913H N11Vd>IVO 30 X110 _.. • I J OIL r..r __ 2•- H `TN any eyew0 a3ltlMl111530JllO —�.-- 1- i1 + 1N. I d .I I N I Co'eo 1334S335 wn.nc n«re/C a v1a annm...3.7,snnwcen.^,1x,.xctil iRn €■ 3„0_ wii�u W+EE60100+61b NOI1tl15-9EAMN - fN ,g,N NNWM31VM ONY 63M3S ANMLINVS 4 iii* dd 9NISSO1D flARf X1020'IS € I i U •% ” °1 1 m ,.��..x..--' NW'S1HEI3H)IaVd VIVO —1 1 1 1 @ 1901,S 133HS13951 ���' '` ■ 1 • 1 1 I§ it__———d any eweued 1 I 1 1 IL --t u 4 M 3, /r Z I i ; I i z � 1 z I! //'// Y ' I o ,. o k Pi p /� i I zz 16I I v (// / 3 j • --- I ,, I\ I N an3 o.ogx0 1 v a L_ : i /� 8° t fit` �. 19 ,1 8 �R -/ Z c C' Gkµ : I 0 g —' —I _. - I ^ 4 . VT— rr !� [ 1 Z a I 1 i I��1 i € ' � Ii I c - i{.__ 11 3 8 / / i : h '1; I 1 - / 1 1 :I F\1 e $ t . i �gry II ,� E 1, A i a o L I 1 :. i n 11 3 °�°E I I 1 II � Si 3 .R 3 3 E.= 1.111F433AVQ , o \1 i ! - 1- \\ ••� w r l € ° g E E 6 , ° t g 'o ° I\ t J . ° c c L m 15 �� \ EnFF ggss € oof 1 1 I ` \ %,,,,,,k, u, G A A z Z 1 �vi 1 I � \ I:: A i \ I llllll [ l s / 1 , \ .J 1 I i N any poo6sO ,_: - >06J 133H53351 Ha pr[t♦Z�OilBlt b'N'la> dzsz\M1+U\aYJ\v3[�WC6t\�no��d[ei�n • ---- --–1,0 00+Lt4 0100+EEb NOLLtl15-9£MN O °- — -- _ �"` NI051031VM ONV 113M3S AUtl1INSS t o � �� �Nissoa�113113A111 an� xioaD'1.5 1 1 9 rid NW S1H9I3H JIbtld JIdO 411 k/,)/ , I 1 � I 1 i 1 1 ;o 1 in a 111 / _trist.,..., 1 1451111__- _. _________ _ . ..z 1 � � 1 . . 1 ; 1 1 i k k I I I n 1 J z _1 \ ?. 11> 1 1 1 I v J 4 I� A -----� o z /L I E—1 r—— —\ 1 I \ >n i i 43 i s 1 3 - I g 1o \ \ Ii i \ i I €y i \ I I 33 J — — ag 1 1 ` I i� , / i gm i ■ 1 / k i j i 8 . J—— \\ I ! W ry any shed , 1 \ I 1 � :„... °% 1 — v • a I` I R 3 I 11 I `R 1 k' ' ■ t E S° . % t 1. 1 \ o ° an € y —.� w.� err E1 �`'\ \ \ �1 � 3 ° � 3 $ z•��— 3 I �1 N € aN a $ E . a s °, c r^ Z Z _ Li I ,„ . 1 I w LL s` s` 3 m f f !i WX IIIIi ; ; I II Illlli . 1 il 1 , .1• i ►1 II 1 . I 1I 1 iy I - _ _. .--- MV3MOW JSVIA 3 i A€ € I ,'� l i v t 5 R —' VG E ~AVM ONV V3M3S ANV1INVS S G M. ie p awr s e m wv="''''s %MSMO213AIN X1010'.1.5 NW'S11-19I3H NIIVd NVO I U /-- '\/ / $ ,///� � 1110 "r- ' N , ," ,/ 4,, . s � �/% „/ \ . 15 I/ //t / / ,. e / .\ '' f / _ - A —I _G__ I s - \ 4 f" 1 t° v� I I vit co 1 lf� I �Q• '�` _+;- _'�� -- - - z 444-r>-140%`/ • ,. - i 11 o 1 I 1 �Z 1 I . 1 � I 1 1 1 1 1 - --- --�IIH --I I-s I T-- I --- H - - m LI m UI a� I N any-allad 3" I I--m-- I —4-- I - --I--- —I a 3 1 ' Ln I I I I a s � r I I 3 3 3 E I I I 1 I -o v e 33 . ` z- — - I d✓ ' v " A :3 v E s c. E E g ` g t S — --1-- � I 2 2 f. c cf f S i9 € 5 o —- — __ v — -- 1 2 w W i' x e ' i ° z ,, 1 1 I I 1 y ?_31 I i I � 1 1 1 -1 1 I I I I I I i l • I L 0 1 l 1 i',a ' R — N any Apogead' v v I I , ,� 90'. 133H5 335 I He ox.It.:I noini< 6.e 10.9.00[600,0,0 o 9500e66n«o.0056t\A v.a Vint 3AOW1S 14 'ill _�_ __ _.--___--- amnou NNW1H1tlM OW N3M35 ANtl1INtl5 � „ „ d Y wm 9NissoaD a3nm xioaD'is c a �� NW S1H— X21dd Htl0 n!I!!lIii1 s a / / \ 6up?/eW M,aMaS c 5 o / / h/ 110 ",:7,2--� Am lPuaanamJ W3 � 1 / / //� /'\ �<_ —'\ // � \ \ \ ,/ r / Is \,$ S \ r \\ 4 \ 1iI „,,I.,3 \ \ � i a \ ' \ --a I \ � ,\ y,,, ,, ^ I r.� ',V%I 1 \ , '..... y/� 'i ' Z \ I^y 4a \// \ \ _ \ yjep�� =i— ,gs \ S N �� \ 1 1\ a� \ d \ g= 1 1 A\ \\ A I I i \ • \1--- 1 a N antl asoluad I ® _ �_—T--- 1 I a. .I I I I I I �r .,t a I II I I II illy I S8 18� II I Ss � I II I I11 � 1 � 1 V6 I z \ I I I EL• g�_� -- I : "' AeIIV——== — T f II a t l II 11 v /II 111 II �I 1 z 4 1 �3 w I I I - 1 ° I 1 — '° N antl lallad R 1 —L Imo__.- A I T z ; 8 € a Is � I m a„ yea ,2 3 3 i t ", %/ /� II 1 g-3 CU E '" d $ E E ° a ' t m I , �� / r / / 'I I 1 fL J �R3t,—,Ag ' == Eo , f 1�I t,r / l , I 1 I I I — —O~---- - C P C N A Z Z z � / -c / / I I r-- AaIN a -—- � = ,S s i9 t� i i y If./, 7 i _ L_—�4, I I--W.__-1--- W W w A 1 1 8 1iiiiii , I 1 t/ �1 % Il � r � 09 � � i �� I ��Y �� • I � — 1 if/ --_- ,.a v3av snow 1sala w --- - 's NNWa31VM ONV a3M35 Aatl1INVS I :1551;117, 5 a 9NISSOif�a3nIN XIOaD'15 � • NW'S11-19I3H)121tld NtlO .4! E,1 4i'■f,- '' ...nri"cu="1=rat="'l EIMINEMEal • 0 I I v . I1 ! J or... i:- : _ _ / / II m / —y— UjeooayelS I ._ _ / co\\e1i T II III / II i . 1" m‘a I I I �- aaea5 I I _-- _.------ -- � 561 `N'' II I I 1/ I I i I I I I Z� N any iallad I I .1 I I II iI I l I I I II ■-- I i II II II : i - II i I I m L —-i————I I�--— —--L—— L_1 L--t _- I------T—— i e3 ' I !,' 3t / I NI EA • ��w �I • �.I\ and '\ 21\ L-__ . .N.-- 11 ... ,`� �I 1 \ \ ---, II I \ �` -. i •• I I I J \ _L_ - _,__\-- c 1 \ I / / IL 4 " 8 Y 11 I o 11 1 J \.\ q 1 11- \ \ / • ^1.. �'\, - ,% c C. 3 g 6 am a g o 3 Lam' 1 .� / 5 'a E i a • •E 0. : a 4 v S J N ,. P. c ' c t tg 11� rnrnrnf1E2s ^9E66m IF 1 Y-n LL E E z z I 4, �, I ._✓ z 1 I 'v illlll1 il I 1 I • la i \ • 1 / \�"1I 5 f �s� ice/ 1 oz Nanyhed �1 ,� J1 II 1Lw -------___-------- «va `-__— I --1- T— Na Iazrele aw Tuxcn®c610.0 n,s9nwcsn>.w.s11.A ar �b t g N II e tl3UV3AON 15111i A 9 1 6 7 -- - �"` NryWy31VMCN4ll3M3S AUtl11Ntl5 6 a ONISSOID 113Ai21 XIOND'1S ANN, I s NW JSIHJI3H)IbVd NVO—NO IA 1131.01 s HM 16 1 ZI'] 3HS3351 11 1 Z 11, I I 1 ag I II �W I E- _`--- --- - I -----_-_< i 3 VIES �, �i 1 Ig3� �/ 3 J , r T tiy-- I 1 fi --T� I 1 I I I 1 II r, I 1 I 1 �/I • }4 L -_� [4 Z w I ID I 1 I 1 fl/a j1 11 11 11 zT 2 e m I� `I - -`,, I I ee 1 I " I I I L_L I mo.——-I--———-I Al g v I t8 3tt 1 •I Z II -..•: Al 1— J--I—II__— — — \ \., ,n 3 N any- Apogead w� �'■ ■d 1-1 —1 1 1 \ ■ � 1 g g v € i — — T +�— r ---1 .33 A 33 E IM I g I '- o s 3 g 8 ,. g g 3 c \Y Z 1 v.m I ! N i Y E d n E R E a ° t Y 8 �' iQF ' rn E. c I S 2 2 N 1.9 � O ~O M 1 Iz� I z I I, W . 885 G °' ff (\_\___ V� Ii _ I I I I I I I I i I �, gy III L. # I Is zS . • _ II Sop,o , 3r o, : -- ��, N g d 1.;- : s , N1M111/10)+001/56 AMH 31V15 NRh191VM ONV 113M35 AW.LINtl 5 9NISSO21D 213AI21 XIO20 IS 1'S1H9I3H X Vd)1V 0 3 pagl g R rl-1 �v • 1 , a 8 1 1 \i g 1•2 s °� 1 \ p E g 8i - v '2 w tl lii 3 c 2 z 1. yap et , _ E,'±' • * _ - - t. - is ,i F g;- r - , , o , _ b g i i z z . f / ri x _ - __ �-Z 6 N4'124S --v w - € 3 .5.fir 3 I �n J€ v v c c, •3 6 A a s Ae € 1 .1 ta a c • ' v ` > c O € `v a a � e a--- a a a S � , ....._ ' $ _ _, _ i„ £ 2 t 8 O t LL A z z _ V I I I ' I m 3 j €7 F3 ua,r:x:.norreir wo,oXXIwcen6•a,ar7\WITOK61\acFUCen:A — :: E A i7,:,,.'" fl,:: tl3W 3AOW 158I3 5 N ,� d Nr 88 1vM OW N3M3S ANtl1INVS .-1 a ..=','..=7,1",„„,.m,N, wm ONISS H a3AIa xroa�'IS .U r 1 v NW'S1H�JI3H JI2i1fd Nd0 —Hirt E v End of Rerouted \ Waterman \ Tie-1n with Existing ,, X11 \ \ I MCES SEWAGE w ; \ \ TREATMENT PLANT i, ti 1, \ — A \ \ 1\ • \ \\ V V \ I\^ \ I \ \ \\ II \I \ j' \ Construction ” gi \ Limits \ k�i \ \ Iii I + E I I \ o \ '‘. V\I ,. \ \\ ,.e _\ \ 'T' `- — I MNDOT ROW N • \ \ ' \\'' IMO*\ • ` _ •\ . 1 \ v ,� ,..aim 'v\ , \, , A 6�xy �•..\ ,_ s‘,, _,.,\‘,,,:%,‘ \ :,_ _.„..,,,,_N\\ , '-''' '''L)C''‘ 'v v v.� ' 3 \ ,O, -15, - \., \. " \ ,• ,„, 'r$ \ „ ///'''First Move I, /'/ \ � � 3 ° y, 3 c ., / Boundary ;/ `/ -C c 3 g $ ° & �°, 3 G $ 'a \ - MNDOT ROW" c °, c c °' = 8 S --il \ J w c d ,/ 1.1 c rn c E i t ^I° a�� O O Z 1 wa w w� w LL 9 9 m Y i c _ \// t I i I I I cs • \ , 0 1 0 1� SEE SHEET C0.08 He WI.C HOdCk &V 99[101 61,.O,OCO,99[Iwc61\>ux,x[61\.n • I S':5I c -- 'um.in0H001/56 AMU 3lltl15 �I R N 1 5 a - '"u NIVWN3IVM ONV II3M35 AOV1INVS �� m �7 3 �NSSOa�aanm xtoaD is 'II w �II LS !VI" NW'S1H9I3HJI21dd11tl0 III SEE SHEET C4.11 L I.. O I ° \ ' v'� v ,� v \ v N End First Move,� I4ew Casing d 1\1 .1 \ _.,� San.Sewer- I (TYPO 1 ''�' \` III Tie-in Existing 1 , \ \ Z2'1-- i �New.ew\\\\ vv i! �\ ���\/, Iti. \Wltemra \triuction cted) � \ IlA I 1 !� t�1\ `\ fI .New SeweS Main `. �i \ f I 1 � Ai A \ 1 I \\ '.II' MNDOT ROW 1 i \ \ \ III I A i 1 1 Constructan�..a �\ AV t t 1 Limits 1 1 II\ \ /J / i. I�/ ; ► � \ I, It 1 i ---4 '4-1` F- I 1 i � \ I 1 i I \ �� . i \ 1 \ SCENIC _I, \i \■� � / - OVERLOOK i 1111/ I � 1 A • -I 7/ •,?z 1 \ / ' \ (/7/ o' \ g / - 1 . ! �''l / \ ' \ // / / 1 o v I. vv \ I / \ i i I. . . . \ � \\i / i \\ �M1' /t '._ , /-1-----�- --�'— - •I I I; :i l 1 1 -L, >I _ € IS_I 1- -F- iI I - 1 1, EI i / I _ � � 3s { New San.Sewer I I / 19 E E t € 3 E•Tie-in Services t _1— -/-i I ' rn 8 $ R 3 $ F--- T ---- —{ IMNDOT ROW / I I _ iiW ! L------ Nm L g QQ / ' J C K A I u f T T C O f New Watermain I As Betterment I I i s �` g °z z 1^ Tie-in Servkes _ / - w I I I ie W x S F I I 1 —Limits ucton First Move I I IIIIII 1411 : / Limits Boundary-1 — — I • I I 1 I I•I t / I • • I I I / r - --1� / Begin Rerouted I — \L A5-San.Sewer y_ -- - \\L_ -Jif / Begin New Watermain 1� I �T As Betterment / Upper 615It St N — i' ,J Tie-in to Existing r =„_fir— uaa:n:o noxiaL aw'roam+arenu.almrnsxrwrunxmnarsr,:n 3 e 9NISSO8M 000 03 3S AO I LS 0 NO11335N31NI 03308080 3 iroj , i'^^�� �P ��� NItnJN31tlM 000 L3M3$AMtl1INtl5 � "n 1 ti w' V. u:=11uvvsrsrma ww.w wu n. 2 9 ° NW -,'S1HJI3H 1121b d VIVO �_ 9 8 U e$ I SEE SHEET C403 I SEE SHEET C4.15 I V ,? fi,59 -- • 380 0 0 (\ • 0 a 380 I■ It �• i I Gray Zone _ \, iA San.Sewer I I Ir �)_ _ _� / 8 1. i� 'IUD/ � I � � N 11 = � 'End m�act�d r T-f / t o I o i ( I Vatema{ I �- ] Tian p Elisti9g( 1 1 —t_-L-Jh'J 1- zo T- r,t-1 I— II r Lii - - LJ\J I /. � I. . r . .f Tie-in San. I '< I / Sewer Main �. 1 ,v 1 \ / MNDOT ROW oain New Waterr --� Route Adjaltent I ,/ to Service Rgads F >.� 1 i 5 �V,, / 1 —.i 11‘; 1 T'-in Existing I' I Wtermain— I 1 /1 /�Constucton� 1 13 I I I I r---_ .__1 U 11 �— 8 8 € / J L___J I-6 --H .S " n I 1 (----7— Icj ,R3 A33 I m 1 I./TTTTT1 F5 Ji/ /.J 1 Y I I 18I = € EaaEEaedpc _ I I! /I l l l l l r —� J 0 m a i 2 2 s € o o f I► I L J__L_L J_J_J J a to v o 0 si si I I t.'- I" r .t__ @,�� III 1 I ' 1 �-— —1— I , —I L' —Oakgreen Q N ——�——a— — I I — I r� T T-rmT-, °r--1--7-7 I I I I I I i l IT-----' I iz ll I I I I 1 1 I V I I I I III I ; 1E, �I i I I I I 11 1 • III Ia I L�J_J __1__l_J J L�J_J III I ---LiL-——-I -H_ ��w -J- End of MNDOT onstructic}1 Ito 1 Tie-In with Oalgreen Ave N P 1 ,• wa saw naa/r .01.9900Te1\um1arS199(100t61..9x/E61\.n ;',Ii.*:, d�� ,®.,b,.6w,aom�.,ro. ' 9NI5 OUO N3AI21 XIONO'15 I �p A p� - ,b NNWN31tlM ONO N3M3S ANtl11Ntl5 - !.'.1 r iN ! ..6TInr. srmevw.r�.=a6xa�i � 4 q e I F NW'S1H9I3H)12IVd NVO a v, 7 III End of MNDOT Construction Tie-In w g } I +N h' - St I ! _ 0Q 0 i0 5 I I -' 1 1 End of Grey ss y{.,`' Zone San.Sewer I ; 1 - 1 j i I 1 1 _ • !' { - 1 A l I 1 l N. I fl . I - I a ✓ — • _ I I '1 1 - I 1 Hi t..__•1. 1 t, 4 ,, : si `_ _-- ---------- . ► i , ! • ',! I 'i -•1 I MNDOT ROW I /1 II I' I �• /..°'"'f '• 1'1 I /'/ f I.. J L \ / / \ I I I Construction Limits � > j i I I / l i � 1 Gray Zone Sewer Main 1 IA � I / I 1 ,__ j F \Z I , gaaAIg `I� 3 R 3 3 u rn til I r = ` s 8 8 . a 8 ° a 3 $ -2 F, a t .1 I ID Z. N o o E E E. ° a°` ° 2 __r..__+. it 1 - 1 € E :, c r8 `o __I. _ — _ — — J 3 i o .8 .o y . vo 8 - f S r9 _-- � c c c s f 2 2 @ o o f ' x in c > > t 0 0 385 ,�, .W .W LL x 8 8 g G m s z >< LL I IIIIIIII ' I IY New Casing Pipes C� I 1 I I I I I I i___385-. _1-- �_.._—_ - I • II.WIt.,,\ -— •21---1-'' — ----t• . 1 ' tr ——I_ - . - -— i i-f- — 7 I SEE SHEET C4.14 I SEE SHEET C6.02 we,.000 n(r/WI 6'Mlo wnwsb\6.awr0\99E1®c6bW'0'a ec6r\'.A v..:-... g.....-1:1 rg ,,,,,„,,„,,, NOLLAS/13.LNI 000950 5 A A 61! I 9 0 i_.4 111 NIVW13.1.VM ON0 213M35 A2IV.LINVS DNISSOID 213AlIl XI010'IS - ." 6'Zi NW'S_I_H9I3H N2IVd NVO g 11111 I SEE SHEET C4 17 I 1-- - 1 --.- - — i = . • '''''-. '• 1 • .;°° ° ...- ., --- '' 1 l iiii■-•-,- --■--- 1 0,8 -- ....- L,..... .... -- Gray iLIIIIIIIIN _____ H ; ,...--- ...,,,•(- Watermain 1.1-1.,...., vs.'''' • ''',, ..,- .--- ,., •— --11. -,. -- - --'--,11 1 .-• Gm'1-16'- . I 0544 I ... •-"". I ' • New Fire Hydrant I (Construction Impacted) 50,0° I [1 - ...... ..., , 1 - 1 I —7--— 1 !I 1— "ii \ II 1 Gray Zone I ' watermain '' 1 Construction Limits-„,.. I I • L_ 11 I,id, i . i' r\--.----- --' _-, - -1! 59th St N -1 -T- --1 :.• • -. Tie-in Existing • End of MNDOT Construction . i , i , Watermain . Tie-In with Osgood Ave N I 0 .21 MNDOT ROW-1-'1 I —I——-1 I I I • I L I I I 1 I I I L_ 1 , 1 '11---1 •• —-1 1 1 E. .9 • . ' - 1 I — ! . N E ! 2 1 I is a I . I 1 E 1 $ I 1 1 1 I I I 0 3 -. . I I- e t3 g g e •% ',%'' 4 - _L _L.- 0; 3 . ——— -.2 -8 '8 "a -. -0 "8 I 72 A a 6 Ilil .,I - I I CU eg-'_ --"..-----r— I 4"4-1 H / I I 1 I Z g. , . xv . // 1 I 1 l' I 1 1 1 1 g I 1 i ,% 1 § I - I11111111. 1 • I ! I I H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i k• Z- i 4,r)— _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 I 0 41 h— _ - I 1 —--r- SC-Sit ZIOVB/L .0"10.719001.10.0,0.99[10a61,.....61,n , „ S I II I I 1 8 8 8 8 ,i Am ;IEriE 5 i NO ly g■al m n 3 IQ 0151.0-....1 NOLLASOLLNI 0000SO NIVNIO1LVM ONO 213M35 AOVIINVS DNISS010)33A111 XIOBD'IS i cc NW'S_LHDIgH)111ted NVO _ Nov g -u . . • — — -7 a F4A:la i:AH-IIEIGR7iTs F1,e —- ---- I 1 § , 1 ! a ! ,..)...,r_„ >> „ N_ ,› __... i -—7 I __ 1,-»_ i End of MNDOT Construction Tie-In with Osgood Ave N —I I-- li .7 . I I Construction Limits-\ ,...” i I Y 1 1 / I • 1 :, I I I . 1. 1-- \--- I _ i • • 1 1 . ,,,, I I :1' i l'" ei I II -. ■ • I I I • g i l l-' I 'I , 1 gni; 1 ---- Tie-in Existing I ;, 1 h---, --, Watermain 1 1 L.11 1. t• 11 . _d-- --r---[-- 411 _r_ To-in Sewer Main 1111-. ' ). I I i. '7-— r--- R 1 — i 111,L,__' ' 1 I ...., , 0:405 i 1 ,› • soste4' -.0, --49 Gray Zone Waterman Et Sewer Main r 1 I ,1-,-.;--,., T. ) • I 1 -,,,, SO' / ,' .- New Fire Hydrant Construction Limits—, ,..i.00,41......" . 1 I II 1([ (Construction Impacted) i 1 .\/'11' • .,. / ,2,4111t_.-s''' 4•‘ ri..„:„_KI. ,.---"" --1... / 1 "-• I I ' .4'. '''. ■_ -=t„ • .t. New Casing Pipes I I'^4- tO G ,- ,00-1F--,--. T-1--- , / • / 1 I ' vw-17. --.7----1----1-7-- . - Gray e J 13* A2aatFE Beginning of Constr. I ' \ Ili Sewe r I Impacted Waterman [, • 1E1 !_ E. '''. 2 11141 2 1111 [..... 14-. ___t- i , - 420 State Highivay 36 New Casing Pipe 415 "-----.---- --42t5 _ v v It •-• • • _ al al Lt .. irt.580 (15 ,07zr,- S I - - II i 1111111111 --"''- - - [,'' 1 1 1 1 i I I 0 . _ • „, -.,. I ,.., _. _.... ,•,......, it 1 ai -....,:, I - 8 .,„ -_1 ...... -- - 'I ,1‘ - Y .....- ..•• .4 SEE SHEET C016 ■,... mil,"00■i102/11, .I010.0013(61.4.710,99(108(61,a^.1.. ‘NMI gyy .. -._-... rl�u.wrs anon 03U113d3Nd 1 R 00 `- ..$m w - irw 1OOAY1 AiflIN 35014 1SNId 0350d011d $1 I - I.-1 v DNISSOi1'J N3AIi1 XIO21J IS gg .•„,„,), „°a . ,.aaw m..a,,, NW'S1HEll H JI2i dd VIVO _ g 6 v r I I ` i-• /' , r u'1 �' I 1 I'n 1 J _�_1-i - ,,/ o_ ',, 0 II- f`I I I I� €e , aaans 4unoA w • • 2 0 II vt___i__4,_J_fi--11,_, 1-2-v,---T----?--e e rn w �, , '� o.5 I I r I . 1 �(' /) sti.R 3 ' ,§ 3 3 E. ,. -IT. I' + w F 9, ---! I.. / / /6. IA 3 3 8 \ \ a� I' 1.�_,- / � a9{ ° 3 � � � $ o o � 3 0 � ��� -. 5�c'&�+ I /It,_.II ` , � ` -- ] .I�` (r +.r- 5 i �// �/G z € l g S E g 6 6 a e a I \ vi, 1 1;1 ` _ J<.T_, _,__ r 1 n` 1 ,+A\\---L 0; J 2 B o a , . a : g 3 S / / I 1 1;1 1 I' 11_�I, V 5\� V,--__-_--;=:-.--.:-.--.=..-- ✓�/� ff E 2SN € oof �.. - r 'l ��k ———— 1 I ZI y\//X�i 1// -% t A , bo ♦. I ) ) I ✓ // / Q r _t:t -�1 � / I ,1 III ,, I I I I ^ o� I I I\ I l♦{ / ; r// //� / 1 I 1 III a= / \ , 1-4 7-%� - y , �� , / / f ; \ ,� __ ; I 1 1Il 1 I I I I I : �, Ii 11 I / 1 _ -- 1 IN U G�NOpN y 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 I �; A RI w I m �1>1 I I I I I I t I I r ��1I / �. � � II f III I ' I I /I j�� I ( ) I M ■ } I / y♦ '�I �° I / : \ I I •11 1 \u� •� I I / /. I I J _v l I . )/ \. v -1,-,.. / / / l/y' 1 1 I , ,��\ I I 111 /N/ if}, ,��..,�.••e -, / I ` '����b I I I1 , v,1 ■■ IT , 1 //r/ I/ ?j 1 ''`' a - \• °`\ / �1'; 11 1 IT I 11 `j 14',\\\I 1 � �'�'alt ¢ A ,1 I I¢I I I � II II _ / /, r 6 \�', II1 I I/ 1/ g/ /. 1k7-, ,-"� :;' 1A l, I \\ I `"i \ I^^ \\III I \ ICC1 III i6 I\ll �I'I .II �ii }-A1 s` • / YI I Iz ��.I I \ I \,\ I ,\III I 0 / I _ '15/) uI :I\ Iu lili\ ■I \ \ Ii\I + I \ ° .:3 Ii' I; »--,-_» ,. ..11,- \ I\� I 1 ���I \. 11� ���g■\, Is , l E� V »- Q t��.•' x' �I I �S -I I Vj \ IJaj1 ''I\II /�•\.\ 1 �j'< I •� - '\ 0 U \I 11 1 1 1 y I I �\e � 1I\ • \ � Y / 5 U c,F- \ I I1 \ \ \ yam\ \ 1d ' I g rnw ., °w= \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ b 1,\\ \' s I \ 1 \ \ Ia-- ♦ / W \ \ �\ yi I v I \ 4111 1 ) 1 ' r ,�•'•Ln I I I -/ - \-. 1. I ■ /I t\--.......I p` (g •'v U \ / I g L/ '� I I O•� I 1 ' i i 2 ,I r • I S a Q 1- 2 / / / I 1;1 i -/ csi- , u / / / / iI �ce � / /f/-I- t' • / co w ..1') a / / _-, l a / , '-_ �J Vr ✓f..a- -_ / /4 2-_-_-_____---1. p 6 U ' /////? -•-- — \-1' / I•1 _ •,,�. q � ,/ I�IgF 1 •—. �.'.l r.� I ,� ,�i\ ��/�.i�y i///lam-! -� q�Q y 1 f� ,/ -� J i -ii v£ ,. 'I� i -/ H W SJ ��/ /e/�//� i� �'� (, a ao ---- - -5 J ',2k I -t - /Q: / e) <-,/---- - ,� •• . ._ "w -845-II �—>� /oje "' X58-- a ----_-_,--7-4----.%' �" � ,...--> = / a, /— ma x � .= _r • - `T — I I — ,=. I w • I I - 1 \ I / I I I fi I \ I / I I I II j • / / k N , / / wa wt.:* dro,ux9nars„aawn wn0Bce„>.w.1e,61VA A ,wu<w 'g"^'�m g R 3100N 03NN333tld I $ $�, $ ,� 1f10Atl1 A1141113AOW 1S1f!d 03SOdONd R p1 J, i s e i o �NISSOiI'J a3AIN XIONJ'IS s mo v .t,,.„ .t„ NW'S1H9I3H)Rltld)Id0 14 g •v • , • kk>(\ / r % :,_1 A F $ 0 3 € E v i.i� �. uR 3 a 3 3 J ,���1 -� gu!49x3 yam yeE ✓/ 3 3 0 = v ,' / u.auwew,x i yes• - N y, E a S $ r / } `— �SP21 i _ ` '� € a n` •E E i i y P c ` r / v ° s .. > S m ��� ���. V-- i ■ n xY doff � i ' / -1 wwLL g83 � S ,' i f gg �� < ' -__ 111 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 • a� _ 11,* n ■ 1 �T yq. Y g c { /- =a a `•A e 2 \ i I• ; : , i , '/ :so- um c.Nb-ya 3 : _ --•r- ----II-- 1 Igo / _,4 b� _ d• Npel1 Uje�a--- I ^1 . 1� S 1 � 1 ° ,' 1 / I ° ,x = f n €A 1 1 1 -n i i 1 • 1 EFL ,� °� 1 _n I ----- --- -- 4 at 0 _ N any asoWiad 11 n __ _— ___ i$ ,I � IIII1 8E �nI 1 z ac , x �� Ins �� , I Fm 1 . 1 1 �' �. � _J. • 5z any 8988)d d P n €. •i _ (/ 9P I�� / / •/' L I of L.' ' ' 1 I 3 /J 1a a '' z e> 4 /� I � � '� -"iii -' IR s, x ' I Q i I s�s pans 431nod ., --- - - ill° . 1 r L. �~Z a 1- I \ n I we ma,:.E,ddl«N E"V 10v ®i6,IE„U,Oxl,99ndrenaA xJJrs/I n 1E1752 THIRD ENGROSSMENT REVISOR SK H1752-3 22.1 Subd. 3. Local Road Improvement Fund 22.2 Grants 10,000,000 22.3 From the bond proceeds account in the state 22.4 transportation fund as provided in Minnesota 22,5 Statutes,section 174,5Q,for construction and 22.6 reconstruction of local roads with statewide 22.7 or regional significance under Minnesota 22.8 Statutes,section 174.52,subdivision 4,or for 22.9 grants to counties to assist in paying the costs 22.10 of rural road safety capital improvement 22.11 projects on county state-aid highways 22.12 under Minnesota Statutes,section 174.52, 22.13 subdivision 4a. 22.14 Subd. 4. Greater Minnesota Transit 6,400,000 22.15 For capital assistance for publicly owned 22.16 greater Minnesota transit systems to be used 22.17 to design,construct,and equip transit capital 22.1s facilities under Minnesota Statutes,section 22.19 174.24,subdivision 3c. 22.20 Subd. 5. Railroad Warning Devices 22.21 Replacement 2,000,000 22.22 To design, construct, and equip the 22.23 replacement of active highway rail grade 22.24 crossing warning safety devices that have 22.25 reached the end of their useful life. 22.26 Subd. 6. Port Development Assistance 1,000,000 22.27 For grants under Minnesota Statutes,chapter 22.28 457A,for publicly owned capital projects. 22.29 Sec. 17. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 22.30 Subdivision 1. Total Appropriation $ 12,836,000 22.31 To the Metropolitan Council for the purposes 22.32 specified in this section. 22.33 Subd. 2. Metropolitan Regional Parks Capital 22.34 Improvements 4,586,000 Sec. 17. 22 7. : . 1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651)636-4600 Fax: (651)636-1311 Stantec August 2, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project—Lining and Replacement Cost Comparison Stantec File No: 193801366 Dear Eric: The City Council requested a cost comparison for lining or replacement of the Gray Zone sanitary sewer at their council meeting on July 31, 2012.The Council also requested an understanding of the existing pipe conditions. Cost Estimate The attached cost comparison estimate shows the breakdown per segment of sanitary sewer within the Gray 0 Zone.A map with the highlighted Gray Zone area and associated segment numbering is also attached.The total estimated cost,including indirect,for replacement or lining the entire Gray Zone sanitary sewer is summarized below: Total Gray Zone Sanitary Sewer(9,089 feet) Replacement Cost $ 2,200,000 Lining Cost $ 1,283,000 Cost Difference $ 917,000 Condition Assessment The current pipe conditions were generally assessed based on recent sanitary sewer televising reports,type of pipe material, and the age of the pipe.Overall,the pipes are below average, but in fair condition considering the age of the pipes(majority of the pipes being 40+ years). Segment 1 These pipes are between 20-30 years old and are in good condition. Improvements to pipes in this section are not necessary at this time. Segment 2 The pipes in this segment are 30 years old and are in average condition.There are minimal root and pipe joint issues that could be resolved by pipe lining. Segments 3-9 0 The older pipes(Segment's 3-9)are showing some deterioration with the visible surface aggregate and cracking.The service connections for these segments were primarily done by tap and break-in methods, and a few locations will require repairs to seal these connections. Stantec Page 2 of 2 • Recommendations and Comments If the Council chooses the method of pipe lining rather than the replacing or relocating of the sanitary sewer, it is suggested to pipe line Segment's 2-9 and not complete any improvements to Segment 1 at this time.The total estimated cost, including indirect,for replacement or lining Segment's 2-9 in the Gray Zone area is summarized below: Segment's 2-9-Gray Zone Sanitary Sewer(7861 feet) Replacement Cost $ 1,880,000 Lining Cost $ 1,127,000 Cost Difference $ 753,000 If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at(651)604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC • Christopher W. Long, P.E./ Attachments: Gray Zone Sanitary Sewer—Lining and Replacement Cost Comparison Gray Zone Map copy: Andy Kegley— Public Works Director, Mark Vierling —City Attorney; Jason Petersen, Mark Hanson, Kevin Hoglund, Katie Warner—Stantec. • ! , % c v v a yy 0 O W ar a, a, a, N O « u m e me me m 3 't° in 2 O ffi e 10 A ,at ,. . �y r a 0 d o ^ c d c C v c v c 2 , 2 c q c 2 4 w C W h N 0 N a, v'i W u'i auk u'i w y E) b I, .0 00 V a0 U 00 U 00 u ao V C d ' E c Z c Z c 2 c Z c Z m o £ 'o u N u r Y{,� u 'k^ .. u E, �_ E i 3 ` C 41 C 5' i0 C ' La C J ` C C it a V Y V Y 8 V Y IOi, V Y N V Y > a m y C c .iii c IF, us c a (0 c G y C a N O m E v 2 a a2 'o a2 -o a v a t p c 3 o m c c am c s-w c c o a " E aE aE aE as E a Ew E E a a w E. 6- E a " ti 0 ai a u ai •u W E w C N O H 9 0 > o 4 > g .N •C t w E g- > �•> eo na> ao tit> co > E r L a w m m d > c a ar as w w (0 w o u�i 76 m m m 0n 00 m 'L c 20 al 10 N 10 a7 co O.E u a, a> a> a> a> a> a> E v 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 E O o 0 0 0 0 U D < m m m m m CO a a+ VI u a g g § § 8 8 8 8 81 6. n 00 O a co cri N N . N N N N at E Z N N N N N N N N N N =° l7 4` o 8 8 8 8 8§ cg N M = N £ C N N N N M N ~ N 0 12 C .. l7 W tp N N N N N N N N N N N f0 c. 0 \ § 8 § § § 8 8 8 8 8 a.c N II a x 0 Y u` 41 0 d o N N N N N N N N N N C 41 0 CC C CJ 0 ca IA S.E n m c Ln E L O N ^ of tO co C. rl y a6 lT o R m H y N J d Oa 'O LO Yin ~ 0�1 0�1 cn H 0�1 0�1 Of rl I-1 eel V V al CC > ce n. E. Is a9 a, C N co c U, C ' co .N-i as .N'1 co . oz, co D. 'O A. o O O F- .- CO as 0a C C O d aL.. N ` ` O O a1 t al E n a N 7 u c c�' o z ° m u o x O �_ I. �0 y 0 O — '^ a a O c = c U 0 0 Ego « 2 m a 5_ 3 O ~ ` t0 O O o o O O ~ L ri yp M a+ g O O ++ y O Se th 3 10 . ,- W W V1 0 m W 2 L 0 0 0 F N 0 3 .... �. E •.■ N M e of t0 N 00 Of a to so E c f • 4' City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N,Box 2007• Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 15;2012 Mr.Jon Chiglo Minnesota Dept.of Transportation Engineering Services Division Director Water's Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 *** ALSO VIA EMAIL-jcr�.chilo�ate�us *** RE: GREY AREA—MNDOT Defined as Betterments Dear Mr.Chiglo: As you know there is a large financial gap facing the City as it continues to review the$2.9 million dollars stemmin g primarily from the improvements the City refers to as particular matter has long "GREY ZONE"improvements. Despite finding other Project solutions,t ew this Project and is been in discord between the City and the Department and solutions seem limited. appear from your comments that the Department solely makes this determination n a ation However,it would impacted and what is not. as to what is Considering this discretionary authority, City's decision options become more constrained,it is appropriate that the City ask the Department to again re-evaluate those their status as "impacted"by the Project. For if there can be a re-determination GREY ZONE areas to investigate mthat some or all of the GREY ZONE areas are impacted, in part or in total,additional non-City flow to cover these costs,such as funding secured by Representative erm by the Department tha within MNDOT discretion as well. tY project dollars p esentative Lohmer which appear to be For your purposes,please note that the City's Engineer has determined that there are not fewer than twelve(12)Project impacts in this GREY AREA that would have negative im pact on City utilities.Perhaps this information would be helpful for your findings and I have enclosed his report the City would ask that you review the Ci p°rt dated July 29th,2012. being placed on the City.Alleviation �s positions again and consider the financial burdens on of some or all of these GREY AREA burdens would likely be beneficial towards the City's final analysis. If you would be able to respond w my a ention it would be appreciated. ithin the next two weeks to cerely rieJohn.,n City Ad tnistrator Cc: Mayor and City Council Members • Gray Zone Utility Ide• ntification (w/corresponding conference room map numbering) 7/29/12 Gray Zone—utilities with differing opinions between Mn impact.The utilities in this zone are located beneath or Go MnDOT and the City in regards to project been det for reconstruction. Responsibility for these utility closely adjacent to the roads being been determined. rty costs is under discussion and h MnDOT has has not these not identified these utilities as Construction Impacted.Although utilities as not being impacted Burin communications se ut to MnDOT being impacted that these- g construction. the City a MnDOT considers utilities are in fact impacted as shown below past 1. Aging Infrastructure-the majority of the existing utilities approximately u to e- years old. approximately sewer is to 40+ rats old. Most of the water mains cal s i SOT right(C )and are susceptible anita sewer to is primarily maintenance concrete pipe(RCP). pipe(CI P)end the improvements(i,e. nce or replacement These utilities are more possibility of i P e appropriate)in the future. Replacement or should be considered. pipe lining where appropriate)to the infrastructure 2. Utility Location Impacts mall are located beneath the most pan,both the existing frontage h sanitary sewer and water g road and TH-36,or in some areas along the the ditch section r • roadway.Structures and pipe will be impacted during between the roadway.Structures pipe damage, g thg constructi of the proposed roadway new maintenance or servicing in the stresses,or it difficult the mp construction of the new r lso,an 9 . stresses,or failures during compaction methods). 3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Updating to utrlrtres are not relocates,any Sustainable under the g o Current Design standards infrastructure a long service under new roadways needs to be of durable eals and-the should be discussed. The utielr'ties needtorbe relativetls. Future development and needs servicing d due to the . The Pment needs proximity to the highway. Y free of routine maintenance and 4110 The Gray Zone utilities have been broken down in efforts to organize and associated cost and location for each segment(see conference room mapunderstand the Sanita Sewer )' 1) 12"RCP(West of Oakgreen)- 1991, 1982. Est. Cost-$320,000 2) 8"VCP(Oakgreen -South of TH-36)- 1982.12"RCP(Oakgreen.-North of TH-36&Crossing)t.Cost-$140,000 4) 18"RCP(East of Oakgreen)-1968. Est. Cost--$300,000 Est. Cost $310,000 5) 15"RCP(East of Oakgreen)-1967. Est.Cost-$260,000 6) 18"RCP (SuperAmerica to Osgood)-1967. Est.Cost-$450,000 7) 12"RCP(Osgood to Oxboro)-1967. Est. Cost $185,000 8) 9"&8"VCP(Osgood-North of TH-36)- 9) 8"CIP(East of Phil's Tara Hideaway, South H-36)- 1967. Est. C0 - Water Main Est. Cost $20,000 10)8"CIP(Oldfieki to Osgood)- 11)8"CIP Os 1967, under frontage road. Est. Cost ( good-South of TH-36)-1969, under Osgood and recent history of water main breaks. Est. Cost-$83,000 12)8"CIP(Osgood-North of TH-36)-1968, located in boulevard east of Osgood. Cost-$71,000 g Est. • 0 V a) h a) V +_, a) o r-1 " 0 cis � nl .Q U cv F- V r-I o (1) m O U O N -J a. :E O U O . • 0 0 a) N 0 4a co .= C ,- 4_J a) c L L p CO C Cl- E . . Q. � co v O O 0 +a 3 .N V v O • • (inaja) L L co -. 0 O TO• cn O f� .(II ▪ co aanca Q F-- >. co N *(73 }� a--,4-1 O ,� N 4- p _ �_ cn O O U O •s .( O co O O _ _c 4 N N —▪ to V) O .4--,� U U aA +� L N O U 4— Q C w N � ca N +.� ca (/) O to ca C v . c U = c N C U L L CD N O f° s- _ +— ._ L- >. C N N = c L _ ._ N 0 s- •_ �C t E '5 v E Q Ov i' .N Ov O 2 aA � a. L 7 > V "a) U L- CV co O L I— E = v) 3 '' a .� 2 C O 3 'ca ao v L +� o 2 p (� a 4(� .4 S c% U DC 0 .0 • • • • • • • • N •_ba a) Y L a • • Y C CD 0 p `*■ 0 +a V O CU O v o - c co a a, + 0 �o U i co = O v c aA c r 1 II O O V N fII Q i C V 0 0 c c C a O N 0 L CU ,_,(1) CO O 0 N L- U +- +-' O X N. L L ° in 4- I- Q) c a, +, u Q t0 {c, > L � -O O O v 40 p >. MV) a, N +-'2 _ `� 0 Q v o v C v c6 ..c L- p 0 +-+ v I L c CU v CL) - E yi ' c •- aJ > N a-+ •� .ft C CD C v v v _ -c _c 3 O v = - ca f Q 0 < co < � o cu • 4--- (/) 0 D o 0 U 4-- v a a) 4-) _ .N c U E L E Oa) 0 o _, 4-• 0 v) LL — v) 0 4,, 0 V) • 0 >,. . ..4-a a) 4...• L_L a) (B , E Ct U $co 4- O V E +-+ -C2 C I 0 °' -0 ca •�-) a a, ° '5 a a) 0 an) c = - c, >. }, u o -C Ni x N *=' + X U +-+ >, .?_< _0 �„ U 1] a, +-; to 5 E _ C a) . -(f' rn U CU '- Q •� v0 �-' �O 0�) •O D 0 • • • L I cL • • N e 4_, ,.., CL) 73 • _ O (I) •O Q s- N V) c3 a -I—I >• 81 2 = 0 .4_, ro -I-) r-i co c v) c (-3 -1--J w w a) a, ._ 01■-O V Q U O CD '— O • O —� ca Q >' .cn O -E ..O -N U o o -� = �. v . a) O N co a) a) > E O co •- -= C . ' 03 N ..0 "— •=ma 2 Ci -c -4S -+S 0 > > = = U co '/7 C — -FS " t-1- +:. § 2 I..n :� i cm +� •cn O O 5- c = _c N - v CU N v V ca Q. a) 2 .,tA . -2 • FJ cli cn T— cT1 I ku (NJ a1 O 0 c-I N • O V • N co a) a) N _c > a) Q c 8 •� co • • o = cti• c a) L)> a) - c O 847P 01 - — O o c = i > L 0 O -1—J =O 4J ca 0 0 0. 21 O a� ro s = >.- 2 § • — •- t �, = • • O "� U � .o O 2 �D +� -� U a) 'cn Nw > ;-' cn ' c6 " 0 O ca s Q (1) o v a) U a v " 0 - Q1 V > a) fj.) Qi - 0 CD a) C C co cr, U +a 73 •— VI o c _ 0 cm — O • , 3UE Q •V 0 O = 0 t c > O •c 1- cc a) v) -c �+ .- O N = N c a--+ 2 VI o. 1-- 2 co 0 _0 ! o - • N . • • O Q +-+ U QJ O +>, 2 N Q cn r...� -C v 0 0 0 1'+ O Lli +•- > N u- O O ' ON U 7 `_ U m -0 N co O � c�i� N 0 N N � � c6 L a--+ O CU (,) _ y_ N O O -O co ++ p > v •— C C) N U -I...) —' O Q L -�' aQ+ L Ca • .C3 O ca CU CU 0 eL 4-. O0 a-' co N O eL 4-' CO o Q � � � O co � � v >, CIO 0 CO O _ CAA co U C +-+ N c6 ca •N C Q L- i L O LL C • , N CU � � O a CC v) ,,Q ate--+ C �I c L Ca CU C v 1 • C .. N � ate, L ca O 4 co 2 N �0 co O L.L �+- v . I— D 0 0 Q 0 -Y > U c O 15 0 CO• v) .� .N — •V) V) C 0 0 � 4-1 0 a) 0 >, • � E a2 cu c N a) cm N CD 4-1 a) CU CU CO -0 V a = = -C O ., i Q at)D O +� • ZIA 4-2 4_, co tX0 s— CU E X a) F •o - o O CU a) � Z -, C M 0 0 N _C 4J >. s_ 0 > •— v •Z 44- a) a) a) O CU 0 p = .� Q co N U a) 0 n v a) a) C a) -c o v a ' ] 0 te- , .� >. - N -C U CO I U O ti U § 0 • • • U � C 7-3 O Q y= U cn 4-' ro a--+ U 'Q O cu 0 cu T. 40 � -C O v) ro 4- U +-+ Q •- 40 a) ro cu 73 v - ro c 49 O Z3 N -� 'tto a) -cc? mv, E -0 -a 0 O c6 •— C szu 72 0 4-) —= N -C U 0 C Q� cn C) C .4-a . O to Ni 2 E I— C) - +.� '� O O Q O = 2 C a) a' 4 " °' E ca O ca -C (1) C 2 -0 _o 2 a) _c cu • • • • • ri- . ti) 0 N • N • 4 • 4 , ,,,, try ; 7�+ r "ti5 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 July 30th,2012 MEMO ` TO: City Council Members FROM: Eric Johnson,City Admini t RE: Submission of Plans and Spe p 00. , 'ons—Decisions and Impacts The following memo outlines the current decision that is being asked of the City by MNDOT as it relates to the next steps in the St.Croix River Crossing. The memo is not meant to be a commentary on what the City Council ought to do from a staff perspective,but rather frames the request,the options for the Council to consider and the ramifications of such choices. 1. What is MNDOT askin the C&to do? • At this time,with the submission of the July 2°1,2012 information to the City that MNDOT identifies as a final layout,"based on 2005"1 ,the City is tasked to compare the 2012 purported construction plans submission with the 1995 layout to determine if these are the same layout and if acceptable.Recall,that the City granted its Municipal Consent on the 1995 layout and that his process follows the PRE-2001 Statutory Municipal Consent process. The City Attorney has engaged Stantec Engineering to provide an independent assessment of these submitted documents to compare with the 1995 layout. The report from Stantec is presumed to be received in the next two weeks and which will outline differences and similarities,large and small, between the two projects. When this report is received,the City Council should review the report and make findings. Such findings should be either: Finding X: The July 2°d,2012 submitted plans are not in accordance with the 1995 layout. Finding Y: The July 2nd,2012 submitted plan are in accordance with the 1995 layout. 2. Implications of Findings 1 You are aware that the City Attorney has already informed m=MNDOT of the legal challenge on this issue. IIIMNDOT's approval was for the 93 Layout not the 2005. As mention there are implications of each decision,as follows are the likely results of each.Please note at this time Dennis Postler,P.E.is reviewing the submission comparing the submission to the 1995 submission.A report will be forthcoming. Finding X: If the City Council determines that the submitted plans are NOT in accordance with the 1995 layout,the review process then moves into an Appeal Board review in accordance with MN Stat. 161.175.In general under this process the City,MNDOT and the Governor,would each select a person to review the submitted layouts and other proposed layouts that may be offered by a municipality. The Appeal Board would hold a hearing on the proposed layout submitted by the commissioner and alternates. The Appeal Board would ultimately select one of the proposed layouts.Once this process occurs,which in theory would take at least several months,a Cooperative Construction Agreement(CCA)would need to be completed.It is this CCA that would outline fmal costs and construction responsibilities. Finding Y: If the City Council determines that the submitted layout is in accordance with the 1995 layout,the City would communicate such position to MNDOT and the project presumably would move forward with the City then being obligated to enter into an agreement with MNDOT called the Cooperative Construction Agreement(CCA).It is this CCA that would outline fmal costs and construction responsibilities. 3. 2005 Layout Review As discussed in the City Attorney's letter dated,July l lt'',2012 to Jon Chiglo of MNDOT,the Department did not seek municipal consent from the City for the 2005 layout.Because of this omission, • MNDOT's submission is flawed and jurisdictionally deficient.However,this again is not the subject to Tuesday's meeting. 4. Current issues for July 31St The focus of the July 31 meeting should not be on layout or legal compliance issues.The layout issues won't be ready for council review,analysis and discussion until the engineers have reviewed and summarized the layouts and drawings have been evaluated. What will be reviewed on July 31St will be the aspects of the currently disclosed MNDOT plans relative to the city's utilities.You will recall that as a result of the 30%plan process which Stantec has already been involved in we have groupings or lists of utility issues or changes classified as"First move", "Construction Impacted","Betterments"or"Gray Zone".The city has already acknowledged that it wishes to proceed with the Betterments and unless there is an agreement to the contrary they will be the city's expense. "First Move and Construction Impacted"also have contribution consequences between MNDOT and the City and absent some change implemented between the parties the First Move are 100%MNDOT expense and Construction Impacted are 80%MNDOT and 20%City. The"Gray Zone"are in dispute. You heard Mr.Chiglo state MNDOT's position on those that they will deny contribution or payment on them.The City may take a different position and pursue a classification of those as Construction Impacted through a contested process.Either way the city needs to review the "Gray Zone"aspects to determine if it wants them accommodated within the project and built or not. • t • Gray Zone Utility Identification (w/corresponding conference room map numbering) 7/29/12 Gray Zone—utilities with differing opinions between MnDOT and the City in regards to project impact. The utilities in this zone are located beneath or closely adjacent to the roads being proposed for reconstruction. Responsibility for these utility costs is under discussion and has not been determined. MnDOT has not identified these utilities as Construction Impacted. Although MnDOT considers these utilities as not being impacted during construction, the City has explained in past communications to MnDOT that these utilities are in fact impacted as shown below: 1. Aging Infrastructure -the majority of the existing utilities within MnDOT right of way are approximately 30 to 40+ years old. Most of the water main is cast iron pipe (CIP) and the sanitary sewer is primarily reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). These utilities are more susceptible to additional maintenance or replacement in the future. Replacement or improvements (i.e., possibility of pipe lining where appropriate)to the infrastructure should be considered. 2. Utility Location Impacts -for the most part, both the existing sanitary sewer and water main are located either beneath the frontage road, in the ditch section between the • frontage road and TH-36, or in some areas along the boulevard of the proposed new roadway. Structures and pipe will be impacted during construction of the new roadway (i.e., possible pipe damage, stresses, or failures during compaction methods). Also, any maintenance or servicing in the future will be difficult if the utilities are not relocated. 3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Updating to Current Design Standards -the infrastructure under the new roadways needs to be of durable materials and designed for a long service life with the current design standards. Future development needs should be discussed. The utilities need to be relatively free of routine maintenance and servicing due to the proximity to the highway. • - • The Gray Zone utilities have been broken down in efforts to organize and understand the associated cost and location for each segment(see conference room map): Sanitary Sewer 1) 12" RCP (West of Oakgreen)- 1991, 1982. Est. Cost-$320,000 2) 8"VCP(Oakgreen -South of TH-36)- 1982. Est. Cost--$140,000 3) 12" RCP (Oakgreen- North of TH-36& Crossing)- 1968. Est. Cost-$310,000 4) 18" RCP (East of Oakgreen)- 1968. Est. Cost- $300,000 5) 15" RCP (East of Oakgreen)- 1967. Est. Cost-$260,000 6) 18" RCP (SuperAmerica to Osgood)- 1967. Est. Cost -$450,000 7) 12" RCP (Osgood to Oxboro)- 1967. Est. Cost-$185,000 8) 9" & 8"VCP (Osgood- North of TH-36)- 1968. Est. Cost- $215,000 9) 8" CIP (East of Phil's Tara Hideaway, South of TH-36)- 1967. Est. Cost-$20,000 Water Main 10)8" CIP (Oldfield to Osgood)- 1967, under frontage road. Est. Cost $495,000 11)8" CIP (Osgood -South of TH-36)- 1969, under Osgood and recent history of water main breaks. Est. Cost $83,000 12)8" CIP (Osgood -North of TH-36)- 1968, located in boulevard east of Osgood. Est. Cost -$71,000 • • a I • q ` City of Oak park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd, N• Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,g MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 Duly 27";2012 MEMO CAVEAT_ The figures listed here are based on TO: engineering estimates and are like City Council Members however the general scope is anticipated trefined;o of FROM: correctly portray the tax impacts bas Eric Johnson, information• based on known City gdmi RE: Estimated Tax impact o AREA and 2 1 have had an opportunity � '� �Construction Impacted to discuss some cost impacts Costs rate impacts of the current! pacts with the City's that impm currently updated cost figures.Attached for information ti David Mot as to attempts to outline the tax impacts your information a short spreadsheet shat t the project to a its the pacts upon single family y PrDpert y owners should the City agree to • improvements.These improvements they will not provide assistance with addition,the provements are estimated by the so called" City is obligated to Y the City Engineer Chris Long "Grey Area" estimated the$293,000.City ob pay 20 percent of the Construction g at s whit is In elements which is Estimated Summa of C sts: Grey Area Costs Construction Impacted Costs $2'917,000 En.ineerin: Admin Le_ai MfSC $ 293,000 Total 200 000 additionsl n_in: tin ' $3,410,000* is induced in above estimates *Figures do not include issuance costs or ri g h Should the Ci t of way acquisition if needed. ty agree to accept these Costs as follows are the antic, 1. If the City were to bond finance this cost on a 10 year gated financial impacts:paw' Property with a value of is s note at 3%,the resulting impact $250,000 is estimated to g for on a 2. Alternatively,if the City a 126 qtr year for 10 would result e ,if a ty chose to fund these improvements ars. approximately a 3346 utiil prove through utility rate increases it rate increase. • • 0 ° S 8 1 "4 , �J C '"d .;;:::::74.4-;; $ ° S O_ Q eb Y > QQ f f0 _ Y4,..+ �' 4 7-' � k£ K4 yy . b � _A F9Y1 ZkE � � � 5 &u'''.0 �.ek � p� p H e pp �p $$ (� a M N M M ' r SO 8 M ,_ p p N m 0 ,i:.'';',.:',til.,,... --'-,--.e.:_[,- , - M a �_ a h a N W W W I ° I i I tt I 1. ! II�U .a, g gi. x i ;- at I ! .2 hf _�y 1 s Aft Ls g • AN G W ~ ,t- IS W v F. r TI.17.1.........m." ----4P----- Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West 4 St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651)636-4600 Fax:(651)636-1311 Stantec July 20,2012 Mr. Eric Johnson,Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 RE: Contract for Engineering Scope of Services-Utilities St. Croix River Crossing Project Dear Eric: As requested,we have provided a scope a services nuation of the 30%o Design completed on July 9,2012'ver Crossing Project.These services proved The scope provides for engineering services from Sehe 30%Design estimated through fees utility construction and completion. Please review the attached scope If the contract for engineering services is acceptable, please sign and return a duplicate copy of this letter on behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights. Please feel free to contact me at(651)604-4808 with any questions or 0 if additional information is needed. Thanks again for the opportunity to provide our services to the City of Oak Park Heights! Sincerely, STANTEC Christopher W. Long, P.E. The undersigned hereby consents to the Contract as noted above and attached to Stantec Consulting Services Inc. City of Oak Park Heights Attachments: TH 36 Engineering Scope of Services TH 36 Engineering Fees Spreadsheet 40 copy: Betty Caruso-Finance Director,Andy Kegley Public Stantec.Works Director; Mark Hanson, Kevin Hoglund, Jason Petersen, Katie Warner, Lori Bernstrom—— Engineering Scope of Services 6O%Utility Plans, Design Oversight,Construction Services St.Croix River Crossing Project City of Oak Park Heights Stantec Project No.: 193801366 S.P. 98-080-045 Project Understanding— This scope of services includes general project coordination, 60%design, design oversight, plan review, construction services, and record plans/base mapping for the City utilities associated with the St. Croix River Crossing project.The improvements are generally located along the 11-1-36 corridor from appro west of Oakgreen Avenue North to the Lookout Trail connection at TH-36ximately 1,000' It is assumed the majority of the construction services and utility installation will occur during the first construction season. Punch list items and warranty work is expected to occur in the following construction season. Proposed Tasks— Task 1—Project Coordination • Review project issues with interested parties and provide general project • Participate in meetings with the project design team to discuss project issues and coordination. • Participate in meetings with MnDOT and others to discuss project issues and coordination. • Participate in meetings with the City of Oak Park Heights on project issues and coordination. Task 2—Design(60%) Expand and continue 30%design plans in further detail. The alignment, grades,and material of the proposed utilities will be shown. Design will include quantity tabulations, cost estimate, and specifications. Task 3—Design Oversight This includes the review of the Design/Build plans provided by others. Oversight will Include review of the plans for consistency with 60% Design and verifying City standards and specifications are met. Task 4—Plan Review This includes review of the final plans prior to construction. The plan review will include review of the plans for consistency with 60%Design and verifying City standards and specifications are met. Task 5—Construction Services • Inspection • Surveying S 411 • • Testing Coordination • Construction Management Coordination • Quantity Pay Request • Pre and Post Utility Televising Review • Punch List and Warranty Work • As-built survey Task 6—Record Plans/Base Mapping This includes the recording of as-built utility information and updating of City base maps. Records of the materials, grades,elevations, and location of the utilities will be completed following the substantial completion of the work. • • . ,::Ia : w .,,,, V i MINIM s IIiIiIIIIIIIIIiIiI !ft): 8H x 1 • c 'IIihIIIIIiIa 1 HE I 1111111 III T I 111111111 111 i 8} { 59' 3 g 0 . b . " • 4-g Sg38888 ..,..,,- • ' „, i 8▪ . :- ..,:.,i, •,,, E 5 g X nR•10,. , ..,.,,.. z. g. rg :1 :',:l 1 . .09 .1 i :it • Ei 7, ., ....,, . . - .. 1 .., ,,.: „ ,., g :•;: . !• . .... • F •„;„ 4 ',•,, .::! ,::„ t.' , ,, ,..•• 2 ::' T '-4' i; a m m , ,, , , • ...,.. , . -,. .. • :1 t.t :::'. ''.:,C 2 3 .*-.",°'-g!;§ .. .. ' '• 4..‘ , • • , ,. Q,. , • , -§ • ,x , :7 .1 g n ;a_.::i r, , • 1 ,:: • —" 111 i JA :.:: ! . m m ri'•:: • ■ ■ %'. 1, ",, • , ,..,. $$$ $$$ $ §§§ § § § : glq 1 1 ,.•,, , . . .1 '":! 8 § r: :1 5 U' 1 „ , „ ..- ,15 I „ - ...., on . n , n .r. vo "•: ; 73: . 2 t•f 8 61 . ... w .9c 1= .. il• ' k ,_ - r'L •I • 0 Z. n) [ .8 'i . 1 • .7.•, a ... 2 1 m ti 11 1 -O5 ... * A c I Z o Page 13 of 14 ECKBERG42k LAMMER.S WO 0 WORM f1s AT I ttt ..+. Writer's Direct Dial: Stillwater Office: (651)351-2118 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's E-mail: (651) 439-2878 mvierling @eckberglammers.com Fax(651) 439-2923 July 20,2012 Hudson Office: 430 Second Street Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 Mr.Jon Chiglo (715) 386 3733 Fax(715)386-6456 Project Director Minnesota Department of Transportation www.eckberglammers.com 395 Jon Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 120 St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: 2012 Legislative Session—Appropriations Available,for•City or Oak Park Heights—St. Croix River Project Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Mr. Chiglo: We corresponded with you on June 14,2012 with regard to the issue above-referenced,I attach a copy of 0 the June 14th correspondence for your reference.Neither this office,nor the City of Oak Park Heights has had any response from you relative to that inquiry.I ask again that you gather the information requested, and provide a response to the correspondence forthwith. jgoirYours v t 'ark J. Vierling MJV/ndf Enclosure • [('}:ItERU;. 1.\NINIERS. BRIGGS, \\Of Fl t; \'IERLI>, ;. I'LLP Family Law; Divort e • Business and Corirnerc,al La:r • Criminal Law • Personal Injury, Wrongful Death Estate Planning Probate • Rea. Estate • Lund Us:: L:w,' • feiediaticn • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation ECKBERG ' m .„ •LAMMERS ;4Av, ATICKNIY:, AI I .A\\ Writer's Direct Dial (651)351-2118 Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Writer's Email Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Mvierling @eckberglammers.com (651)439.2 Fax(651)439.29292 3 Hudson Office: June 14, 2012 430 Second Street Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Jon Chiglo, Project Manager Fax(715) 386-6456 Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd, #120 w ^v.eckberglammers.com St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 Re: 2012 Legislative Session—Appropriations Available for the City of Oak Park Heights relative to the St. Croix Crossing Project Dear Mr. Chiglo: Since the Legislature is now adjourned and your representations to the City indicate that you are about to • provide construction drawings to the City relative to the municipal consent process,we also request that you provide to the City, a confirmation of your department's understanding as to what legislative provisions were passed that may be of benefit to the City of Oak Park Heights relative to this project in the 2012 session; specifically informing us as to the following: 1. Availability of any funds that might be made available to the City for purposes of offsetting the costs that the City may incur. 2. The eligible project costs for which the City may apply for such funds. 3. The name of the program and any process or regulations affecting applications to be filed. 4. Copies of any pertinent regulations or program requirements as it affects the utilization of those funds. 5. The degree to which those funds,as allocated by legislative act are dedicated to the City of Oak Park Heights relative to this project. The City would like to have a clear understanding as to legislative enactments that have been made in this past session,and specifically how the Department views and interprets those legislative enactments vis-a-vis the City and this project. • EC'Klif_RG. LA\tSILRS. BRIGGS. \Cot FF ti \'IERLINC;. PI I I' Family Law/Divorce . Business and Commercial Law o Criminal Law Personal Injury r Wrongful Death Estate Planning;Probate 4 Real Estate Land Use Law c Mediation Municipal Law c Civil Litigation I • Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Yours 4 Mar 4 J. Vierling Oak •. k Heights City Attorney MJV/ndf cc: Eric Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights • 0 • with7i/L reire4e ; Souocrby ivWjjor • Few 4cqvtsxr .) S�. dour ,err CtIssmo • fNNESp/9y 'Minnesota De•artment of Trans•ortation METRO DISTRICT Right of Way � Office Tel:651-234-7588 + , 1500 W. County Road B2 To,To Roseville, MN 55113 Fax:651-234-7549 • July 16, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. North, PO Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082-2007 Subject: SP: 8214-114 CS: 8214 (36=118) 905 County of Washington Parcel: 39 - City of Oak Park Heights Early Notification of Acquisition Dear Property Owner: This letter is to advise you of the impending improvement on Trunk Highway 36 in Washington Countyhe. The purpose needs of the of this public.improvement is to provide a transportation facility which will better serve t This proposed project may involve some of your property. In the near future, a representative of our office may be contacting you to explain the project in greater detail, answers questions you may have regarding the acquisition process and obtain information regarding your ownership in the corridor. In advance of our personnel contacting you, we are enclosing a brochure entitled "Guidebook for Property Owners". This booklet outlines our right of way acquisition procedures, and provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions. We sincerely appreciate your time in this important matter and look forward to contactin the near future to arrange an appointment to meet with you. If you have an 9 you in do not hesitate to contact Anthony Robey at 651-234-7588. Y questions, please Sincerely, Debra M. Anderson, P.E. District RW Engineer • An Equal Opportunity Employer ., 'M # W �Vyfr � a # ;&;1�e "'1 u - 4 , - 4' Z o*-7 ',,t 4,t_ $041-4-h ' • 00 xr ,f1457 „ W V � ' t " # ■ .k # '�- �� u l t„a ,„1*iI + ,,,,: r ! 3„„ a ,e2,,o ` .t,de 1/DOT parsk.cel NDOnT OF WAY PARCEL LAYOUT 0...°'4 :NNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )pographic information required: Proposed R/W line & access taking. Lot lines & dimenstons.�°' ' low eh arrow. Outline & location of buildings & improvements. Streets or highway frontage. C. S. 8214 (36=45 ) 905 S.P. 8214-114 COUNTY WASHINGTON PARCEL NO 39 OWNER CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Scale 1 " = 200 ft. .0. J; , - - , ----- - N • QTH36EB q. TH36 YIB ° X95----- —�,^3Bi— _— 55, 39°_ --355_ImoHilliaree Fiat• J■ G■ Ill r - �� / I' ��� ,. OH F.l,..6R•NT•.G RDv 1 txS 9 --- 411/11$\1ai �i . GREGO" i • IN I I : 'T �� 9 1! 1 �_�_ .,� _o = 1_,1 ! I I 1 < �� voi r i ° I / � •= ' Ll'- 111174;1. --� AN.° � I 1.0 - o r � * o Di Y /DRY . � I / AN 5 -E q a i, M.�— +� c, °. r //1115 �011TH FRONTAGE RD.sk /�� �� NB GRE // /• 1ir 4 :.. l 3 : -II'1�� _ PI� OW� �� V��/ '�Q,r!/ �1�:!■ l ) I BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 �. II �1 061 0 �� �T 5 \ �� 7 ON e �tK IS.5 'wir- 11 EL � S --� / ADDITION_.4 ■ , GAP Q� 20 to — .so ®P 310111 ill .10 .c\436‘ / 1. 9 . 0\ 1 U i ��— O O t) v u o ° O * 0 0 000 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ` ` ,7,,..„ ' C.S. � t �t}` ;.. Z/c/ 3G— � lC� PARCEL NO. ..,-ii d�. 0 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON JOB NO. 7-",w A7 4'//• I hereby certify to the State of Minnesota that I have examined OPINION the real estate herein records in the office of the County Recorder,Registrar of Titles,County records the title to the following described tract: re described as shown by the Auditor and County Treasurer,and as shown by said All those parts of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter i Twenty Nine(29)North (NW/<of NW'/,)of Section Four(4),Township Range Twenty(20)West,described as follows:to-wit: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest u Section Four(4); Quarter of the Northwest Quarter , O;thence South along the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter �)of Section Four(4) �W�of NW'/4)of said ( )for Five Hundred Fifty-five and Six of this description;thence continuing South along said East line for Six Hundred �W�t e NW Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest hundredths(555.62)feet to the point of beginning thence West along the South line Northwest said Northwest Quarter t Northwest and Fifty Two(652)feet to the Quarter(NW u of NW�/4)of said Section Four(4); (4)for Eight Hundred ninety-moo and Seven Tenths Twenty- Mile for Eight ht Hundred d the West lien of Section nour(4(892.7)feet to a line drawn parallel a of NW'u d edctwe Four (4)for Five arallel and Four line of Twon F Hundred Fifty(550)feet;thence East and parallel allel North and North with ctiid West line of Two Four Hundred Four(204)feet;thence North parallel with said North line of Section Four 4 Tenths(100.9)feet;thence East and parallel with said North line of Section Four(4)for Six ( )for Two and parallel with said West line of Section Four(4)for One Hundred and Nine and Five Tenths(688.5)feet to the point of beginning. Hundred Eighty-Eight • N«IVW of section 4 Township 29 North,Range 20 is at the date of this certificate in the foll is County, following named persons:(if the title is registered,note the certificate number.) REGISTERED LAND TORRENS CERTIFICATE NO. Name Nature Book and Page Date ofDocwunent of interest and/or Name of Spouse or &Recordui Date Document No. City of Oak Park Heights _ Fee if Sin le so state D:November 29, 1974 A-329760 R:December 20, 1974 During the past five years the title to said tract was in the following persons,if different from above: Name Nature Date of Document Book and Page of Interest and/or Name of Spouse or • &Recordin Date Document No. if Sin state SUBJECT ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING: £&tc,tc addresses of parties,date of nstrument date of reco d ng,document nmber,andd otherr per anent n oation;al oe numerate other defects,if any,in the title;any judgments docketed in the office of the Court Administrator that would be a lien against this crproperty should be shown here. Show docket number,date of entry and amount of judgment,names of judgment debtor and r and attorney for the creditor.) J E NT in favor of Northern States P deeds 369. Power Company,P an y,dated May 8, 1950,and filed of record on May 25, 1950,in Book 169 EASEMENT in favor of Northern States Power Company,dated March 17,1916,and filed of record on May 25,1916,in Boo 81 page 514 k EASEMENT in favor of Northern States Power Company,dated January 25, 1967,and filed of record on January 25,1967 ' Book 296 Deeds 360. ,m • I further certify that all taxes and assessments against said tracts are paid,except: P.I.D. 04.029.20.22.0002 Last Tract Entry or Certificate Memorial SIGNATURE EFFECTIVE DATE Book-of-Page Attorne or Abstracter (Per Coun Recorder's Office A-3851571 0,4 ,, March 9,2012 by:Danielle D.Holder • Q . tw1k • • o qy Minnesota RO DISTRICT De•artRight m of ent W of ay Trans•ortation MET MET O County Road B2 1) e� Roseville,MN 55113 Office Tel:651-234-7588 Fax:651-234-7549 July 16, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. North, PO Boxx 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082-2007 Subject: SP: 8214-114 CS: 8214 (36=118) 905 County of Washington Parcel: 40 - City of Oak Park Heights Early Notification of Acquisition Dear Property Owner: This letter is to advise you of the impending improvement on Trunk Highway 36 in Washi County. The purpose of this improvement is to provide a transportation facility which will bet • serve the needs of the public. tter This proposed project may involve some of your property. In the near future, a representative of our office may be contacting you to explain the project in greater detail, answers questions ou regarding may have regarding the acquisition process and obtain information re y the corridor. 9 g your ownership in In advance of our personnel contacting you, we are enclosing a brochure entitle for Property Owners". This booklet outlines our right of way acquisition procedures and provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions. entitled "Guidebook We sincerely appreciate your time in this important matter and look forward to contactin the near future to arrange an appointment to meet with you. If you have an 9 you in do not hesitate to contact Anthony Robey at 651-234-7588. Y questions, please Sincerely, aket Debra M. Anderson, P.E. District RW Engineer • An Equal Opportunity Employer jit 0 f 0 err Mn/DOT parsk.cel MIi'JNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HOONT OF WAY RUM, LAYOUT r"f# Topographic information required: Proposed R/W line & access taking. i Show north arrow. g Lot lines & dimensions. °rte►+ Outline & location of buildings & improvements. Streets or highway frontage. All. S. 8214 ( 36=45 ) 905 . P. 8214-114 COUNTY WASHINGTON OWNER CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PARCEL NO. 40 Scale 1 " = 100 ft. iffi;—8 1 Ill- Lt..... =___ 11 i SB GREELEY 54 n I\ ON..M IUM 25 WO "R H ' �N AG .Is I iiii '�-_flu v., . L �� J / NB GREFLEY •• /)* $t� PAR • .'rrrrrr _ t--- it A irikvdry A 7 'w41 .-------------------......--.. / t k 1111.4doilmitir,./. i, OWER LE I . A 4, 11111-4 iii 0 flitilie i \,,:; _,‘...701 a r- al,,4 ri.,.-ii * * * IIIM PPM?: f 4 7-741 hillVa bilielkillIrill.0 °;:i P pi � / ON B OC LINE ■ 'ter i ■ air° - 3:,-, , I AI 1 yr — a :yr lit - , 1 --114421214 I T G� ,�I 4111/10,1141 1 grard a 'k ' ' ° 9 ., k 4 , mi.\/ ' *ft 4ir- IED: 1 „:. . G.( n: iLALiftr f' m" if. 1' -■tiif7:-- ---"--'1 Ili I 1111111111111111111111111 III G • ■ . `.pm or ! II II \/ i IMI @ 1111. @ ,- -- Layout sketch by KAB Date 5/25/2012 Parcel No. 40 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION C.S. SZ/ r� fit* f ^ � PARCEL NO. 4/0 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON JOB NO. • TITLE OPINION I hereby certify to the State of Minnesota that I have examined the title to the real estate herein described as shown by the records in the office of the County Recorder,Registrar of Titles,County Auditor and County Treasurer,and as shown by said records the title to the following described tract: All those part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(NW 1/4 NW 1/4)of Section Four(4),Township Twenty-Nine(29)North,Range Twenty(20)West,described as follows,to-wit: The North Sixty-six(66)feet of the West Four Hundred Twenty-nine(429)feet of the South Five Hundred Fifty(550) feet thereof,and the South Seventy(70)feet of the North one Hundred Thirty-Six(136)feet of the East Two Hundred (200)feet of the West Four Hundred Twenty-Nine(429)feet of the South Five Hundred Fifty(550)feet thereof. • NWNW of section 4 ,Township 29 North,Range 20 Washington County, is at the date of this certificate in the following named persons:(if the title is registered,note the certificate number.) REGISTERED LAND TORRENS CERTIFICATE NO. Book and Page Nature Date of Document and/or Name of Spouse or Name of Interest &Recording Date Document No. if Single,so state City of Oak Park Heights Fee D:November 29,1974 A-329760• R:December 20, 1974 During the past five years the title to said tract was in the following persons,if different from above: Book and Page Nature Date of Document and/or Name of Spouse or Name of Interest &Recording Date Document No. if Single,so state ` 0 SUBJECT ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING:(Here enumerate encumbrances and liens of every nature,giving names and ctritAjL° addresses of parties,date of instrument,date of recording,document number,and other pertinent information;also enumerate other defects,if any,in the title;any judgments docketed in the office of the Court Administrator that would be a lien against this property should be shown here. Show docket number,date of entry and amount of judgment,names of judgment debtor and creditor and attorney for the creditor.) EAANT in favor of Northern States Power Company,dated May 8, 1950,and filed of record on May 25,1950,in Book 169 deeds 369.'i I>EASEMENT in favor of Northern States Power Company,dated March 17,1916,and filed of record on May 25, 1916,in Book 81 page 514 J • I further certify that all taxes and assessments against said tracts are paid,except: P.I.D. 04.029.20.22.0001 Last Tract Entry or Certificate Memorial SIGNATURE EFFECTIVE DATE Book-of-Page Morrie or: stracter (Per County Recorder's Office) A-3851571 d 14 March 9,2012 by:Danielle D.Holder • • \??0°Lui ---••••••' • �`""Es°1' Minnesota Department of Transportation 0 °Q METRO DISTRICT Right of Way Office Tel:651-234-7588 ``r°F y� Roseville,MN 55113 IPP July 16, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. North, PO Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082-2007 Subject: SP: 8214-114 CS: 8214 (36=118) 906 County of Washington Parcel: 19 - City of Oak Park Heights Early Notification of Acquisition Dear Property Owner: This letter is to advise you of the impending improvement on Trunk Highway 36 in Washington County. The purpose of this improvement is to provide a transportation facility which will better 0 serve the needs of the public. This proposed project may involve some of your property. In the near future, a representative of our office may be contacting you to explain the project in greater detail, answers questions you may have regarding the acquisition process and obtain information regarding your ownership in the corridor. In advance of our personnel contacting you, we are enclosing a brochure entitled "Guidebook for Property Owners". This booklet outlines our right of way acquisition procedures, and provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions. We sincerely appreciate your time in this important matter and look forward to contacting you in the near future to arrange an appointment to meet with you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Anthony Robey at 651-234-7588. Sincerely, Lk% c2 - ) Debra M. Anderson, P.E. District RW Engineer • An Equal Opportunity Employer v. A. CI . 0 R c% 6i 0 0 \ �, \ \1 ti • �`` \ E \1 \ I I \''' 1 \\A \ / , . IR I , -'\ \ f(?-* ' ..- \\ o�� \ 0 \ \ i 0,,,„, „,--, \ j. e .-•cpi. I * //Art 7rCi' _.: \� i,,,(0, , \ \ , \ , .\ I 4101 ) L--..-----r— (10\ \ :\\ \ • \ +!�' o�,�\� �1 �; ,.%,aE, .fir T * . �+C• 1 \ I \ !,. \ yu, f, \ �� -$ `,.,M ___,.007.. 07 . \ \ \;it�' t. iNt ,- --' p..- r- jji ‘-' .' 1g I .\, \ I \ ,cx,\ V ,,.,, ii, '", ,'.. -.' \ ' '7;7, * " ..-41!!!! e,,,,,,, \ V \C -' .?\ 4/k. k4)t' - Z\ X:',\,p,,-ifi'-.''' ''... \ \ \ .7 , ,,7- ,,r-r /141 sob ,1 n" , *A- woossv,\ ; \ , .__., - \\,„,-5,,J,,,,,,(3, 0., \ , .4"--(-,, c ..‘ i,), 0\.- .;, \ %. 4& 7--- $2.-1.c.6,.. 0 . 'N\ \ \\\.\\ \\ \ \ `(( FYI 7 - \\:-ka II \ I 1 110 ., , ■\f.,\ \ , \ \\ . 1X- ---1- \3. \' .\ . \t I 1 f-7\ "''s. 1 1 \ .4 ■gihl`'',,,,_ -(! ---1,), \ irk... r\:9.\\\ .`\ m o \ 11 �\ \iti \ \ \ \ \\\\\ N lit■:Cc'). ,,,_----- I A u ` 1'\, 1 I ; 1-1 -,.. -..'W•\ ' ,--- :-.-- -C \ \ /,1 1_ . .\ , ;\ \\\\ r( / ' , \ \ °44 001 = . I G I DOS SIHOI3H NHdd NVO JO AlI O H3NMO 61 ON 113OHdd NOIONI HSVM AINl03 b 1 1-k'I ZB . °d °S 906 ( Sb=9P bIZ8 °S ° •a6D4uoJL. iCDMy61y JO S4,09-4S •s4uawanoadwl '8 sbulpllnq 40 UO1+D0O1 "8 au11.n0 °MOJJD +dou " •suol suawl p ) soul ' {.o] •6u111D4 ssao0D au! I M/� Pasodoad :paalnbaa uol4Dwa4u1 olydDa6odof eMt!'oif` NOI1GA0dSNVLII JO INWNdd30 d10S3NNIW XA W � 1 3 /d iG L ILE i ao°NsaDd mum d0ao.' G�. € E MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "'` "" -4 r ,r C.S. (`(r (�I ' r3 C/6�0 PARCEL NO. / COUNTY OF WASHINGTON JOB NO. TITLE OPINION I hereby certify to the State of Minnesota that I have examined the title to the real estate herein described as shown by the records in the office of the County Recorder,Registrar of Titles,County Auditor and County Treasurer,and as shown by said records the title to the following described tract: That part of Government Lot 4,Section 34,Township 30 North,Range 20 West,Washington County,Minnesota lying East of Chicago,St.Paul,Minneapolis&Omaha Railway and Westerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at an iron on the South line of said Lot 4 and the East line of said railway;thence East(an assumed bearing)along the South line of said Lot 4,553.87 feet to an iron; thence North 31°54'28"West,859.76 feet to an iron; thence North 27°40'31"West,230 feet to an iron; thence North 63°56'16"West, 109.90 feet to an iron; thence North 29°16'06"West,360 feet to an iron; thence North 34°44'57"West,97.43 feet to an iron; thence Northwesterly along a tangential curve to the left,radius 205.58 feet,central angle of 58°50'for 211.10 feet to an iron; thence South 86°25'03"West to the West line of said railway and there terminating; Together with the South 100 feet of said Government Lot 4 lying East of the aforesaid line. EXCEPTING all that part of Lot 4,Section 34,Township 30,Range 20,described as follows,to-wit;Beginning at an iron pipe monument set at the intersection of the North line thereof with the Easterly right of way line of the Chicago, St.Paul,Minneapolis&Omaha Railway Company,and running thence Southeasterly by a deflection angle of 15°53' • from said North line 143 feet to an iron pip monument;thence Southeasterly by a deflection angle of 54°46'to the right 110 feet to an iron pipe monument;thence Westerly by a deflection angle of 103°35', 119.3 feet to an iron pipe monument set on said Easterly right of way line of said railroad;thence Northwesterly along said right of way line 165 feet to the point of beginning; AND EXCEPT that portion platted as Sunnyside on the St.Croix Apartment Ownership#12. AND ALSO EXCEPT that part platted as Condo#38 Sunnyside Condos Fourth Supplemental. Government Lot 4 of section 34 ,Township 30 North,Range 20 Washington County, is at the date of this certificate in the following named persons:(if the title is registered,note the certificate number.) REGISTERED LAND TORRENS CERTIFICATE NO. Book and Page Nature Date of Document and/or Name of Spouse or Name of Interest &Recording Date Document No. if Single,so state City of Oak Park Heights Fee D:October 14,2005 A-3549256 R:November 3,2005 During the past five years the title to said tract was in the following persons,if different from above: • Book and Page Nature Date of Document and/or Name of Spouse or Name of Interest &Recording Date Document No. if Single,so state PSUBJECT ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING:(Here enumerate encumbrances and liens of every nature,giving names and `p addresses of parties,date of instrument,date of recording,document number,and other pertinent information;also enumerate t 1 other defects,if any,in the title;any judgments docketed in the office of the Court Administrator that would be a lien against this property should be shown here. Show docket number,date of entry and amount of judgment,names of judgment debtor and creditor and attorney for the creditor.) LS and Mineral rights reserved to the State of Minnesota. Pc EASEMENT in favor of northern States Power,dated July 2,1973,and filed of record on August 28,1973,in Book 323 deeds 240. • I further certify that all taxes and assessments against said tracts are paid,except: P.I.D. 34.030.20.31.0116 Last Tract Entry or Certificate Memorial SIGNATURE EFFECTIVE DATE Book-of-Page Attorne or Abstracter (Per County Recorder's Office) A-3871219 ` �j,1 1� �. March 9,2012 by:Danielle D.Holder • • A•ti& •-•-w • • ��t1HES%%92 , O Minnesota Department of Transportation ' ' METRO DISTRICT Right of Way Office Tel:651-234-7588 1 1500 W. County Road B2 Fax:651-234-7549 ` of Roseville,MN 55113 VP July 16, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. North. PO Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082-2007 Subject: SP: 8214-114 CS: 8214 (36=118) 904 County of Washington Parcel: 263E - City of Oak Park Heights Early Notification of Acquisition Dear Property Owner: This letter is to advise you of the impending improvement on Trunk Highway 36 in Washington County. The purpose of this improvement is to provide a transportation facility which will better 4110 serve the needs of the public. This proposed project may involve some of your property. In the near future, a representative of our office may be contacting you to explain the project in greater detail, answers questions you may have regarding the acquisition process and obtain information regarding your ownership in the corridor. In advance of our personnel contacting you, we are enclosing a brochure entitled "Guidebook for Property Owners". This booklet outlines our right of way acquisition procedures, and provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions. We sincerely appreciate your time in this important matter and look forward to contacting you in the near future to arrange an appointment to meet with you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Anthony Robey at 651-234-7588. Sincerely, ia,6.,, c4.0. 24,,t,..,..e.i.,4„,6-11,) Debra M. Anderson, P.E. District RW Engineer • An Equal Opportunity Employer jit. 45 6ii 0 w .?.in/DOT parsk,ce I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �0ON�1 OF WAY PARCEL L�° �0��' ?.`""00 Topographic information required: Proposed R/W line & access taking. 4... Show north arrow. Lot lines & dimensions, Outline & location of buildings & improvements, °Fib►► • s. 8214 !36=45 ) 90q Streets or highway frontage. S. P. 8214-114 OWNER COUNTY WASHINGTON CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PARCEL NO. 263E Scale 1 " = 1 00_ft, ?Q'' '/ / N co fl/ fl„ , i/ / fl ,- ..L\ �, M1 y Q Q' -/ / 7 1 RWEASTSEUR RE _ fl i "1 Il 00. _„.., .-=vel I Illi,......01 -------' ,..I—IIIIINk,:.. Olort. I� NAMM • � fir.— tea _4/tttmmitrIIIIIIImrmwwijrillii ii cD o fl fl o —7------71111111111114111W4:17:1! °it( il ' 7 ' PAR 263E �c11�► Ii, THIS A IC. --,11 � --� r T® CH ES AS �� S RE�QU-IR 0�, N0. T 34841 'riI - I ■ PREVIOUS NOTICE _ DATE I 6 2c/ Q> \ D• /�------ /� -----_ .// /i / / /,/ L_ A, ``/ / / _ Layout sketch by KAB / / ~ Date 5/30/2012 Pnrn.. ' ni_ ____ ECKBERG LAMMERS rA), ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: Writer's Direct Dial: 1809 Northwestern Avenue (651)351-2118 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-2878 Writer's E-mail: Fax (651) 439-2923 mvierling@eckberglammers.com Hudson Office: July 11, 2012 430 Second Street Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Mr. Jon Chiglo C O p Fax (715) 386-6456 Project Director www.eckberglammers.com Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 Jon Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 120 St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: City of Oak Park Heights—St. Croix River Project Our File No.: 01501-17683 Notice of Non-Compliance Dear Mr. Chiglo: Your correspondence directed to Mr. Eric Johnson of July 2, 2012 has been reviewed by this office as City attorneys. As you know this project is governed by Minn. Stat. §161.171 through Minn. Stat. §161.177 as existed in 1995. The construction plans that you have submitted are by acknowledgement from you predicated and based on the 2005 layout plan. Also, as you know the 2005 layout plan was never submitted to the City of Oak Park Heights by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and thus was never approved,reviewed,or commented on by the City of Oak Park Heights. Under the terms of provisions of Minn. Stat. §161.177 (1995)that applies to this project it requires that the construction plan that you "submit" be construction plans which shall be in accordance with the highway construction improvement layout plan as approved by the City in 1995 under Minn. Stat. §161.174" (Please see Minn. Stat. §161.177). By your admission,the department is not doing that and thus is not complying with the requirements of Statute.We are providing you at this time the preliminary notice of the City of Oak Park Heights that we regard your submission in this matter as noncompliant with Statute. Should the City choose to proceed and provide commentary relative to your submission, that commentary shall not be deemed to have waived, released or otherwise consented to your submission and the legal non-compliance as noted above and the City reserves its rights to challenge and enforce its rights given the deficiencies in the Departments performances. ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS. WOLFF 6 VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/ Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/ Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation '411 Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling S • • Stantec Consulting Services inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651)636-4600 Fax:(651)636-1311 Sta ntec July 9, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project—30%Utility Plans Summary Stantec File No: 193801366 Dear Eric: provides as We have completed the 30%utility plans ma lane for the St. Croix River Crossing Project.This docume p a summary of the utility design.This summary references the attached plans and cost estimates which provide further details of the design. 30%Utility Design Purpose In preparation for the potential St. Croix River Crossing Pojjemphets City tand e CMy'sDOb utility infrastructure. have been invoved with • P P several meetings and discussions in regards to the potential a very lar e gap in the associated costs with the impacted several meetings purpose occurred, 30%utility was to further identify the impacted utilities, provide m p s displaying laying The purpos maps displaying the location of these utilities, and M DOT. an updated cost estimate in efforts to narrow the significant cost discrepancy between the City an d Utility Categories In order to determine responsible parties and funding,the utilities were identified(see attached plans and cost estimate)within the following four categories: Utilities cannot be This also refers be the 1. First Move—utilities identified to be relocated Alo�ov��e�areasof the city within this area boundary(shown as a purple system,including any required loops to complete efforts required to reestablish a fully functional utility the system. No costs will be the responsibility of the City. 2. Construction Impacted—utilities currently identified and the City as being impacted from fied by construction. Responsibility for these utility costs is nt known;funds houg although, discussions City n continue on potential utility funding with 80% High Priority of 3. Betterment—utilities upgraded or replaced with functionally superior facilities.All costs are the im act responsibility of the City. opinions between MnDOT and the City in regards to project P 4. Gray Zone—utilities with differing opi (refer to attached letter provided to Eric Johnson on Sep tember 9,2011, and primarily to the potential impacts primarily this zone).The "Recommendations and Comments"section which discussed the Po proposed for reconstruction.in this . R zone siibbalitydforr these utility costs adjacent to der discuss on and being s not been determined. reconstruction. Re po JD J ' StaneC Page 2 of 3 30%.Utility Plans categories as described above.Following reared in color to show the four different utility the pipe The plans were prepared is C0.01-C0.17)are the DemolitionSheets mat phi can be the utilities ilalong being utility information such as pipe size the title sheet,the next 17 shag ( Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterman utilities which removed . relocated.h fial 17 Existing C4 01-C4.17)are the segments.The time s7 with connection to the existing system.None of the removed or relocated show the new utilities with ce shown on these sheets• for the future proposed infrastructure was only sewer is shown on the plans,but the design future prop cede infrastructure with The existing reviewed part 30% possibly were e costs reviewed at all to hthe briefly reviewed as loci of the /orenot xlencted to beg significant, rr with p y nc roads may be the areas storm sewer that ties into frontage sewer impacted my be th by the MnDOT and theCas�associated rcosts nth existing NI other City- sewer will occur City. ossible impacts tY sible associated City costs). I additional design m of the er ae profpossible n di c(possible MnDOT's responsibility. project has been discussed as being as the project proceeds. Cost Estimate The attached cost estimate shows a sanitary breakdown of the q below quantities for each utility category.The table snts sewer and water main replacement/relocation costs for each total s low shows the estimated category,including indirect costs: Total Amount First / �� o�� irs_ _'°- $2,037,000 First Movv e Area $1,465,000 Construction Impacted $263,000 Betterments $2,917,000 To Zone $6,682,000 Total significant cost items: explaining some of the more sig a through the Below are additional details expl � 9 high flow of sewage i • Sanitary Sewer Cost Estimate(p. 1) o Bypass Pumping is estimated d b be bypassed and may include long runs of bypass P pe trunk sewer lines,flow will 30'45'deep) du pumps. high unit price due to the deep runs(some 30 with heavy-duty P is shown at a hig realigned in efforts to avoid the o east 24"PVC Pipe i Segments were realig still allowing for ease of City access to the new manhole structures(see east of the Moelter fly ash site.These pipe plan sheets Area,but s This pipe was realigned and connects into the MCES plan sheets C0.08 and�•hway 95. structure to the east of Highway is anticipated on Lookout Trail,as identified from record plan o Weathered Rock onF� sand county roads.MnDOT has discussed boring o Casing Pipe is required across the trunk road crossings• not requiring casing pipe for the frontage • Water Main Cost Estimate(p•2) $100,000 and will be required during the o Temporary Water Main is estimated to be$100, construction III of the new main.Service to the businesses and residents will need to be maintained. Rai IteC Page 3 of 3 S o Existing water main is cast iron pipe(CIP)in the majority of the project area,and is more susceptible to future maintenance.All cast iron pipes within the project impact areas were identified to be replaced or relocated. o Two Pressure Reducing Valves will be impacted from the First Move Area. o Casing Pipe is required across the trunk highways and county roads. MnDOT has discussed not requiring casing pipe for the frontage road crossings. • Lookout Trail Sanitary Sewer Reroute Cost Estimate(p.3) o Provides for the rerouting of sanitary sewer on Lookout Trail due to the First Move Area impact. o The proposed MnDOT Reroute was a shorter ierence wastecalculated and applied to the First Lookout Trail Reroute;therefore,the Cost Move Area(as a deduct)and Betterments(as an addition). o Lookout Trail Reroute allows for abandonment or removal of existing lift station located on the north end of Lookout Trail. • 30%Utility Design Summary(p.4) o Summarizes the total sanitary sewer,water main, and indirect costs for the four utility categories. Design Assumptions • Several design assumptions were used in developing the 30%Utility Plans. Below are some of theo sage important assumptions used in completing the design: ht of way.This concept Did not include Wac costs teodr relocation V ly in utilities ugust of 2011,with construction costs estimated at exceeding • estimate was comp - P relocation was designed to stay within MnDOT right of way for $12,000,000.The majority of the utility the 30%Utility Plans. • Storm sewer costs were not included in the 30%Design. • No utility casings were used on frontage road crossings. record plans,and MCE$ • The existing utility he inf trmation will obtained eed to through e obta obtained during future phases of design. records plans. Further • Soil boring information was obtained from records drawings from 1967.Additional borings were not available for this phase of design. If you have any questions with the 30%Utility Plans or Cost Estimate,please feel free to contact me at(651) 604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC el44444filfAr Christopher W. Long, P.E. t : 30% Utility Plans, 30% Cost Estimate, Letter to Eric Johnson — Follow up to meeting with Attachmen s MnDOT 9-9-11 copy: Andy Kegley— Public Works Director; Mark Vieriing —City Attorney; Jason Petersen, Mark Hanson, Kevin Hoglund, Katie Warner—Stantec. N g � Qf M � troll N ""� ryO�v�1 .N-i � N N N N N N N N N N M O O� .r N ® � ^ N P N ti O • L $ f� N V �a ��Wyr1 8 by dO S pQ N p .^p §. O O �Op �OPp N m �1 I, ' N N N N N N M N N N g 40 dbd W �p �p �p �p p O O O O 0 M - ry m Oh O O Cf O 1�1 � H1 r1 tp N ti O OOO Ooo Opp O m N N N N N N N N N a N N N N HF N N N I O W ZV ▪ °W ut 0 imcg 0 f W• cc• G� M Z O WY N m tai Q d ° ▪ V 1, IVtu L B N 0 N H al p e B v°fi B B N O O O p`v O O O O O N tl q N N vi 6 O g O C O C N M w w N 7 � O O O O U N V N N 0 iP „`" gffi �r N m m 'Z ! § § § § g t § F -§ g g rg s Ni § § § 1 .�J 1 wr V! N a N a s M 1O N N N N N N VF Y' 0 pr • yw YF M g 1 r 9r uO. g N w M N gi ?: t' N N N a a M e Ill r. i D A Q o O O o - p O b O p ti m $ ` 0 as N O R g M M 0 o o d v 5- g § § I § w §_ § § a Ly a § § S M N ry 1R N M H 1 S N N N N k �W W 0 F Z p O O � S M O O Q M i� p M1 O M O f�` W N �( N a U g 8 § § 6N p § 8 �S p G Q g O g Opp 11 O O Cp ti § O Y� ,,e.o m N § �§ O Z N b N O « a M N µ MN K N N w M iR N �j �afmf I �.1 1N� 3O3 ~ W O > *oocixcl § § � ,.:1 N. § Ch o m 53 Cs.1 C W Z he ^ g o c o - v n M Q u b. i o 6. G. N N N M M N M k N jq N R o. 8 M — N s s - m - $ § g m 8 r .n o .v. g O O CS M t 6t; w Q N N %N N W W z a Z 2 S S ' t.9 IV P a a a a z S < 3 1g v g f 0 z Q a o � 3 n 1 3 a > > w o • _...../ i i i to 20 ti 4 5 to ,,.. I, m N N N N N N N N N N M M N A A M $ q 8 g g / "' N "- I W t M Q` §fa § p p N O § a O § a L 4Pr S i LA ai vs rsi a h w aW W ILI S O M .-4 0 00 lA 0 0 0 IS M .-1 I— Z `" W Z Ct g C g g 7 W V N O 8 p G1 § c� $ 8 § g e°Yf g U AO in. V VI- M W d 4n- r4 MwoC It si QZ 00 a a Z IZ�1 W �� co 10 ti .H •~.1 oN-4 7 "'+ N O �-� M F" M = N v N •..; g U a d = c F • � � � a0 C W — � i+++ i_ V W ce Z 1 W 0 o W 0 vi V W a f Z W I I w Q et E a a a a y 4 M " � LI g J o a a a < Z a L- E Q kQ"" Z Z a v 6 Z� H V-I k kil o� W g N N O W 55 E E 0 5 w a f, W w W .J • f f z f 0 o o W a 6 8 ~ Q.• LU LU 0 LU oe :r 'v 0 w 0 3 O -a N M Tr 141 1C N OD 01 O-4 -4 Z • IOry Minnesota Department of Transportation . 395 John Ireland Boulevard rd jc Mail Stop 120 , Saint Paul, MN 55155 ' i July 2, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: St. Croix River Crossing Project Dear Mr. Johnson: For the city's review, here is the Construction Plan for the St Croix River Crossing Project. Miscellaneous project information is also included for the city's information. The construction plan primarily shows the design of the Minnesota approach roadways and project elements within the municipal boundaries of Oak Park Heights. This Construction Plan is as complete a set of plans as is possible that will be issued to prospective bidders this fall for construction of the Minnesota approach roadways • starting in the spring of 2013. The submitted Construction Plan consists of the following: 1. Plan, profile, typical sections and cross-sections; 2. Layout modification for UPRR bridge and treatment plant road; 3. Preliminary River Bridge Plan (general plan, elevation and cross-section information); 4. Request For Proposal (RFP) Materials - Portions of Books 1, 2, & 3; and 5. Miscellaneous Project Information; a. Subsurface Utility Engineering information —July 2010 (CD) b. Visual Quality Manual — January 2007 (CD) (Concept landscaping plans are located in VQM Ch. 2, 3 & 9) c. Visual Quality Animation —August 2011 (CD) d. Loop Trail Animation — December 2012 (CD) The submitted Construction Plan is based on the 2005 layout (MnDOT staff approval date 7-18-05). It is anticipated that the city will find that this Construction Plan has no significant differences from the layout plan the city approved in 1995. If the city determines the construction plans are not in accordance with the layout plan as approved, the city, within 60 days after receipt of the plans may request an appeal • An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 W 0 1.4 . e I.... Iiik . ' Mr. ly Eric 22012 Johnson • , Page 2 board. The make-up and powers of the appeal board are defined in Minnesota Statutes 2000, Sections 161.175, 161.176 and 161.177• Treatment Plant road has been Metropolitan Council Wastewater of the layout modification is The design c of the IVletrop out was prepared. A hard copy modified since the submittal lay city's information. The treatment plant road change is included in the cobmittcl for the city 2005 layout showed reconstruction of the Union m plan. The included in the construction p plant road bridged over the plant Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the treatment p on preliminary t plant shows no reconstruction of the UPRR d d the treatment road cos i modification sh e. Bas the UPRR at-grade, instead of on a bridg impacts to the UPRR could be work crossing it was determined that the imp significant and work done for the river bridge, context of municipal consent this modification is not avoided. Within the c is not subject to further city approval. rove the retention of upon further review, MnDOT plans to app This layout At the city's request and up a road near Omaha Avenue. the right-in right-out access to the south frontage access change will • modification is not depicted in the submitted Construction Plan but will be included in the final RFP materials put out for bid this fall. The Omaha Avenue ac be addressed in a separate letter to the city. separate cover letter, a Draft Cooperative under a see and the state Construction will also eebentoThe cooperative agreement between the city city the to state part Conde detail ci Agreem requested by etail city and state responsibilities related to work feq ,s maintenance of d agreement will detail the city's rt a maintenance will also of the construction contract. The ag The agreement tici ated sources of federal and state funds es onsibilities related to items construntdean with p the project. r p ro project costs a detail the city's share of p 1 city's cost share. that will be used to offset some of the city tion Plan submittal, please contact me If you have any questions related to this Construe or Adam Josephson. • -rely J. Chiglo,et% Project Director • St. Croix Project = y An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 It s Mr. Eric Johnson July 2, 2012 Page 3 (Receipt of Delivery) The St Croix Crossing Construction Plan and supporting material were delivered to the City of Oak Park Heights on July 2, 2012. Deliv of 11 'ction Plan acknowledged • 1/IV/ gnatu Date received £pt a 14sa1 r Cl ty 144 kf� Name and Title (please print) S An Equal Opportunity Employer ci 0 ii;; 0 , 1k -9, .. .. .,,,,.:, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Btvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 June 28t,2012 Mr.Peter Davich Design Build Roadway Manager Office of Land management—MS 678 395 John Ireland Blvd. St.Paul,MN 55155 ***ALSO VIA EMAIL: Peter.A.Davich @state.mn.us *** Dear Mr.Davich: On June 26th,2012,the City of Oak Park Heights received the enclosed letter,Notice and Order from MnDOT relating to possible utility moves/relocation as part of the St.Croix River Crossing/STH 36 project. To respond to the first question of the Notice,please provide more information about the design build contract.Secondly,at this time the City is unsure what party would be responsible for"activities in the field",however in the interim you can provide me the information until such time as a person is doidentified.My contact information is above and my email address is: eajohnson @citvofoakoarkheights.com Please note that at this time it remains unclear exactly what City utilities would be impacted by the Project and to what degree the City's direct involvement may be with day-to-day construction activities. These discussions remain in continuation with other MNDOT staff and as these hopefully coalesce around a final plan,layout and agreement upon which the City would be in a better position to respond and provide to you more information,presumably prior to the end of 2012. Finally based in information received from Mr.Chiglo and Mr.Josephson in our past meetings we understand your letter to be a"form"as of this time and it is not expected or intended that the City remove Its utilities at this time. Please let me k i owl you have any further questions • Sincer• . i EricJ•I, - City Ad 0 °strator Cc: Jon Chiglo,MNDOT Marilyn Remer,MNDOT Chris Long,Stantec Mark Vierling,City Attorney Weekly Notes • ' .0048°4.4. Minnesota Department of Transportation I Metro District � Waters Edge Building 5 Air .-------- 1500 West County Road B-2 II Roseville, MN 55113 June 22, 2012 Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: St Croix Crossing Project Dear Mr. Johnson: At the City Council work session on June 12, the Council requested i that MnDto prow de it a written request asking the city to describe the issues that the Coun input on for the project. I also want to take this opportunity to reiterate the time frame in which MnDOT intends to submit the Construction Plan and a Draft Cooperative Construction Agreement to the city. • As presented at the council work session, MnDOT urgently needs input from the city on the following four items at this time: 1) Scope of additional utility work requested by the city: as a result of the ongoing discussions with the City Engineer, I believe the city utilities directly impacted by the project, including the utilities impacted in the First Move area, are fairly well defined. The city has indicated that it desires to have additional city utility work that is not required by the project included in the project's Design-Build Construction Plan. The Council needs to direct the City Engineer to inform MnDOT exactly what additional non-project utility work the city desires to have included in the construction of the project. The city also needs to provide estimated construction costs for all city utilities that the city wants included in the project; including, utilities directly impacted, utilities in the First Move area and the desired utility work not required by the project. With this scope and cost information MnDOT can then review funding eligibility and develop a local cost share estimate for the city to review. 11. An Equal Opportunity Employer * (") A. a • 2) Bike and Pedestrian Trails: the city needs to determine what trails shown on the 2005 project layout the city wants constructed with the project. The city must understand that after the bike and pedestrian trails are constructed the city will have on-going minor maintenance responsibilities for their up-keep. If the city does not want to assume the on-going maintenance responsibilities for the trails and sidewalks, the city needs to inform MnDOT of that decision and MnDOT will remove the appropriate trails from the project. The minor trail maintenance that will be assigned to the city includes patching, plowing, sweeping, debris removal, mowing, trimming, signs and pavement markings. Major trail maintenance that will be MnDOT's responsibility will be resurfacing, seal coating or replacement of the trail. 3) Club Tara Parking Lot: the city must inform MnDOT as to what level of involvement the city will have in regards to ownership of the easement and long- term maintenance of the parking lot to be constructed just east of Club Tara. The parking lot is being constructed with the project as a historic property mitigation item to replace the parking area on the frontage road that they currently use. The parking lot is also meant to provide parking for the city's recreational facilities lo planned for the landfill cap area. MnDOT will fund and construct the lot with the project but the city needs to secure easements and maintain the lot long-term. It is understood that Xcel and the restaurant owner also have roles, but direction is needed as to what the city's role will be with the parking lot before and after construction. 4) Layout changes: the city must specify any substantive changes the city wants considered to the project layout. MnDOT is currently reviewing the city's request to retain the right-in right-out access from eastbound Hwy 36 to the south frontage road at Omaha Avenue. Any other layout changes that the city wants must be clearly articulated by the council to MnDOT for consideration. In regards to the above four items, MnDOT requests that by July 13th the council tell MnDOT when they will be able to come to final decisions on these items and if any additional information on these items is needed from MnDOT. • An Equal Opportunity Employer DI ill ' 0 \,, 0 - i r. • • 0 At the June12 council work session, we also discussed MnDOT submittals of the "Construction Plan" in early July and a "Draft Cooperative Construction Agreement" to the city later in July. MnDOT intends to submit the Construction Plan to the city on or about July 2. The Construction Plan will be as complete a set of plans as is possible which will be issued to prospective bidders this fall for construction starting in the spring 2013. It is anticipated that the city will find that the construction plan, which is based on the 2005 layout, has no significant differences from the layout plan the city approved in 1995. If the city determines the construction plans are not in accordance with the layout plan as approved, the city may request an appeal board in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 2000, Section 161.177. MnDOT intends to submit a Draft Cooperative Construction Agreement to the city by the end of July. This agreement between the city and the state will detail city and state responsibilities related to work requested by the city to be part of the construction contract. The agreement will detail the city's maintenance responsibilities related to items constructed with the project. The agreement will also detail the city's share of project costs and anticipated sources of federal and state funds that will be used to offset some of the city's cost share. 0 If you have any questions related to these items, please contact me or Jon Chiglo. Sincerely VV Adam Josephson East Area Manager • An Equal Opportunity Employer ii,1.1 O m sEs°4' Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Land Management—MS 678 T�Pay/ 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55155 June 22, 2012 Rod Eric A. Johnson 1 �1'L City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082-3007 RE: S.P. 8214-114 (T.H. 36) S.P. 8209-102 (T.H. 95) Location: On TH 36 from just west of NW Avenue to the Trail junction ith TH o9 & on TH 95 9 from just south of 10th AvenutWash Washington County Heights, Stillwater and Bayport, Dear Mr. Johnson: Numbers A design-build contract for the above-referenced d constructi 15o 20 project ect on Trunk Highway 36 and 95 is scheduled for a letting on or after This Notice and Order is to inform you that you need to contact the this Design-Build Roadway Manager to begin coordination of any relocation or adjustment performed on MnDOT will soon enter into a contract to have Subsurface l be contacted byghemrin g (SUE) p this project. When a contractor is selected, you v • ou will be required to coordinate any work with the After award of this construction contract, y Design-Build Contractor. Please contact Peter Davich, the State's Design Build R�owamMl Manager to discuss this project. You can reach him by telephone number at 651/234-7617 Peter.A.Davich @state.mn.us. please contact If you have any utility-related questions regarding the above-referenced project, p James Zigman at 651/366-4607. Sincerely, / Marilyn Remer, P.E. Utilities Engineer Enclosures: Notice and Order cc: Jon Chiglo, Design-Build Design Manager Peter Davich, Design-Build Roadway Manager Becky Parzyck, Metro Utility Coordinator Permit Office 41111 File An Equal Opportunity Employer � a S.P. 8214-114(T.H.36) S.P.8209-102(TH 95) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS • NOTICE AND ORDER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45 and Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) hereby issues this Notice and Order to the City of Oak Park Heights (Utility Owner), which, according to MnDOT's records, has certain facilities in the right of way of Trunk Highway Numbers 36 and 95. MnDOT will be constructing a Design-Build project on, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway Number 36 from just west of NW Avenue to the junction with TH 95 and on, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway Number 95 from just south of 10th Avenue to just north of Lookout Trail in the Cities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Bayport in Washington County, Minnesota. This project is currently scheduled to be let on February 15, 2013. This project will affect Utility Owner's facilities on the right of way of Trunk Highway Numbers 36 and 95 that are within the construction limits of this project. This Notice and Order requires Utility Owner to immediately begin coordination activities with MnDOT to determine the extent o f affected utility facilities pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3 and any future utility agreements. Utility Owner must follow the steps below to comply with this Notice and Order. UTILITY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES Prior to the date set to commence the project or a later date determined by MnDOT, Utility Owner must: • • Contact MnDOT's Design-Build Roadway Manager no more than 15 days after receiving this Notice and Order to obtain more information about the design-build contract and to provide the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the person who will be in charge of the relocation and adjustment work in the field; • After the contract is awarded, contact the Design-Build Contractor(DBC) to obtain specific contract time provisions and project construction staging; • Coordinate all relocation and adjustment work with the DBC; • If relocation or adjustment is required, procure the materials required to relocate or adjust Utility Owner's facilities; • Obtain an approved Utility Permit prior to starting any fieldwork related to the relocation or adjustment of Utility Owner's facilities on trunk highway right of way by submitting a completed Long Form Application for Utility Permit, Form 2525, including two copies of the "proposed" sketches to the Utilities Engineer; • Obtain the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to perform relocation or adjustment work that will be accomplished before the DBC begins construction; • Perform Utility Owner's work according to the NPDES Permit issued for this project; • Restore drainage and slopes to their original conditions and the DBC's satisfaction; • Restore all pollution control measures and devices that Utility Owner's relocation or adjustment operations disturbed; • Relocate and adjust the facilities according to MnDOT's Policy for Accommodation of Utilities on Highway Right of Way; • Obtain the DBC's written authorization to work on trunk highway right of way before beginning the relocation and adjustment work; and • S.P. 8214-114(T.H. 36) S.P.8209-102(TH 95) • Complete the relocation or adjustment of the facilities on this project by a date the • Design-Build Roadway Manager specifies in writing. Note that the completion date or dates for the relocation and adjustment of the facilities established through this Notice and Order take precedence and continue to control the Utility Owner's obligation in spite of any completion date or dates established in any Utility Permit. CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE If Utility Owner fails to comply with this Notice and Order, Utility Owner will assume all liability and save the State of Minnesota harmless from any and all claims of damage of any nature that result from that noncompliance. Also, MnDOT reserves the right to: • Take any action necessary to compel Utility Owner to comply with this Notice and Order; and • Withhold issuance of future utility permits requested for Utility Owner's benefit until Utility Owner has fulfilled the requirements of this Notice and Order. Date: June 22, 2012 Thomas K. Sorel Commissioner of Transportation By cfr Marilyn Remer., P.E. Utilities Engineer • S.P. 8214-114(T.H. 36) �` S.P. 8209-102(TH 9E) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS NOTICE AND ORDER • Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45 and Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) hereby issues this Notice and Order to the City of Oak Park Heights (Utility Owner), which, according to MnDOT's records, has certain facilities in the right of way of Trunk Highway Numbers 36 and 95. MnDOT will be constructing a Design-Build project on, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway Number 36 from just west of NW Avenue to the junction with TH 95 and on, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway Number 95 from just south of 10th Avenue to just north of Lookout Trail in the Cities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Bayport in Washington County, Minnesota. This project is currently scheduled to be let on February 15, 2013. This project will affect Utility Owner's facilities on the right of way of Trunk Highway Numbers 36 and 95 that are within the construction limits of this project. This Notice and Order requires Utility Owner to immediately begin coordination activities with MnDOT to determine the extent of affected utility facilities pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3 and any future utility agreements. Utility Owner must follow the steps below to comply with this Notice and Order. UTILITY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES Prior to the date set to commence the project or a later date determined by MnDOT, Utility Owner must: • • Contact MnDOT's Design-Build Roadway Manager no more than 15 days after receiving this Notice and Order to obtain more information about the design-build contract and to provide the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the person who will be in charge of the relocation and adjustment work in the field; • After the contract is awarded, contact the Design-Build Contractor (DBC) to obtain specific contract time provisions and project construction staging; • Coordinate all relocation and adjustment work with the DBC; • If relocation or adjustment is required, procure the materials required to relocate or adjust Utility Owner's facilities; • Obtain an approved Utility Permit prior to starting any fieldwork related to the relocation or adjustment of Utility Owner's facilities on trunk highway right of way by submitting a completed Long Form Application for Utility Permit, Form 2525, including two copies of the "proposed" sketches to the Utilities Engineer; • Obtain the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to perform relocation or adjustment work that will be accomplished before the DBC begins construction; • Perform Utility Owner's work according to the NPDES Permit issued for this project; • Restore drainage and slopes to their original conditions and the DBC's satisfaction; • Restore all pollution control measures and devices that Utility Owner's relocation or adjustment operations disturbed; • Relocate and adjust the facilities according to MnDOT's Policy for Accommodation of Utilities on Highway Right of Way; • Obtain the DBC's written authorization to work on trunk highway right of way before beginning the relocation and adjustment work; and • 0 • 1 m-:M City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 June 28th,2012 Mr. Peter Davich Design Build Roadway Manager Office of Land management—MS 678 395 John Ireland Blvd. St.Paul,MN 55155 ***ALSO VIA EMAIL: Peter.A.Davich@state.mn.us *** Dear Mr. Davich: On June 26th,2012,the City of Oak Park Heights received the enclosed letter, Notice and Order from MnDOT relating to possible utility moves/relocation as part of the St. Croix River Crossing/STH 36 project. To respond to the first question of the Notice,please provide more information about the design build contract.Secondly,at this time the City is unsure what party would be responsible for"activities in the • field", however in the interim you can provide me the information until such time as a person is identified. My contact information is above and my email address is: eajohnson @cityofoakparkheights.com Please note that at this time it remains unclear exactly what City utilities would be impacted by the Project and to what degree the City's direct involvement may be with day-to-day construction activities. These discussions remain in continuation with other MNDOT staff and as these hopefully coalesce around a final plan, layout and agreement upon which the City would be in a better position to respond and provide to you more information,presumably prior to the end of 2012. Finally based in information received from Mr.Chiglo and Mr.Josephson in our past meetings we understand your letter to be a"form"as of this time and it is not expected or intended that the City remove its utilities at this time. Please let me k ow'f you have any further questions Sincer- ':i Eric.I. - City Ad istrator CC: Jon Chiglo,MNDOT Marilyn Remer,MNDOT Chris Long,Stantec 41, Mark Vierling,City Attorney Weekly Notes fib - i' ` tea City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 June 20th,2012 Senator Amy Klobuchar Office of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar(MN) 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington,DC 20510 Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Washington Office 103 Cannon HOB Washington,DC 20515 RE: Use of$3.66 Million Allocation-St. Croix River Crossing: Dear Senator Klobuchar and Representative Bachmann, 0 With the recent enactment of legislation exempting the St.Croix River Crossing from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,the City of Oak Park Heights remains uncertain on how major utility relocation costs will be funded. At this time,the City anticipates receiving construction plans from the Minnesota Department to Transportation(MNDOT)to which the City needs to review to determine utility and other conflicts.Accordingly,the City is seeking specific clarification on this recent federal action as it relates to funding for these City utilities. Specifically,the$3.66 million dollar allocation originally passed in the 2005 Transportation Bill for Oak Park Heights' utility relocation was understood to be an`earmark' specifically designated to the City's costs;the City asks that your offices verify that these dollars remain as originally intended for the City and subject only to the 20 percent match requirements. The City also asks that you speak with MNDOT and impart upon their staff that these funds shall be made available for City utility relocation and replacement costs,without the customary HPP or other MNDOT imposed restrictions. You . istance on this matter would greatly assist the City's ability to evaluate in a timely fashion the p .ns t,, be • , •miffed to the City in the coming weeks. S' ereli c Jo son, City • J ministrator Cc: Sen.Al Franken(MN) Mr.John Chiglo,j�INDOT Weekly Notes 1/ rill.111111.1111.........-----------, - KBE �• COPV A VEERS • Stillwater Office: 0 L` 1� 1809 Northwestern Avenue ATTORNEYS AT LAW Writer's Direct Dial Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651)351-2118 (651) 439-2878 Fax(651) 439-2923 Writer's Email Mvierling @eckberglammers.com Hudson Office: 430 Second Street June 14, 2012 Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Fax(715) 386-6456 www.eckberglammers.com Jon Chiglo,Project Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Blvd,#120 St. Paul,MN 55155-1899 Session—Appropriations Available for the City of Oak Park Heights relative to Re: 2012 Legislative Project the St. Croix Crossing Pro J Dear Mr. Chiglo: nt process,that also you are about that now adjourned and your representations to the City indicate that you are about to Since the onst uation is n J legislative at • provide construction drawings n the ti n relative our department's paunderstanding as to what isegoject in you provide to the City, a confirmation Y ' 'ons were passed that may be of benefit to the City of Oak Park Heights relative provisions us as to the following: the 2012 session; specifically informing funds that might be made available to the City for purposes of 1• Availability of any offsetting the costs that the City may incur. The eligible project costs for which the City may apply for such funds. 2• lications to be 3. The name of the program and any process or regulations affecting app filed. 4. Copies of any pertinent inent regulations or program requirements as it affects the utilization of those funds. 5. The degree to which those funds, as allocated by legislative act are dedicated to the City of Oak Park Heights relative to this project. The City would like to have a clear understanding as to legislative enactments that have been made in specifically how the Department views and interprets those legislative enactments this past session,and p vis-a-vis the City and this project. • ECKBERG. LA,MMERS, BRIGGS. WOLFF 6 VIERL I Personal Injury/Wrongful Death • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Civil Litigation Estate Paw/ Divorce • Mediation • Municipal Law Estate Planning/ Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Yours - Mar.J. Vierling Oak ': k Heights City Attorney MJV/ndf cc: Eric Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights S • 4040"18\'""E$Oj+ Minnesota Department of Transportation 1 i Metro District tboFinae Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 RECEIVED Roseville, MN 55113 AM 1 1 an June 4, 2012 Eric Johnson, City Administrator _ Heights City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Omaha Ave Access Dear Mr. Johnson: The Oak Park Heights City Council passed Resolution No. 12-05-21 on May 22, 2012, urging MnDOT to reconsider its plan to close access to Trunk Highway 36 at Omaha Avenue and supporting the requests of business owners along the south frontage road that the Omaha Avenue access onto the highway from the south frontage road be kept open. The last WHEREAS clause in the resolution incorrectly states that the 1995 and 2006 • project layouts show the Omaha Avenue access remaining open. The Omaha Avenue right-in right-out access to the south frontage road is identified on the project layouts as being closed. Copies of the Omaha Ave. portion of both layouts with the word "close" clearly marked over the access point are attached. Please note that the St. Croix River Crossing layout No. 2 that the city approved by Resolution No. 95-08-39 in 1995 was dated 5-5-94. The current layout is ated 7-18-05. c( As the city has requested, MnDOT is in the process of reassessing the status of this access and will reconsider the engineering, safety, and business issues the city has raised and the city's support for retaining the access. Sincerely, 4/2,- 6t------ Adam Josephson East Area Manager • Enclosed — 1994 and 2005 layouts An Equal Opportunity Employer CI iii 0 0 • • V 1 . . P .' . ---1 H 1(7;4 M ci a., ...,,,,-., . CZ) C ' 'E O 0 1 c� n 1 ...... , U I NN • I, -.1---) -p-i o I F----• f---1 t---,. ,. CD c1 1 CT) I Q�� v cv v N w E--.-. o °' I el 0 o r1 r�1 I O >- I { `�' >-- F-- �I 1 .. • • ___ C I •> 0) 1--- F-- h-- i 0 _a p ' ,, g N . 1 �� p V I 0 ' 2 v 1 c .c coc nJ I z 1 L._ of N O = Nom. .. •'° .c • }-1 Q 1-...t H I ca- Cl7. C/7 C/7 C_) J N J i 1.•--i :l i - L- •1 • , ,r • _.�1a:: t -.V:1 1 1 I I :-i. i::: + ji I 1 1 1 4;.i„ ..: :17:1. ;__ . _l_J/ 11 'i.'it- J':. .- 1 -• LI�. 1 : 1 I ► - 1. i .:- ( 1 r , I I Ii �.� 1' , 1 I1 i 4:. _-+ ..:t .."="=.....T.:-......��.-=-,a,— �—_ I I 1: I (i �-•- 1 1 :�.- ; 1 1 I':: : 1 1. I L ' I ,nL• a I 49.1.&-.11 .1$ 1 E �1� ( f 1 ' ... r _ I ft.,:. 1 i '11151: ', I � ''j , `' I t ` J I }: ~1 \.. ,,. ....__. •• ---� 1----.. -:: 11:k.::• E...1.' =IF ...-- - -. . 1;:..- ...:• ; -. II . °: '� ': -I Q I-8 a , I , � �.. ..1 ,j..._ . I 1 . - .-:: I I `' I 4 : , m I I : : I z 0 1 • I,;I... � 1 Ta Ir _ ......- - 1 r;. i -.0_...3-. j:. ®ri i . 0 1:;- : I ' � I '7 1 I �� , ' ,, 11_ ::I. ::a,NI 1 IX • 1 1 11 - I II ^ ;'! _9 OW g i r ! .. I i r'` I• 1' A t �J .1. I 1 4'1 J `AII • 1 - 1 • ,. < . _- ° ; 1 . 4:-. . i 1•:_ 41 ffiaraeikramzas —\ 1 r7.4 ' :+ 1 . :.,,,,.7. . 1 .. . ' 1 I I Z Z > ' 4- 1 �-I O I 0 �' c° I = 0 o w~ 0 M ii L NI Q O cr w N = r (n > .> 6 Z No w I- 0 E 0 v -f- -I- 2 vi C D ,, L U U +- 0 v 0_ w F a < a 6 m w u_ > Z ° U 4- L o0 O 0 O L 4- U a I) V) co 4- m Q U a3 ° H = L 0 o_ ,.' O Z 3 -1- tb i3 z z .• E a_ Q -J w U 0 0 m + ~ I Nx w w 0 '- m -il �I Q •1 o Z Z 0 W I W 1 I I- > >' O °a I-I N W I L.°1 N o Z Wa M < �� p 1 �I �I >— '"o = O I ' �1 I I % I— w = F_= O a I I I— E— O 7 o • z NI a r-1 -] U I I Li 8 r .D Iy I O O _� ° 4- m < a ° Y o ' I N T + v I I in CO J 1- w L- N o LO W v °- A ' a - I Lu I I— I- = C 5 Q e 1 -1 NN 04 m 0, _ = C O z w a w N Z F- i z o v I— I— ° U w c n 'no c i-+ o v m Q I— w o° I z -I- } a N 0 ° 3 + i' H 70 UcL + N 0 ' ›- �I �I Z () E r oI C c 0 a C - N' Z W Q � I o 0 - j_ y N N 0 J n O QI a > t CO CO U _ CC oI L T t LE c + a_ a_ V) V LL,1 Q . Q • , _ '• 7 Jb I .i lb I i r 1 rtl 1 _ co .`! II ' P BUR n A,9,, rfl . . ' ► cll r f I \\\ 1,i_\\\ 1111\\\\ \\\\� _DX X W J n '' O J, : A i' If I c., __I _ . �1. 111 Q! 0 j A' _ �f 'a z cr_ • I O I �) Y a Z z 111 a It — •� ° ate• > > a F o o _ Q �' ~ _~ _ ! i : ( i I I I 1-�I I I I I I I I D x I J a 1, • N N 0 v z - w4 1 CU i< l 4��■ x it' ; , . .. i♦ 11:11M:13*111.11111.11:0:.�i 0 JT-BUR o - i 1 m z ,P a G 1 _J 1/1 �_ ` ,i _ 1 _�_ Al-HO I f i © R11 �' J f I ■ a+ ll i I fit I �� ( � i�l�� + x • oe 'Ifii LIJ ° 11��11 Iii w \ a, ...I • Q Z i , W III 1- w • -- -- Coo WI T z v = a 1 -,.mil / Z f • ,. k`a City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 June 1st,2012 Becky Swenson Real Estate Aide P y\ Minnesota Department of Transportation eel �1A a Metro District=Right of Way Office 1500 West County Road B2 RE: Drilling Permit—City of Oak Park Heights EDA 6180 Osgood Ave. Dear Ms. Swenson: Enclosed you will find two(2)copies of the Right of Entry Permit for the above address as you requested.Please execute and notarize both copies and return to my attention. Once received back,the City EDA will also execute and which will only then allow the work by the State. • I will mail you one original copy when completed by all parties. Please do s : emove any staples. Let e • o %ou have any questions. Eric J, on Ci dministrator Cc: Weekly Notes✓ IP • RIGHT OF ENTRY PERMIT FOR DRILLING Trunk Highway: 36 Phone: State Project: SP 8214-114 Parcel: 53 Owner Name: City of Oak Park Heights EDA(Economic Development Authority) Address: 6180 Osgood Ave.N County PID#: 33.030.20.43.0040 The undersigned is the owner of the subject property as shown on attached Exhibit A: In accordance with MN Stat. 117.041,the State of Minnesota acting by and through its Commissioner of Transportation wishes to enter upon the subject property for the following purposes and subject to specific conditions: 1. Environmental Drilling; Investigation,monitoring,testing, surveying, boring, or other similar activities necessary or appropriate to identify the existence and extent of a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance,pollutant, or contaminant. Soil Drilling; Investigation, monitoring,testing, surveying,boring, or other similar activities necessary or appropriate to perform geotechnical investigations. 3. The State or its agents shall provide copies of all results of such testing to the City EDA at the State's expense and within ninety days of such drilling or any testing being completed. 4. No trees or other substantial vegetation shall be removed without separate prior written authorization from the City EDA. 5. The undersigned hereby grants the State of Minnesota, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees the right to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of undertaking environmental surveys, inspections, investigations, soil borings, drilling of monitoring wells and other environmental testing. If the property owner refuses to consent to the entry,the State will apply to the court for an order authorizing the entry and removal of drilling samples from parcels in accordance with MN Stat. 117.041. 6. The State of Minnesota will do no unnecessary damage to the subject property and will restore, the subject property to substantially the same condition in which it was found. 7. The undersigned (and the State agrees with)understands that by signing the Right of Entry Permit they do not relinquish any of their rights during any possible land acquisition process. • • 41) 8. Unless expressly approved by the City EDA in a separate written agreement, once any work commences on the site, all testing or other work shall be completed within ninety days and this permit shall be void thereafter. 9. The City EDA reserves the right to void this permit at any time for good cause as determined by the City EDA. 10. This Right of Entry Permit is effective immediately and will terminate on 7/25/2013. 11. Upon the written request of the City EDA and for any reason, any monitoring wells or other fixtures installed by the State under this permit will be properly removed by the State within sixty days at the State's expense. Date Owner—EDA Chairperson City EDA of Oak Park Heights -EDA Notary for the City EDA—Chairperson • Date Date: Signature of State of Minnesota Representative Clearly print Name and Title for Above Signature Notary for the State of Minnesota Date S 'saioeJnooew Fue loj algisuodsal iou Sr r(lunoo uol6uiyseM-Apo sasodjnd II aouaJa;al Jo4 pasn 09 pploys 6uimUJp ayl'Sa3!ijo/qunoo uol6uiyseM snouen is Jeadde 9019 se spJoow puel 4o ii uogonpoJdai pue uosepdwoo ayi;o pnsaJ a si 6wmerp silly 1N31A111O00 1VD31 V 10N r if AlNO 30N32i3332j HO3 dWJ Alurnoj uo.. uxtisum 3AV 4000S0 08 L9 uogeao1 OV00£bOZO£0££ al4Jadoad uol;ewJo;uladoud Y# t Zvt 0,-,4at y._ ao }2 ' 1 .X " ,+r " .�'. r.. 1' ? ' I `#'q c.r • Z 4 £b.9 *- °y I watetrt 9. „' „ P . .....,. 4 .' ! f� ... # , e . ' X$„ .a WA t y 7 +l 1 w, ■ k '.e •• A #1 w " G #_ OZ ,. 4, } r # Og 0 s _ ,,,� . _e � • 0 ., , a V R 1P AYR a ^ 4 Y/ Q i. ,,,,, , .4, ;" . '44';' '4--.„*.t. 1,4410^ ' ,-. .,. .': " •''. 1/4W •.1- - 4,7. '''''.71';''-':1 ' -4,7' t-' ' :!.' :' : .',i'.., '10`...,,- *'. ,L,, , !iv .,, 4Ir* 4 ' #r 1 R t i �•4 n r a, 207.9 " � . L'^;;./.171.- 1M1�w w .- 4. -7 . ry o+ m r N 4 LOZ9 r � ,i" -X s * - *gaga A LOLbL rt 1'3 • ° r £b94L to 999.171." " r!: , L69bL w 699bL {, •. w 6SLbL _ # III . 'T ` NW `Aiuno3 uo16uiyseM ? OIL /t7 NW `Aiuno3 uoi6uiysee Eric Johnson Swenson, Rebecca(DOT) <rebecca.swenson @state.mn.us From: Wednesday,May 16,Z012 8:48 AM SP 82817 19; Parcel 53 6180 Osgood Ave Sent: Eric Jo.Croix g g for_DdlAve To: FW:St.Croix River bridge project of Oak Park Heights Ri ht of Entry_ Subject: Drilling Handout.pdf; 53 City Attachments: 4-04-12.DOC; 53.pdf Good morning Mr.Johnson: I'm permit that I sent to you last week. As I stated you have any questions about the p ermit,handout, and a map of below,connecting ecare with you to check if y possible. I have attached the p to get these permits signed as soon as p below,we are trying g you misplaced these items. the parcel in question in case y Thanks and I hope you have a great day. 'ecl SOH Real Estate Aide ortation Minnesota Department of TrannSP e Metro District- Right of Way 1500 West County Road B2 MN 55113-3174 'oseville, hone: 651.2 754998 Fax: 651.234 From: Swenson, Rebecca(DOT) Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:01 AM To: 'ed]oen�an(DOT)Cof� arkheights.com 82817-19; Parcel 53 - 6180 Osgood Ave Cc: Kinney, SP Subject: St. Croix River bridge project Mr.Johnson: Geotechnical, Good Morning permit for soil drilling; drilling,however,the Right of Entry is in determining who has the property may no require all threne or any red prior w to the final plans and further My interest ro ertY y must be conducted P permit is requested and to allot Foundation. Your g if necessary. The drilling ducte your property. We need the signed permits as soon as possible. you could permit is requested to allow for drilling contacts regarding Y orm for the parcel that would require authorized n this signature.it If yo c very I have attached a form t Right r petri Permit form give me a local contact that I could direct this form to the proper individuals or g much appreciated. oy contact information is below. lease feel free to call/email. Thank you for your time and my quest+o ns please 'ecav SK Real Estate Aide Transportation Minnesota Department of Tr nspo Metro District- Right of WaY Office 51500 West County Road B2 Rosevillg�M 55113-3174 598 Phone. Fax: 651.234-7549 yourself, Love yourself—accept Yourself—forgive yourself—and be good to because without you the rest of us are without a source of many wonderful things."-Leo Buscaglia I S 2 r • . , ,, _ . v, • -. .., ,, ,... of Oak Park Heights City •Phone(651) 439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 May 29th,2012 TO: Mr.John Chiglo,MNDOT Mr.Adam Josephson,MNDOT FROM: Eric Johnson,City Adminis •/ RE: Omaha Ave Access from STH 3; —Council Resolution 12-05-21 Gentlemen, 2012 that a at advocates e roadway a vo the turn-off at Enclosed you will find a gthelacces w passed by the City Council on May ay to from 5TH 36 to the south frontag position for maintaining Omaha Ave. for such position. The Resolution does provide detailed points and reasoning Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you CC: Weekly Notes U 9 1.,;.1)V L V x 1,111 i.V. r .. .' 2/ CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS . .� WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA G A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE REQUEST OF BUSINESS OWNERS GAA 36 HIGHWAY 36 TO KEEP THE OMAHA AVENUE ACCESS TO TRUNK OPEN of Oak Park Heights 36 and nai rcoiewed with thbm • oymers along the south frontage road of Trunk High y Transportation of the Omaha concerns over the potential closing by the Minnesota Department of and off to Highway 36;and, Avenue access on 36 and Oakgreen and Trunk WHEREAS,existing at-grade intersections at Highway unk Highway 36 at Osgood are inadequate for traffic volumes and movements that now are and Tr in both of those locations;and, revision, and redesign of both of WHEREAS,tentative plans for the construction, 3n, and redesign will not both alleviate the intersections at Trunk Highway 36/Oakgreen and Trunk Highway the traffic congestion at those locations;and, 36 acts an additional WHEREAS,the Omaha Avenue access at Trunk Highway way 36 n'at Omaha opportunity to facilitate reasonable traffic movements on and off Trunk ad PP° traffic volumes and press on the south frontage Avenue,relieving Trunk Highway 36 has been in WHEREAS,the Omaha Avenue access exit from Trunk place and utilized by the traveling public in the area for over 40 years;and, has a high concentration of fast food, WHEREAS, the south frontag e road significant traffic and vehicular movements; convenience,and other retail operations that generate and, act will`occur to WHEREAS, it is probable that detrimental economic imp depend on the access at the Omaha Avenue and exit onto businesses along Trunk Highway 36 that depe Trunk Highway 36,should that be closed;and, there does not apps WHEREAS,other than for engineering design considerations, reason to close or modify the access and exit off of Trunk • ublic safety police department has experienced few,if any serious to be any compelling P Highway 36 at Omaha Avenue,as the-city P ���injuries at that site in decades; traffic accidents,and has experienced no fatalities or serious p and, WHEREAS,the use of the Omaha Highway 36 along the s point Tong the north frontage nroad Avenue access to Trunk south frontage road is substantially different than the access po serving those businesses.; 2006 plans the Omaha was to remain open. WHEREAS both 1995 and P for the City of NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council Oak Park Heights as follows: esota Department of 1 That the City Council does urge the Minn Trunk Hint of design,and engineering for the proposed Transportation v to reconsider Cro ng project Planning' Avenue access as there does not appear ro ect as it affects the Omaha substantial opportunities for detrimental to be Croix River Crossing p ) and there are ppnrtu for inconvenience detrimental al impact pa a tobu business proper to wore the access, impact to business property'owners at that location,and substantial e Omaha Avenue access at Think to public which would result from hthe cOclloo�Av of t e access onto Trunk Highway 36 be the haveling P Council supports that Highway 36. The City kept open. 22^d day of Council for the City40 o Park H, 1 as passed by the City ``jMay,2012. ' , , ik David Beaudet>Mayor. A 4Eric John o r;,., e A ;,,; a,nr Go1X Gross 00,4 6C°48, Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1 I 0 ipil Department of Transportation " Northwest Region oa "°t4yo Minnesota Dep 718 W ClRegio nt Avenue Mai►Stop 120 rd Eau Claire,W► 54701 �� 395 John Ireland Bouleva OFT"°�� Saint Paul,MN 55155 May 4,2012 City of Stillwater 1494 Washington County 216 Fourth Street North 14949 62"d Street North Stillwater,Stillwater,MN 55082 City of Bayport City of Oak Park Heights Bayport of B City Hall 294 North City a 003et P. 0. Oak0a7k Boulevard N. Bayport,MN Oak k Box Heights, MN 55082 Oak Park Heights, Tim Ramberg • Dan Gavin St. Croix County Highway Commissioner Chair,Town of St.Joseph g20 Third Street 1337 County Road V p,0. Box 108 Hudson,WI 54016 Hammond,WI 54015 Re:St. Croix River Crossing Schedule County Commissioner,Mayor or City Councilmember: moved Dear Co Y legislation,has quickly Project,with the passage of the federal leg with each of the Proj We are committed to working your staff through The St. Croix River Crossing phase. with you and y lemenas partners and construction p closely into the imp part of this process we have been and will and County as partners and look forward to working i ated impacts and work to Cities project. As a p the successful nu to meet re i e this p j d your work to possible. A business liaison has been established to with residents and businesses to communicate antic continue to meet w greatest extent posse update you a Y minimize those impacts to the g This letter is to up enhance this communication and coordination thisoproJ�• on the accelerated project sched • An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing Schedule May 4,2012 Page 2 Proposed Schedule: • Spring 2012: Issue "Notice and Orders" owners n of river of Load r Testing contract to verify foundation design to all • Spring 2012 (Late May): Start o bridge approach Design- summer of 2012: Submit"Construction Pns"to each city the MN app •• Early Request for Qualifications Late summer of 2012: Issue Req qualified DB teams for MN approach Build (DB) Contract Proposals (RFP)to q • Early fall of 2012: Issue Request for Prop • Early in of 2013:Award contract for the MN approach to the selected DB Team of 2013: Start reconstruction of the Mans ruction contractpp • Spring of river bridge con• struction of 2013: Project Letting of the MN approach • Fall 2014:Substantial completion o approach • Spring bridges open to traffic) of the project of 16: Substantial Start ti work p et on (roadways and b idg other Wisconsin • Fall of 2016: Substantial comp) Landscaping, Lift Bridge Conversion Project,• 2017: Final Project completion, • is reliminary and will be refined as we move forward. Note:the schedule at this point p a "Design Build" delivery method for the Minnesota early this summer approach roach rod above,the MnDOT tr ctl n Plans" mm roadways. The "Construction Plans" will be submitted be submitted to prospective tin for approach roadway plan and documents and will be in will be complete,with the p 0 Washington County will easy to follow and in accordance with 2007 District Court ruling they will and the MN Y Oak Park Heights and the MN Statute 161.166 for Stillwater and Bayport. also receive a package for their use. If you have any questions, please contact Jon Chiglo at 651/366-4826 or Dave Solberg at 715/833-5366. • Sincerely, D•psomy P.E. David Solberg, i to P. WvD S Project Manager—St. Croix Crossing Jon h g — Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transp MnDOT Project Director of Transportation g Minnesota Department o Representative Lohmer Cc: Senator Lillie Scott McBride Senator Vandeveer Commissioner Sorel • Stantec 2335 Highway Consulti36 W eng Services st Inc. 4,,,---_ St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651)636-4600 Fax:(651)636-1311 Stantec March 13, 2012 Mr. Eric Johnson,Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: State Aid Road Status Dear Eric: g were added to receive State Aid funds for local street improvements. The City has requested a short analysis on the impacts to Oak Park Heights if t ey the State Aid system, or therefore eligible to used for o ld be bet purposes. The a If nd the 200 were to receive State Aid funds, it is estimated the amount would be between $150,000 and$200,000 annually, in which 25% of that amount vements on State Aid designated streets,i cluded State Aid funds can only be used for local road imp not for sanitary sewer and water main improvements. Storm sewer improvements may • on contributing storm water flows. population and the "needs" of the State Aid the cit o ula For example,Aid des funding amount received is determined by city p P higher "need" than a newer section of designated streets. The "needs" are based onwould show a condition of the roadway. d 9 an older roadway with a deteriorating section roadway. ntl has approximately 21 miles of local streets. Only 20%g other cities with similar total The City currently estimate. local street mileage can be designated as State Aid roads. population and street mileage,the above funding amount seems to be an appropriate can received in Upon the City being approved for State Aid status,re reviewed distribution nnulallyof funding P January of 2013.The funding amount and n any further questions regarding this matter please contact me at(651)604-4808. If you have y Sincerely, STANTEC �• // Christopher W. Long, P.E. odepending copy: Mark Hanson, Kevin Hoglund—Stantec. * 410jam -y4* of Oak Park Heights City 7•Oak Park Bei r I ts,MN 55082•Phone 651 439.4439•Fax 651 439-0574 14168 Oak Park Blvd N•Box 200 February 28th,2012 Mr.Adam Josephson MNDOT-East Area Metro Maier 1500 W.County Road B=2 Waters edge Building Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Summary Communication—Three Meeting Sessions Dear Mr.Josephson, in a three-meeting Recently,the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights engaged d several MNDOT officials to discuss elements of the St. discussion with area legislators and �upon the City. Croix River Crossing and its cost impac the City Council • ves throughout the discussions,the City provide was a direct exchange of perspectives While there as being achieved during not course of _ ssion"format.Because of this work session format,the City met in a"work-session" work se be memorialized any formal commitments and none shall those meetings. of preparing and organizing these meetings. 9efo0T0Tt5 Y rely Cc: ity Council Members M.Vierling,City Attorney Beth Bartz,SRF • Eric Johnson state.mn.us] Josephson,Adam(DOT)[adam.josephson@ From: Thursday,February 09,2012 3:52 PM Sent: Eric Johnson Clarkowski,Todd(DOT) °b]ect: McBride,Scott(DOT); 30%utility plan engineering I discussed issue with FHWA and the concerns about the NPS prohibition on other federal agencies not being able to authorize construction. preliminary It looks like we can put an agreement in place for preliminary engineering and FHWA can authorize p engineering. The key that it is for preliminary engineering. I would suggest the following; a for preliminary engineering 0 00a or to c cover 80%,city to engineering ring match)—or if desired we can go to Council allow budget to work with MnDOT 0 work scope on a budget amount,suggest $30K MnDOT will draft an agreement for agreement r city review r r evi are OK, parties sign agreement Once acceptable work scope will want reimbursed until after the agreement isexecuted,billed cost)would bill you wl clty for costs can be incurred that reimbursement cost,city would request reimbursement from MnDOT,MnDOT would reimburse c D� O _ ` poC'" U .,, 3 = c/1° ° ° ---- ,�in, 000 X , 2' .........311.1*51% Cep/ X 640 i f 44 _ . Ait. /tic Petic„ AP ) 1) C 5r•-el t 4-41r. Vr I) 640640,0( awNthsolts ? (morioN . 841"1 hAte 4 Ate 2") \ ( r,viv Pai ail - wid4 i A y/t/? 474°A4At. A iefe °I O At tv1-4411) ilk *I 44 1411d • ) frtr, A 4 VI-. GA A h'":41*4'9 I' ' getosu it) rl } 1 tise-E 01+ ? <Nhf pt�J • s � f s r City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N.Box 2007• Oak Park Hei,hts,MN 55082•Phone 651 439-4439•Fax 651 439-0574 February 10th,2012 TO: Adam Josephson, P.E. FROM: Eric Johnson, City Admini r RE: Additional Utility Study$30,0 0— HPP FUNDING/EMAIL Dear Adam, At this time with the commitment of HPP Council has agreed to funding to cover 80 percent of such costs,the City participate in some additional investigations to better define cost and impacts to the City utilities—the 30%stud • send to me as soon as possible a Y you indicated in your email,as attached,please draft of the "agreement"and nd"work scope". , The City would like to pursue the$30,000 study figure for which the City has co requisite 20 percent($6,000.00)for which the balance would be ultimatell mmitted the via re-imbursement to the City. Y Pad by HPP funding Thank you • I Eric Johnson From: Josephson,Adam DO I nt. (DOT)[adam.josephson(a3state.mn.usj Thursday,February 09,2012 3:52 PM Eric Johnson McBride,Scott(DOT);Clarkowski,Todd(DOT) Subject: 30%utility plan engineering I discussed issue with FHWA and the concerns about the NPS prohibition on other federal agencies not being able to authorize construction. It looks like we can put an agreement in place for preliminary engineering and FHWA can authorize preliminary engineering. The key that it is for preliminary engineering. I would suggest the following; Council allow Chris to work with MnDOT on a work scope for preliminary engineering Decide on a budget amount,suggest$20,000(HPP to cover 80%,city to provide 20%match)—or if desired we can go to $30K MnDOT will draft an agreement for city review Once acceptable work scope and agreement are OK,parties sign agreement Note:no costs can be incurred that you will want reimbursed until after the agreement is executed,Stantec would bill city for cost,city would request reimbursement from MnDOT, MnDOT would reimburse city 80%of billed cost). all 411 1 yy}5;t!O AO!,ftgF1E. Kathy Lohmer yQ,'y�� Ted Lillie House of Representatives 'a ,'; Minnesota Senate • District 56A ' *, District 56 it it, toys Y� llfs`, February 6, 2012 Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: St. Croix River Crossing Local Cost Recovery Mr. Johnson: 'hank you for contacting our offices regarding the City of Oak Park Heights' financial participation in the construction of the new St. Croix River crossing. We appreciate the City's interest in maintaining an open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders regarding the future of this critical state and local transportation asset. We are equally committed to ensuring city and state tax dollars are applied in a fair and consistent manner to fully leverage the federal funds necessary to complete this project. In your letter dated January 12, 2012, you understandably reiterated that a "worst case figure of $20 million" is an unfeasible financial obligation for the city. While there was discussion at the last meeting that the City's recommendation that state bonding dollars should be sought to offset or defray a portion of these costs, further exploration of the issue demonstrates there is limited opportunity in this area. As listed P PP in the City's Summary of Total Anticipated Costs, there is $5,634,984 in "delayed — long-term costs," including signalization, trail, and ponding maintenance. Depending on the nature of these requests, we have been informed by legislative staff that bond council guidance to the Office of Minnesota Management and Budget(MMB)prevents the use of state general obligation bond proceeds for repair and maintenance operations. Another area of discussion is the anticipated betterments sought during the completion of the project. In communication with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the state estimates the City's ultimate responsibility for costs directly related to the St. Croix River crossing alignment to total $859,999, Although we are generally wary of borrowing for more government spending, we understand the importance of this river crossing to residents and businesses in your city and the State of Minnesota. As such, we would be willing to advocate for legislation during the 2012 Session that authorizes $1 Ilion in state general obligation bonds to cover the City's anticipated direct costs. State Office Building. 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.St.Paul.Minnesota 55155-1298 FAX:(651)296-8803 PHONE:(651)296-9471 4 gain, thank you for contacting us regarding the city's perspective on transportation infrastructure nvestment. We are confident the City shares our interest in properly vetting and addressing any of the local, state, and federal obstacles to this project. With the recent unanimous approval of this project by the U.S. Senate,we are hopeful this long-anticipated crossing will become a reality in the very near future. We strongly encourage the City to continue to explore available options for engineering and fmancing of this project with MnDOT. Kathy Lohmer Ted Lillie State Representative Minnesota Senate District 56A District 56 • • State Office Building, 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd,St.Paul,Minnesota 55155-1298 FAX:(651)296-8803 PHONE:(651)296-9471 �R Oak Park Heights/ MnDOT Project Cost Discussi • on Areas February 8, 2012 The following summarizes the cost discussion areas shown in the Meeting#2 matrix and further defines areas to address those costs. There is no offer or decisions made or inferr ed at this time. This is for discussion purposes only and meant to continue to work towards a The city has defined the following three general cost areas in th possible agreement. Estimated Cost Impacts to the City eir"St Croix River Crossing Project— ty of Oak Park Heights-November 2011." Further information is summarized below related to each area. A fourth area Potential Funds Areas s is also discussed. a. Utility Relocations and Reconstruction—a utility layout that shows likely to be impacted by the project is being own existing city utilities and provided to the city. "First Move" g prepared by MnDOT and will be required from the city on how the city wants to adjust tsutilities he la out. betterments the city y Direction is ty plans. High Priority Program (I-1PP)funds are available to offset utility eligible city utility costs and the use of HPP funds should be maximized the Metro 80%of • b. Signalization Costs— zed to the extent etro Division is pursuing an exception to MnDOT cost policy to the 20%match requirement for the HPP funds that are planned to b e used for the local project costs in the traffic signals. With the use of HPP funds and y o approved)the city up-front costs in the traffic signals will be eliminated.the exception(if c. Stormwater Treatment—an exception to the MnDOT cost provide the 20%match requirement for the HPP funds that t are planned previously to e offset local p costs in the Stormwater ponds. With the granted to exception local costs project c c for the stormwater to be allocated nthe c s use of HPP funds and the cost ponds has been eliminated. d. Street Lighting—Street lighting is currently those costs are accounted for in the signal estimate.proposed additional the signalized li ihting is ions and proposed or has been requested by the city. additional street lighting is 2. Dela ed—Ion:-term costs—Twent Year Horizon for Maintenance has provided the city with a good faith cost estimate that ce outlines the expected to have project costs. Maintenance costs are not accounted in the areas the city is est acknowledged that the city would be taking on additional costs for maintenance of items related It is the project that city budgets do not account for and th costs incurred relate to ownership and/or maintenance place additional bu den on the cityelated to • Hance(minor and major)responsibilities for that Page 1 of 3 following project features: 60th St(south frontage road), Lookout Trail,Club Terra/city park parking • area,trails/sidewalks,traffic signals, lighting,stormwater ponds,storm sewer, landscaping and turf. a. Minor and Major maintenance—in order to substantially reduce city maintenance costs, in particular long-term liability cost concerns by the city,MnDOT proposes that the state be responsible for most major maintenance activities and the city some minor maintenance activities. b. Stormwater ponds—State proposes to retain ownership of ponds and all major and minor maintenance responsibilities for these drainage features. City future cost liability may occur c if city actions contribute to degradation of feature. c. Storm sewer—Ownership and maintenance of a roadways storm sewer system will go with the ownership of the roadway. Example 60th St(south frontage road)while MnDOT owns state will be responsible for maintenance, if/when roadway becomes city owned the city would be responsible for maintenance. There may be some storm sewer runs that are rebuilt with the project to perpetuate existing city drainage that would remain in city ownership. d. Vegetation-Ownership and maintenance of vegetation will generally go with the ownership of the roadway. MnDOT mows 1-2 times per year, if the city desires to mow some areas more frequently the city could take on additional responsibilities through a permit process. e. Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction—MnDOT will construction trails and sidewalks with • the project. MnDOT proposes to retain ownership of the trail and major maintenance responsibility and that the city conduct minor maintenance. Major non-routine maintenance(resurfacing and seal coating)conducted by the state. Minor routine maintenance(plowing,sweeping,debris removal, mowing, patching,signage, pavement markings)conducted by the city. If minor trail/walk costs are still too high, it is suggested that the trail or walkway not be constructed or reduced in scope. f. Traffic Signals—city currently has minor maintenance responsibilities for the Oakgreen/36 signal. Those costs may be reduced with newer, more efficient equipment when it is replaced. Statewide policy is for the city to have minor maintenance(power, maintain luminaires, relamping,and cleaning and painting as required)and the state conducts major maintenance (all other signal maintenance activities). g. 60th St and Lookout Trail-To continue to defray local maintenance costs on these items, MnDOT proposes to retain ownership of these non-trunk highway roadways: 60th St(south frontage road)and Lookout Trail(former TH 212) until the city Is eligible for State Aid funds (city population above 5000)at which time the city and state will re-engage in turn-back discussions. h. Club Terra/city park parking area—MnDOT is funding the construction of a parking lot near Club Terra as a Section 106(historic properties) mitigation item. Discussion to date has Xcei owning the underling property,city having an easement for the parking facility,and the owner of Club Terra having some maintenance responsibilities. • Page 2 of 3 4 3. Direct Incurred costs to date 410 These costs relate to the homes removed in the lower village area in the mid 1990's and potential loss tax base if the city decides to relocate city utilities into new utility easements. There is no mechanism defined in statute that allows the state to"compensate,"or for that matter,"charge"a city for increased or decreased tax value due to a construction project. 4. Potential Funding Sources a. High Priority Program funds(HPP)—HPP funds were provided in SAFETEA-LU for the project to offset eligible project costs,including city utilities. Their use is subject to eligibility and available amounts. HPP funds provide more flexibility to cover local costs that are not available with traditional state and federal transportation funding sources. Changing the federal/local match requirement from 80/20 to 100/0 would require federal legislation. b. Transportation Revolving Loan Funds(TRLF)—this loan program is provided for in state statute to assist with funding public transportation projects. The TRLF program provides low interest loans for up to 30 years. c. Local Road Improvement Program(LRIP)—There are three sub accounts under this program the Trunk Highway Corridor Project Account, Routes of Regional Significance Account and the Rural Road Safety Account. Of the three accounts,only the Trunk Highway Corridor Account appears to be a viable mechanism to address local costs. However,this sub-account does not currently have available funds in it for loan or grant. d. State Bonding—State bonding is for capital expenditures,maintenance costs and lost tax revenue are not eligible for bonding. e. State Aid City Exemption—redefining the state aid population threshold or adding the City of Oak Park Heights into the State Aid System without them meeting the state aid population requirements would require a legislative change to MN Statute 162—State Aid Road Systems, Page 3 of 3 • Resolution No. 12-01-08 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION QUESTIONING THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR UTILITY RELOCATION WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware of efforts that have been made to advance Federal legislation to allow the St. Croix River Crossing project to proceed; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that the project will 2...._ impact the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems within the city; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS may be asked to participate in terms of cost sharing, for the necessary improvements as part of State Trunk Highways 95 & 36 improvements that are associated with the project;and, WHEREAS THE CI I - ' < ? ' - GHTS made extensive and proactive efforts to communicate wit -a eral and State Legislator o specifically allocate funding to 41(...,, ( ensure that the residents and businesses o •S. 'ar Heights do not pay a disproportional `� share of the costs for this regional transportation project compared to those who will benefit from this interstate project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF 0• ' ,_P__ - tensive and proactive efforts to communicate with the • esota Department of Transportati a to specifically allocate funding to ensure that the rest,en s an• $ lies - . I.a 'ark Heights do not pay a disproportional share of the costs for this regional transportation project compared to those who will benefit from this interstate project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that to date, neither the Minnesota Department of Transportation nor the Minnesota State Legislature have identified (7- \ or authored a bill to fund the approximately$20 million cost impact to the City for water, _.y osanitary sewer storm sewer,signalization,frontage road impacts, and Minnesota Department Transportation owned and City maintained infrastructure for the project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware ,• - • •to 1134 as amended further complicates the City's utility relocation problem I' ectt ii $3.66 million (___ in federal transportation funding that was committed to offsetting the��"="-elocating existing water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer utilities in the 2005 A FETEA-LU transportation authorization; and, .i `,ti e 0-41-cyr ,,,,ti) 6, t _„„,, kv- Qo s • WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS has yet to grant municipal consent for the project and if the maximum impacts to the water,sanitary sewer and storm sewe ll l on wquire ti ann 1 property utility were tax to increase falfu y for the next the 10 years residents of to the most City City it homeowners an and bmated usiness$443 to er the such costs; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that no official communication exists between the City of Oak Park Heights and our Federal Representatives to the impacts of the proposed amendment to S-1134. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the City of Oak Park Heights requests that Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Representative Bachmann provide a clear response as to the availability to the City of the$3.66 million dollars in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU for utility relocation grant as amended and passed in the United States Senate on January 23,2012 in S- 1134, as in the form of Congressional Budget Office analysis; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as the fiscal agent for Federal Transportation funds,the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall provide clear response as to the availability to the City of the$3.66 million dollars in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU for utility relocation grant as amended and passed in the United States Senate January 23,in S-1134. • Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park I': is e.y of January,f 0 . ,/f( 1 tili 7/ /40/ D. '• kA . or i iP Øoc /1 q �� 2 Ali 2�7�Z ri.,Jo s: ., City Administrator 2 vas— Cc ,Svc o wwv� V-tf._� r /Vt/vo 7— III L� 1-1PP ��1 � CunKI'� y id— r-- A en/1 a74"111' d2e 14 6 0- .t,4-- 194_ CPA- e C-6° 1'l - • Eric Johnson Eric Johnson aol com;'Swenson,Mark';Mike Runk From: Tuesday,January 31,2012 2:49 PMMarymccomber@ tint: Tuesday,y,Jan t';'Les Abrahamson';' df;Email 'Mark Vierling' Agenda Item to seek clarification-post Senate Bill 1134.p SSt Croix River Crossing- g e 1134.pdf Subject: Following Senate Bill Passage Attachments: Resolution from Josephson BHPP Funding 3.66 million funding availability Atta from Adam Josef 1/31/12 Mayor and Council Members: For this evenings meeting I want to bring you up to speed on a issues relating to the recent Senate action and possible elimination of the funding by the Senate for$3.66 million- HPP dollars: consider regarding the$3.66 Million HPP Mayor beaudet has supplied a Resolution he would like the council to con 1. Ma y clarity about its availability. is still allocation,seeking Adam Josephson on this matter,and he has e shifts would rl that the But funding if taken is still e would need some research to verify how the 2. I have exchanged some emails with in place,however his language seem available. face value the funding Attached : proposed resolution&related CBO Cost Estimate prior to Sen. Klobuchar's Floor Mayor Beaudet's p p • Amendment Josephson 1/31/12 Email response from Adam Thank you Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights,MN 651-439-4439 • 1 1 ` • Resolution No. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION QUESTIONING THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR UTILITY RELOCATION WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware of efforts that have been made to advance Federal legislation to allow the St. Croix River Crossing project to proceed, notwithstanding the current determination by the Federal District Court,the National Park Service,and the Department of the Interior that the proposed project is detrimental to United States of America protected Wild& Scenic St Croix River; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that the project will impact the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems within the city; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS may be asked to participate in terms of cost sharing,for the necessary improvements as part of State Trunk Highways 95 & 36 improvements that are associated with the project;and, • WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS made extensive and proactive efforts to communicate with Federal and State Legislators to specifically allocate funding to ensure that the residents and businesses of Oak Park Heights do not pay a disproportional share of the costs for this regional transportation project compared to those who will benefit from this interstate project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS made extensive and proactive efforts to communicate with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to specifically allocate funding to ensure that the residents and businesses of Oak Park Heights do not pay a disproportional share of the costs for this regional transportation project compared to those who will benefit from this interstate project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that to date,neither the Minnesota Department of Transportation nor the Minnesota State Legislature have identified or authored a bill to fund the approximately$20 million cost impact to the City for water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, signalization,frontage road impacts, and Minnesota Department of Transportation owned and City maintained infrastructure for the project; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that Senate 1134 as amended no longer makes it clear that Federal funding of $3.66 million dollars is available to offset the local cost to relocate existing water,sanitary sewer and storm sewer utilities;and, 1110 • WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS has yet to grant municipal consent for the project and if the maximum impacts to the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer utility fall fully onto the residents of the City it will require a$460 tax increase for the next 20 years to each homeowner and business to cover the cost; and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS municipal consent approval process may add years to the state date of the project for the City to approve the project;and, WHEREAS THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS is aware that no official communication exists between the City of Oak Park Heights and our Federal Representatives as to the impacts of the proposed amendment to S-1134. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the City of Oak Park Heights requires that Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Representative Bachmann provide a clear response as to the availability to the City of the$3.66 million dollars in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU for utility relocation grant as amended and passed in the United States Senate on January 23,2012 in S- 1134, as in the form of Congressional Budget Office analysis; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as the fiscal agent for Federal Transportation funds,the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall provide clear response as to the availability to the City of the $3.66 million dollars in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU for utility relocation grant as amended and passed in the United States January 23, in S-1134;and, • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City of Oak Park Heights cannot support the St. Croix River Crossing project and Senate Resolution 1134 as amended due to the devastating financial burden placed upon the City residents and businesses;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that funding as indicated in 2005 SAFETEA-LU is available to the City for utility relocation,unless expressly approved by the City Council,the City will no longer participate in any formal or informal conversations with Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Coalition for the bridge. • • ; s NORESINAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIM January 1.3,2012 5. 1134. 'project Authorization pct St. Croix giver Crossing Fro j As reported by the Senate Committee an.Energy and Natural Resources on December 16, 2011 SUMMARY 'viers A ct to per►i?it the SU1V�M Wild and Scenic� and Wisconsin. River between ers Act to er •d e over the St.Croix send Wisconsin.the S. 1134 would�bri g coon� of would permit those states to spend of that bridge,construction of the bridge p for states to s u would rescind construction r to designated exclusively The bill also Allowing an appropriated and spending of about$8 million.Th b which is used l rescind the 'Highway fun ending Dfl�franchise fund, t basis. resulting in from increase in direct o tenor nd,which a is u the Department of the for federal significant net impact on $8 million from administrative tasks As anent to perform certain the bill would have no sig • CB4 estimates that enacting As a result, over the 2012-2022 period. direct spending Pay-as-you-go procedures a .fie,legislation would affect direct 1 because enacting pP Y ect revenues,- e �d in the Enacting the bill would not aff dates as d sp private-sector m intergovernmental p 5. 1134 contains flates Re Act J�am'')• . Unfunded GOE ' TIIVIATED COST TO IRE roost m, le The costs of l 134 is shown m the following �vua�ent)and ud etary':�pact of S. 300(natural resources and The estimated b budget functions legislation fall within this.leg 400(transportation). Ah B Fiscal year,in Millions of'Dollars 2012- 2011.2U22 ,2017 2022 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021, 201 CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 0 0 8 8 Spending 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 8 Highway Sp 0 4 1 1 stimated Budget Authority 0 2 8g 0 0 0 0 U -8 Estimated Outlays 0 ,$ -2 0 0 0 0 0 Franchise Fund .g 0 0 -2 0 0 Estimated Budget Authority -2 -2 0 Estimated Outlays. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Changes -0 8 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total tintated Budget Authority 0 2 -I 0 Estimated Outlays BASIS OF ESTATE in 2012. assumes that the legislation will be enacted lacer i 2012. CBO CBO as ending.patterns for similar euding • For this estimate, significant net for simil r direct activities. estimates outlays are based on historical spending tinlates-that enacting the bill would have no sign es .over the 2012-2022 period. highway Spending National Park Service has the Nati between ehas and River betty envies are bridge over the St.Croix Ri rerule,federal'?►; rider sectioal 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, U constructing a ercn.are to determined that. adverse effect on the river.As necessary p Wisconsin would have funds or roviding'aY, from obligating any additional.� 1134 would permit constrt?etiQn of the prohibited fr e.By waiving section bridge. Y Wisconsin to use$8 million of p�deral��d bridge cat that g Minnesota and Wis e_and would allow Minn for that purpose. brigg funds designated exclusively Highway d.Thax ful�.d is usedbY Franchise Fund the DOIatichise Elul consulting, dollars from acquisition, • envies to provide acts d to it by S.1134-w would ring in$ contract s amounts . P entering into services.vvices.The agencies contains fens pad by those COI service•`fie ,mss collected from ay for fer`red into the fraud and Performance-management pay for services as well as am amounts� only amounts,• other agencies to e Y al obligation to use` s were provide agencies.Because the filed has a leg ,c�hich the fund f l€)Ix C3 envies to peTform the services for Based on;aalfwere ion fx ei?li ate by other ag fees are available for rescission Based in fee collections tra t are tm g collected Ethan d contains more than$$million _ estimates thatthe+f� 2 • over the 2p13-2016 period under current law; Ili those amounts would be spent o fission in s. 1134 would reduce outlays by and ehot the rescission therefore,we estimate that enacting. $$million over that period. PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS • and enforcement: ou-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-report'ng �� �. changes in outlays The educes Statutory Pay-As-You-Go direct spending or revenues.The net chang table. procedures s s for legislation those affecting -go procedures are shown in the following that are subject to those ply �' by t Estimate of Pay-As-You-Go(tee on Energy Effects for S.1134,the 5t.Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act,as reported Senate Committee onEnergY and Natural Resources on December 16,2031 �,y the Sena B Fiscal Year,in Millions of Dollars 2012- 2012- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2015 2019 2020 2021 2022 2011 2022 NET INCREASE OR DECREASE(-)IN THE DEFICIT 0 � U Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 0 2 -t -1 0 0 0 0 Impact • TAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT gITERG4YLFt1'�N�1� total or private.-sector mandates as ttefinerl in U ' overnm or tribal governments. 5, 1134 contains no intergovernmental and would impose no costs on state, PREVIOUS CIAO ESTIMATE std Project in the estimate for 11.R.85:0,a bill to facilitate a propo purposes,as ordered reported by the LBO proviCedx cost es and for other .$5y did 2011.Unlike S. 1134,Louse St Croix on Scenic so River, on October 5, 01 .Unli teS that enacting House c on not contain a rescission from the I301 franchise bind. H . 850 would cost$8 million. • _ 3 • ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: Federal Costs: Sarah Pure(for highways) and Jeff LaFave(for Department of the Interior) Impact on State,Local, and Tribal Governments:Ryan Miller Impact on the Private Sector:Amy Petz ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: Theresa Gullo Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 410 4 a lIlIllllIlIlIllIIlIlIIl.I.Il..I....IuI....---- Eric Johnson From: Adam(DOT)Iadam.joSePhson @state.mn.us) Tuesday,January Josephson, 31,2012 9:45 AM Eric Johnson Olaowski,Todd(DOT) McBride,Scott(DOT); "em RE:Senate Bill Subject (Just combing all the answers to your questions in to one response) _OFFSET and Section 4—BUDGETARY cri tion in regards The short des ards to your question about 51134 and the Section 3 p project identified in EFFECTS language. thus an offset would be required in the b$8M ' requires that bills be revenue neutral•d was determined that the pro b The"Pay-as-you-go-Act ill act ated the sp of spending q ill facilitated the the spending of HPP fu ding. in The amount oun of un Bill and and Highway t yfab this b funding. The amount of unobligated Minnesota hwayunds is currently about HPP the amount is identified ent ued as c coming HPP fund g actual offset dollar amount will be determined at the time the The offset Is identified as coming from future obligation authority for Federal Construction programs distributed to the state. The funds are obligated. HPP funds are still available for use to offset eligible local utility costs• twill need to be The short answer is the H offset not refer to an offset. Presumably any language related to a budgetary House Bill HR 850 does no resolved between the two bills. In regards to the HPP e$'s they o are dealing the purposes designated in SAFETEA-LU,which includes utility I elocation as has The legislation is dealing with the offset funding issue and not the 5 een discussed. Th g agreement. a action that is required is that the city and state need to come to ag y view is the primary Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 We County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 651/234-7719 ofoa •arkhei.hts.com] From: Eric]ohnson mailt1;2012 8.OG,AM Sent:Tuesday,7anuary 3 T4;Josephson,.Nam(DOT) DO Clarkowski,Todd(DOT) Cc: McBride,Scott(DOT); Subject RE: Senate Bill Adam, Are these funds still specifically pledged as of this date to the purposes already identified? Or is there some additional action that is required? thanks eric 1 Eric Johnson City Administrator ,ijty of Oak Park Heights, MN 1-439-4439 From:Josephson, Adam(DOT) fmailto-dam state.mn.us a mn. Sent: Monday,January 30, 2012 4:47 PM To Eric Johnson Cc: McBride, Scott(DOT);Clarkowski,Todd(DOT) Subject: Senate Bill cri tion in regards to your question about S1134 and the Section 3--OFFSET and Section 4— Eric here is the short des p BUDGETARY EFFECTS language. 2010" requires that bills be revenue neutral. It was determined that would be the project ed in identified in The"Pay-as-you-go-Act ted the of 20 q this bill facilitated the spending of HPP fu dollars iThe amount of thus an HPP funds is currently about$8M. the amount of the unobligated HPP fu g The offset is identified as coming from future obligation ual offset dollar amoun twill be determined at the time the HPP Construction programs distributed to the state. The act funds are obligated. The short answer is the HPP funds are still available for use to offset eligible local utility costs. Adam Josephson,P.E. Wn/DOT East Area Manager aters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road 8-2 Roseville,MN 55113 651/234-7719 • 2 , - r, n r i i le Kurt Zellers Minnesota State Representative House House of S 1 peaker of the `� �► District 328 *..� _fs , Representatives Hennepin County ? , 'r"'' l ) TO: All House Members and Staff iri TO:l FROM: Representative Kurt Zellers Speaker of the House DATE: December 14,2011 f, RE: 2012 Legislative Session Schedule i1 fl i 1, J As we enter the 2012 Legislative Session,I want to keep you informed as to the general schedule of the House.The House will take two official breaks during the session. The details are 11 outlined below. r T Tuesday,January 12 Pre-introduction of House Files;bills are due to the Speaker's office no later than 5:00 p.m. for first reading on l , Tuesday,January 24 Tuesday,January 24 Official House business will begin with Session convening at noon ( Wednesday,January 25 One Minnesota Conference;no official House business i February 2-7 Legislative break for Precinct Caucus L 1 Wednesday,February 8 Official House business will begin with Session convening at noon ! L ; April 6-13 Easter/Passover break;no official House business 1vMonday,April 16 Official House business will begin at 8:15 am.with I Session convening at 3:00 p.m. i Monday,April 30 House will adjourn sine die : I n�sa�In►other Kino Jr B '- �,��r..e c °• lib i fi•� (ice Bugdina._.1QQ RRLT� FAX: {651)296.5a;8 Email:rep..kurtzeile�house.mn • 1i . 1 . ioe t City of Oak Park Heights (651 439-0574 14168 Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heil ts,MN 55082•Phone 651 439-4439•Fax January 12,2012 Representative Kathy Lohmer,District 56 A 521 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55155 Senator Ted Lillie,District 56 75 Rev. Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Capitol Building,Room 124 St. Paul,MN 55155-1606 RE: 2012 Legislative Action -Possible Pursuit of Bond Funding-$20 million—St. Croix River Crossing—Local Costs. • Dear Senator Lillie and Representative Lohmer: it At the Dec 28`",2011 joint workshop held to further di hat would t. required River r ros address suggested that the City provide a figure to your offices basic and fundamental needs of the City as it deals with this regional Project. As you know,my email dated January 5th, 2012 ave a worst case fi ure of$20 million dollars and would generally include the costs associated with Scenario#3 as found on the attached green sheet including the need for utility easement acquisition costs. The City is NOT seeking funds for new parks,removal of private infrastructure,restoration costs for historic buildings;rather the City is seeking funding for dealing with basic infrastructure needs that are only needed as a result of the Project. substantial impact the Project than would have on the entire Project costs and is small considering the P the City' s residents and businesses. What the likelihood of the $20 million figure being actually lal acquired from such level resources during the upcoming legislative session is unknown.But wen y resources simply could not be achieved from the City bo Oak Park H��iuight short�OpefullY the term costs. Accordingly,the"devil is in the following provide some further information. There are two elements to consider about the$20 million figure: • 1. There seems to be common understanding between the City and MNDOT that the costs for utilities NOT lying between Oakgreen Ave. and Osgood Ave. would at least be covered at 80%by Federal or other non-City funds. However,MNDOT has not yet made a final determination that that the utilities that are between these roadways are also impacted by the Project. If the determination is made that these too are also impacted,these costs would then also be possibly covered by HPP or other currently allocated Federal/State funds to the Project. For you information, I have enclosed a copy of the MNDOT generated Total Project Cost Estimate—dated Feb 2011. Within the figures provided, MNDOT has included$110,000,000 for Contingency/Risk funding. A reasonable re- allocation of these funds to the Minnesota Approach elements would seem to be worth reviewing and considering for City related costs,the difficulty of course would be various statutory or policy prohibitions. Nevertheless,if this were able to occur, it is possible that the$20 million dollar request would drop substantially to $10,000,000+/-with the difference being provided with Federal or otherwise already allocated State dollars. The determination of HPP or other Federal dollars and their application is not within the purview of the City to determine,rather MNDOT's as are presumably the final determination of project impacts. Again,notwithstanding the permit issues for MNDOT right of way, if MNDOT determines that utility portions lying between Oakgreen Ave. and Osgood Ave. • are impacted,then the amount needed from new State Bonding resources could drop substantially and could possibly be covered by federal funding or other non- local Project dollars potentially already available. 2. The $20 million dollar figure also includes City being required to take over the frontage roads which is at the request of MNDOT. If this ultimately is not to be an expectation of MNDOT upon the City then these costs could also be eliminated from the figure, saving upwards of an additional $3,000,000+/- from this request. The problematic aspect of this concept however is the continual location of the utility lines in the frontage roads; should these utilities remain subject to the same conditions of MNDOT for future moves,then the City must question the desire to remain in the frontage roads, which then drives additional costs for utility relocations. As mentioned at the meeting,the City would anticipate to follow your lead in determining the best vehicle to place this request,be it the worst case scenario of$20 million or otherwise. The suggestion of utilizing the Routes of Regional Significance Account, (MN STAT- 174.52 subd. 4)as a place to deposit funding is only one possibility and would appear to give some flexibility to the Commissioner to then allocate these resources should they become available. The City has requested that the Commissioner attend the meeting on • Feb 8th,2012 so as to directly gauge his office's opinion of this concept. Indeed,this conversation is only in its infancy, and the City would believe that it would need • MNDOT help to classify resources and allocations as they are the apparent experts in this methodology. The City would hope that MNDOT would be collegial resource on this matter as we consider a legislative solution. Once you have had a chance to review this information, and perhaps consult with MNDOT, if it would be amenable to your office,would you be willing to meet with a City representative on this matter before Feb 8th, 2012 or as your schedules may require. I wqu14 appy to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability. n '4i: ards / 'c ohnson •i Administrator can be reached after hours at Cell#651-253-7837 PS: I have enclosed a copy of the enabling resolution 12-01-05 that allows the City to engage in this endeavor with your offices. The Resolution also does outline many of the City's concerns as it relates to total costs,previous discussions, and positions. • Cc: City Council Members Adam Josephson,MNDOT • V; mc•0 9 0 0 N 0 q' en df Q N N N o ac, v 00 0gycal i N CO, s o n es 1.-'- r," i` ,,A S a 0 17 3 C M m 3 n. N M p n i m vi re; $ w v 11 w c w 5 L? v! 0. VT Vs V1 V1. V} V1 V1 1/1 I to to on m rn t7 v a O 001 at ry tTt _ ;:: 2 };: g $ g n erm r.- g n y ai 00 C ti co N m .-t O m a v C - - + c TA saea '1,,, ,IA.4 v► ' ..+*'In' Id 40. ''rn. . r'` ui ate`4 °'a i O go n O M c N O^1 YN1 O O V O N OM1� 0�1 N 1 E a o 2 r c m 1` to '3 8 Y N p O k V oN m a p n �h a no os G 'tz ID lD e-1 M 171 V T g -g o cc Ln 1 g v M a� y b F g hj sr G 8 " to 0 .3 V . oa p U A Vt V> i). V1 V1 N Vf V1 V? U). .M. in- to g` ° g o° m N 4 o a1 o o n o■ v m �o O m O In M °oi °fA a) v o_ « Et l0 (* O O W N V N M ^ tO 01 m N E s c-1 O N Ip I e g ,r m ui N x �al • rei r: <g ig I i � ° o s N I .0.. V V .0. 0. V in V u V 4/). W 3 4 N 4 43 VI 7 CO N F .VI 75 1 s W g i H g 0 Is c 6) ciN ru W o o g a w_D °�' v 1 o A N 033 C3 _ ' Yf w y p at v .Ni tU 003 0 a i 8 g c o bs 0 � G i� ' pi cD t s 0 q v�'�E co , g V 1n A �n o o ° .H c w v SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 8 of 36 r iiR M `° H r C y N n._ • _ wy k N O M o N .. O Oa �f - L w ^in- O C � n w o co" \ a -6 ' a�� o ,§ o a F. = "" o >, O rte.. a O , s g ' ti c c O '_ (0 O a t� N "� � � c3oL v. is O fl. 7 4— O O y a w co V .a' "' O sin 1/ ? a 1' N w w C N M �N N 111 i1' , E I ,, 4 r x. ' d. : Z a -A f .' w Uf g te jq w w w+el clip, p w N w L c v n ti O n M N m M N ri ci . ' w wO R i! c V N r W kl 1- Q y ^ Ora *I v w a $=O tE 0 3 i , I e � P ® g 12 w w a s ao � E a i I I t,era 0 v e` It V ,, u " 0 A a f :j0 m o la 1 �Yc 7 . Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights R a V a o 3 M = Page 15 of 36 M I N N E S O T A A N D U J I S C 0 N S I N D E P A R T M E N T S V. C)lif N O F i R A N S P OR TA T I O N Riep )a c file , 14/.--- ' • , , _ _ „ I 1L- ..,;,, "CTr E..ui frOJTud'P..e 1 E1 I — I i [e__1 _ e __ \\L.....4___ Total Project Cost Estimate* (1)TH 36-Oakgreen/Greeley Intersection $15,300,000 (2)Minnesota Approach $65,000,000 (3) River Bridge $292,100,000 (4) Wisconsin Approach $38,400000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $410,800,000 Right of Way $31,400,000 Mitigation Estimate $26,200,000 Contingency/Risk $110,000,000 Engineering $55,000,000 PROJECT TOTAL $633,400,000 (Potential Cost Range $574-690M) STATE SPLITS * Minnesota Potential Cost Range $320-380M • Tj) Wisconsin Potential Cost Range $250-310M Cost inflated to mid point of construction in 2015(2011 costs+17%) RESOLUTION NO. 12-01-05 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE PURSUIT OF FUNDING THROUGH DIRECT LEGISLATIVE ACTION FOR POTENTIAL COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,SHOULD THE ST. CROIX RIVER WAY CROSSING PROJECT PROCEED WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights is aware of efforts that have been advanced to legislatively allow the St. Croix River Crossing Project to proceed, notwithstanding current determinations within the Federal District Court, the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior determining the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on the proposed project,and, WHEREAS, the City is aware of projected costs for construction and related enhancements that have been identified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation should the Project proceed,and, • WHEREAS, the City may be asked to participate in terms of sharing costs, to land and right of way acquisitions necessary to make the needed improvements all as a part of the Project and the Trunk Highway 36 improvements corridor improvements that would be associated with the Project,and, WHEREAS,the City has made extensive and proactive efforts to communicate with State and Federal Legislators, local advocacy groups as well as Minnesota Department of Transportation staff to specifically allocate the required funding to ensure that the residents and businesses of Oak Park Heights do not pay a disproportionate share of the costs for this Regional Project as compared to those who will substantially benefit from this regional interstate project,and, WHEREAS, despite the aforementioned outreach the State of Minnesota through its Department of Transportation has not identified any substantive funding sources to assist with regard to the city's projected share of the Project, should it proceed, nor has a funding source been identified by other agencies and entities supporting the Project that would alleviate the need for the City's taxpayers and rate payers to contribute.to the Project for local improvements potentially totaling $20,000,000 including utility replacements, right-of-way, acquisitions, signalization, stormwater, ponding, pedestrian and bike trail location and maintenance, frontage road turnback, utility and/or related improvements and upkeep,and, 110 . ' r • NO • WHEREAS, without meaningful financial commitment from the Federal, State or Regional authorities supporting this project to provide for such costs, the City will not be in a position to support this Project or assume anticipated costs as suggested by Department of Transportation and, WHEREAS,the City has engaged in additional discussions with its State Legislators to consider these costs and does seek their assistance to obtain funding to assist in mitigating this Project's unreasonable financial burden to be placed on this local community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights that the office of the City Administrator forward a copy of this Resolution and a direct letter of request to State Legislators requesting their assistance within the State Bonding Bill or other legislative opportunities that may provide such funding. Yt- Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Par, ei (ferfo'/ e _k day of January 2012. David Be. •det,Mayor Ai. / Joio '. C. A • nistrator 1 I , TY ir At' • p City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 January 12,2012 Representative Kathy Lohmer,District 56 A 521 State Office Building 100 Rev.Dr,Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55155 Senator Ted Lillie,District 56 75 Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Capitol Building,Room 124 St.Paul, MN 55155-1606 RE: 2012 Legislative Action -Possible Pursuit of Bond Funding-$20 million—St. Croix River Crossing—Local Costs. Dear Senator Lillie and Representative Lohmer: At the Dec 28th,2011 joint workshop held to further discuss the St. Croix River Crossing,it was suggested that the City provide a figure to your offices that would be required to address the basic and fundamental needs of the City as it deals with this regional Project. As you know,my email dated January 5th,2012 gave a worst case figure of$20 million dollars and would generally include the costs associated with Scenario#3 as found on the attached green sheet including the need for utility easement acquisition costs. The City is NOT seeking funds for new parks,removal of private infrastructure,restoration costs for historic buildings;rather the City is seeking funding for dealing with basic infrastructure needs that are only needed as a result of the Project. The City's request is less than 3 percent of the entire Project costs and is small considering the substantial impact the Project would have on the City' s residents and businesses. What the likelihood of the$20 million figure being actually acquired from State resources during the upcoming legislative session is unknown.But we plainly do know that such level of resources simply could not be achieved from the City of Oak Park Heights for short and long term costs.Accordingly,the"devil is in the details"about what a figure might be.Hopefully the following provide some further information. There are two elements to consider about the$20 million figure: • 1. There seems to be common understanding between the City and MNDOT that the costs for utilities NOT lying between Oakgreen Ave.and Osgood Ave.would at least be covered at 80%by Federal or other non-City funds.However,MNDOT has not yet made a final determination that that the utilities that are between these roadways are also impacted by the Project. If the determination is made that these too are also impacted,these costs would then also be possibly covered by HPP or other currently allocated Federal/State funds to the Project. For you information,I have enclosed a copy of the MNDOT generated Total Project Cost Estimate—dated Feb 2011. Within the figures provided,MNDOT has included$110,000,000 for Contingency/Risk funding.A reasonable re- allocation of these funds to the Minnesota Approach elements would seem to be worth reviewing and considering for City related costs,the difficulty of course would be various statutory or policy prohibitions. Nevertheless,if this were able to occur, it is possible that the$20 million dollar request would drop substantially to$10,000,000+/-with the difference being provided with Federal or otherwise already allocated State dollars. The determination of HPP or other Federal dollars and their application is not within the purview of the City to determine,rather MNDOT's as are presumably the final determination of project impacts. Again,notwithstanding the permit issues for MNDOT right of way,if MNDOT determines that utility portions lying between Oakgreen Ave. and Osgood Ave. are impacted,then the amount needed from new State Bonding resources could drop substantially and could possibly be covered by federal funding or other non- local Project dollars potentially already available. 2. The$20 million dollar figure also includes City being required to take over the frontage roads which is at the request of MNDOT. If this ultimately is not to be an expectation of MNDOT upon the City then these costs could also be eliminated from the figure, saving upwards of an additional$3,000,000+/-from this request. The problematic aspect of this concept however is the continual location of the utility lines in the frontage roads; should these utilities remain subject to the same conditions of MNDOT for future moves,then the City must question the desire to remain in the frontage roads,which then drives additional costs for utility relocations. As mentioned at the meeting,the City would anticipate to follow your lead in determining the best vehicle to place this request,be it the worst case scenario of$20 million or otherwise. The suggestion of utilizing the Routes of Regional Significance Account,(MN STAT- 174.52 subd.4)as a place to deposit funding is only one possibility and would appear to give some flexibility to the Commissioner to then allocate these resources should they become available. The City has requested that the Commissioner attend the meeting on • Feb 8th,2012 so as to directly gauge his office's opinion of this concept. Indeed,this conversation is only in its infancy,and the City would believe that it would need MNDOT help to classify resources and allocations as they are the apparent experts in this methodology. The City would hope that MNDOT would be collegial resource on this matter as we consider a legislative solution. Once you have had a chance to review this information, and perhaps consult with MNDOT, if it would be amenable to your office,would you be willing to meet with a City representative on this matter before Feb 8th,2012 or as your schedules may require. I wool• O ► .ppy to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability. v;/ ,7 ,ads / , c ohnson t i► Administrator can be reached after hours at Cell#651-253-7837 PS: I have enclosed a copy of the enabling resolution 12-01-05 that allows the City to engage in this endeavor with your offices. The Resolution also does outline many_ of the City's concerns as it relates to total costs,previous discussions,and positions. Cc: City Council Members Adam Josephson,MNDOT • - ilve"-IMT;44 ,...,1 4. c o - R e s m M N m "i " 1� OD (Q �S� 0 3 h N r/f 1!j R M i _ 4 s c, P m a O) 11 N V in V1 Vi. � y y y y y y y y , til 1,„ 1 i �4 pp h O p 0 oeDt of r� , ,iii O 7+S ID via c ti ti rvm , � m # ,4 60 cry 8 is xr,' , ,S IA tD e io ry m ti p i E 'a4 ‘' m m S re in. in. y qpy ppy y 'tpp/) y V? �/1 h9$gi$gg� .g t —4 44 :46PM r: � H ~ m V I if 4 a$T € 3 � • o y l I1 . 1616y o 18 :: 3 a a ,y E g I 1g u a' if a „, 1 I n g v . 0. , 11 II .I 0 F. g Os to E p b Ti d p _ C. ^" if . s .0 a +� N a ao DO a co o i pa 121� A � F000 1 L p a w A .5 w m SCRCP-Estimated Cost 0 ost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 8 of 36 41 i - *: 6 &I § 1 g » " 4 5 -ti p N c y » A Ny i '- w a> a 'c E n _ y0 rt.; g - 0- , . ,.... .i. , g 0 ›, = ,- eL 8 a) aicp ilgC N ipq , , - � lilt - r J N II Igll 64 M N I M m z 1 g t I 44 414 49 64 41 ' if ! ii ill 31 ! .$ .}I 6 I I L F 'O i g g l' i A lift N A I liv ! I V 1 i 1 al t o 1 I if,- 'IIi z I Is :,-. ft gla .. 1 g g 0 V" _ I o SCRCP- ' , _ v Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights a Page 15 of 36 . ra r , dX " ti` F ' E p A T �d f tl T S Ct T VI 4 it( if VC) C)05,4Arilig U :4. . rf r_'I _ :am.l Li' :=K l n arK:9. i I ,r (• r - t 'i ' r I —ryi t .. – _ _ I f _ r total Protect Cost Estimate* (1)111 36-Oakgreen/ ey Intersection $1mat8 (2)Minnesota Approach ' (3)River Bridge ►. (4)Wisconsin $292,100,000 approach $38400000 CONsnrucnoN cosrsugTOTAL $410, Right of y ,000 Mitigation Estimate $31,400, Contingency/Risk $26,200,000 Engineering $110,000,000 fork $55,000,000 �40010te; (Potential Cost Range $574-690M) STATE SPUTS Minns Potential Cost Range $320- 38061 • Wisconsin Potential Cost Range - $250-310M 'Cost inflated to mid pant of construdion in 2015(2011 costs+17%) RESOLUTION NOler . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHpR��G AND RESOLD DIRECT LEGISLATIVE C°I'IlYG INCURRED BY T ACTION FOR POTENTIAL P PURSUIT OF FUNDING HE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,SHOULD COSTS TO BE RIVER WAY CROSSING PROJECT PROCEED ST.CROItX advanced to legislatively the City of Oak Park Heights is aware of efforts that have been determinations within the Federal Crossing Project to proceed Department dt o w th t Di�ct Cow, the National proceed, notwithstanding and t proposed project,and, determining nal Park Service requirements of the Wild and Scenic and the Ravers Act on the enhancements that WHEREAS, the City is aware of Project proceed, been identified by projected costs for co Y the Minnesota D construction and related Department of Transportation should the and right of way > the City may be asked Project and the Trunk necessary to make lcipate in teams of sharing costs t rank Hig}i"`,a the needed improvemts all as a > o land 4•t 0 with the Project,and, Y 36 improvements corridor improvements would bed associated the State and Federal WHEREAS,; the City has made extensive and proactive efforts Trans Transportation eta l to gislators, low advocacy grou s as in to a Department of businesses specifically allocate the p well as Minnesota of Oak Park Heights required fundin �pattment of Project as compared ghts do not pay a disproportionate share to of thee that f the residents and Pared to those who will substantially benefit from are gi the costs for this Regional this regional interstate project,and, WHEREAS, despite the aforementioned Department of Transportation entioned outreach the State of regard to the city's has not identified Minnesota assist tY s Projected share any substantive its regard to the by other agencies and of the Project, should it p funding sources ini g to source with identified entities supporting the Project nor has a funding source totaling and rate payers to sect that would alleviate the n �r . g taxpayers and rate contribute.to the Project for local improvements nor the totaling $, ,ondin including utility replacements ions, si potentially utility g, pedestrian and bike > rift-of-way, acquisitions ty and/or related improvements trail location and maintenance, frontage> siilization, and upkeep,and, tags road tm'nback, . Regional W , wig ut meanie position to suPPQrt PPorting this Project f nancial conuni�ent from Transportation and, Project or assume 1 or such costs, ty wle7dl � State or the Ci not costs as suggested by be � a to consider WHEREAS,the City Y Lkpar�ent of Project's unreasonable and does ity as engaged in additional and does b assistance to obtain fungi ions with its Staff g Legislators burden to be plate on this local community.� ° assist in mitigating this NOW T�EREFO that the office �'BE IT RESOI,'VED request to S of the City A , by the City Council for legislative opportunities fete the City d�istrator forward the City of O e that requesting their assistance of this Resolution and aak Park or other rs Y provide such funding. �� the State Bonding Bill lct r other Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak P. r`,41 ei o. J0 . _ cry°f January 2012. #71!■/ . AdAt --iifier, David B-. 'det,Mayor Io,.fit: C• i• i - or 0 Eric Johnson Subject: FlN:City of Oak Park Heights-Bonding Allocation-Bayport Prison 1111M: Eric Johnson Thursday,January 05, 2012 11:37 To: 'sen.ted.lillie @senate.mni AM Subject: - City of Oak Park Heights ) Bonding Allocation -Bayport Prison 6/ l//c 1/5/12 Dear Senator Lillie: I would like to update you about two items, but of cours e more discussion would be pending: Hopefully this information is useful to you... 1. The apparent figure that the City Council believes would be most meaningful to pursue would with such dplaced into the specific purpose dollars with to a direct dollars lars placed for the nt Cth in the bonding bill;the uld be p account that can be managed by $20 million opposed was a exact account but I believe based Commissioner as 174.52 subd.4—iRIR Routes of Re ionai Si nifi once Ac ased off the potentially a preferable route then that is also a Account. (Although if a direct bonding allocation is possibility) So as to provide you a figure as soon as outlined in the study a by possible,generally, add right-or way the figure is based on a worst-case y the City on Nov 10th,see a y acquisition as that may page 8 of such document but nc eased to also behind them and are also included in the study document. y also be needed. These figures do have City engineering estimates City nt' g mates tY Council will be seeking the passage is of a resolution on Jan 10th a more precise accounting e the passed by the City Council, I will be able to requesting rovi eg to y be detail progresses. of this figure. Naturally, provide th ygr a Beta I sheet with Y, more discussions will be needed by the group as this 2. I did have a chance to speak with the Bayport City have population chance to Bayport ty Administrator regarding prison population Bayport to the City of OPH, historical the possibility ltua of Beyond the historical and cultural change detachment of the would, I presume being included,the City of Bayport does receive about would, of an off-set would or uld b lost value agreement,this $18,000 ore ed for in some e proposal. While this in of itself could per year in LGA which the of an o per yeaocategory, the Local Road Aid dollars possibly be corrected for in be in t $1 funding dollars. These could perhaps be generated la the City of OPH applied to specific roads and in a regulated form as opposed may be in to the general fu funding dollars.. T ese l co hasn't which you know... applied to the frontage roads, however the onversation Yet been resolved. To some extent the issue becomes circular,think in concept it is feasible, but could be the long and locally , requires other understandings between the City occur. I have asked that the Bayport cally difficult way around a financial problem the matter at this point, but that it could �and MNDOT to which yport City Administrator Mitch Berg come to their City in a g not quite s /make too e If I can answer any questions please let me know and the y more formal request/process later. If a deal about deavor. also be reached at home City appreciates any help you may be e/cell—651-253-7837 able to provide in this Thank you again. 1 410 41, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 December 29th,2011 Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Follow-up from Dec 14th,2011 Meeting—Utility Impacts Dear Adam, Thank you again for having someone prepare a meeting summary for the meeting held jointly between the City and various MNDOT staff to discuss a"30%design plan".As a result of such meeting,the City has • the following responses. 1. The meeting summary as provided should be used only for MNDOT internal purposes.This document provided,despite possible edits,seems to remain an advocacy tool for MNDOT policy and comments as opposed to being solely a more neutral summary of general discussions. So as to avoid any misinterpretation by MNDOT or the City in the future about what was discussed,not discussed,etc;as we move forward,these meeting summaries should be reduced to the following: location,whom was present, short statement as to the purpose of the meeting,and agreed upon action items and next meeting date. 2. As a City Action item from the Dec 14`h,2011 meeting:I have enclosed for your information a current copy of the City's Ordinance relating to the burial of power lines.This relates to elements of the discussion that may require the burial of the Xcel Energy(and related utilities on such poles)distribution lines.Please carefully note that the City has explored additional clarifications to this ordinance and upon any such amendments I will forward to your attention a new copy. 3. As a City Action item from the Dec 14th,2011 meeting:The City has directed its Consulting Engineers at STANTEC to review the MNDOT provided S.U.E. utility plans so as to better provide an analysis of what MNDOT is accounting for is actually what is in the ground,per se. Naturally,the City(nor MNDOT)cannot guarantee that all items will be universally accounted for,but we would think that any omission would be minimal. • 4. As a City Action item from the Dec 14th,2011 meeting: I have enclosed for your information two CD sets of the televising reports(vide and logs)of the sanitary sewer lying in the south and north • frontage roads. 5. As a City Action item from the Dec 14th,2011 meeting: I have directed Chris Long from STANTEC to provide some information about sanitary sewer off-sets.The City generally does not have a specific detail plan,but should follow proper design standards and that would be conducive to easy and manageable repairs and maintenance,i.e.pipes under ponds are not sound practice and pose future I&I risks. 6. As a new item for this process,the document provided to MNDOT in the form of the communication provided by Bonestroo(now STANTEC)dated Sept 9th,2011 as a follow-up to the MNDOT meeting on Aug 24th,asks three additional questions and should be reviewed addressed in-turn by MNDOT as we proceed through this exercise.For your use,I have again enclosed a copy of that letter. 7. There may need to be an expression by this group's effort about the concept of installing a new roadways surface on top of 40-year old utilities. So despite concluded upon impacts,how is this matter addressed?Perhaps it is out of the scope of this conversation,but it is of seminal importance to the City. Please let me know if you have any questions and we look forward to our next meeting tentatively scheduled for Jan 12th,2012 if such meeting is amenable to the Council. • ce , Eric J.P, son, City/.dministrator Cc: Chris Long,P.E., STANTEC Mark Vierling,City Attorney Mayor and City Council Members • St Croix River Crossing 30% Utility Meeting with Oak Park Heights Summary of Meeting • Waters Edge Building, Conference Room E December 14th, 2011 at 8:30 AM Attendees: Eric Johnson Oak Park Heights 651-439-4439 Chris Long Stantec Consulting 651-604-4808 Todd Clarkowski MnDOT Project Team Leader 651-234-7714 Adam Josephson MnDOT East Area 651-234-7719 Marilyn Remer MnDOT Utilities 651-366-4668 Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek MnDOT Agreements 651-366-4634 Monty Hamri MnDOT Design 651-234-7631 DJ Sosa MnDOT Design 651-234-7643 Peter Davich MnDOT Design 651-234-7617 Buck Craig MnDOT Permits 651-234-7911 Ann Driver MnDOT Permits 651-366-4620 1. Introductions 2. Scope of Utility Coordination Meetings • This utility coordination meeting was held with city staff to aid in the development of a"30%utility design plan". The St. Croix River Crossing Project will impact city owned sanitary and water main utilities that are in state R/W by permit. As such the city as the utility owner is required(under state statute)to adjust their utilities to resolve the conflict. MnDOT and city staff will need to meet several times over a couple of month period to develop the 30%plan. The goal of the 30%plan is to determine what city utilities might be impacted by the project,how the city wants to resolve those impacts,what if any utility betterments the city would like to see with the project,preliminary quantities and a good preliminary cost estimate for city utilities. These utility discussions are preliminary in nature and not binding on either party. Further discussions, coordination and design will be required in the development of the detailed utility design plans and costs. 3. Discussion of Existing Utility Information Peter Davich and DJ Sosa presented MnDOT's available utility information as summarized below: • The Subsurface Utility Engineering(SUE)utility location was completed by Utility Mapping Services (UMS) in the fall of 2010. UMS located each • utility with a"Quality Level"of B or C. The SUE process is the most robust St Croix River Crossing 30% Utility Meeting with Oak Park Heights Summary of Meeting Waters Edge Building, Conference Room E December 14th 2011 at 8:30 AM • utility location process that MnDOT has available, and UMS guarantees the information at the time the SUE is completed. Elevation information was only collected to the extent that it was easily available while the locations were obtained. It is understood that additional elevation information can and will be obtained when needed to determine final utility impacts. • The SUE process labels any intersection of a utility with the construction limits of the project in plan view(two dimensions X and Y) as a"Conflict" in their documentation. These SUE "Conflicts"were discussed and understood to denote a potential conflict only; it is likely that a large percentage of these "Conflicts"will require no action or minor surface adjustments only. The SUE is therefore very conservative when labeling conflicts. Each conflict in the SUE is given a sequential conflict number in the document. (This take the form of"3-xxx"in the case of OPH utilities, where"xxx"is the sequential number). • DJ prepared spreadsheets similar to final design utility tabs to interpret the SUE conflict points. Spreadsheets were created for the sanitary and water conflicts; storm sewer and electrical will follow. These spreadsheets include an `Action' column which indicates whether the utility must be adjusted, relocated, or can be left as is. DJ completed this spreadsheet by comparing the proposed project design to the SUE information. He has a note column to • indicate types of impacts or whether more locate/city information would be required to make an accurate determination, etc. • A small number of the utilities in the layout were reviewed. It was mentioned that a lift station north of TH 36 near TH 95 may need to be modified in the existing utility layout. Future meetings will get into greater detail. 4. City Issues • Oak Park City Council at this point has only provided direction for staff to attend this first meeting. Future meetings and coordination are contingent on further council direction. • It was requested that MnDOT send all files and correspondence related to the St Croix project to Eric Johnson without carbon copies to Chris Long. Eric will forward information to Chris as needed. 5. Current Action Items • MnDOT requested that OPH review the existing utility information for accuracy. MnDOT also requested that OPH provide the As-Built information that they have in relation to the utilities that are potentially in conflict. • St Croix River Crossing 30% Utility Meeting with Oak Park Heights Summary of Meeting Waters Edge Building, Conference Room E December 14th, 2011 at 8:30 AM • . MnDOT requested that OPH provide any specifications and standards that they may have in regards to utility placement or proximity to construction. MnDOT will refer to these city specifications to help in identifying potential utility conflicts. A particular specification mentioned during the meeting involved the proximity of utilities to ponds. A city ordinance was discussed about impacted overhead powerlines needing to be placed underground. • City requested that MnDOT provide OPH with the SUE layout and a PDF of the bound summary related to city utilities. They further requested that the construction limits and pond locations for the proposed project be shown on the SUE layout, along with a legend. They further requested that MnDOT provide the electronic versions of the preliminary utility tabulations. Peter and DJ will provide this data. Preliminary cross-sections and profiles will be made available; OPH can request any portion of the files that they would like to see. • City requested that MnDOT also compare the SUE utility layout to the city's utility layout to back check for errors. Peter and DJ will complete this task once MnDOT receives the city's utility layout. • The group decided that the process would be able to proceed the most reliably if typical sections were prepared for the frontage roads and other • roadways where conflicts are possible. DJ will prepare these typical sections with input from MnDOT's Materials office,which will provide the most accurate design possible given their current level of information. MnDOT will hold the scheduled 12/21 meeting to continue process and work towards a possible January meeting with the city. • The City and MnDOT have tentatively scheduled the next meeting for Thursday,January 12th at 1:00 PM pending OPH council approval for city staff participation. • T , 1008 • AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, ELECTRONIC,PHONE LINES, CABLE SERVICES AND RELATED UTILITIES UNDERGROUND. THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: 1008. 010.Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health. safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster(i)safe travel over the right-of-way, (ii)non-travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and(iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the right-of-way must be made in accordance with this section. 1008.020.Definitions. The terms used in this section have the meanings given them. Commission. "Commission"means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Facility. "Facility" means tangible asset in the public right-of-way required to provide utility service. The term does not include Facilities to the extent the location and • relocation of such Facilities are preempted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.45, governing utility facility placement in state trunk highways. Facility does not mean electric transmission lines,as distinguished from electric distribution lines. Public right-of-way. "Public right-of-way" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162,subdivision 3. Right-of-way user. "Right-of-way user" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subdivision 4; qr (2) a person owning or controlling a facility, in the right-of-way, that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Utility service. "Utility service" means and includes: (1) service provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including the transporting of voice or data information; (3) services provided by a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by a local government unit; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A; and(6)water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. • • 1008.030.Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities placed in the public right-of-way must be located, relocated and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards. This section is intended to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162, 237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, USC Section 253. 1008.040.Undergrounding of New Facilities. A new Facility or a permanent extension of Facilities must be installed and maintained underground when supplied to: (a) a new installation of buildings, signs, streetlights or other structures; (b) a new subdivision of land; or (c) a new development or industrial park containing new commercial or industrial buildings. All owners,developers,persons submitting plats to the city for approval as well as any utility company serving said developments are responsible for complying with the terms and provisions of this ordinance and prior to final approval of any plat, subdivision or development plan shall submit to the city a written statement from the appropriate utility company(ies) showing that all necessary arrangements with said . companies for underground service and installation have been made.To the extent practical all underground work shall be completed prior to street surfacing. 1008.050.Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement,Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. A permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility of more than 300 feet must be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities. Undergrounding is required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right-of-way for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way. 1008.060.Retirement of Overhead Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within the city, or within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to sections 1008.040 and 1008.050 of this Code. The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to the utilities affected. (Two weeks published: 30 days written.) • At the hearing the council must consider item (1)- (4) in section 1008.080 of this Code and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1) - (6) of section 1008.090 of this Code. 1008.070.Public Hearings. A hearing shall be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right-of-way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under sections 1008.040 and 1008.050 of the City Code. 1008.080.Public Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to: (1) The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of . all Facilities in the right-of-way. (2) The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. (3) The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. • (4) Alternative financing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. 1008.090.Undergrounding Plan. If the council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all Facilities in the public right of way,the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: (1) Timetable for the undergrounding. (2) Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless, undergrounding plan is citywide (3) Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. • (4) Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with nondiscrimination requirements under the law. (5) A fmancing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. (6)Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. A • 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 41 www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo September 9, 2011 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT designers on 8/24/11 TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation (Outside MnDOT R.O.W.) —Mapping and Cost Estimate Completed on 8/17/11 Bonestroo File No: 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: On August 24, 2011,a meeting was held at MnDOTs Waters Edge Building to discuss and compare the relocation study completed by Bonestroo on August 17, 2011, with the most current MnDOT design for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. Attendees included several MnDOT designers with Todd Clarkowski,along with Chris Long from Bonestroo. • The City of Oak Park Heights' sanitary sewer and water main utilities were reviewed along the TH-36 corridor during this meeting.The MnDOT designers provided several maps displaying the existing and proposed sanitary sewer and water main.The Bonestroo study was also provided and discussed. Design Discrepancies The distinct difference between the Bonestroo relocation study and the current MnDOT design was that not all the existing utilities within the MnDOT right of way were shown as being replaced or relocated in MnDOTs current design. Only utilities determined by MnDOT as impacted by the current design were shown as being relocated. The Bonestroo study identified relocating all existing utilities within a proposed City easement outside of MnDOT right of way. Utility betterments were not included in the relocation study.The current MnDOT design does include betterments such as an additional water main crossing through TH-36. Utility betterments will need to be discussed further in the future as there appears to be differences in the location and sizing requirements for the betterments. For the most part, the MnDOT right of way shown on the relocation study was consistent with MnDOTs maps.The only inaccuracy seen was the southern portion of the right of way shown on Figure 6(northeast of Moelter Fly-Ash Site)of the relocation study. Although the right of way line in this location will need to be revised, the relocation study still accurately shows the proposed utilities outside the MnDOT right of way. • A • Oak Park Heights Page 2 Follow-up to meeting with MOOT on 8/24/11 9//9/Y1 MnDOT's Proposed City Utility Relocation Areas • The proposed utility relocation areas by MnDOT were fairly consistent with the relocation study east of Osgood Avenue North, but only one relocation area has been determined required by MnDOT to the west. Key details to MnDOTs relocation areas are described below: 1. water main relocation at Oakgreen Avenue North - due to the required ponds for the proposed intersection layout 2. sanitary sewer east of Osgood Avenue North, and north of TH-36 -due to elevation changes to highway, the sanitary sewer needs to lowered and relocated with a new crossing 3. water main east of Osgood Avenue North -due to elevation changes to the highway, all water main on the north and south side of TH-36 needs to be relocated 4. sanitary sewer east of Moelter Fly-Ash Site at Beach Road North - redirection of the sewer to the south and east of proposed highway and connection to the MCES interceptor 5, water main loop crossing the proposed highway and connecting to the Sunnyside Marina Area 6. sanitary sewer redirection on Lookout Trail North to the north and east with a connection to the Sunnyside Marina Area • 7. water main relocation near the Beaudet Addition with a new crossing to the Sunnyside Marina Area MnDOT's 2006 Cost Estimate vs. Relocation Study Estimate Following the meeting, MnDOT provided cost estimates on August 29th from a 2006 study.The estimates were briefly reviewed and compared to determine any major deviations. Below shows the significant cost difference for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation: Bonestroo Relocation Study(2011) $ 12,029,800 MnDOTs 2006 Cost Estimate $ 1,766,525 (inflated by MnDOT to 2011) Cost Difference $ 10,263,275 • Oak Park Heights Page 3 Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 9//9/11 The primary difference in costs are due to the significant difference in the quantity of utilities being relocated. Since different methods of construction were assumed with different unit prices, it is difficult to compare both cost estimates. In efforts to compare"apples to apples", the percentage of MnDOT pipe was used to determine the costs with the type of construction the relocation study identified. . *Bonestroo Bonestroo MnDOT Percent of Cost Estimate Quantity Quantity MnDOT Bonestroo 2011 using MnDOT Type of Pipe (lineal feet) (lineal feet) Pipe Cost Estimate Quantity Sanitary Sewer 14,490 3,310 23% $ 9,302,300 $ 2,139,529 Water Main 17,150 5,795 34% $ 2,727,500 $ 927,350 Total $ 12,029,800 $ 3,066,879 Several other factors contributed to the cost difference as well: • different pipe installation methods (open cut vs. tunneling, or'$35/ft vs.— $575/ft) • no removals were considered or shown itemized in the cost estimate from the MnDOT • study(the relocation study identified approximately $550,000 for removals) • • water main jacking pipe quantity discrepancy (MnDOT showed 35% difference from relocation study) • the reconnection to sanitary sewer and water services was not completed in the MnDOT cost estimate(the relocation study identified approximately$200,000 for reconnections) Recommendations and Comments MnDOT needs to review in further detail the potential impacts the proposed highway and frontage roads will have on the existing utilities. It is recommended that MnDOT review and address the following items prior to considering which utilities are impacted and require relocation: 1. Ain Infrastructure-the majority of the existing utilities within MnDOT right of way 9 J tY 9 9 Y are approximately 30 to 40+ years old. Most of the water main is cast iron pipe(CIP) and the sanitary sewer is primarily reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). These utilities are more susceptible to additional maintenance or replacement in the future. Replacement or improvements (i.e., possibility of pipe lining where appropriate) to the infrastructure should be considered. 2. Utility Location Impacts-for the most part, both the existing sanitary sewer and water main are located either beneath the frontage road, in the ditch section between • the frontage road and TH-36, or in some areas below the edge or shoulder of the TH-36 roadway(sanitary sewer approximately 700' west of Oakgreen Avenue North). It is Oak Park Heights Page 4 Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 9//9/11 MnDOTs policy to not leave any longitudinal utilities under any paved portion of the • highway. These structures and pipe will be impacted during construction of the new roadway(i.e., possible pipe damage, stresses, or failures during compaction methods). Also, any maintenance or servicing in the future will be difficult if the utilities are not relocated. 3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Updating to Current Design Standards-the infrastructure under the new roadways needs to be of durable materials and designed for a long service life with the current design standards. Future development needs should be discussed. The utilities need to be relatively free of routine maintenance and servicing due to the proximity to the highway. The current MnDOT design adversely impacts the utilities within the MnDOT right of way. In considering the three items listed above with practical engineering economic practices,these utilities need to be relocated, replaced, or improved prior to placement of a new roadway constructed above and adjacent to these utilities. It is recommended that MnDOT review the above items and respond as to why the utilities are not planned to be relocated, replaced, or improved as part of their current design. It should be the full intention of both parties to ensure the infrastructure is sustainable and will protect the large investment with the new roadways into the future. Additional discussions between MnDOT and the City need to occur in order to further understand the large discrepancy in utility relocation or replacement needs. • If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4808. Sincerely, BONESTROO,INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Cc: Andy Kegley— Public Works Director, Betty Caruso_ Finance Director, Mark Vierling City Attorney; Bonestroo: Mark Hanson, Dave Hanson, Mike Nill, Mike Warner. i i W., , 1 . o �, 1 crl-tAr— 1 . . ....r. s....-■.,..., `...z.tt . i "i-- . c 4i -I ..4. a a� m `^ _ . ... ,,,,,, 4 x y �� o fa o n n €a w oo -' u et rOF yG M .1 N S w N 3. O C O C N 2E � � ��• = r rn w w N N to N 0 M r Cl U i a, t- .. M a> c CO Q. w O .0 — O) 1- c 6:= ~ El p) CA to ro N U N N ` 0 ,c ee. m 3 3 c >, rn o O fl. m v.- a O 0 E. F 2�Yy ��"op �c�Vp' .y U 'E7 Q Ni C ` C '�. 4 C Y 1 § g N O St \ G 4 u O L N g ._ L fe - izt w 8 N gN.N w O o C C R V n O M v1 O 0 M c--, -o' C v. • V� C a r C M m � A n � p Y i M 0. — Q G C . 3 w co o.1 � . t- us N g.- E 1._ > . 7 C O M n H .1 ' = M M 4 .r. m II C > C Y u N M LL - OC -...-- 3 T -0,..\ '---,, ., • . <0 0. _ 0 co V f c t �" .�i a' rn ki...: ,, 1 C ih 4_ 18 t.g S o ' n . .y aS. g3 Ol O ..'°1 D C c C 00 N Ono c'' �,c 61 m v o 1 cv .•2 d. ' c _ v to .a n U ~ - �- = d to • N N N w N - �,. a N 'Syr• r R § M m -..L ��- 2 O v v m o q� L �' N fJ <0 4r I , w , N Y `.,Y G _ rte. Ri m �' �1� N ut V •$ c Ao `& Cc £3 05 . H R C p 4 i3. & R M 8 c I O -jk:k4.----° ,- 1- 0:E 0 .11 , to Q • L z a ' R ` yy n L L ,a to m ,. .. p N N N w N d —- '.. 8 p• � c w xn p YS g es \� 'C N let V1 fi . O m N n. Cn ? t 1. • Ny e co s at S S d ` ® @ N M N el A 9 U 8 N . �u III is E 3 -o. >, Z' ° N ra •gyp d "' e�i T:6 7 e v c a m XI ` E `R � dg 0 9 . i � Qi - n Fu d ° 8 x v. ac w w :E - a. 0 x &' a'3 v rn a -" g M c -q q� 3 r .g m m a' H O ill g g g 7 V w F.. y: t U _ D R w i- w!- F- w SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 15 of 36 ECKBER.spa LAMM ERS Iii �d ? o / • T I li ti l t> q t I w _----_ Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial (651) 439-2878 (651)351-2118 Fax(651) 439-2923 Writer's Email Hudson Office: mvierling®eckberglammers.com 430 Second Street December 28,2011 Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Fax(715) 386-6456 Mr. Adam Josephson www.eckberglammers.com East Area Manager—MnDOT Metropolitan District Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Oak Park Heights—MN/DOT Discussions Regarding Truck Highway 36 Improvements—St. Croix River Crossing Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Adam: A copy of your draft Minutes of the meeting of November 22, 2011 have forwarded to me by Eric • Johnson. With regard to your Note 1 in the Minutes, 1 appreciate the effort taken to note in specific relative to the meeting that the meeting itself was part of the city work session not a formal council meeting and thus no formal action can or would be taken by the counsel. In pursuit of further clarity and in an effort to set a framework for future beneficial discussions, it is the expectation of the City of Oak Park Heights that neither MN/DOT nor the City or their personnel would make any formal statements to the press or public representing that any agreement, in part or total may have been reached from these discussions that will be ongoing unless or until a joint statement to that effect is issued by both MN/DOT and the City. In the past there have been difficulties experienced as a result of impromptu communications in this very sensitive topic between MN/DOT and the City and we earnestly desire to avoid any such statements,misunderstandings, or problems that flow from them. We trust that you agree with this position, but if the agency for any reason does not, certainly we can discuss that this evening when we gather again. Best wishes to you and your family for the New Year! Yours M. k J. Vierling Oak `- eights City Attorney MJV/j 1p cc: Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator • Lc t l;r:kc:. L:\\IMLRS. BRicG.S. \'('oI.Fr t- t'LLP Family Law r Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury i Wrongful Death Estate Planning/ Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation Meeting#1—Brief Summary �K15t°'r1 • Oak Park Heights—MnDOT discussions Tuesday- November 22, 2011 Attendees (lead participants) Dave Beaudet Les Abrahamson Mary McComber Mark Swenson Mike Runk Ted Lillie Gary Kriesel Beth Bartz Scott McBride Adam Josephson r Attendees (staff and other) Eric Johnson, City Administrator Mark Vierling, City Attorney Chris Long, City Engineer Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, MnDOT Marilyn Remer, MnDOT Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer Mike Wilhelmi, St. Croix Bridge Coalition • Note1:This meeting was part of a city council work session and not a formal council meeting. As such no formal actions were or can be taken by the council. Opinions were shared in an open public forum during this meeting but no binding actions were taken. Note2:This brief meeting summary provides a general overview of the discussions that occurred at this meeting and are not meant to be detailed meeting minutes of the discussions. 1. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Beaudet opened the meeting as a City Council work session and welcomed all participants. Participants introduced themselves. Scott McBride introduced Beth Bartz, who will serve as the facilitator for the process. 2. Purpose/Goals Beth reviewed the purpose and goals as listed on the project agenda. She reminded group that the purpose of this process in not to negotiate in language or specific dollar amounts a formal agreement, but rather develop the framework from which a formal agreement can be • negotiated. 1 • 3. Overview of Meeting Process Beth explained that the first meeting will focus on reviewing information;the second on identifying and evaluating options,and the third on determining the framework and identifying steps to implementing an agreement. Beth asked group to consider Steven Covey quote "Seek first to understand." 4. Ground Rules Beth reviewed the ground rules for the discussion process as listed on the agenda. 5. Summary of concerns and interests: Oak Park Heights Les Abrahamson distributed and reviewed the handout "Approximate Listing of issues—St Croix River Crossing" concerning costs, maintenance, equity and design issues; Issues below the first seven bullets with the exception of"equity"were agreed to be outside of the meeting purpose and will be discussed at a later time; additional topics for later discussion also identified were staging area issues and construction impacts, particularly vibration. • City needs better project cost information to make good decisions • City Council needs to be responsible to citizens by justifying benefits in order to agree to initial cost and on-going maintenance responsibilities. • • Regional project—City feels they are disproportionately burdened by project costs and believe local costs should be shared more equitably • 1995 MOU needs to be reviewed, what has changed since then? 6. Summary of concerns and interests: MnDOT Scott McBride made the following points on behalf of MnDOT: • MnDOT can't solve these issues for the City nor can the City solve them on its own; we need to work together to resolve. • Do not want to leave city in a bad spot, it is timely that these issues be resolved • Local cost participation in MnDOT projects is shaped by state statutes (legal restrictions on what MnDOT can or cannot do) and MnDOT policies (put in place to ensure equity across the state in a wide variety of projects).We will be as flexible as we can with our policies to reduce city costs; state statute restrictions will preclude some options. • The City, as the utility owner, per state statute is responsible for determining how to adjust affected utilities in state R/W and the costs, available HPP funds will help reduce those costs. Possible Framework Option:Review of cost participation policies in place when 1995 • municipal consent was granted may provide an avenue for flexibility. 2 • 7. Background on statutes, policies, HPP funding,etc.—Adam Josephson Adam reviewed current project information regarding layout, mitigation plan, schedule and funding. Available High Priority Program (HPP)funds were reviewed: • MN191 $3.6M obligated for right of way acquisition and utility relocation—these funds are available to City for "eligible costs" with a 20%local match. "Betterment" costs are not eligible. (Defined later.). A state/city agreement needs to be executed before costs can be incurred and reimbursed. • MN217$8.1M obligated for design, construction and right of way costs. MnDOT has been spending these funds for right of way acquisition and mitigation efforts. Required 20%match has been provided by MnDOT. • MN126$360,000 obligated for"preliminary design and study of long-term roadway approach alternatives" requires a $90,000 local match. Note: Eligibility for these funds is determined by FHWA. Possible Framework Option:Explore possibility of MN191 funds being converted to funds which would not require a local match. • Adam reviewed definitions of"Utilities by Permit," "First Move," and "Betterment" under state statutes. Betterments are not HPP eligible per FHWA. Utilities by Permit and impacted by the project may be eligible for HPP funding. First Move costs are a state responsibility. 8. Estimated cost impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Report—dated 11/10/11 Oak Park Heights presented a summary of"St. Croix River Crossing Project: Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights, November 10, 2011." This cost estimate included direct up-front costs, delayed long-term costs-20 year horizon, and direct incurred costs to date. The Study looked at four scenarios with estimates ranging from $7-$18 million. 9. Identified cost and maintenance issues—Adam Josephson Adam reviewed a list of anticipated Oak Park Heights utility and up-front costs which MnDOT has estimated at$3.3M, available HPP funds reduce estimated city costs to under$1,000,000. MnDOT did not estimate long-term maintenance costs. Possible Framework Option:Agreed that determination of which utility work is a "betterment"(not eligible for HPP)versus a utility relocation eligible for HPP is worth a closer look given current City standards for utility construction. • 3 Agreed that MnDOT will meet with Oak Park Heights staff to conduct a more detailed review of • the utility plan and determinations of"first move" "utility by permit" and "betterment." Council needs to discuss and direct staff accordingly to work with MnDOT in this effort. 10. Summary of Meeting 1 Meeting participants shared new information they had learned or insights obtained during the first meeting. 11. Next Steps • MnDOT agreed to look further into policy to determine if there is any discussion of cost participation in context of regional benefit. • MnDOT will send another copy of the utility layout to the City. • Better define city utility costs, current numbers based on discussions from 2006 and recent city review of project costs. City and State will work together to develop "30% utility design"to better define impacts, betterments and costs for city utilities. • City will determine extent of utility work needed to address utility conflicts, including if utilities will remain in state R/W by permit or moved off state R/W to new easement areas. • Meeting#2 will look at options to resolve costs. Any option ideas prior to meeting • should be directed to Eric and Adam;City Council members please do not comment on each other's submissions prior to meeting due to concerns about open meeting law (refer any questions about this to Eric Johnson). Meeting#2-December 28,2011—7:00—9:00 PM-Boutwells Landing—discussion of possible funding options. Mayor Beaudet closed the work session. Attached • City handout—Approximate Listing of Issues—St Croix River Crossing (11/22/11) • Flip Chart Notes from Nov 22"d meeting Also distributed at Meeting#1 • 3-Ring binder with meeting materials and agenda 4 • Mn Statute 161.46—see tab#25 in 3-ring binder • MnDOT Cost exception letter dated October 6, 2006—see tab#7 in 3-ring binder • Estimated Cost Impacts to the City—report dated November 10, 2011—correction noted on page 15 of 36—see tab#10 in 3-ring binder • • 5 ry Oak Park Heights—MnDOT Discussion of St.Croix River Crossing Local City Cost Issues Notes from 11/22/11 meeting, B. Bartz Flip chart notes Clarify: Xcel responsibility for expenses for burying of utilities Options - HPP eligibility for"betterments"? - Convert HPP funds from 80/20 match to 100%? - What constitutes "betterment"? - Re: frontage road turn-back—can replaced pipe just be meeting city policy rather than be termed a betterment? - Suggested detailed review of utility layout—revisit"betterment areas"—gray area - Could Osgood to Oakgreen pipes be lined? Would this place it in a different category? Design questions: - Does proposed trail connect to any regional facilities (believe there is a regional trail on the TH 5 corridor) - Could the trail along south frontage road become a sidewalk instead? If this is required as part of a Mn/DOT facility why would City be responsible for maintenance and later replacement? 6 Eric Johnson From: Josephson,Adam(DOT)[Adam.JosephsonCstate.mn.us] Sent Thursday,December 15,2011 3:41 PM 41) McBride,Scott(DOT);Wayne.Sandberg @co.washington.mn.us;Gary Kriesel(gary.kriesel @co.washington.mn.us);Beth Bartz(bbartz @srfconsulting.com);Kelly-Sonnek,Maryanne(DOT);Remer,Marilyn(DOT);sen.ted.lillie @senate.mn; rep.kathy.lohmer @house.mn;marymccomberc@ comcast.net;Michael Wilhelmi(wilhelmiga @gmail.com); LesAbrahamson @comcast.net;Mark.Swenson@AndersenCorp.com;Eric Johnson;dabeaudet@comcast.net;Mike Runk; Mark Vierling(mvierling @eckberglammers.com);Clarkowski,Todd(DOT);Chris Long(christopher.long @stantec.com) Cc: Murphy,Debra J(DOT);mandy.benz @senate.mn Subject: RE:Oak Park Heights Meeting#2-Dec 28th Attachments: Meeting#1 Summary dated 12-15-12.docx This email serves as reminder that the St.Croix River Crossing Project Meeting#2 will be held on Wednesday, December 28,2011, beginning at 7 p.m. The meeting again will be held at Boutwells Landing,5600 Norwich Parkway in Oak Park Heights,Auditorium "B" (same room as last time). Please enter through the facility's north entrance—located off 58th Street, behind Walmart. Attached is the brief meeting summary from the November meeting. At meeting#2 we will be looking at options to resolve costs. If you have any option ideas prior to meeting please direct them to Eric and Adam If you have any questions,feel free to contact me. Adam Josephson, P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager 4Iters Edge Bldg 0 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 651/234-7719 10 1 • . Oak Park Heights COUNCIL WORKSESSION Tuesday,November 22, 2011 —7:00 pm Location: Boutwells Landing-Auditorium B Agenda Oak Park Heights—MnDOT: Discussion of St. Croix Agreement Time: 7:00—9:00 PM 1. Welcome/Introductions—Scott McBride 2. Discussion Purpose/Goals—Beth Bartz Purpose:Identify key principals of a cost-participation framework between Oak Park Heights and MnDOT addressing utility,signals,stormwater and maintenance issues. The purpose of this process is NOT to negotiate in language or specific dollar amounts a formal agreement,but rather the context of a framework from which a formal agreement can be negotiated. Goals: • • Ensure that all participants understand the definitions,statutes, policies,cost estimates, maintenance concerns,financial constraints,and other information pertinent to the discussion. • Identify approaches and/or resources that may provide new insights to a mutually- agreeable framework • To conduct a respectful discussion that will be productive in moving toward a workable solution for both Oak Park Heights and MnDOT for the St.Croix River Crossing Project. 3. Overview of Meeting Process—Beth Bartz • Meeting 1—Review information, issues and constraints:"Get everyone on the same page" • Meeting 2—Identify and evaluate options, look for creative feasible solutions • Meeting 3—Determine framework; identify mechanism to document agreement; identify next steps to finalize the details 4. Ground Rules—Beth Bartz • Lead participants will be the Oak Park Heights City Council and Mayor,the MnDOT District Engineer,the MnDOT East Area Engineer,Washington County Commissioner and the State Senator and State Representative;additional staff from these organizations may serve as resources to these participants but will not directly participate in the dialog. • • Members of the public and the media will have the opportunity to observe the dialog; however,they will not participate in the meetings. The agencies may choose individually to 1 1 solicit input from the public or interested stakeholders and bring that information to the • discussion. • The discussion will address only the issues related to local cost participation in the construction and maintenance of utilities,signals, roadways,trails,stormwater ponds, landscaping features and other public infrastructure items within the Oak Park Heights area of the St.Croix River Crossing Project as currently proposed. Other issues raised during the discussion may be tracked separately to be addressed at a later date. Broader project issues such as the EIS related topics will not be addressed within the three meeting process. • All participants are expected to engage in respectful, productive dialog targeted toward moving forward toward resolution of cost agreement issues. 5. Summary of concerns and interests:Oak Park Heights—_ 6. Summary of concerns and interests: MnDOT—Scott McBride 7. Background on statutes, policies, HPP funding,etc.—Adam Josephson 8. Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Report,dated 11/10/11—_ 9. Identified Cost and Maintenance issues—Adam Josephson • 10. Summary of Meeting 1 11. Next Steps/Assignments/Agenda for Meeting 2 • • City of Oak Park Heights MNDOT Requested-"Summary of Issues" Approximate Listing of Issues St.Croix River Crossing* i S ob pv\Ze,S • Utilities • Ponding-Maintenance&Reconstruction • Trails-Maintenance&Reconstruction • Signalizations-Costs, Maintenance& Replacements • Frontage Roads-Maintenance&Reconstruction • Lookout Trail-Maintenance&Reconstruction • Landscaping-Maintenance&Reconstruction • Construction Management&Related costs:Community Information& _ C l J S"4 Coordination • __immunity Signage(Oak Park Heights Signage and Identification) • • STH 36 Access—(near McDonalds)and Across Frontage Roads • • Pine Grove Gardens—Layout Issues at Oakgreen—Proximity to homes S��- l c • Stopping Improvements Short of 58th Street t S soc$ • Design Guidelines-Salt House ctSt 0 t Co Ah v W1 v'hvtAf ( u l+"(1ac� *The City reserves the right to amend,edit or append this listing at anytime. S tub pro4 , • 11 40 rN.% tipMinnesota Department of Transportation c Memo Metropolitan District Office Tel: 651-582-1360 Waters Edge 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, Minnesota 55113 October 6,2006 - To: Richard Stehr,Division Director of Engineering Services Robert Winter,Division Director of District Operations From: ani Sahebjam,Metro District Engineer Subject: Request For Exception To Policy And Procedures For the St.Croix River Crossing Project,SP 8214-114,Cities of Oak Park Heights,Stillwater,and Bayport and Washington County I am requesting exceptions to the current Mn/DOT-Policy and Procedures Cost Policy for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. Due to the uniqueness of this project there are cost areas that will require exceptions to the cost policy. • This request covers project elements and local costs that affect three cities(Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, and Bayport)and Washington County. The City of Oak Park Heights is not currently a State Aid City but expects to reach the population threshold within 3-5 years, Stillwater is a State Aid City and Bayport is not. High Priority Program dollars are identified in the current SAFETEA-LU Act to offset project costs. MN217 (TEA#4358)calls for"Design,construct, and acquire right-of-way for the St.Croix River Crossing in Stillwater"(authorized amount$9,000,000).MN191 (TEA#3186)lists"TH36-Stillwater Bridge,ROW acquisition and Utility Relocation"(authorized amount$4,000,000).There are additional dollars($13,100,000)identified for Wisconsin in the Act for the project. A$400,000 appropriation for further study by Oak Park Heights of a"cut-n-cover"concept for TH 36 is also included in the Act(MN126,TEA#813). The St. Croix project is located in a unique area that is rich in environmental and historic resources. The river is federally designated as a National Wild and Scenic River for its remarkable scenic, recreational and geologic values. The river valley has a number of rare and protected species such as the Bald Eagle, Osprey,Peregrine Falcon and Higgins Eye mussel, as well as significant wetland and other water resources. The project area also has a number of historic resources,most located in the downtown Stillwater area,but others located in Oak Park Heights and Wisconsin. There are also several protected Section 4(f)resources in the project area. Finding a transportation solution that avoided,minimized or if needed mitigated for project impacts on the many protected resources in the project area was only possible through a facilitated • stakeholder process. Over the last three years Mn/DOT,WisDOT and FHWA have worked through a Stakeholder process to find a safe and efficient river crossing over the St. Croix River. The Page 1of5 A Stakeholder group consisted of 28 people that represented local governments, state and federal agencies, non-profit advocacy groups for the river, environment and historic resources, and other interests. The Stakeholder group held its final meeting July 2006; the majority of the group lip endorsed the "Preferred Alternative" package. The package provides for the design of the project and a mitigation package necessary to offset project impacts on protected resources. Project Mitigation Package(Exception Request) The Stakeholder group developed a mitigation package to offset the projects impacts on the riverway,natural and historic resources,and visual impacts. The mitigation items are described in SFEIS Table 15-2(attached). The estimated cost of the mitigation package is$16,552,000. The majority of the Stakeholders, which includes agencies that have permit authority over the project, have found the mitigation package to be acceptable. One of the mitigation items establishes an endowment fund for the Lift Bridge that will require Minnesota legislation to enact. This exception request is for Mn/DOT to provide funds for the identified mitigation items,subject to Minnesota statutes. Aesthetics(Exception Request) The mitigation package includes a"Visual Enhancement"item that falls outside the cost policy. An"extradosed"bridge type was identified by the stakeholders for the Preferred Alternative and represents a substantial additional investment compared to a typical girder bridge. The extradosed bridge type was identified because it best balances the impacts of a new river crossing with the high quality values(e.g.,natural; cultural;recreational; visual)that define the riverway. As described in the cost policy,this project is a"Level A"due to the project areas unique and sensitive features and a"Category 1"because it is a major construction project. The policy allows for up to 5%of the approach construction costs to be used for aesthetics. The aesthetic budget for the river bridge(including the MN approach bridge)is limited by the policy to 15%of the bridge construction cost and but not to exceed$3,000,000. There are two additional inland bridges in Minnesota,one carries Beach Road(Level A—Category 1)over TH 36 and second one carries an access road over R/R tracks(Level C—Category 2)along the east side of TH 95 just north of TH 36. The Beach Road bridge is very visible and is a gateway structure to the river way. The access road bridge is in an industrial area and will not be very visible. As part of the Stakeholder process it was identified that due to the uniqueness of this area a higher level of aesthetics was required for the project. A negotiated aesthetic budget amount of 7.5%of the project construction costs was determined for the project. This aesthetic budget as proposed would be used for aesthetic items anywhere on the projects Minnesota or Wisconsin roadway approaches or inland bridges. The aesthetic budget for the river bridge considers the extradosed bridge as the base bridge and allows for up to$3,000,000 extra to be used for aesthetic features on the bridge. The total aesthetic budget for the project is currently estimated at$8.1 million; which provides for up to$3 million extra for the river bridge and its Minnesota approach bridge and$5.1 for the roadway approaches and inland bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin. A cost exception is requested to allow up to 7.5% for aesthetics on the approaches and an additional capped amount on the river bridge for aesthetics. • Page 2 of 5 Local Trails—(Concurrence request) Two trail systems are proposed with the project. The first is a loop trail system that utilizes the new river bridge,the historic lift bridge,and connecting trails on both sides of the river. The loop trail is one of the items in the mitigation package. A second trail system provides local trail connections along TH 36 and TH 95 that will provide connections between local/regional trails and the loop trail. It is proposed to allow a portion of the aesthetic budget to cover the cost of construction of these trails. This expenditure is allowed in the policy(section 1.D.f.i,page 43); concurrence to expend a portion of the aesthetic budget on local/regional trail construction is requested. Stormwater Ponds(Exception Request) Nine stormwater ponds and two infiltration basins along the Minnesota approach are proposed with the St.Croix project to address project water quality and quantity issues in the project area. Water quality is a major concern with the agencies that make up the St. Croix Basin Water Resources • Planning Team; including the MnDNR,WisDNR,MPCA,and NPS. The Basin Team has adopted a 20%phosphorus loading reduction goal within the St.Croix River drainage basin. This goal for the St. Croix River is above that required under current NPDES permit requirements. The ponds have been sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the project and the abutting local drainage areas that also drain to these ponds. Washington County,and the City's of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater,and Bayport have areas draining to the ponds and therefore identified local cost shares in the ponds. The proposed ponding areas needed to meet NPDES requirements have been increased to try and meet the Basin Team's phosphorous loading reduction goal. With the ponding • that is provided a 19%phosphorous loading reduction is achieved for the project. There are some additional ponding possibilities that will be further investigated during the detail design phase to try and attain the 20%goal. WisDOT is funding the full cost of the ponds on the east side of the river. The use of HPP dollars is planned to offset 80%of the identified local costs for the ponds. The below table identifies the total local cost participation in the stormwater ponds. Table 1 —Local Costs for Stormwater Ponds Est.Local Pond Cost HPP 80% 20%Local Match Oak Park Heights $328,552 $262,842 $65,710 Stillwater $50,630 $40,504 $10,126 ' Bayport $70,954 $56,763 $14,191 Washington County $49,048 $39,238 $9,810 Q Total $499,184 $399,347 $99,837 • Since the ponding volumes,that include the local drainage areas,are needed to attain the phosphorous goals for the riverway, a cost exception is requested for Mn/DOT to provide the :tt Local HPP match share for the city's and county. Nay Professional Technical Services(information only-no cost exception) The City of Oak Park Heights has city utilities(sanitary sewer and watermain)that are in the • Mn/DOT R/W by"permit"that are impacted by the project and will need to be relocated. The city Page 3 of 5 also has utilities that will be impacted by the project that are in new R/W and will be considered "first move." The city has also requested utility work that is defined as a"betterment." The estimated construction costs for city utility work in Oak Park Heights is shown in Table 2.The city will design the new local utilities for inclusion in the TH36 roadway plan. The city does not have engineering staff and will consult out these design services. The estimated cost for design is estimated at 6.5%of the utility construction cost. Available HPP funds will be used to cover 80%of these city consultant costs. Table 2—Utility Design Costs Type of Move Est. Design HPP % HPP$'s Mn/DOT Oak Park Heights Const. Cost 6.50% Match $ Match $ Permitted 1,334,500 86,743 80% 69,394 0% 0 20% 17,349 ' First Move 534,920 34,770 80% 27,816 20% 6,954 0% 0 Betterment 236,575 15,377 0% 0 0% 0 100% 15,377 Total 2,105,995 136,890 97,210 6,954 32,726 The City of Stillwater has a relatively minor local utility impact cost of$30,000. Mn/DOT designers will work with Stillwater to address these local utility design issues. In accordance with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak Park Heights will be required to provide the 20%HPP match for permitted utilities and 100%of the costs for betterments. Mn/DOT will provide the 20%match on the first move. City Engineering Utility Coordination(information only no cost exception) • The City of Oak Park Heights requested to have their own inspection staff observe the construction and inspection work on installation of their city utilities under Mn/DOT contract. The city will consultant out this service because they do not have staff to meet this need. Available HPP dollars will cover 80%of this cost;there is a 20%local match requirement. The estimated cost for construction engineering(CE)is estimated at 5%of the utility construction cost and summarized in Table 3. Table 3—Construction Engineering for Local Utilities Est. CE HPP % HPP $'s Mn/DOT Oak Park Heights Type of Move Const.cost 5% Match $ Match $ Permitted 1,334,500 66,725 80% 53,380 0% 0 20% 13,345 First Move 534,920 26,746 80% 21,397 20% 5,349 0% 0 Betterment 236,575 11,829 0% 0 0% 0 100% 11,829 Total 2,105,995 105,300 74,777 5,349 25,174 In accordance with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak Park Heights will be required to provide the 20%HPP match for permitted utilities and 100%of the costs for betterments.Mn/DOT will provide the 20%match on the first move utilities. Construction Costs for City Utilities(information only-no cost exception) The construction costs to relocate the City of Oak Park Heights utilities impacted by the project,in 0 Mn/DOT R/W by permit as required in State Statute 161.46 are a required 100%local cost. Page 4 of 5 Mn/D OT plans to use available HPP funds to cover 80%of these city utility costs,the remaining 0 Ill 20%is a local cost. Ci utilities that are impacted and considered a"first move"will utilize available HPP funds and ty Mn/DOT will provide the 20%local match. requested utility work that is a"betterment"would be 100%city cost for design,construction, City requ and construction engineering. Table 4—Construction Costs for Local Utilities Est. Mn/DOT Oak Park Hei•hts IIIIConst. HPP % HPP $'s $ Cost 0% 0 20% 266,900 Permitted 1,334,500 80% 1,067,600 ° 106,984 0% 0 First Move 534,920 80% 427,936 20% 100% 236,570 0% 0 0% =Mil. 236,575 1,495,536- 106,984- 503,475 otal 2,105,995_ In accordance with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak o Park the Heights is for betterments.will required lVtn/DOT provide the 20%HPP�tch on the first move. and 100% will provide Traffic signals(information only no cost exception) Ill New traffic,signals are identified at seven intersections to with the use avail able HPP funds to cover 80%ti n ject. The local cost is identified in the attached cost table.Mn/DOT plans these signal costs,the remaining 20%is a local cost. If Y ou have any questions concerning this request please call me at 651-582-1360. I concur with this request I concur with this request A SW 4 1 10A '.'chard Stehr 'obert Winter Service Division Director of District Operations Division Director of Engineering Attachments • Project Aerial Photo(dated 4/29/06), • Project Utilities Preliminary Cost Impacts(dated 7/31/06), • Proposed Traffic Signal Construction Costs/Maintenance Responsibilities(dated 5/2/06), and • Project Mitigation Package, SFEIS Table 15-2. Cc: Maryanne Kelly-Sormek Nick Thompson Todd Clarkowski Adam Josephson Page 5 of 5 161.46, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2011 Minnesota Statutes 161.46 REIMBURSEMENT OF UTILITY. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have • the meanings ascribed to them: (1) "Utility" means all publicly, privately, and cooperatively owned systems for supplying power, light, gas, telegraph, telephone, water, pipeline, or sewer service if such systems be authorized by law to use public highways for the location of its facilities. (2) "Cost of relocation" means the entire amount paid by such utility properly attributable to such relocation after deducting therefrom any increase in the value of the new facility and any salvage value derived from the old facility. Subd. 2. Relocation of facilities; reimbursement. Whenever the commissioner shall determine the relocation of any utility facility is necessitated by the construction of a project on the routes of federally aided state trunk highways, including urban extensions thereof, which routes are included within the National System of Interstate Highways, the owner or operator of such utility facility shall relocate the same in accordance with the order of the commissioner. After the completion of such relocation the cost thereof shall be ascertained and paid by the state out of trunk highway funds; provided, however, the amount to be paid by the state for such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount on which the federal government bases its reimbursement for said interstate system. Subd. 3. Lump-sum settlement. The commissioner may enter into agreements with a utility • for the relocation of utility facilities providing for the payment by the state of a lump sum based on the estimated cost of relocation when the lump sum so agreed upon does not exceed $100,000. Subd. 4. Acquisition of relocated facility for utility. When the project requires a utility to relinquish lands or interests in lands owned by the utility and the utility is unable to acquire lands or interests in lands necessary to enable it to relocate its facilities, or if the acquisition of the lands or interests in lands by the utility would result in undue delay thereby delaying the interstate highway project, the commissioner, by purchase, gift, or eminent domain proceedings, may acquire the lands or interests in lands necessary for the relocation if the commissioner deems that the acquisition would reduce the cost to the state of the project. The lands necessary for the relocation to be acquired by the commissioner must be designated in an agreement between the utility and the commissioner. The agreement must also provide that without cost to either party to the agreement, the utility will relinquish to the state its interests in the lands required for the interstate project in consideration of the conveyance by the state to the utility of the substitute lands designated in the agreement to be acquired by the state. The interest or estate acquired by the commissioner must be substantially similar to the interest or estate that the utility owned in the lands to be relinquished by it to the state. The commissioner may convey the lands or interests in lands to the utility. Subd. 5. Relocation work by state. The relocation work may be made a part of a state highway construction contract or let as a separate contract by the state under applicable federal laws, rules and regulations if the owner or operator of the utility facility requests the commissioner to act as its agent for the purpose of relocating such facilities and if such action is deemed to be in the best interest of the state. When relocation work is made a part of a state highway construction contract or when let as a separate contract by the state as authorized herein, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.46%20 11/22/2011 161.46,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 the cost of such relocation may be paid by the commissioner directly to the contractor out of the trunk highway fund without requiring the utility to first make payment for such relocation work and thereafter request reimbursement therefor; provided that, the agreement entered into between the state and the utility shall contain a stipulation that the utility shall reimburse the state for any costs of such relocation in which the federal government will not participate. • History: 1959 c 500 art 2 s 46; 1963 c 57 s 1; 1965 c 14 s 1; 1967 c 231 s 1; 1973 c 42 s 1; 1981 c 209 s 6; 1983 c 143 s 11; 1996 c 455 art 3 s 13 • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.46%20 11/22/2011 411 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 December 8,2011 Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: MNDOT Study of Impacts—2005/06 Dear Mr.Josephson: Thank you for your Nov 14t,2011 response to the City's inquiry regarding the issue of a"study that MNDOT did in 2006". Some additional clarifications are needed. As you know,the meetings referenced in your letter should not be classified as"study"between the City and MNDOT regarding the City's utilities.The meetings also included the City of Stillwater,several members from MNDOT and SRF(MNDOT's engaged consultant)and were to preliminarily engage several issues.These meetings were,to the best of my recollection a synopsis of the preliminary plans and • concepts that were developed and led by MNDOT staff and consultants.The meetings were not executed in a fashion that were definitively directed at options or changes as it was conveyed to the City that future studies would better define impacts.Because of this preliminary format,the meeting was not by any means addressed as a final dialogue to explore impacts. Despite this preliminary status,the meeting notes(not to be considered as adopted minutes)from March 31st,2005,for example,do state that the City did question the moving of water utilities in the south frontage road in the Oakgreen Area and the costs/easements associated. In addition,the concepts and perspectives of what party would manage the future frontage roads was not meaningfully discussed at that time and which of course has significant bearing on the outcomes and impacts of utilities location and long-term management. Since these preliminary meetings,the City has overtly provided several statements to MNDOT requesting clarification and commitment as to the costs associated with dealing with the utilities in the frontage road across the entirety of the Project.MNDOT reliance on early conceptualization and preliminary layouts and incomplete dialogue from six years ago seemingly disregards these requests and appears misplaced. None the less,the City does appreciate that MNDOT now indicates that there is a need to explore the impacts of the Project in greater detail on City utilities and we look forward to a meaningful dialogue that substantially en!..:es the City's concerns in detail. ii JJo'' inistrator fit Cc: Weekly Notes r ,e ' #414 Is Minnesota Department of Transportation $ ° Metro District 4' 0Fmo,ti' 1500 West County Road B-2 diRoseville, MN 55113 November 14,2011 (Sent by email only) Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.N. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re:St Croix—Utility costs Dear Mr.Johnson: This is in reply to the city's October 7,2011 letter concerning estimated city utility costs due to the St Croix River Crossing Project. The estimated utility costs currently being used were developed during the preliminary design utility • meetings held with City of Oak Park Heights(including Bonestroo),City of Stillwater, Mn/DOT and Mn/DOT's consultant(SRF Consulting Group)in 2005/06. The meetings were held to discuss what city utilities may be impacted by the project, how the city would want to adjust impacted utilities,to identify potential betterments desired by the city and to determine preliminary utility costs for the anticipated city utility work. The meeting agenda's and meeting summaries are attached for the following utility meetings; • March 31, 2005 • May 5, 2005 • July 21,2005 • February 23,2006 The city's input and design work by Mn/DOT's consultant resulted in the Preliminary Utility Cost Table (dated 7/31/06). Subsequent cost tables provided to the city have been adjusted for inflation only,the impacted utilities and quantities have not been updated since the 2006 estimate. The utility meetings held with the city were to develop a preliminary utility cost estimate such that a good faith cost estimate could be provided to the city identifying the city's estimated costs in the project. When the project moves into the detail design phase,design work and continuing coordination will be conducted • An Equal Opportunity Employer C) rii-,- = 0 4:1) I; i4 CY® ir; 0 ,, •. • with the city,the city's utility designers and Mn/DOT designers to reevaluate and further define all utilities that may be in conflict with,impacted by,or desired to be improved by the city. Detailed designs and cost estimates will be developed. The city infrastructure lying between Oakgreen and Osgood would also be re- evaluated,to determine if additional work is needed beyond what was identified from earlier discussions with the city. City utility costs figures will eventually be based on costs provided by the contractor in their bid tabulations. If you need further clarification please let me know. Sincerely, Zit/0J, 61'1 Adam Josephson Metro East Area Manager Attached Meeting summaries • 3/31/05 5/4/05 7/21/05 2/23/06 Cost Table,dated 7/31/06 An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 0.0904." 0 Wri S SRF No.0034686 0270 ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING UTILITY MEETING STILLWATER CITY HALL MARCH 31, 2005 AT 10:00 A.M. AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS H. REVIEW PROPOSED ROADWAY DESIGN III. EXISTING UTILITIES • Any planned city utility projects within project limits IV. PROPOSED UTILITIES • City utility projects to be coordinated with this project V. NEXT STEPS • • li • r l + SRFCONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic• Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way SRF No.0034686 RECORD OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Brett Danner Environmental Planner DATE: April 4,2005 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING MINUTES MARCH 31,2005 A utilities meeting was held on March 31, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: Klayton Eckles,City of Stillwater Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Shawn Sanders,City of Stillwater Dan Symanietz, SRF Tim Moore,City of Stillwater Brett Danner, SRF Eric Johnson,City of Oak Park Heights Tom Ozzello,City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler,Bonestroo&Assoc. Karen Erickson,Bonestroo&Assoc. The following is a summary of this meeting: I. INTRODUCTIONS • The attendees introduced themselves. H. REVIEW OF TH 36 AT-GRADE DESIGN • No improvements at Norell/Washington. • 4-lane at-grade facility on trunk highway (TH) 36 (urban section on outside shoulders;rural section on inside shoulders). • TH 36 grade stays the same with at-grade intersection design. • One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax(763)475-2429•httn://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer r i St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 • 3 lane-ur-ban-sect-ion-0n-bothnorth-and-south-frentage--roads. • Pulled-back frontage roads at Oakgreen/Greeley—signalized intersections with north and south frontage roads. • Relocated Beach Road overpass. • Reconstruction of TH 95 (southern terminus = near 10th Avenue North; northern terminus=just north of existing Lookout Trail intersection). • Layout shown at today's meeting will be documented in the Supplemental Final EIS. III. EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES • Dan Symanietz reviewed the existing utilities along the TH 36 corridor. The following is a summary of the items discussed at the Oakgreen/Greeley intersection. Utilities—Oakgreen/Greeley • No major utility relocations until Osgood Avenue. • A water main located along the south frontage road at Oakgreen/Greeley would need to be relocated as it falls under a proposed pond. • One sewer line that serves three businesses along Greeley Street north of the north frontage road crosses through the TH 36/Oakgreen/Greeley intersection to the south frontage road. This crossing of TH 36 could be removed if the cities wish to coordinate with one another. Currently, Oak Park Heights services these businesses which are located Stillwater. This line does not need to be relocated under this project. • There will be some loss of ponding with the existing pond at the northwest corner of the north frontage road/Greeley Street intersection to accommodate the pulled-back north frontage road. you • Oak Park Heights requested clarification of where the water main along the south frontage road would be relocated and what would be provided(e.g.,easement,etc.) • Existing storm and sanitary sewer are located along the south frontage road. The storm sewer will get rebuilt as needed with the project and the sanitary sewer will remain in its current location in the boulevard between TH 36 and the south frontage road. Some sanitary sewer casting will need to be adjusted to meet new grades. Trail System Along Frontage Roads The trail system along the frontage roads was discussed, including ownership and maintenance of the trails. Todd Clarkowski noted that the trails along the frontage roads will connect to the regional trail system and proposed loop trail along the river. Todd noted that ownership of the trail is being worked through with the Oak Park Heights Memorandum of Understanding • • St. Croix River Crossing-Utilities Page 3 • Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 (MOU). If no one steps forward to claim ownership, Mn/DOT will maintain the frontage road system and the trails. Utilities-Osgood Avenue The following is a summary of the items discussed regarding utility impacts at the Osgood Avenue intersection. • Need for second water main crossing near Osgood Avenue. Water main will be relocated with the project to the south frontage road. This water main will continue east under TH 95 and then north parallel to the east side of TH 95. • Possible sanitary sewer improvements needed to address problems at the Washington County Government Center. • Sanitary sewer line will be relocated to parallel the proposed Washington County Government Center parking lot expansion, crossing TH 36 and tying into the existing system near the Tara Hidaway restaurant. Utilities-East of Beach Road and along TH 95 • The following is a summary of the items discussed regarding utility impacts east of Beach Road and along TH 95. • • A water line is located under TH 36 from Lookout Trail area to a pressure reducing • station near 61st Street North (area of right of way purchased by Mn/DOT for 1995 Preferred Alternative river crossing). This water line was not illustrated on layouts at meeting. Dennis Postler to provide mapping so this line can be reflected on the layouts. • Water is currently provided to Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums at one location near the Met Council Environmental Services(MCES)treatment plant. • Impacts. to MCES interceptor line is unknown at this time. Todd Clarkowski described the Preferred Alternative bridge design (extradosed bridge type) and that Mn/DOT anticipates knowing bridge pier locations by the end of this year. • Discussion of sewer line at Lookout Trail and TH 95 (Oak Park Heights). - There is an opportunity for Oak Park Heights to eliminate one sewer lift station along Lookout Trail. - There is a question of capacity if Zones 5 and 5A are combined by reconstructing some existing sewer- there may need to be two crossings under TH 95 (one to serve Zone 5 and one to serve Zone 5A). - If Zone 5 and Zone 5A are not combined, a second crossing near the existing sewer crossing at TH 36 would need to be constructed and cross TH 95 to the treatment plant. - Large drops in the sewer line would be needed to get under TH 95 to chase grades downhill. St. Croix River Crossing-Utilities Page 4 Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 • - Additional-information-is-needed-regarding-inv-erts-to-existing holes behind the Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. • Discussion of Stillwater sewer force main near the proposed reconstructed access to Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. - A proposed stormwater pond is located between the relocated Sunnyside access and TH 95. - A Stillwater force main is located between this proposed pond and the access to Sunnyside; the line continues north through the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property. - This force main was constructed in 1959; the exact location is unknown. It can only be located for about 600 feet from a lift station to the north. - This line would need to be located prior to construction. • Discussion of storm sewer plans at Oakgreen/Greeley. - Klayton Eckles noted water quality issues/concerns related to Lily Lake. - Dry ponds are proposed at southeast quadrant of TH 36/Oakgreen/Greeley intersection (between Oakgreen and south frontage road) and west of Oakgreen along the west side of the south frontage road. - Additional mapping to be sent to Stillwater (Klayton Eckles) and Oak Park Heights (Dennis Postler) illustrating storm sewer lines/trunk lines/drainage areas • at Oakgreen/Greeley. IV. NEXT STEPS Costs for relocating utilities (including right of way) were estimated at $9.5 million, based on Concept F (Buttonhook Concept). Concept F is no longer being considered in conjunction with the river crossing. Costs associated with relocation of utilities east of Osgood Avenue will be estimated by Mn/DOT for the next meeting. Another utility meeting will be held in approximately one month. For this meeting,the layouts will be revised to reflect utilities east of Beach Road not shown at today's meeting. These meeting minutes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions,please contact Dan Symanietz or Brett Danner at 763-475-0010. H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\StCroix-UtilitiesMtg-31mar05.doc • • v\lj VA • St. Croix River ossing Project • Utility eeting Wednesday, 2005, 1:00—3:00 Stillwater City Hall 216 North 4th Street, Stillwater, MN AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS II. REVIEW EXISTING UTILITIES III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • Review utility relocations with the project 11, • Staging of utility relocations • Cost estimates for utility relocations IV. NEXT STEPS H,\Projects\4686\HI-MU\DOC\Agenda-utility-03may05.doc 411 i SRF CONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic•Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way SRFNo.0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Brett Danner Environmental Planner DATE: May 5,2005 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING NOTES—MAY 4,2005 A utilities meeting was held on May 4, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: • Klayton Eckles,City of Stillwater Tom Ozzello,City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler,Bonestroo &Assoc. Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Dan Symanietz, SRF Brett Danner, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. I. REVIEW OF EXISTING UTILITIES Dan Symanietz reviewed the layout illustrating existing utilities in the project area. The following is a summary of items added to the layout since the last St. Croix utilities meeting (3/31/05). • A water main is located along Oakgreen Avenue that will be relocated with frontage road reconstruction. A stormwater pond is proposed at the location of the water main. • Most of the utility relocation work is at the Osgood Avenue/TH/TH 36 intersection and to the east at the proposed TH 36/95 interchange. • An existing pressure reducing station is located at the location of the proposed TH 36/95 interchange(approximate location—61st Street and Peller Avenue). A stormwater pond, at the northwest quadrant of the interchange,will require this pressure reducing station to be relocated. 411 One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone(763)475-0010•Fax(763)475-2429 •http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 • Meeting Notes May 4,2005 • An existing pressure reducing station is located along TH 36 just to the east of the Washington County Government Center expansion (60th Street and Panama Avenue). This pressure reducing station will have to be considered with any new water main crossing of TH 36. • The Stillwater forcemain located along TH 95 and the proposed new Sunnyside entrance will not be impacted by the grading for the proposed Sunnyside pond or the construction of the loop trail system. II. REVIEW OF PROPOSED UTILITIES AND STAGING Proposed Utilities—Water Main • The water main at Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street will be relocated with frontage road construction. The water main will be relocated between the walk along the west side of Oakgreen Avenue and the proposed stormwater pond. • The pressure reducing station should be located at the water main "T" that feeds the Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. Tom Ozzello provided Dan Symanietz a conceptual drawing of the potential configuration of this new pressure reducing station. • • A new water main crossing of TH 36 will be constructed east of the Washington County Government Center near Paris Avenue. The existing pressure reducing station at Panama Avenue will remain in place and a new pressure reducing station would be constructed with the water main crossing at Paris Avenue. Proposed Utilities—Sanitary Sewer • An existing sanitary sewer line through the TH 36/95 interchange area will be relocated and flow down through the interchange to the existing Met Council sewer crossing of existing TH 95. • The new sanitary sewer line that runs through the TH 36/95 interchange could be removed from Mn/DOT right of way if the existing sewer line that runs along Lookout Trail were replaced to flow down to the existing lift station. The lift station could be replaced with a new gravity crossing of TH 95 near Sunnyside. • The Bayport interceptor at the south end of project construction on TH 95 will be relocated with the project. Discussions regarding this relocation with Met Council Environmental Services are ongoing. Storm Sewer and Ponding_at Greeley Street • Stillwater has a program in place to improve water quality at Lily Lake (Lily Lake Improvement Project). • Stillwater would like to see more stormwater treatment upstream to benefit Lily Lake. S St. Croix River Crossing-Utilities Page 3 �. • Meeting Notes May 4,2005 •--A-new-development in-Oak-Park-Heights-aloag-Oakgreen-Avenue-will-be $d-to construct a new NURP pond near the newly-constructed townhomes along Oakgreen. This new pond would drain to the wetland area along the south frontage road and Oakgreen Avenue,then across TH 36 to Oasis Pond. • Pond capacity at the north frontage road/Greeley Street will not be impacted to a great extent by the project. Relocation of the north frontage road will require some fill in the east side of the pond,but will also allow for some expansion of the pond to the south. • cBoth Oak Park Heights and Stillwater are interested in receiving a copy of the preliminary drainage report. Construction Staging Staging figures from the Supplemental Final EIS for the Preferred Alternative were distributed to the group. • Staging illustrated in the figures assumes full funding of the project. • Most utility relocations will occur in the first stage before construction of the new roadways. III. REVIEW.OF UTILITY RELOCATION T ESTIMATES Dan Symanietz distributed a preliminary cost estimate for utility relocations based on the improvements illustrated in the layout shown at today's meeting. • Utility relocation costs for Oak Park Heights under the layout shown is approximately $1.7 million,including costs to eliminate the lift station near Lookout Trail and TH 95. • Cost estimate does not include anything for storm sewer relocations. IV. NEXT STEPS Oak Park Heights will review elimination of the existing lift station near Lookout Trail and TH 95 (costs of eliminating lift station versus costs of new sanitary sewer construction). Once Oak Park Heights has informed Mn/DOT regarding the fate of the lift station, the layout will be updated to reflect any sanitary sewer changes/relocations in this area. A question was raised by Klayton Eckles regarding city cost participation with storm sewer relocation costs, particularly if project-related grading changes drainage patterns. Todd Clarkowski clarified that this would be addressed through the Memorandum of Agreement with both cities. 4110 St. Croix N River otes Crossing May 4 -0 2005 Utilities M , Page 4 There will be no additional utility coordination meetings through the remainder of the environmental documentation phase of the project. Any necessary correspondence will be handled through email,phone, etc. Additional utility coordination meetings will occur during the final design stage of the project. These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz or Brett Danner at 763-475-0010. H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\StCroix-UtilitiesMtg-04may05.doc I • St. Croix River Crossing Project Utility Meeting Wednesday, July 21, 2005, 1:00—3:00 Stillwater City Hall 216 North 4th Street, Stillwater, MN AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS • II. REVIEW EXISTING UTILITIES • Water • Sanitary Sewer • Storm Sewer 110 III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • Storm Sewer • IV. NEXT STEPS H AProjectsk16661EP\Meetings\Utilities1Agenda-utility-20ju105.doc • • SRF CONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic•Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way SRF No. 0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Dan Symanietz Engineering Specialist DATE: July 22,2005 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING NOTES—JULY 21,2005 A Utilities meeting was held on July 21, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: Klayton Eckles, City of Stillwater Eric Johnson,City of Oak Park Heights Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights Karen Erickson,Bonestroo&Associates Todd Clarkowski, Mn/DOT Rusty Mereng,Mn/DOT Dan Symanietz, SRF David Filipiak, SRF Walter Eshenaur, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. I. INTRODUCTIONS • The group introduced themselves. • After the introductions, Todd Clarkowski stated the purpose of today's meeting and previous meetings was to come up with a preliminary concept/design for the utilities affected by the project. II. REVIEW OF EXISTING UTILITIES • Dan Symanietz stated that all previous comments to existing utilities had been incorporated into the layout. • One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax(763)475-2429 •httn://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Notes July 21,2005 • III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • A discussion was held regarding the location of the proposed sanitary sewer and water main along TH 95. The City of Oak Park Heights would like to see the sewer and water main placed along lookout trail—referred to as option 2 on the preliminary estimate at the meeting. Tom Ozzello said only two reducing station were needed with this option, one near the village area around Beach road and a the cost would be about $200,000 more the original option because of reconstructing Lookout Trail in the areas of the utility relocation. . The sanitary sewer and water main will be relocated to Lookout Trail, the and cost estimate revised to reflect this change. • David Filipiak then gave an overview of the drainage maps shown at the meeting. The maps are a communication tool to show drainage areas, show existing drainage systems,proposed systems and connections to the existing system where needed, ponding locations and elevations,and utility conflicts and issues. • Walter Eshenaur then started a more detailed discussion of the drainage areas affected by the project(e.g.,the Lilly Lake Area and the St. Croix River Area): • Lilly Lake Area Discussion — Oasis Pond exists today,and there will be some grading impacts to this pond. — Existing drainage patterns are maintained. — Two new ponds will treat water before discharging into Oasis Pond; discharge rates will remain the same or be less then they are today out of Oasis pond. However, volumes will probably increase. — Eric Johnson stated that the Middle St.Croix Watershed District has review authority for the City of Oak Park Heights, and that the existing pond near the Greeley intersection is owned by the condominium association. — There is also a new development frontage Erickson of Folton, Green andeEricksoOn to intersection. We should contact get the plans. — Klayton Eckles from the City of Stillwater had concerns about water quality and quantity going to Lilly Lake. The City has done a lot of improvements to their drainage system to improve water quality in Lilly Lake. — Klayton would like more treatment for the Lilly Lake area(e.g.,look at using available areas to create more treatment i.e.,lot next to Bakers Square). — Klayton would like to see SRF computations for the Lilly Lake drainage area. • — Eric Johnson wanted to know if the project meets the MS 4 requirements. Niii 1 , , A Page 3 St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Meeting Notes July 21, 2005 • St.Croix River Discussion — The existing storm system under the south frontage road will remain and take the existing off site runoff and the south half of the proposed frontage road. This system will empty Perro Creek as it does today. Water from the Government Center that also flows to Perro Creek will also go there in the future. Water from the TH 36 runoff will be treated in the project area, and this water will be diverted from the Perro Creek area which will help with the current flooding problems. — A treatment train ponding scenario will treat the remainder of the water in the TH95 /TH36 interchange area. — TH 36 is rural typical section in the median area and u urban on outside the we tsidf Osgood Avenue. The typical section is urban in the median area east of Osgood Avenue. The drainage will be carried in these outside ditches from Osgood Avenue to the interchange ponds. — The city of Oak Park Heights expressed concerns about the future county project (Pickett Ave.)and the storm water going to the Pickett Ponds. — The flow directions of two pipes shown on the drainage area map were noted. These will be corrected. • — The City of Oak Park Heights expressed concerns about the wetland impacts created by Riverside ponds and by the Pickett Ponds. Todd said the ponding and wetland impacts were discussed early on in the EIS process and the City was represented at those meetings. Another meeting will be held in approximately one month. The layouts will be.revised to reflect utility changes discussed at today's meeting. The cost estimate will be updated per these changes; quantities and costs will also be added for the storm sewer impacts to both Cities. The cities would like to get copies of the corrected storm sewer maps and utility layout These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz at 763-475-0010. DS/bls SRF.Vo131HI Projects146861 EPlMeetingsl Utilities/StCroix-UtilitiesMtg072103.doc • • St. Croix River Crossing Project Utility Meeting Thursday, February 23, 2006, 1:00 —3:00 Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North, Oak Park Heights, MN AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS II. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT • Storm Sewer Design III. REVIEW PROPOSED UTILITY LAYOUT AND POTENTIAL UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS • Sanitary Sewer • Watermain • Storm Sewer IV. NEXT STEPS • Additional Utility Verification and Coordination H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\Utilities\Agenda-StCroixUtility-23feb06.doc • CONSULTING GROUP , INC . •Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic•Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way SRF No.0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Dan Symanietz Engineering Specialist DATE: February 24,2006 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES COORDINATION MEETING MEETING NOTES—February 23,2006 A Utilities meeting was held on February 23, 2006, at the Oak Park Heights City Hall. The following were in attendance: Shawn Sanders,City of Stillwater • Eric Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler,Bonestroo &Associates Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Rusty Nereng,Mn/DOT Adam Josephson,Mn/DOT Monty Hamri,Mn/DOT Mel Horak,City of Bayport Wayne Sandberg,Washington County Dan Symanietz,.SRF David Filipiak, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. I. INTRODUCTIONS • After introductions, Todd Clarkowski gave a brief overview of past utility meetings. The primary focus at those meetings was the watermain and sanitary sewer utilities. Todd also gave a brief description of the project roadway and trail network indicated that the focus of today's meeting would be the drainage (storm sewer) system. Much of the information discussed at this meeting is found in the preliminary drainage report, which the cities and county received a few weeks ago. • One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone(763)475-0010•Fax(763)475-2429 •http://www.srfconsulting.com • An Equal Opportunity Employer ,`. ( ', r° 1 i St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Notes February 23,2006 II. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT i • David Fillipiak provided an overview of the drainage report. • David Fillipiak explained the overall drainage patterns using the drainage treatment map contained in the preliminary drainage report. Most of the patterns are similar to what has been presented in past meetings, with the exception of the addition of two infiltration basins at the Greeley Ave. intersection. • David also stated that there is a map in the drainage report showing drainage issues, connection points to existing systems and possible utility conflicts. • Rusty Nereng responded to a question from Oak Park Heights wondering if project will meet the MS4 requirements. Rusty stated that the preliminary water resource design should meet the requirements as currently written. • Wayne Sandberg wanted to know if the Pickett Ponds take into account the future Pickett Ave. project. RESPONSE: The pond volume shown in the Preliminary Drainage Report includes the existing conditions for this area but not the additional pavement. Final pond sizing. We believe North Picket Pond could be expanded to account for the new roadway during final design. • Mel Horak list four project related concerns from the city of Bayport 1. Make sure ponds address aesthetic needs. Todd indicated that the Aesthetic Design ill Guide has addressed ponds aesthetics. 2. The city would like a trail connection from Pickett Ave. to the existing trail near the bank. 3. The city would like a Traffic Signal in town,possible at 2nd Ave. S. and T.H. 95 4. Truck access on to T.H. 95 from Anderson Windows. III. REVIEW OF PROPOSED UTILITY LAYOUT-COST ESTIMATE • The group reviewed the proposed utility (sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer) layouts. • Eric Johnson inquired about pond maintenance, and stated that the City of Oak Park Heights would not maintain ponds. • Todd handed out the preliminary cost estimate breakdown dated 2-23-06. Additional information from previous estimates now includes a cost breakdown based on the water quality treatment occurring at the ponds. Since the project is maintaining existing drainage patterns the cities would not have to share in the storm sewer costs for conveyance(piping), just the cost of providing water quality treatment(ponds and outlets). Costs shown are still preliminary. Continued refinement of costs and cost participation will occur during final design. • Eric stated the city does not have$2.3 million to pay for utility costs. ..........., • Adam Josephson said that federal HPP dollars are available for city utility relocations and that Mn/DOT was still looking into ways of providing the local match for utility work but • that defining the magnitude of the potential costs is the first step in that process. St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 3 Meeting Notes February 23,2006 • • Adam would like the cities to review there exist utilities and ownership location along with the municipal boundaries to make sure they are accurate. • Todd would also like the cities to get back to Rusty Nereg at Mn/DOT if they think water is being treated in the existing condition and that those areas determined to have adequate treatment will be removed from the contributing area for the storm treatment costs. • Mel noted that there was an existing storm sewer near the old prison that pipes water from the prison to the river. IV. NEXT STEPS • Supplemental Final EIS would be out some time in March and would be describing the preferred alternative package there by completing the preliminary design. • Mn/DOT will continue to meet with the cities during the final design phase of the project and will continue to respond to comments but there probably will not be another preliminary design utility meeting. • Eric wanted to know what will happen to the existing frontage roads until the project begins. • Adam said they would need to be looked at and some maintenance could be preformed on the roads. • In addition to the cities Mn/DOT will meet with Met Council to continue to coordinate their utility relocation work The cities and county were given a copy of the existing and proposed utilities color coded by ownership. Also a layout showing the municipal boundaries over the project area and a layout showing the existing and proposed utilities color coded by type of utility, shown at the last meeting held in July 2005 . The group was also given a copy of the proposed utility relocation cost estimate. These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz at 763-475-0010. DS/bls SRF.Vol 31H:1Projects146861EP1Meetingsl UtilitieslStCroix-UtilitiesMtg-23feb06.doc • P , , ,, !_ '11111 11111 I II 161111 1111 iii I iiir-nr IIIIIIIIIIIII • ' 'II---- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIId 11111111111, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIII 111111111111 g gi 11111111111 'll iiiiiiiiiIiiiii 11111 1 ii i I -'1,; i II iiiiimoli illiiii11111 t ,.. 111111 1 1 11111111111111111111 ii'l 1 III:111111i! ' i 1 ; Ill 111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII 1 :1210 1111111111111111111111111111 1111111101E; 1 I 11111 1111111111111111111111 111111 1111, 1111111 1 II 111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIINI III 111111111110 1 ki,1 2 i -21 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!,,,r1m , 11 r, 4. i - 1 111111111111111111111111,11 , i _..,., , iv ra, lc,"F iLlj i a ', 'n,' ' 1 ,1 1 ,. ,, J ' - ,r• [ -' 1 , 1 ' I, 'IL',:t rA if ih: 41' ,'1.1: g I • As 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-1 1 i.„. ... .,_ . '1 1 1 1 1 '1.:-:::'I :, _ ;LI ,"IJ ,,L,i. a■—i 1 , _ 1 1 I m 12 M ilgS 4 1 '1: 11111 I g . 1 1:111111111111;111111111111111 1111111 ' iIIIIIIIIIII I - iiiiIIii ii 11111 ___. Iliiiiiiiiii ; . . P : 1 0000001/000100[0100000001101 111 1.1 1 • I 0 0 1 illi ' 0 P 5 = 1 Ogo .2.1L2 ilili 'OF 1 0 g 2' I lir ' I I 17: M v m s' ; t I a. .5.13.E .- ii i 0 141Ii!;;; : gg . i = rd m V, sill'i4 .%11- 1 m 2 r,-,11.11 ' CI II g 1 0 1 mEss. Eltz , III ' li'lliA 1 • re x 1 ic41!f!ikdIl I e ■ gi .IL. 1 np N h h 4 0 e o e e o e S N O g e g e°g O O b N N u ° m O 9m ON M j x x x w N A 6 w w x x 6 J 7-0 o 8 Id a N iGC N T. 8 �Q se sag^ as m ! '° <g� xw w &FG zi y Z w N N N N i .xG x V ti g °° ee e e L O w NNN N d b' a n ~ z O N 1 " N y N■ W j O LU �qq og�,°nS god°°eii * 2 L00,.. }N "�1O H.�h w r za0 LO W O 7i. 0 W K N M 0 N K d oo LL Z o Ra Iv WU— o colli F — 4 7-,,,, = E s s a R exe S S o! 2 W U ~o 2 LL tt ONi A r U� C u H a Z? n w00 N N z; L g ''g- .— V U a g ?a F o • o 2 "� 1 1 I� .' ' " 1" L. o o 1 b m g a w ': 3 t+ �. y .. II p ,� ,trite z o w " A 7 ° wa r dal ' o H. a O � tg ����ggg}}}"`{ P �Ir�_ � yk- �' " .:. "+,�. pop ��; 1 1 L,', .,..1%.10 W N 3 F ° ax w `'�)� �„�j N a N stg N z oz Jmo v � $ JZN FO Q LL �'! 3 �.C9=U' ca P 1 F'D. UJW 6,i41-5 ricLER o y ON°' a{7 , W z zLLLL4 X00 00� C {F� J �� Om"-I-FF� W Q 7 O 4 N V m m N f b Q pll y N y»y¢Q�SS xx a Z� fli m a oM �a �TddaO a m C � r�^O�ao0 LLmm zzE 7 Z Q Zd -u rc z t CA IP > CI ,s n rc J < Q , ()O c C oEe 880.reK O' s N Fcu„ .1 Q - N f, zz Z4 d V W o „ z s O pou� 5g'mcc gO ~N 2 F 0 z w . OC N C LL N 0 ZZ RE Z LL LL LL K C•c ... ?i �tg J ~` O>a n 33 N 6 ~ 11,108illi V 2 Z N> i Cw y € VV g g ¢ O I-LL J J K l q .6 =x y°w n ny a. v� a`€5r� r�t.r - z�N�vno'- 4 I Olt' i 4 St. Croix River Crossing Project Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights November 10"',2011 • S SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 1 of 36 • Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose of the Document Section 2: Authorizing City Council Resolution— 11-06-18 Section 3: Summary of Total Anticipated Costs Section 4: Cost Breakdowns&Estimates: Update on Financial Impact of St. Croix River Bridge Project HLB Tautges-Redpath—Nov 8th,2011. Section 5: Cost Estimates: Stormwater Ponding, Trails, Signalizations and Frontage Roads Section 6: Appendix • Executive Summary-Appraisal—BRKW—September 3rd, 2011 • MNDOT Cost Estimates—Updated 2009 • Tautges—Redpath 2004 Cost Impact Report • Bonestroo(Stantec)Utility Cost Analysis—Sept 9th,2011. • • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 2 of 36 • Section 1 Purpose of the Document S • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 3 of 36 • Section 1: Purpose of the Document In June 2011 the City Council directed that there be a synopsis of costs prepared that endeavored to summarize the anticipated costs of various improvements related to the St. Croix River Crossing Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This includes a summarization of costs in three methods,being as follows and is outlined in Section 3: 1. Direct up-front costs 2. Delayed-long-term costs—Twenty Year Horizon 3. Direct Incurred Costs to Date The values and amounts discussed herein are of course estimates based on discussed layouts and several years of communications. This document does not in any way suggest that a specific policy track be followed,but rather to begin to enumerate costs should particular choices be made.Moreover,the data enclosed is based on estimated costs and until such time as the Project is specifically refined and agreements reached,the ability to determine more refined figures will remain elusive. Ultimately, the City Council will be required to assess and compare potential City costs from the Project to the benefits to City residents, businesses, etc. • DISCLAIMER: The City reserves the exclusive and specific right to revise, amend and/or append the information enclosed, If the data enclosed herein is in need of correction, please submit suggested corrections to the City in writing with alternative estimates and justifications for such corrections. This document refers to the St. Croix River Crossing Project simply as the"Project"and includes all general elements. II SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 4 of 36 t�or 2 • Sec 1'06.18 Reso‘u�,�o cour��� �i�r8 o�ty Putt°C • c :4,:-AT \ lY ` 111 R;S�it�ated�0g�t��a�gto tb GM bak9aok Hetghts SeikER• 1014 14°•J Og�10 1�SoY'UT pA�-�iXExG�""f�p'l'A �0 A. C��` of o 0 ' S�p�G�or Tc� O COS°A xr� WAS TG09 DIOC GCv 1 100 0 n �° o CO\,�� ° °ABC f pg4C A g 5°Y U �`tFG 1-1 DV� A pSSItiG1 oA5 that ba stan B • gTU�gTU�� o1 is aa�eto proceed,nnic t 11.1v as AGt, COQ ST Oak Park Iieteits Project wild and Scenic tn� the federal is ma the impact of the and ttc,l,d allow the federal Gp°'� construction Would advanced to legislatively d costs for cone tion a s Within e Of projected of Tsa tettilt current de City i by the Minnesom baring costs,{0 the Wllt beenidentth� y in tefit5 of.s aU as a past bG that have a be • asked to needed improvements mp or jgr vemeng cat enh�Gemied,and, City say ake the lro)�t P ��/,S, the Way tccOIX ntS Ofti.4 V,1ld� yaay new 36 imp Gate wi J tea-of-way tili�oS �I1a4� nluni �e Trunk to c0nt artmen Oak acQUisifia9 Peet and . and, proactive el iris to co n`a at P roaG e of iissoCt li%theProject, d Park associated has made e7cten�UPsnasP ur o ensure•�rra\p tax. �compare r tto sp,io' City ll ade the required coats t t �G rta `dH Isla ofth and federal a at �o llorsate share of_net it,�' not,� diOB State ottation staff to pe benefit torn the c >nos leas a syletFhts Jwynot bstyaOtially t+Oned otrtreac th it p and entities bo e° B to to those who ire the hoard o the'Project,should agencies yers to Gons Bnalixation, lLr AS desgist with reg motion. ers and rate acquisition ill%source ass ends oil ity'ent on?r other Y Ge and, ,which ding l e Dept for the right-of-way, B a Auditor, soub en'iJentif+�dby o the need natty replacements, ements aud.tun office its • idea alleviate of ttitinten the Otn Project tivatc;im4r-V,A. ,the rotatedi io the l'rOJ to s previously did a study of Oak Park li�tWceJ Project for trails City wa the City P nts of the that..v°'ild�t within the storm' w4113BO tof the reside potential he C t\ tmPactr Of\tol rst and' it is in s oCthia prO)eo t-u�iten+e potent a sourest and the is,inn S in the s 4113 BOAS,impacts toot City ofOakP � ultinB An J to derstan �t proceed JJ COT the< to ideas ttt?t�Q to Plan th should C1ieP b,PS,ST °L o p h the ° dit a S atin8� ty WbiGh uiddo therewith should i the Project ark to nttctP slur city t the d dies Wes scenarios d the giver Crossing ST UW,voRe ask i,1 y Ade,ad Plans an ding sous financed,sce rio be the office tith se coral-GOO dto project funding could dayof • that �g f45 P asd to shave le,costs�'d s City ou\dhto hear those eights kills would the have to proceed• of p., �_ Project the City Council f°t III. %��� . Passed by �� 1�f �, �_� 011. �I ,A7. �, arc A M,'et Suite>� ,��Y�lr Page 6°t 36 r is i •on USnator • City d Oak Park Net9ttts _.. d Cost 1rnPacts t0 the City of Oa SCRCP_EsCtmate Section Summary of Total Anticipated Costs Pa0a7 of 36 , SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights ; I U Q • p N on i f t O . O N v x 0 r r irn i l m O O m C11 L.11 N O m N m g L O c VD c o M u m M +/). 0 d O r N�c -1 i tit m O $ r $ m 1U 2 N f� N 0 to m c d m e u o Z. C C t C re 11.0 C W s otrl eu Q O U N all. U1 M mN ti) Co a g m m m r i/1 m � n .nu 0 � m d� em!. O p O N I m g‘b Op ^1 � m tO �� oo U a+ O p O O g ! m CJ 03 N m .-1 O M N V1 {/1/1-O O r m O 0 m 0 O i \Icn_ O O W m r d' N m l0 M p 1.0 $ o C w N co N nao N W c7 C M 1 M N Oe, -o. 1 01. !N cd R N>f 0 = U c h a • U w $ o S m �01 m � y p b 4 go O V Fg V\:*cii F °, al Ch SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights v_•n W t o v N c v E S H 1 "dw p H O t o to E P. n Y y _�b d c r 44 5 2 43 c � o u .a 0 0 Y°' 1.4 5 • o CA. N Page 8 of 36 • Section 4 Cost Breakdowns & Estimates: Update on Financial Impact of St. Croix River Bridge Project HLB Ta utges-Red path — Nov 8th, 2011. S • SC CP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 9 of 36 1111 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. Certified Public Accountants November 8, 2011 To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota Re: Update on Financial Impact of St. Croix River Bridge Project Pursuant to your request,we have updated a previous report prepared by our office regarding the financial impact of the State(MN DOT)construction projects for the new St. Croix River Bridge and planned improvements to State Highway 36. The State construction project financially impacts the City of Oak Park Heights in the following three ways: • 1) Loss of tax base due to parcels previously taken 2) Loss of tax base due to the acquisition of property for utility easement purposes 3) Utility relocation costs Loss of Tax Base due to Parcels Previously Taken Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MN DOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Percentage of Percentage of Total Total Total Market Market Tax Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property taken based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69,300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 Total Market Value and Tax Capacity. • �E4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake,MN 55110 651.426.7000 651,426.5004 fax www.hlbtr.com seatit!la �eatmyREPsYRIthe City o r�3ai P-arct'HM Owned Page 10 of 36 111.8 Tautges Redpath,Ltd.Is a member of HLB International.a world-wide network of Independent accounting firms and business advisors. • City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 2 Ty 1 he Cit has estimated that,based on a 5%annual Market Value growth Tax Cap, ap20ity 20r1these Market Value for these parcels would be$7,585,995. Assuming parcels grew at the same rate as the Market Value, the City has lost$1,624,197 of Tax Capacity relating to these parcels from 1995-2011 as shown below: Total Market Tax Value Ca ao1�= 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 72,765 1995/1996`) 5,134,500 5,391,225 76,403 1996/1997W 80,223 1997/1998') 5,660,786 (1) 5,943,826 84,235 1998/1999 88,446 1999/20001) 6,241,017 2000/2001(1) 6,553,068 92,869 97,512 2001/2002`) 2002/20031) 6,880,721 • 7,224,757 102,388 107,507 2003/20041) 7,585,995 2004/2005W 7,585,995 107,507 107,507 2005/20062) 7,585,995 2006/20072) 7,585,995 107,507 107,507 2007/2008(2) 7,585,995 2008/2009(2) 7,585,995 107,507 107,507 2009/20102) 7,585,995 2010/2011(2) 7,585,995 107'507 $1.__--624,197 Total -�--� ')Estimated based on a 5%annual Market Value growth rate. (2)Estimated based on no growth in Market Value. The impact of reduced tax capacity(tax base)is that the City property tax levy is spread over fewer parcels,thus increasing the property tax of the remaining parcels. • Page 11 of 36 warp,-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 3 Loss of Tax Base Due to Utilit Easement Ac'uisition of Pro•ert will As stated above,our 1995 report identified 98 parcels affected reduction n market value of the Project require the acquisition of utility easements,there wil l be affected properties. The City's engineer has estimated an easement doies.on will affect fifty- three p p fifty- three parcels and that a width of thirty feet is needed for easement purposes. The lineal feet of the fifty-three parcels affected total 8,580. This results in 257,400 square feet of utility easement acquisition. The City hired an appraisal firm to determine an estimated ted loss of.market value resulting from the acquisition of.a 30 foot wide utility easement. appraisal firm selected six properties to review. The appraiser's report estimated the reduction n mar. et value due to the utility easements to be in the range of$1.50 to$5.60 per square Based on the above information,the estimated loss in tax base is calculated as follows: • • $8,580 Lineal feet of utility easement needed x 30 Width of utility easement 257,400 Total square feet of utility easement to be acquired x 4.00 Estimate value per square foot $1,2 9�p_ Estimate reduction in market value tax base related to utility easement ac'uisition This results in a loss of Market Value and Tax Capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights. A summary of the impact is as follows: Total Market Tax Value Capacity Reduction due to utility easement acquisition $1,029,600 $20,592 Total for City(payable 2011) $669,938,700 $10,427,300 0.15% 0.19% Percentage to be taken S Page 12 of 36 grcP r Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • City of.Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 4 Utilit Relocation Costs 2011. The The City's engineer issued a report on utility relocation costs Engineer's relocation study and the report outlined the design differences between the City t 1VInDot design. The most significant difference between The two ist the MnDot design of does Curren utilities lying between Oakgreen Avenue and Osgood Avenue. Avenue and Osgood Avenue. not include replacement of utilities lying between Oakgr The attached Appendix A outlines four construction scenarios of the utility relocation project. Each scenario includes an estimated cost split between the City and MnD o If bonds There are several potential financing options for Tlhe debt service could be repaid by: are to be issued for the City's portion of the project. a) Special assessments. b) Property tax levy. c) Water and sewer user charges. d) Combination of a),b) and c). The attached Appendix A includes an estimated impact on property taxes and utility rates for each scenario. Page 13 of 36 SIT i Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 5 The calculation of the tax levy impact for scenario 1 is: 2011 With Add'1 Levy 2011 $3,964,704 $3,964,704 2011 City tax levy _ 94,400 Additional levy(scenario 1) 3,964,704 4,054 400 Total tax levy (222,950) (222,950) Less fiscal disparity distribution 3,741,754 3,836,154 Net tax levy 8,309,844 -- 8,309,844 Divided by tax capacity 45.028% 46.164% Equals tax rate $250,000 $250,000 Market value of home x 1.000% x 1.000%Times tax capacity rate 50 500 2, 0 Equals tax capacity x 45.2,,50% x 46.,50% Times City tax rate Equals City tax $1,125.70 $1,154.10 • $28.00 Tax increase Respectfully submitted, HLB TAUTGES REDPATH,LTD. / 1"(7)(1/6. - David J.Mol,CPA Partner DJM:cic • Page 14 of 36 1578011.1 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights rn N p Q a~O• C? a0 O 0 ? sa $ r C Q. - c y .4 cN e• u -c - M co c" r U) U) U)° t r N M M oiv . N0 M ° .n r v' M r w o o L `r S. r-C C ItC); V p O O U i p (6 N '. " U O C C c � C 4= c o � t m o c ai • 5 C 4_ ••V V p � § o o r NI � 0 o 0 0k g I-- c.., o0 r w 0 o R h ° p M m N rn n ^ P La r c ,. � m 'r 9 _ ;.E 4 C ¢ w LL r Q d of 111 a,-N n n W CI 19 V �� O O O N "FC 0 A C z C o C i - 7 r. c - C 3 a' u o C _ d r • • m E M v --M• C p% W A ,§ o M 4 w m n N M h 2:4: v o ea f °g Ma 0 ti w C m Q1 '� G:._ a0 C pM p M M a ti m g $ $ � .t , fi - tiis U r > Z z If LI~= ti . E y C •� 0 p M ;11 q M M 0] . 0 p N �Y F ,Z N u 0 m .0 a 7 g 2 d 6 2 t p. F. ? o d .E CI 4 N g. M ° iV u CI C Y u to c 3 4:4 S g N •E X y ou 8 5 ° c v ° rx = $ g c 'M g .v A 6 � X a r A G. T T 4 o m � E 3f v n c• o to .° 1 V N C C m 4 6 C a. ta O V it ...1...1 S j C6 A U a O 1:15 'x C° .G E � A y Q g P v fi u U •c?, N ,,, aC d +� N 1 11 c 14 1 c $ g c go_ = w Page 15 of 36 iv SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Section 5 Cost Estimates: Stormwater Ponding, Trails, Signalizations & Frontage Roads i Page 16 Of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights O O m O m > in O d' M O Oi 0 O. rj o O O!' O in o N m p r m e-1 N N E w vi u 0 N ++ IA 0 U 01 0 L 3 O 0 i+ 1.-i 7 N u. N „ 13 X m H o "0 a. O ti '-i n' O 0.) N 44 N d 11 p C Q) -A i O T a r @ co 4/} C X m j p- 2. U ro O N d To O c '- A m 1 p 0 iii c C N O O +O' CU $ ca '� O N n 'Q 8 �pp o e{ UI _� X , ' 10 ¢ ra C L. V E col > i nn nE Q I"u �S x o 12 O E m p c 0 8 oh V d '$. m`n n. c O 0 O T S 1 AA V1 3 N N C c •3 N C T N a 1 S om X c c. a y c t pc o a I v. oq CO m o cC '�' mu00i p "n '° 8 8b• CO- N N t`a CD OD r-- N S t co V c a I- N G .-- W �+ a O. i7 E 'S. O m o RI a �, oo m =133 O ate+ c o C W C '• coil F , c ? g U 0 p E f0 Pc .� `u° o°Di E is . gg c S . 0' O ° c O c 4 O i � H "8. d C co N ¢ T. p a+ a O O ¢ O -2 ° O & B y cpp N u _ ` ` s G $ G 7 i o O a n c o T t a y 8 u c . > N z o m o w fa N' O C N tY N , 'l O C u m N 3E T N d N O U O W c N 'c F.,1 > ^' , m 0 { C O 2 T U O O � M '$ 8 I10 r4 n C O.V1 a O. O V N 0.42 E lo .0 ^ d Y H ! p C O 6 a N N l� >O 11 E y 2 w ~ C C c N e IP�e ° oif o f W m E o v EE 8 .- " o 11 CU s. o a c ac ^o E Y :4\in 9T § s $10 O yy ' x '^ C N C c 11111 O. N O' G LLl G. N v W .., T C M W SI 17, O O Q Hi H A p w N I- A o in .- d 2 $ 10 S ct. C F F V1 2 ¢ u` co u o- Page 17 of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • Rate of Price inflation-->> 4.00% Pond Costs Trail Reconstruction Frontaee Roads Year 1(Base year) $ 2,100,000 $ 170,158 $ 1,802,660 Year 2 $ 2,184,000 $ 176,964 $ 1,874,766 Year 3 $ 2,271,360 $ 184,043 $ 1,949,757 Year 4 $ 2,362,214 $ 191,405 $ 2,027,747 Year 5 $ 2,456,703 $ 199,061 $ 2,108,857 Year 6 $ 2,554,971 $ 207,023 $ 2,193,212 Year 7 $ 2,657,170 $ 215,304 $ 2,280,940 Year 8 $ 2,763,457 $ 223,916 $ 2,372,178 Year 9 $ 2,873,995 $ 232,873 $ 2,467,065 Year 10 $ 2,988,955 $ 242,188 $ 2,565,747 Year 11 $ 3,108,513 $ 251,875 $ 2,668,377 • Year 12 $ 3,232,854 $ 261,950 $ 2,775,112 Year 13 $ 3,362,168 $ 272,428 $ 2,886,117 Year 14 $ 3,496,654 $ 283,326 $ 3,001,561 Year 15 $ 3,636,521 $ 294,659 $ 3,121,624 Year 16 $ 3,781,981 $ 306,445 $ 3,246,489 Year 17 $ 3,933,261 $ 318,703 $ 3,376,348 Year 18 $ 4,090,591 $ 331,451 $ 3,511,402 Year 19 $ 4,254,215 $ 344,709 $ 3,651,858 Year 20 $ 4,424,383 $ 358,497 $ 3,797,933 Page 18 of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights t .. • t . wow Y a ` f ` t O� v/ my I,: o I 4 .Q dLJV3 JitOOS N3SH30NV , q / ' Q x N 4i a } e ! ' �z ti A� z `�' ' ', a, LLI D day e .. ,. n. X00) ,c��o����■� e OQ �y 4 , RP'3\ ^f ' E t } ' iY jD0�S0. c t s**tilt " ,t,,. b 1, i , , '=5 1 a t ;., pl ry.0 .. .,...,` , •- *: rt a r,. y 0 c) . _ , •_ -',„ •,.„,.• ' ' • , „ ,' - , E, ... - ,,. - . .0- � e ir3(9 7S J3 O9ki 9s v Ata . - ' AV 38.. • 21JNVO b ' ; } k .r r r GRytD� i r : , : e.iii E E ! tzi o 4 �apf a ., H o, ' - i - EG Z l so 11111'® ...,.mow....... ......,,.,.<. ,... �.... it rs 1 ' .. 1$V08 031'3 V 3NINNVW. `� R k^ .. t., > 8 }{ ff z q i o mplicts o the City of Oak P rk Hti Eric Johnson 4110 From: Chris Long[Chris.Long©bonestroo.com] ht: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:28 AM Eric Johnson Cc: Andrew Kegley Subject: Trail Construction Cost Estimate-5,000'Trail Eric, As requested, I put together some preliminary costs for construction of a 5,000'bituminous trail. Assuming this trail would be along the frontage road of TH-36, I roughly estimated 30 pedestrian ramps.These costs do not include engineering, legal, administrative. See the preliminary construction cost estimate below: Trail Section Details Depth of Subgrade Exc./Granular Borrow(inches) 12 Depth of Aggregate Base,CL. 5(inches) 2 6 Depth of Bituminous(inches) 5,000 Trail Length(feet) 10 Trail Width (feet) Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 Mobilization LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 A41 Site Grading, ind. common exc. &drainage grading 444.44 Subgrade Excavation, assuming 20%required CY 444 $ 10.00 $ 4,$ 7.00 $ .00 Granular Borrow, assuming 20% required TN 2200 $ 14. 00 $ 30,800.00 ' -gregate Base,CL. 5, 100% Crushed 639 $ 70.00 $ 44,722.22 ar Course Mixture,Trail 30 $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 Totaastrian ed Ramp $136,126.67 Tl Let me know if you need anything else.Thanks! Chris Long,PE Bonestroo,now Stantec Tel 651-604-4808 Cell 651-492-7747 christo•her.lon• • stantec.com stantec.com Bonestroo has joined Stantec,a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability, depth and diversity of talent,and technical expertise. The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied,modified, retransmitted,or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Ct Please consider the environment before printing this email. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page Page 21 of 36 mmolm jli ..... i V d • rn rjeTh J 0 VVOVVim' O0 J O = 01 p■ o ID a) C H N N c0 N N N N w N o 0 N N .0 N N d �J v U ill- � ro 0 I ,.. co U" U 0 o N N N N "' ?� .0 1- cr cr. 1- thd• — (0 C J ie v d o 0 O CA N U. > N O Yo 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E N - --O Q c t06 00o uo1 (o r1 do N eaV c0 .0 to N N Lf M N N *'1 O 0 r0 y r( C • rn O U _ • e —1 7 N▪ C 5 N CA E C co 76 a)E r�0 K 0 o2 r-+ N N M 0 • 70 4 lok .0 0 n • u °2 V o C2 V N 1° C rn c C 0< N c -a^ 1 p N ° r0 = ((//�� •C ON U 0 .e l0 b Of Uf �.. � U N = C M n C c� U U (0 T M R .n°N C -C N F tD ;1 j > 9-- = ' 01 01 0) 0) 0 m o .� 0 3 - 0 {z- > C C C C cd o = 0 a A > rn co + w VD 66 -c E 0f6. 0.. r(0 a c 01 U o 0 c 'o , o S:� as aS o'3 aS g R C T C E. = a) o ± -§ v Z 6 O RS f0 f0 Q) > V 0 J O LL U�pp 0000'0 -p C O V1 V) V) c(V)) (0 0 Y. toe M U co O O a cc O d 3 ,+ u c c tcc= O _ +y+ Oy O J 'f3 C C C C p V U I-W)- ,a✓ a) .r i O = G V cn 'D S 5 n n +-' 7 � u � (9i ro p trAO{ coo coo aa) vw C co 0 .c a) 9) II'45i 45i 1, p. 13 a. , I C cv '-' o_ � O9i'O � M '= S = O f0 porn E -, , a� ; � � � �io $ Suu °� uuu � tom ✓ E a a) 0c O O L° L° — W• .. i) c o w 0 g 1— Q O O O U oC F- WPage 22 of 36m I- tL SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts acts to a Ci y o a 'wk Hei hts IMMIIIIII • Section 6 Appendix: 1. Executive Summary - Appraisal — BRKW — September 3rd, 2011 2. MN DOT Cost Estimates — Updated 2009 3. Tautges — Red path 2004 Cost Impact Report • 4. Bonestroo (Stantec) Utility Cost Analysis — Sept 9t", 2011. S SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 23 of 36 it . o BRKW APPRAISALS , INC . REAL ESTATE VALUATION SERVICES I I ISeptember 7, 2011 I City Of Oak Park Heights I ATTN: Eric Johnson City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Boulevard III Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Preliminary Appraisal of 6 Sample Properties (5 Commercial And 1 Apartment) 111 Minimum Value Impact Of 30-Foot Utility Easement Acquisition Highway 36 Utility Relocation — St. Croix River Crossing Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ill Dear Mr. Johnson: III In accordance with the request of the City of Oak Park Heights, I am providing you with a preliminary appraisal addressing six sample properties located within the State Highway 36 corridor in Oak Park Heights. This appraisal is presented in a Summary II Report format. It is my understanding that the City of Oak Park Heights is investigating utilities a potential the l water and costs associated with relocating Whichngcontrolled by MOOT. One of the potential �, State Highway 36 right of way, costs would be for acquiring 30-foot-wide p of way. utility easements along easements would be nseddoes II of properties fronting the Highway g construct new utility lines to replace those in the right of way. II The purpose of this n of the loss appraisal is to valueoresulting from the acquisition by the properties, an opinion of the to City of Oak Park Heights of a 30-foot-wide which the subject properties value opinions neighborhood 111__ as of September 3, 2011, the date appraisal is to neigh orh of were viewed by the appraiser. The intended use of the app be incurre Oak Park Heights officials inalonroHi Highway 36 the for the that City�s acquis Lion of d a utility compensate property owners g g easement needed to relocate underground ntended water City of Oak Park Highway 36 right of way. T Heights, which is the client of the appraisal. SPRUCE TREE CENTRE SUITE 314 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE ST PAUL MN55104 ,.1 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights 651 646-6114 FAX 651 646 8086Pag kz4 of636kW nom -F , Given the preliminary nature of the valuation needs by the City, and the intent of the City to apply the results of this appraisal to numerous properties in the area beyond I the six sample properties, the opinions of market value loss are expressed as a range, rather than as single-point values. Furthermore, the opinions of market value loss reflect only the value impact of the actual easement rights acquisition; they do not include the potential impact on site improvements in the acquisition area, nor do -,- they address potential severance damage to the properties as a result of the easement and associated utility construction activity, I Given the limited scope of valuation described above, the acquisition of the utility easement rights has the potential to impact only the land component of the subject properties, not the improvements located thereon. Consequently, this appraisal involves the valuation of the only the land components of the properties. _ Based on my investigation, I have formed the opinion that the subject property land III values and the impact of the easement acquisition on those land values, as of September 3; 2011, are as follows: IISummary of Value Opinions Pertaining to Area of Proposed Utility Easements Value Reduction/SF Due ii Property/Tax Parcel I.D. No. Value/SF Before Easmt. Value/SF After Easmt. to Easmt. Low High Low High Low - igh - 1. Oak Park Plaza Retail Center $10.50 $13.50 $6.80 $8.80 $3.70 $4.70 04-029-20-21-0007 2. NAPA-Anchored Multitenant Cmcl.Bldg. $10.50 $13.50 $6.80 $8.80 $3.70 $4.70 I04-029-20-21-0039 3. McDonald's $12.00 $16.00 $7.80 $10.40 $4.20 $5.60 04-029-20-12-0t++:: 4. Pizza Hut $12.00 $16.00 $7.80 $10.40 $4.20 $5.60 04-029-2p-12-0010 ii , 5. Office Building $9.00 $12.00 $5.80 $7.80 $3.20 $4.20 04-029-20.11-0004 i i 1 6. Building Apartment Complex $4.25 $5.75 $2.75 $3.75 $1.50 $2.00 04-029-20-11-0003 This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation or a specific valuation for approval of a loan. The opinion of market value identified in lithis report was developed independent of any undue influence. The value assumes all real estate taxes and special assessment balances, if any, have - Il been paid in full. It is a gross value and no allowance was made for brokerage commissions; real estate taxes or other carrying costs associated with the property during the marketing period. No personal property is included in my opinion of market value. PAGE 2 BRKW APPRAISALS, INC. Page 25 PAGE I SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights of 36 I This appraisal report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation. The facts and information contained in this report were obtained from sources that are considered to be reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, but are not guaranteed. This appraisal report is contingent upon the assumptions and limiting conditions included within this report. Your attention is directed to the following report for the supporting data, analyses and conclusions that support the market value opinion. Sincerely, RIW APPRAISALS, INC. '/ aul J. Gl arson Certified General Real Property Appraiser Minnesota License #4003073 • I I I I I I I I 1 PAGE 3 BRKW APPRAISALS, INC. Page 26 of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights 9 1 ' t ! 1 t • 1 1 1 1 1 I i F .;'' ® - iF 111111111111 11 IIILFl ©11111111111111I1111111l111W 1111114 Wight L 1 111 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIii 100110 111111111111 IIII llIIII II I IlI11111I1il I 1 'Ith 1111 'i111IiII111 L '31 1 01 *:IIII 61111111111111111 11011111 111111111111 li 1111E2 " I ! � , p a, �; � I �C11111111111111111111�111E I1111101i I11111la L X24 • I11111Dk1111IIII1111l1111 1/11111111 111111111111 1111J411 11111111111111111211111 ARM 1111111111111E titibl. t 11111111111111111111I1ki /11111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 _ 11111111311111113ii ililiiiiii s 1111111111111 I liLII� I 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111IIIIIa /111111111 1111111111111i, 11111E r I IDI1111111111111111111111' 11I111111 I 11111111111E L 11I1J 4 k l IIIII��kLIIIIIIIIIIIII�1 /11111111 I IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 1 ; g > . i 11111111111I11111111ilk 1111111E I 11111111111E L �1 IU1I q ill 3 IIIIII11131IIIIIIIIIIIii /11111111 t IIIIIIIIIIIII 1111 ; 1 ill Iii Il1I1111111111I11111111il1116 III I 11111111111E L 1. 11J ' e I 111 !II" p 1,�1 i"1',� l3'!, ,j If I -.1 111 .el� g S ��3 .��, dk(C3s7 ' �i#jL� , [tLj ®�ry` ,���nn� l 8 ii� !‘i! 'I''l f s66 ,Y i ;' i i 3 3i,ijt1 ,11111 1161110116111411111111 SiA I ^� i+ ,i I1� :FS, '1 , ii , yo- r t� i, It`.;€�41 dd �1g§'< 1� 1 ! j ` '�:'pit ti I �� 1 1111 1 ,1 IiiNil ! l " ;a P� `AiltAa ti 1 I ? i I rii'll Sf 1It �[1�b�ltu. d 1II3 ta'','r�H.��'i ,sgmd11i iii I Iii ii iiiii`Ii iidiii thil 1/11111111 IIIIIIIUIII wiil;! g '� 3 $25sbCa 1'ii I III ENIMINIfill I III I 5 liHillil i'$Pi! ',3 I III i 14,1'I. . I 1 11111 1 : - h J 0 1 tl d J i 4.,i 1 4 33.. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 27 of 36 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH 11002 • IJ'; i,.1 Tautges Redpath, Ltd. '1 Certified Public Accountants and Consultants 2,0014 STUDY INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and • Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below,which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights, solely to determine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of'those parties specified in the report. Consequently,we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for • any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows: 0 1. Determine loss of tax base due to parcels previously taken Our previous reports (dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995)identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially prepared half-section maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint" of the project. Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69.300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 total market value and tax capacity. The City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate, the 2004/2005 market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. • White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax:651 426 5004 Hastings Office;1303 South Frontage Road,Suite 13,Hastings,MN 56033,USA Telephone:651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 Hit Tautgno Redpath,Ltd.is a member of in x,International.A warld•wido organization of accounting firms and business advisers. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 28 of 36 N. 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HL$ TAUTGES REDPATH 2003 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from 1995-2005 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Value Capacity(l) 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996* 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997 * 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998* 5,660,786 80,223 1998/1999 * 5,943,826 84,235 2000/2001 * 6,241,017 88,446 2001/2002* 6,553,068 92,869 2002/2003 * 6,880,721 97,512 2003/2004* 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005 * 7,585,995 107,507 Cummulative loss of tax capacity- 1995-2005 $871,648 S *Estimated based on a 5%annual market value growth rate t"Based on 1994/1995 class rates 2. Determine loss of tax base due to proposed acquisition of additional parcels related to the planned improvement to State Highway 36. The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the planned improvements to State Highway 36 (option F). Additionally,the impact on the City's tax base was determined using 2004/2005 market values as provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. As stated above,our 1995 report ideratigd 98 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements, an additional1'200 p eels will be affected,either fully or partially. For purposes of this report,parcels l-` ,t wyrpartially affected were assumed to be fully taken from the tax base. S SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 29 of 36 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 _— HLB TAUTGES REDPATH 0 004 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 3 The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights is as follows: Market Tax Value Capacity n;c> (:;, Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 Total for City{payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% City staff believe the acquisition of land by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax levy amount. However,the City's tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base,which would increase the City's tax rate. An estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as follows: Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of Property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Less:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048) (472,821) Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,379 $4,887,931 Net tax levy: Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203) (112,203) Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,94],867 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value _ 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate 34.382% 39.728% • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 30 of 36 ■ ' 09/29/04 15:21 FAX 651 426 5004 _ HLB TAUTGES REDPATII Ejo05 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above,a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition Property Type of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 $500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 commercial 6,619 7,648 Note: Amounts are presented before reduction of state-paid credits. 3. Determine loss of connection charges on parcels proposed to be acquired. • The City has determined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed,the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm water connection charges 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760, 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. 5-1 • ,, ! f:: /rl .if. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 31 of 36 09/28/04 15:21 FAX 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH �006 I Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 5 Closing The work performed by our firm is considered an"agreed-upon procedures"engagement under AICPA standards. In this type of engagement,our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The procedures we performed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. Rather,we verified the financial information based on the pro procedures our attention that would have been report d to you. procedures,other matters might have This report is intended solely for the information and use of the.City of Oak Park Heights and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. September 28,2004 XGB 72,�ty44 4 G-#d HLB TAUTGES REDPATH,LTD. Certified Public Accountants S SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 32 of 36 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 • Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo September 9, 2011 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT designers on 8/24/11 TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation (Outside MnDOT R.O.W.) —Mapping and Cost Estimate Completed on 8/17/11 Bonestroo File No: 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: On August 24, 2011, a meeting was held at MnDOTs Waters Edge Building to discuss and compare the relocation study completed by Bonestroo on August 17, 2011, with the most current MnDOT design for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. Attendees included several MnDOT designers with Todd Clarkowski, along with Chris Long from Bonestroo. The City of Oak Park Heights'sanitary sewer and water main utilities were reviewed along the TH-36 corridor during this meeting.The MnDOT designers provided several maps displaying the existing and proposed sanitary sewer and water main.The Bonestroo study was also provided and discussed. Design Discrepancies The distinct difference between the Bonestroo relocation study and the current MnDOT design was that not all the existing utilities within the MnDOT right of way were shown as being replaced or relocated in MnDOTs current design. Only utilities determined by MnDOT as impacted by the current design were shown as being relocated.The Bonestroo study identified relocating all existing utilities within a proposed City easement outside of MnDOT right of way. Utility betterments were not included in the relocation study.The current MnDOT design does include betterments such as an additional water main crossing through TH-36. Utility betterments will need to be discussed further in the future as there appears to be differences in the location and sizing requirements for the betterments. For the most part, the MnDOT right of way shown on the relocation study was consistent with MnDOTs maps.The only inaccuracy seen was the southern portion of the right of way shown on Figure 6(northeast of Moelter Fly-Ash Site)of the relocation study. Although the right of way line in this location will need to be revised, the relocation study still accurately shows the proposed utilities outside the MnDOT right of way. • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 33 of 36 Oak Park Heights Page 2 Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 9//9/11 MnDOT's Proposed City Utility Relocation Areas The proposed utility relocation areas by MnDOT were fairly consistent with the relocation study east of Osgood Avenue North,but only one relocation area has been determined required by MnDOT to the west. Key details to MnDOT's relocation areas are described below: 1. water main relocation at Oakgreen Avenue North -due to the required ponds for the proposed intersection layout 2, sanitary sewer east of Osgood Avenue North,and north of TH-36-due to elevation changes to highway,the sanitary sewer needs to lowered and relocated with a new crossing 3. water main east of Osgood Avenue North -due to elevation changes to the highway,all water main on the north and south side of TH-36 needs to be relocated 4. sanitary sewer east of Moelter Fly-Ash Site at Beach Road North- redirection of the sewer to the south and east of proposed highway and connection to the MCES interceptor 5. water main loop crossing the proposed highway and connecting to the Sunnyside Marina Area 6. sanitary sewer redirection on Lookout Trail North to the north and east with a connection to the Sunnyside Marina Area 7. water main relocation near the Beaudet Addition with a new crossing to the Sunnyside Marina Area MnDOT's 2006 Cost Estimate vs. Relocation Study Estimate Following the meeting, MnDOT provided cost estimates on August 29th from a 2006 study.The estimates were briefly reviewed and compared to determine any major deviations. Below shows the significant cost difference for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation: Bonestroo Relocation Study(2011) $ 12,029,800 MnDOTs 2006 Cost Estimate $ 1,766,525 (inflated by MnDOT to 2011) Cost Difference $ 10,263,275 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 34 of 36 3 • Page Oak Park Heights P Page 3 Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 The rima difference in costs are due to the significant difference in the quantity of utilities p rY being relocated. Since different methods of construction were assumed with different unit prices, it is difficult to compare both cost estimates. In efforts to compare"apples to apples", the percentage of MnDOT pipe was used to determine the costs with the type of construction the relocation study identified. . *Bonestroo Cost Estimate Bonestroo MnDOT Percent of Quantity Quantity MnDOT Bonestroo 2011 using MnDOT Type of Pipe (lineal feet) (lineal feet) Pipe Cost Estimate Quantity Sanitary Sewer 14,490 3,310 23% $ 9,302,300 $ 2,139,529 Water Main 17,150 5,795 34% $ 2,727,500 $ 927,350 Total $ 12,029,800 $ 3,066,879 Several other factors contributed to the cost difference as well: • different pipe installation methods(open cut vs.tunneling, or"$35/ft vs.— $575/ft) • no removals were considered or shown itemized in the cost estimate from the MnDOT study(the relocation study identified approximately$550,000 for removals) • water main jacking pipe quantity discrepancy (MnDOT showed 35%difference from relocation study) • the reconnection to sanitary sewer and water services was not completed in the MnDOT cost estimate(the relocation study identified approximately$200,000 for reconnections) Recommendations and Comments MnDOT needs to review in further detail the potential impacts the proposed highway and frontage roads will have on the existing utilities. It is recommended that MnDOT review and address the following items prior to considering which utilities are impacted and require relocation: 1. Aging Infrastructure-the majority of the existing utilities within MnDOT right of way are approximately 30 to 40+years old. Most of the water main is cast iron pipe(CIP) and the sanitary sewer is primarily reinforced concrete pipe(RCP).These utilities are more susceptible to additional maintenance or replacement in the future. Replacement or improvements(i.e., possibility of pipe lining where appropriate)to the infrastructure should be considered. 2. Utility Location Impacts-for the most part, both the existing sanitary sewer and water main are located either beneath the frontage road, in the ditch section between the frontage road and TI-1-36, or in some areas below the edge or shoulder of the TH-36 • roadway(sanitary sewer approximately 700'west of Oakgreen Avenue North).It is SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 35 of 36 .- ti ► Oak Park Heights Page 4 Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 9/79/11 411 MnDOTs policy to not leave any longitudinal utilities under any paved portion of the highway. These structures and pipe will be impacted during construction of the new roadway(i.e., possible pipe damage, stresses, or failures during compaction methods). Also, any maintenance or servicing in the future will be difficult if the utilities are not relocated. 3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Updating to Current Design Standards-the infrastructure under the new roadways needs to be of durable materials and designed for a long service life with the current design standards. Future development needs should be discussed.The utilities need to be relatively free of routine maintenance and servicing due to the proximity to the highway. The current MnDOT design adversely impacts the utilities within the MnDOT right of way.In considering the three items listed above with practical engineering economic practices,these utilities need to be relocated, replaced,or improved prior to placement of a new roadway constructed above and adjacent to these utilities. It is recommended that MnDOT review the above items and respond as to why the utilities are not planned to be relocated, replaced,or improved as part of their current design. It should be the full intention of both parties to ensure the infrastructure is sustainable and will protect the large investment with the new roadways into the future. Additional discussions between MnDOT and the City need to occur in order to further understand the large discrepancy 411 in utility relocation or replacement needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, BONESTROO,INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Cc: Andy Kegley--Public Works Director, Betty Caruso-Finance Director, Mark Vierling— City Attorney; Bonestroo: Mark Hanson, Dave Hanson, Mike Nill, Mike Warner. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 36 of 36 Ill City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 October 27th,2011 Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Funding for Additional STH 36 Study-allocated 2005 Transportation Bill. Dear Mr.Josephson, At the Oct 25th,2011 City Council meeting the City Council did agree to set up a meeting with MNDOT and potentially other parties to discuss the St.Croix River Crossing as requested.The City Council is amenable to meeting on Nov 22°d,2011 at 7:00 pm at the Oak Park Heights City Hall however the City Council does at this time believe that the aspects of the discussion must be better refined prior to the meeting being held. • Specifically,the City Council would appreciate being ng advised as to the specific topics of the meeting to be addressed and be provided a specific agenda prior to the meeting and an identification what parties are necessary to be invited to deal with those topics. Moreover,the meeting should only include those critical parties necessary to resolve issues and/or that have substantial need to be present.At this stage,the meetings are not to be interpreted as negotiations but rather a higher level of conversation towards the possibility of reaching the point of commencing negotiations. The City does respectfully request that MNDOT consider the positions that it has held over the past several years that the Department is precluded from certain actions to resolve the known issues due to statutory or policy positions.For if these perspectives have not changed or if MNDOT is not able to support prospective changes to policies or statute,then purpose of further meetings becomes unclear. The hope is that the first meeting would be appropriately directed in its topics and productive,and if so, the City Council has set tentative dates for further discussion on Dec 28th and January 10,2012,both being 7:00 pm at the Oak Park Heights City Hall. Of course,I would be willing to discuss the items outlined above at ytime with you. gads ric Joh n City A inistrator • Cc: Weekly Notes ECKBERG,,64,. LAMMERS r A 1 • NI fL`RNI YS Al t.AW Writer's Direct Dial Stillwater Office: (651)351-2118 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Email (651)439-2878 mvierling@eckberglammers.com Fax(651)439-2923 October 7,2011 Hudson Office: 430 Second Street Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 Mr.Adam Josephson (715) 386-3733 East Area Manager—MnDOT Metropolitan District Fax(715) 386-6456 Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 www.eckbergfammers.com Roseville, MN 55113 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project- Your Correspondence of September 9, 2011 Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Adam: Your correspondence of September 9, 2011 has been reviewed by the City staff of the City of Oak Park Heights. The reference within your correspondence,claiming that there was a study that was conducted, and participated in by the City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT in 2006 that rendered certain results, was questioned. • The City of Oak Park Heights has reviewed its records in the matter, and finds no authorization was ever granted by City Council to engage in such a study, nor was there ever any expenditure by the City of Oak Park Heights relative to same. Further, upon review and contact with the City's then-Engineer, Mr. Dennis Postler, at that time from Bonestroo; Mr. Postler reports that there was raw data and plans that were shared between Bonestroo and SRF, who was MnDOT's consultant at that time, but there was never any collaborative study or joint preparation of findings and recommendations based on the raw data that was exchanged much less an agreement that the City would conclude that the utility infrastructure lying between Oakgreen Ave. and Osgood Ave. was to be left in place and would not be impacted. Given the nature of the statement within your correspondence of September 9, we are asking that you now go back to your records within the agency, and provide documentation with regard to the statement relative to the study and the City of Oak Park Heights' alleged participation with it and that identifies a conclusive City position agreeing that such utilities were to remain undisturbed. We look forward to receiving data from you on the issue at yo •-s con - •-nce. You . very trul Mark . •- - •.g Oak Park Heights City Attorney S ECKBFRG. LAM\IERS, BRIGGS. WOI.FF 6 VIERI.INC:. PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning I Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation • 4+sl4E +-O Minnesota Department of Transportation Metro District Ne*Th yq° 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 2 • September 9,2011 (sent by email only) Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re:STH 36 Utility Relocations—City Estimate Report,dated August 17,2011 Dear Mr.Johnson: As requested,I have reviewed the city's report for estimated costs for sanitary and water main relocations due to the St Croix River Crossing project. Mn/DOT staff met with Chris Long on August 24th to discuss the report and review available utility information from state and city sources. • Mn/DOT's cost estimates to date have been based on the study that the City and Mn/DOT did in 2006. My understanding of that effort is that the city,MnDOT,and a design consult had a series of meetings to define where city utilities were located,what city utilities would be in conflict with the project, how the city wanted to address those conflicts,defined desired betterments to city utilities and determine estimated costs. The 2006 cost estimates have since only been adjusted for inflation. Cost estimates from the 2006 study and inflated to 2013 have city utility costs at about$2.4M($2M Base+$400K Betterments). These costs are shown in the estimated cost table dated 11-4-09 that was previously supplied to the city. The city's August 2011 relocation cost study reviewed two basic city utility alternatives. A) Relocate all utilities onto new city owned easement,and B) Relocate all utilities within the current state owned frontage road R/W. Estimated costs for city utility relocation,per the Bonestroo report are about$12M for Option A and$10M for Option B. The following comments are from a high level perspective,as requested,where I believe the estimate may be substantially inaccurate because of the assumptions made in the study. • Option A, moving all utilities to new city easement does not seem like a practical option to consider or implement. • An Equal Opportunity Employer Si 0= 0 cfaRi r 4 .. • ill ., • Option B,assumes a 100%utility relocation need,the impacts identified in 2006 were much less and as follows; o Sanitary sewer was 3310'not the 14,490'shown in the study or 23%. o Water main was 5795' not the 17,150'shown in study or 33%. • Both options assume a substantial amount of tunneling and directional boring to reduce impacts to existing surface features,this seems to be a reasonable assumption for Option A,but since the roads are being reconstructed with the project it seems that Option B would have much more open cut type work and thus be less costly. • The report utilizes a"two-dimensional" review to arrive at the concept costs;utilities are a"three- dimensional" issue. The 2006 study was more detailed in this regard and thus would have yielded more accurate results. HPP funds are currently available to offset 80%of eligible city utility costs. Eligible costs are for utilities directly impacted by a project. If the city chooses to relocate utilities that are not in conflict or impacted by the project they will likely be considered a betterment. Betterments are not eligible for federal fund reimbursement would therefore be a 100%city cost. The 2006 analysis identified areas where city utilities were in conflict with the project and included critical coordination between the city and Mn/DOT as to how to address those conflicts. The cost numbers generated by the 2006 study and then inflated should be closer to what the actual cost will be at the time of construction,The 2011 study seems more relevant to arriving at a ball park cost for Option A—moving all utilities to new city easements. The Option B costs seem to be substantially over estimated because of the • assumptions used in the study. During the detail design phase of the project,continued design and coordination will be needed with the city to determine what changes and improvements are needed and/or desired for the city's sanitary and water main utilities. Costs and eligibility issues will also be further refined. Thank you for allowing me to review the study and provide feedback. Sincerely, Adam Josephson Metro East Area Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer = CPrn 6) 0 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 18,2011 Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: City Engineering Estimate—STH 36 Utility Relocations. Dear Mr. Josephson, For your comments,I have provided you an estimate(attached)for City utility relocations related to the STH 36/St. Croix River Crossing Project. The intent of this study is to better quantify from the City's perspective possible costs associated with relocation of City utilities beyond those previously supplied by MNDOT in various spreadsheets. I am aware that Bonestroo staff were in contact with Mr. Todd Clarkowski for certain information necessary to complete this estimate. The intention of this study was not to provide absolute costs,but rather to identify generalities. If MNDOT would please review these data and offer comments back to my attention within 10 days it would be appreciated. Those comments should meaningfully discuss situations where the City's engineering estimate may be substantially inaccurate.Again,we are all dealing with estimates at this time however we can make educated guesses based on Bonestoo's years of experience in bidding and managing projects. Finally, while the document does set forth clear and reasonable assumptions,the values supplied DO NOT include engineering costs, land acquisition costs, legal costs,administrative costs as these would be additional costs. Also the study does NOT include any"betterments"the City may desire. We look forward to your comments and feedback. :inc- 'e Eric s hnson Cit Administrator Cc: Weekly Notes Mark Vierling, City Attorney Chris Long, Bonestroo 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 • Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestrioo.com August 17, 2011 #13onestroo Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation(Outside MnDOT R.O.W.) —Mapping and Cost Estimate Bonestroo File No: 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: As directed,we have provided preliminary cost estimates and drawings for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation associated with MnDOT's preferred alternative for the St. Croix River Crossing improvements. The purpose of the study was to determine the cost impacts to the City as well as visually showing the land acquisition and easement needs required with the relocation of the utilities. • The study included the removal and relocation of all the existing sanitary sewer and water main located within the MnDOT right of way of the proposed TH-36 improvements corridor. The proposed sanitary sewer and water main were relocated outside of the MnDOT right of way within a proposed City easement(see attached figure drawings). Cost Estimate(Concept Stage) The table below identifies the costs for removing and relocating the sanitary sewer and water main.A cost breakdown is shown displaying the major construction items.The costs shown only include construction costs and do not include engineering, legal,or land acquisition costs. Utility Construction Cost Breakdown Relocation Item Cost Removals Tunneling Open-Cut Directional Sanitary Sewer $ 9,302,300 $392,400 _ $i6 292 600 $ 1047 000 Drill Pipe �r Water Main $ 2,727,500 $244,000 $1,660,000 $1,944,000 $ 539,500 Total $12,029,800 $546,400 $6,292,600 $ 1,047,300 , $1,944,000 $2,199,500 *For detailed estimate,see the a�tached Concept Stage Cost Estimate. • Oak Park Heights Page 2 TH-36Sankaty Sewer and Water Main Relocation 8/17/11 • Design Assumptions Several assumptions were used in order to complete a preliminary concept design for the relocation of utilities. Shown below were the key assumptions considered: • No betterments were included in this study; only the required replacement of the existing sanitary sewer and water main necessary to maintain the existing utility operations was induded. • Remove all utilities within MnDOT right of way. Instead of leaving utilities in place or abandoning utilities,the City will not be susceptible to future maintenance or responsibility of the utilities as they will be removed. • Install proposed utilities outside of MnDOT right of way in City easement(excluding required crossings). If the utilities were to remain in MnDOT right of way,the amount of relocation costs would be reduced by approximately 15%, reducing total relocation costs to approximately$10,225,000. Relocating utilities within the MnDOT right of way would reduce the following: - Tunneling of sanitary sewer pipe(assuming only 30%tunneling rather the 70% tunneling shown in the table above) - Restoration of private property • • Sanitary sewer-approximately 70%of the pipe replacement was considered to be installed by tunneling.This method of construction allows for installation of pipe at flat grades with only spot location excavation pits.This method minimizes disruption along the frontage roads to businesses as well as minimizing restoration costs(parking lots, driveways, landscaping,etc.). • Water Main-all pipe replacement was considered to be directionally drilled.Similar to tunneling the sanitary sewer,disruption to businesses and residents will be minimized along with lower restoration costs. • Pipe Jacking at Crossings-utility crossings under TH-36,county highways,or railroads require a casing pipe. • Storm sewer costs were not induded as part of this study(although the existing storm sewer is shown on the figure drawings). • Proposed TH-36 Improvement project limits were assumed to be at the existing MnDOT right of way. Figure Drawing Details The figure drawings were organized as shown on the Index Sheet from west to east along the proposed TH-36 improvements corridor.The proposed utilities are shown outside MnDOT right of way and within a proposed 30'permanent utility easement as needed. Below are some key details associated with the relocation: Oak Park Heights TH-36 SaNtarySewer arad Water/lain Relocation Page 3 8/17/11 i Sanitary Sewer: 1. TH-36 Crossings(3)-during relocation,new pipe and structures are needed to adjust to new grades.These crossings will be installed in a casing pipe. 2. New pipe east of Moelter Fly-Ash site-this pipe was redirected to avoid MnDOT frontage road and right of way.The proposed pipe will flow into the MCES interceptor at approximately 59th St. N.and St. Croix Trail N. 3. Relaying of pipe at Peabody Ave. N.to Beaudet Addition area-the crossing at Upper 61st St. N. will be removed as part of the TH-36 Improvements and the sewer needs to be redirected to the north.The existing lift station located at the north end of lookout trail north will be removed and the proposed pipe will flow via gravity pipe across TH-36 to the Sunnyside area. Water Main: 1. TH-36 Crossings(2)-The proposed crossing at Olene Ave. N. replaces the existing crossing at Osgood Ave. N.This crossing will feed the High Pressure Zone on the north side of TH-36.The proposed crossing at the Beaudet Addition area to the Sunnyside area replaces the existing crossing at Upper 61st St. N. These crossings will be installed in a casing pipe. 2. Loop pipe from Moelter Fly-Ash site to Sunnyside area-this loop is required after removal of the existing water main within the former Elfelt's Addition to Oak Park.The crossings at St. Croix Trail N.and the railroad will be installed in casing pip . 3. Pressure Reducing Stations(2)-these stations are required for connecting the high and low pressure zones of the water main system. This study was completed as a concept stage using two-dimensional plans and current base mapping record plan data.The preferred alternative for the TH-36 Improvements was obtained from MnDOT and is shown shaded on the figure drawings.Additional work along with including the utility betterments will need to be determined with the design of the proposed TH-36 Improvements. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, BONESTROO,INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Cc: Andy Kegley—Public Works Director, Betty Caruso-Finance Director, Mark Vierling City Attorney; Bonestroo: Mark Hanson,Dave Hanson, Mike NM, Mike Warner. • CONCEPT STAGE COST ESTIMATE ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT Bonestroo TH-36 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN RELOCATION(OUTSIDE MNDOT ROW) PROJECT NO.55-11175-0 OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN 8/10/2011 INo. Item Units Qty EE Unit Price EE Total Prize I PART 1-SANITARY SEWER 1 MOBILIZATION(5%) LS 1 $550,000 $550,000 2 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF 19600 $10 $196,000 3 REMOVE FORCEMAIN PIPE LF 1050 $8 $8,400 4 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EA 98 $1,000 $98,000 5 RECONNECT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EA 50 $2,000 $100,000 6 4'DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES EA 60 $3,000 $180,000 • 7 TUNNEL 8"SANITARY SEWER LF 2300 $560 $1,288,000 8 TUNNEL 10"SANITARY SEWER LF 3000 $570 $1,710,000 9 OPEN-CUT 10"SANITARY SEWER IF 1410 $230 $324,300 10 TUNNEL 12"SANITARY SEWER LF 370 $580 $214,600 11 TUNNEL 18"SANITARY SEWER LF 4000 $590 $2,360,000 12 OPEN-CUT 18"SANITARY SEWER IF 1700 $240 $408,000 13 TUNNEL 24"SANITARY SEWER IF 1200 $600 $720,000 14 OPEN-CUT 24"SANITARY SEWER LF 510 $250 $127,500 15 CASING PIPE,JACKED LF 625 $300 $187,500 16 RESTORATION,TRAFFIC CONTROL,EROSION LS 1 $830,000 $830,000 CONTROL MISC.(10%) TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEWER $9,302,300 0 MO - -0 0 NOB Bonestwo 004104 MD FORM • I No. Item Units Qty EE Unit Price EE Total Price 1 PART 2-WATER MAIN 17 REMOVE WATER MAIN LF 22800 $10 $228,000 18 REMOVE HYDRANT EA 32 $500 $16,000 19 8"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 14800 $70 $1,036,000 20 12"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED IF 2350 $80 $188,000 21 CASING PIPE,JACKED LF 2400 $300 $720,000 22 INSTALL HYDRANT EA 35 $3,000 $105,000 23 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA 23 $1,500 $34,500 24 VALVES EA 70 $2,000 $140,000 • 25 RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EA 50 $2,000 $100,000 26 PRESSURE REDUCING STATION EA 2 $20,000 $40,000 27 RESTORATION,TRAFFIC CONTROL EROSION LS 1 $120,000 CONTROL,FITTINGS,MISC.(5%D) $120,000 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500 SUMMARY TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEWER $9,302,300.00 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12,029,800.00 ®aa to _-o am eoirsnoo 00410-2 B1D FORM ■ V•.3.1111a 414,1,-.VIIIFSMI 0 q.0 MI 45.. • i - I '7 ..... - .-.'..... , I(\ . I, .: 77i 41 • i Wir '-, --.:-.IE i , 1 . ." I ....... I I 1 t t $ ' I ■ ecN- I N" 1. , I d 1 4 1 I 1_ 1 I ••• i ,. '• ) N , t ..; ...-(\ I . I , . - , N, , ". .. # I ■ 1 I L , A , • , 40<‘A i ' . ...... . ....... , li . 1 t.,, 1 401 . . . _ . . , 0•. ' .:.1 L . - . - . h \ : 1 1 ■ ""' , ■ I • I r- , <<• 1 . .......\ i , g q , 1 ' 1 , I i .. ' .• I' 2 . 7 f r" • OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN --......„.....—,.....,.. ; ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT ittnex Stitt X ? SA1711AR)SI V/IIIMII)VI i l l 1 1 IIA111 NE10011011(OW SIM 11.100)R 0 Al) 8 A ..- ' , , ,., 1 i ; 40101 • 1 , , .,, . , • is , „,„ . ,„ ,z ,0 , ( A 1 • I , I , . , 01 , 1 I ‘r, I -,,, ;-:-.1 $ 4111 pc ..• 1 I -42 I ',40i 1 1 • --4 I 10 i il4 1 r)i gl I 1 i 1 H i t I I s t 1 444 ii , I a , I , 1 • i J4iii te444:-.4,i,41 t ,v4-0213 ‘ *1 -0 v 1 1 I R a- I SdIdet I II i MS i I I hi I I0 I ) 14 x'in m 1 s,d 44,, , 0 ., 4 Z -.< I 0 -tt,, v-14 i,, , -I C 1 .. 1 t, . --1 i i i s 2: I _ 1.—.1 i I ' 1 t V 11 i ' I 4 4 1 I 411 i • s I i 4 4 1 , , 5 * 9 A 1 I # -'- 1 , ,,,, i ,voi • -44 i IU V i hi v 1 I i* I idt • i d , --.1 •••••• I I 1 4,„ ' 1 ts. di I I 1 I , , - / I • I a '-' 2 R I 1 V , I I I ,' I — 1 I I I I 1 I s I 1 1 i 1 r „AI , . i 1 I I 1 I ,_ / ____ I , 0 , -g.'" 5 'A .1:4 %- k• Eg, ' i i I $ , 1 1100 t 1 • 1 .. I 11) t 13 1 th ,t 1 i i ' I / I I ,p4,-rtiogigka, -,13, !: sAnn. OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN GI ,„„„..,. ..,...... .... C ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT i A :: 43 rn SI 44 It MO 7/W1411AM ItnOrAnal IOUISt0(1411)01 I<0 VJ j - ' . — I _------- - 11111101 1 I , - I 1 I i / . • - I I 1,1 1 -r Ii r n \t I 1 I t I , , m A \ , 0 z $ ,..., „,1 . , 4> I = 7], 1-9.1 \ X 2 x z im rit m -.1 4I I 1 I --4 C I ) -.; I ‘1 , t e I— ' ; ' i- - I I t IOakgreen Ave N li II I '''1:z4:.'",,'" ,= .,it,'-1-i,i'''•1 .).*'''',, , 1 I 11 s I I • v..,.. 1 It s I z • • • ; ,. 11111 1 1 i s t 4■.,41 I I I 1 i d 1 I , ft,.._, I --1 I 1(..,1 i I li li ., II Att' 11 iI 91. 0 t t I g I VI I Odell Ave N 1 1 I I I. -ig2A/It I i ° I , i I i i 1 ■ 2 , '.■:-,Trr":',7t.;7-17:'=''' 11 ill t:4 g-t, r III OAK PARK HEIGHTSpRo,MN 4. 0 , t ' ' = d CROIX RIVER nAttt CROxSAS,IiiNct6,(ms, or FROM ROW) smi s1 vS: .111/11111111111..1111111111111. _ ■,..117vos NA+51105R41*.to ro....., , i I • - -1:- _4-,------- Oldfield Avenue North I '14. CI I 1 ti. i ',Iii, '4'1 i Ili 4 41), . ,. 4,_ ',. 1 I -I I li 4 13 I -,, 1 1 ..) 1 ' 1'. I ...* . I • I 1 ; _ I • t I a& I , t I kn tp I 1 1 -1 i v) I cf, 1 . Z .4 t I II I 15. I i 3. 41110 t;4:1% 1'' i i 2 0, ai ill i ITI 3 ■,. i , , • 1 t voirmilL:immXZ-1-4717:2---,."--111118F '- (1612;'°-.1:?-7)7' 4 1) 1111111 III l' x 1 ' CITY QF Sl1LLWATE . ....- ' __ _ _ V t j_ '*--t —# - F—., ' - , CITY PARK HEIGHTS 181, • ,........11 A_ _ - --- Omaha Avenue North 1 1 \ I I ,1- 1 : 1 1 is - 1 - I k A 'kr I I 1 114 i I 9 i e r A 4411 2, 1 _ , * ,_-.. u . .g ,x„ 46 ,1 1 , d ..■- z A..-- 1 lw I '. . il , .--,‘ I t 1 I I I ,,,, % '' I 1 • ‘. I 1, ,.. .•'.. .,;.-1,--fr:,:r.-•- -t f'tii 0.4, - - - , ' ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT ,„„.., .......,. . a-4,- w 00.7G•p- r.. 131, ?,t51, .• -k 3 1 , IIII SMIITART SIV/ItiAlIDWAIIK1 [MIM :.114 RIIOCAlla 7((MICH], I ROY/; • K sssnur»cauMrul �-�, *.Il,mll xls.ww _ 1� , t 1 S ►Q rc . r W ► rn F ; I ' ; �q +b \ r.---. 1 ` , :; •*, r { Oren Avenue North i 1 a Au '4 Ii i41,1 l ii i ' Ill -. s&A., ir , . ri I hil,„,,, - I . , . , ,. r , l, AiNAPOPMISki * i \ ,...nx 1 '•.! I /* -- 1 ', ' , 1 m. � � v\ o i ,,.. m ► , rt , ,i P ,� tea- a<•-•-' -, 1 u CSAii24 I ^H 1 .o z r' :1 1- , I .. I 1 ` �y _ , I- \ NA} Osgood Avenue North\\ / 11 F. \ , 1 ' UIM k. \` 4▪ §. Al ; a ; 1,". ma °�r • • ' a OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN "N # t ' .. ,`� ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT y�_ --1 Y§4>r 00 50.111TARV SEWER AHD WATER P1Alt1 REI.00ATIOI1(WI1511N 101)1 RO.'!!) , ',... '" '• �.. .1 , . . . 111 . ■., . I I W I e ■ V ' I CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS rn 3 I • 1 m....1 Z ' —I C Oxboro Avenue North ',1 '' • L,,..1 , •, .. i 4 1 11-• I*. Oxbow Ave N '''. r•&• . ■ AK ip . ... , , It 1 ,„*. -.1 )//11 /1, ‘,,, : 1 i ,., i I . 1 1 I •__ 0 :J 11 (;), , -,.- 41111 1 1 . m _ ,.... I II 73 1 GI = 1 L , :1 - 1 - Panama Ave , . - ''‘',„-- I cr■ r , „.., \ I ,.,. _ 1.:1 .1...._. . _ . _. [11111 1 \ I I I M m L (n- UgaFf'' t'llE'e 7r> z z 2 5 li ii i F ' i ; RAi ; "1 ! i . ---2--•--- ,) 1 t. c 1 F. -. - 5 5 r, ! ,-•'''',. -< • 8" . 1 ....... ...• •.—..^ ' 11 0. 1 IT ',:!::::,::,-■.;:-..;::,.",:',;,:";;,;,1:r- . 3:..., OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN ;,:;:f.,',n-,m.:',7•--,:=r'''' %'; T C f' .7' AI. 7 C, g ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT 70. rri - c, V SANITARY St V/I It AND WANK I IAIII KILO All (MISR*11111/01 ROAN) ■ M.S6pi11•hIFWYW.1111,».lAl Ox/1',!%ID117:31IDM - if f > l-' Piris Avenue North n< vl 0 .. - ., I, pr- A i aOe� m C) v °3, ♦.q X (i t a�o�aQQ t r t ,� L ,P Paul Avery North ca L____,-;.. r , i . , . 4 i \\ , , . 11-rA'",.----;,.: ry m - n m , ¢ .<�rn d D 6` --1 D T ::It. pm ��R p ° io t -«. ,, O i 1 O z 2 m - 1 i ® ° z o Peabody Ave N ''r v, �n a, 1 , I � 1-i 1 I 7 .oC p E { II, --_�� j # N4►tlt 0 _ il ' ''"';' , ."' "Pr ", • , 1 ,} , . .--,,i,":g.,"°' 1 , ,._, .�. .,,r,; vQTY i n 1.' �)��` ujeooa6 `' • i 2 6, P o V.; r ,tl� } ,..\�1a1 il i � ? �. . ., , . i ,. a'z ,TI 1� 1 "" I •` m ��e ,• rn z . / ' / I _ I , - It t _ I iiikif lgi ,/ 0 1 f., ire o t' OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN C ; ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT - •'". 3i'I, Ms*51 N IT 0, SAIIITARY SI.WINMI'HAIM HAITI RH OCAI IOC 4(OUIS11M 1.1(11OIII.0.W.I - O ... • ' ' i . . , ' • , 0 ■ , - ' ' I Paris Avenue North -0 c x, o I 1.c lzi e -,- 4" , : .. •. , m 1 n o 1 o Q . as ' . I, ..$?:r ,..* •.- ,4 . ' , if" ksipi 3700 --■ ' 1-. .,„'".,' ' '.: .., • , . I Z C-4 I Gl z • ut C 0 • i . 1"-.'r' ..t. '. , 740' a, •• , :Ii.ji !, -„4,10,4i4,- ,, ,,.... , -;,..Ti . '' ,--,-,,,ti,: 7,. , , I I ' ' , \ . :,. 1 I AventiP North . _ i ..:i -"4•Al 1 - 1 . 1:04 I s , .•‘'''''''''■°:''.."1-::.,_----. j ,-...,,,, . 40, f / 0 . -< 4, ' 1.7'.44-"""•::•-■:-.: -.' -- " (n • .. 73 1 /coot r . . . ----;-----..........---- .------ ,-; 7 I r- m w 0 4311 North .. 7 -----z,....--------.;-__. -/ ?, 55, As ca i --A < 0 Z.0 Peabody Ave N' , 9 m 1 %1 A mx 1.23 x m I r- Z ‘,I1 n 111 . i ' ' > 0 x . I-0 1 * -< d gt AeNo4b1-174S tip‘‘4,,,,) s,1 ..••■••'.. ; , ". ....• ,.,,..... t.r,xi -0 • .. -4 rn 23 y.. gt . .. . , NC, ;:'.1,, ■••1°*°' ,- > m C U) 1 .. . , Z; .- 0 -- , ni `.,,,› •......'... o Q c . z F., • a- . . . .4). ..-----53 `" , _... 0 z • ---- -- - ' 1 4104014‘ t- ,i,,, ----"- ri cn ' ' 2 c7, , 8 0 .... . „. .. ,..4 . . •--• IA -„..,..--. A.„-....1-- ,,iii'‘*,,:t. .,.._.... „ _,..,,„,„ .: ''' M ';;(4". 4, 11\7k; TI04' 11010r - .. .4. 3 A .. ' Aik 400- '''''' , '40 ',..' r '' _.....--...--- T n- - • • ,,,, ,-0.. ,. ..... . ., 4 ,e't' dAitf ' 1, . , . ,,I,. , dve,_.,., 1t ,4ç ; Ii . ' , 0 1*,..„ ,' ,., . ' ..,- • .., - , .0 ' • 1' S H x . ..,.. . rn , ..„ . —I C., ' I 3 . Z m- '4-'4 —I kP I ri I I I N..) ■ 1 . , l'IN 1 I I -. ' 2 _11 - I —i r-,...2., tAgRgii 4 5 ' 7- 7 ggilig. EPI = - I _,.--- I 0 3 f, .......-6,, -n : ; T T.' r. •_. ...,. V.;=,,nr,:::,:::".- ., IT.4 I' Er? OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN '4''`'%''"2!"Y.-7;..,"-'4'1 ""- .1_110 c, I ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT WI INV ,1•1,1,1.1. 1 n. t■r1 i ' ■ S4.11ITAR(SFV/ER ARO WATER 1a1)RELCATI(4(OUISID 1410)1 ROW) 1,, N,I ". . §r:t. : Board of Commissioners W a •1 n g t Dennis C.Hegberg,District 1 Bill Pulkrabek,District 2 Gary Kriesel,Chair,District 3 0 Autumn Lehrke,District 4 Lisa Weik,District 5 August 3, 2011 Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your offer to participate in a meeting to"discuss the St. Croix River Crossing and issues that affected cities may have." As you noted in your letter,this offer to meet is in response to an idea forwarded by the St. Croix River Crossing Coalition. Although Washington County is not a member of the St. Croix River Crossing Coalition, we are strong supporters of the new river crossing and are financially supporting and working closely with the Coalition to secure the necessary permits and funding to get the bridge built. In considering your letter and invitation, I want to note that Washington County has had the opportunity to participate in the planning for other major transportation projects in the county that tha have been Bridge • completed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT), notably project.When these projects have had a financial impact on affected cities,Washington County did not have a financial role in resolving the city financial issues and we would not expect to be in a position to do so with this project. It is our understanding that the proposal for this meeting has not yet been discussed with MN DOT. We would recommend that the planning for such a meeting needs to involve MN DOT and that they are the appropriate agency to take the lead in developing an agenda, planning the meeting format, selecting the participant list, and arranging for a moderator. Until u��zr a commitment from MN DOT to serve in this role is received, we believe any such meeting would be unproductive since the local issues are MN DOT project issues. Once that commitment is secured, we would be very willing to participate. Thanks again for your efforts at getting this meeting scheduled. Best regards, 2 _El. - Gary Kriesel, Chair Washington County Board of Commissioners c County Board of Commissioners Jim Schug, County Administrator Don Theisen, Public Works Director • Government TelQhone:6514430-60011 Street North-430 6017•TTY:651 430-6246 55082-0006 10 of 81. www.co.washington.mn.us Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 • www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo July 25, 2011 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation-Mapping and Cost Estimate Bonestroo File No" 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: As requested,we can provide preliminary cost estimates and drawings for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation atsociated with MnDOTs preferred alternative for the St. Croix River Crossing improvements.The sanitary sewer and water main will be relocated outside of the MnDOT right of way(excluding the required crossings). Maps will be prepared displaying proposed sanitary sewer and water main located within a new • City easement. Impacts to each parcel along the Highway 36 corridor will be shown. A cost estimate will be provided assuming the appropriate construction method required for installation of the sewer and water main. s•14. We propose to prepare these drawings and estimates for an amount not to exceed $7,500.‘6.-"-r Please let me know if you have any questions and feel free to contact me at 651-604-4808. Sincerely, BONESTROO,INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. • w s • r iTir . . c. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•13ox 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 April 27th,2011 Senator Al Franken Congresswoman Michele Bachmann State of Minnesota Minnesota 6th District 309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington Office Washington, DC 20510 103 Cannon 11013 Washington, DC 20515 Senator Amy Klobuchar State of Minnesota 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 RE: St. Croix River Crossing—Addressing Local Costs for the City of Oak Park Heights, MN. • Dear Senator Franken, Senator Klobuchar and Representative Bachmann: At this time it is the City Council's understanding that there may be proposed legislation that addresses the matter of the proposed St. Croix River Crossing suggesting that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and for a Section 7a review process would be waived,released or somehow amended to facilitate the Project and remove restrictions that have been judicially determined under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to have precluded the project to date. The City of Oak Park Heights does not by this correspondence take sides on this policy and the significant issues addressed in such proposed legislation vis-a-vis the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However,as we have communicated with congressional offices in past years, there are significant financial impacts imposed by the proposed Project upon the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. To date the City has already lost significant property,residences and commercial businesses taken as a result of right of way acquisition and which has negatively impacted the City's property tax revenues by over$500,000. Further,there are anticipated to be substantial financial losses by virtue of MNDOT cost sharing policies that prescribe that the City of Oak Park Heights must provide twenty (20) percent of costs associated with utility relocation, traffic signalization, as well as future trail and storm-water maintenance within the proposed right of way of the Trunk Highway 36 improvements that are necessary to the project. These local costs could rise into the millions when design, right-of-way acquisition and maintenance costs are included. As you might expect, a city of 4,339 cannot bear the financial burden and provide the funding necessary to even entertain these significant commitments for a regional project. IPThis issue was addressed some years ago in 2005 when Representative Kennedy did secure some funding legislation that was intended to be directed to help the City with these costs but language within the draft allowed the funds to flow directly to MNDOT and those were applied by that agency to its needs not to those of the City. Moreover,to date the City has been unable to find local solutions to these policies with MNDOT. Accordingly, at this time the City is seeking legislative assistance and relief that as a federal condition to any exemption provided to the St. Croix River Crossing as it relates to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or any other legislation or final funding allocation that would allow the Project to move forward,that the State of Minnesota shall be required within the text of the legislation to fully fund all local infrastructure replacement and related costs for the City of Oak Park Heights associated with the construction of the Project. These costs again include all aspects of water,sanitary and storm water utility relocations, traffic signalizations,storm water ponds and trail systems and their future maintenance and reconstruction. By proceeding as above, there would not a requirement for additional Federal allocation of dollars and does provide MNDOT a clear and precise exemption to its cost-share policies which have stymied final agreements between the City and MNDOT. It is vital to note that the total costs necessary to address the local costs pale in comparison to $650+ million Project estimate and such requirements upon MNDOT should not create any hardships towards MNDOT executing this Project. • We again stress that the City's position is unique in-so-far as the City has already incurred substantial financial losses and that a community of 4,339 cannot be expected to provide disproportionate funding for a regional project to the magnitude required by the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. Therefore, if the foregoing proposal would be amenable to your offices the City would be most appreciative. Please/109 know if you have any questions or comments about this proposal. fir' Yours V: lruly, ' Eric Johnson City Administrator • Weekly Notes .. S f 41 l*�'of �V fr(�. vitAt. x City of Oak Park Heights City Council Meeting with Senator Al Franken Discussion Topic: St. Croix River Crossing • Saturday,April 2nd,2011 —2:00 PM- Oak Park Heights City Hall • 1 of 55 Y Thank You.... • The City does certainly thank Senator Franken and his staff for taking the time to meet directly with the City Council to discuss the St. Croix River Crossing and hopefully find solutions to the challenges faced by the City, its residents and businesses. Purpose of this Packet of Information The purpose of this document is to briefly highlight the City's concerns and issues with the proposed St. Croix River Crossing with specific documents. Documents for Discussion: 1. Oct 15th, 2010—City Council Position Paper 2. Cost Estimates—MNDOT Supplied Spreadsheet 3. Municipal Consent—MNDOT Letters and Court Ruling—2007 4. Economic Impact of St. Croix River Crossing&Engineer's Estimate 5. City Council Resolutions—Highlighting Consistent Message of Needs 6. Maps of Project Areas—(95%of the Project is within Oak Park Heights) • S 2 of 55 ■ T 0• 1. Oct 15th,2010—City Council Position Paper The Oct 15th,2010—City Council Position Paper,formatted in a letter to the City's business community,represents the City's position on the entirety of the Project.In summary,the City's position does not delve into the issues regarding the Wild and Scenic River Act nor the necessity of a new Bridge. Instead the document articulates that the City will be dealing with numerous and potentially devastating impacts because of the Bridge Project which must be mitigated These need include: > Providing full funding for all utility relocation costs, > Providing full funding for all trails and their future maintenance, ➢ Providing full funding for all signalizations and their future maintenance, ➢ Providing future storm-water pond maintenance > That the Project's layout conceptualized in 1995 must consider the significant new construction that has occurred since 1995 and appropriate adjustments be • considered and made. 3 of 55 ' r iF 4.? - City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Hei hts, MN 55082•Phone 651 439.4439•Fax 651 439-0574 October 15th 2010 TO: Oak Park Heights Business Community FROM: The City Council of the City Oak Park Heights RE: Communication to City Businesses -STH 36/St. Croix River Crossing Project—Current Position of City of Oak Park Heights. In recent weeks,there have been announcements from the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MNDOT)that they intend to proceed with construction of the St. Croix River Bridge Project possibly as early as 2013. Notwithstanding the current State III projected shortfalls in funding and the Sierra Club litigation in Federal Court on the matter, it is an appropriate time for the City of Oak Park Heights'to communicate with its business community, as well as others, regarding the City's position on the proposed St. Croix River Crossing and STH 36 updates. Fundamentally, the City is in agreement with many public and private agencies that the current bridge facility.should be replaced.This need stems from several elements, but is mainly from traffic volumes, poorly maintained frontage roads and intersections on highways and approaches, inadequacies of the Stillwater Lift Bridge and related issues. Construction impacts and Costs: Despite these facts,the City of Oak Park Heights is being asked and expected to withstand and bear the primary and consequential burdens associated with these proposed improvements including the placement of the actual bridge within the City, 10-15-10-SCRCP-OPH City Council Position Letter 1 of 4 • 4 of 55 c • removal and relocation of significant City water, sanitary and storm-water infrastructure as well as being expected to shoulder the maintenance of significant trail and right—of- way improvements upon completion of the Project.These burdens are in addition to the lost tax-base already incurred by the City stemming from the removal of over 65 homes and several businesses as well as an anticipated 5 years of construction disruption and lost tax base anticipated from the multi-year construction timeline. Naturally,the City of Oak Park Heights, its business community and residents have a vested interest to ensure that this Project is as minimally invasive as possible and does not place unreasonable and unfair burdens on City businesses, residents and other local taxpayers to support this Interstate, Regional improvement project. Unfortunately, MNDOT will not commit to funding mechanisms to offset local losses for these improvements which would avoid and alleviate significant financial consequences to the City and its taxpayers. As an example of this, MNDOT's 2006 engineering estimates place the needed local Oak Park Heights utility relocations at$1.87 million dollars, (not including land • r acquisition),for which MNDOT has yet to provide a full financial commitment to the City that covers such costs. In addition to these utility costs, MNDOT also expects the City to pay for, maintain and manage over 5,000 linear feet of public trail-ways, maintain several roadway plantings and green spaces as well as pay for and maintain several traffic control lights.Again, none of these costs can or should be borne by a City of less than five-thousand persons for a Regional, Interstate project. The most recently proposed layout could result in the creation of a number of non- conforming lots along the City's commercial corridor east of Oakgreen Ave. Under this proposal,the Project limits could create numerous building setback non-conformities and/or could eliminate needed access and parking effectively causing impairment to the affected businesses,thus adding another fiscal burden to the City due to lost tax base and jobs. • 2of4 10-15-10-SCRCP-OPH City Council Position Letter 5 of 55 1 Other impacts yet to be addressed are related to the provision of adequate measures •from MNDOT to protect property owners from construction damages, Specifically, this project which will be ongoing for years will require a massive movement of earth as well as the placement of significant pilings and construction vibration as well as traffic disruption to local area businesses and homes. MNDOT has even yet to provide a proposal on how the City will provide adequate fire protection services to its residents during such construction, as the Bayport Fire Department will no longer be able to access portions of the City without significant delay. Municipal Consent: MNDOT has publicly stated that the City of Oak Park Heights has provided Municipal Consent for the Project in 1995 and no further dealings are needed with the City. This is an unfortunate position as MNDOT must construct the Project that was specifically tied to that 1995 Municipal Consent. That 1995 plan did not include a bridge at Beach Road, did include a north frontage road east of Osgood Ave and was a project in which MNDOT committed to paying the City's utility relocation costs. In addition, much has changed in the corridor since 1995 that causes difficulties with this plan, including placing the frontage roadways less than 25 feet from residences that were not in existence in 1995. Moreover, MNDOT has not yet provided construction plans and 0 specifications. The City has made repeated efforts to engage MNDOT over the years on these issues. Unfortunately,meetings have been less than productive;hampered by a parade of ever changing project managers, litigation over violations of written commitments on Municipal Consent resulting in Court enforcement proceedings; all of which has only served to dissipate the public trust in government as well as tax dollars. We would ask that our adjoining communities and common organizations take a step away from the bridge debate and focus on how State government should be dealing with local government on issues of this magnitude.Also take a moment to consider the significant impacts to the businesses and residents in Oak Park Heights and understand positions the City has been required to assume to prevent such burdens. The City of Oak Park Heights does not expect that the construction of this Project will be without 10-15-10-SCRCP-OPH City Council Position Letter 3of4 6 of 55 • some local cost contributions, but these contributions must be reasonable and • proportioned for a community of less than five-thousand persons as against those who will actually and substantially benefit from the Project. MNDOT has been dealing with projects of this magnitude long enough to know that utilities need to be moved and replaced as a part of the Project and that they need to be responsible for mitigating community impacts. In fairness,we do note that MNDOT has found creative methods to fund other aspects of the Project including, private improvements for Xcel Energy—removing'mooring cells', resurrecting presumptively "historic structures"and building out recreational elements to the Project. Unfortunately MNDOT has been unwilling to be as helpful or creative in dealing with Oak Park Heights' basic public infrastructure loss and disruption.The Minnesota Department of Transportation must ensure that the City of Oak Park Heights does not bear an unreasonable and untenable burden for this Project. As we are apparently now entering into another stage of MNDOT plan submissions, please know that Oak Park Heights is hopeful forfforts successful wards community goal. We agar ask this Project and will continue to make reasoned e that you understand these fundamental issues the City is facing with MNDOT. If you or your organization is able to assist the City in any way in alleviating these unreasonable expectations it would be appreciated.The City will conversely continue to work towards solutions so the Project will also be a success for the Oak Park Heights Business Community and City Taxpayers. Finally, as many are aware, MNDOT and the Sierra Club are engaged in a lawsuit in the Federal Court to again compel judicial review of the Bridge Project. Please know that the City of Oak Park Heights is not involved with this lawsuit. The City does thank you for your support and understanding. This Communication Approved and Adopted By City Council, Oct 12"', 2010 Please contact City Administrator Eric Johnson if you have any questions-651-439-4439. 4of4 10-15-10-SCRCP-OPH City Council Position Letter 7 of 55 2. MNDOT Supplied Cost Estimates. S This chart, supplied by MNDOT in 2009, outlines anticipated Local costs for the St. Croix River Crossing Project for Utility Relocations. These estimates place City costs at$469,075 if the project is to be constructed in 2014. Please Note Two Important Points: > While these utility relocation costs are significant to a City of 4,339 persons, these estimates ALSO DO NOT include costs for required right-of-way or utility easements for these relocated utility lines. These costs can be significant and could substantially increase the total costs for utility relocation. D Despite what these utility relocation costs may ultimately be,the City has been advised by MNDOT that MNDOT cannot"lock-in"a particular price because of statutory limitations. The City would simply be expected to pay a bill based on final bidding costs and installation.This is problematic as the City would have no control over the execution or implementation of the Project and would simply be expected to pay a bill. S 8 of 55 • ' et Croix Myer Grw.Lp Project UUlfles laenit.n Sower A Water M.h,,Storm 4..,5a Fonds.Signal 9y.I.m1 v«IYnImrY Cost Imp.. �b^� n" .... uw.«.6nr.za6.M«M«.6enu c..w+c.c.an..r..aeoudonno Halowunwm wro' xwa.nv.m6+.x.6 w. *Wed naL66mw..nw.ae.«a6n.m.nmmua «rn.o,.6 n.m...a6.wm atMt Mew...cp.P.Pipppa Pa.dPen PPP PPP wblvernanu PP n.n,6.�.6 ° =mm e:7:1 ©©©Iiii®®©iiii©EM alliill©©N rc c'-"'�.. .M.M.M. '1n1=.1T=.�ityil-=➢ �J'Ll a -© -�i -Pn'..[ L--.f1�"y"_a-SI " .--1��i .-� --"FI•'�"f'n`1-�E'ii'i ELM!'"MIIIIMIMMIM...�-�,y�, STA ED Go'Th OH ©moo ==== _—= _W= SNEer �.�.— Rt6Ht'-oF-IJAY - - -�--- = T ��=te==tm rmoo�=— — — _ 6 _ _6_ Ii"z•I_i1"�_ U• W r EA TEN TS= at Croix N..r Crossing Fral. W .*Man.,a^•raw.arMN,6a,maewer a Pend.6.666 666.6,,666,646Y 66.6 666,6« OES16N m.M.._ 1_H 6.6 =.1- 1 I I I 11 11 i \... ♦' Ir^.nqi _— I�.a'imr-ni:ra— —M —■nM■�ssl � 6n =mom•■•SF::1—_—er��66sa SI".1 -i_S.C'I_Sr_]_�V" . ■4 1. r_=_mom �=∎=1 ''—�v�.'I �•! �I.m �SLi ..o� ... �M�M_M__EM_ME—'_�_�_�_�_ ,,===X6 1_ r-I 6inn_ n ∎v ∎Esa �rA —y�.l,i, -i ∎∎∎ — —.� —6:—tom.— �'fi6�—m—∎ •— :i TOTAL CONSTRUCTION _WMirtM- r ® •n MMr,•���1rt n/.57.6%ffi ®iMME .J irr7M COITS MicEsMouM era6x.t- .areas« .0 M _® ® 6 fir. 661 ..W.P.RI M �_ S•1.- ..6r« .r. .1 �T x,ii . = xfWaIMMICTin6.�MEuK,1{MEL xyllMl. .ln= Et R.1MM E TO ON .tt MM�LilSPSMM�alls nmomm L liimmiula:rommw`I[ Ea761∎11:6:16 • 3. Municipal Consent • There has been considerable discussion and debate between the City and MNDOT regarding this Project and under what review process would it be considered, a"pre-2001"Municipal Consent Process or`post-2001"Municipal Consent process?It has been the City's position that the Project falls under the Pre-2001 process which gives the City of Oak Park Heights the authority to reject the Project subject to a binding review by a Board of Appeals,while the Post-2001 process does not unilaterally require the MNDOT to abide by an appeals board. The City had sent written correspondence to MNDOT seeking a clarification that the Project would fall under the Pre-2001 process to which MNDOT did reply in a letter dated Oct 5th, 2004 concurring with that perspective.Notwithstanding MNDOT staff assurances that that the pre-2001 process would be followed,the City subsequently received a letter, dated August 8th,2006 from MNDOT in which the Department changed its mind and specified that it intended to follow the Post-2001 Municipal Consent process. 0 The City subsequently sued MNDOT in 2007 in the 10th District Court seeking a determination as to which process was to be followed. The City prevailed with the Judge finding that the Project must follow the Pre-2001 Municipal consent Process. (Attached is the Court's Findings—Oct 18th, 2007) What does this mean to the Project? The City granted municipal consent to the original layout in 1995 under a Memorandum of Agreement with MNDOT at that time imposing several conditions. The project must still receive the City's approval as to the final construction plans which must comply with the 1995 layout and the conditions imposed by the City under the Memorandum of Agreement. The stage remains set for a continuing conflict between City and MNDOT over the project. Comparisons on scope and layout,unexecuted conditions,past assurances,and the substantive problem with an interstate project that is posed to force a significant cost on a local community that can't afford or reasonably bear it. S 10 of 55 • In the scale of an interstate bridge project with an estimated cost in excess of 650 million 411 there appears to be little sense in engaging a conflict with a local community over local infrastructure relocation expense which is a very small part of the project.In any event that is where things are. 11 of 55 OCT-08-2004 08:27 ADE STAFF AREA FAX 6515821302 P.02 loWbobi Minnesota Metropolitan Department of Transportation Division 01- 9G 17 32 (0,..no, Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 68113 October 5,2004 • Mr.Eric Johnson City Administrator PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear Mr.Johnson; RE:St.Croix River Crossing,Municipal Consent Process In a previous letter,dated July 8,2004.I indicated that Mn/DOT would be using the current municipal consent process for this projecc. In your letter dated August 25,2004,you indicated that the city is of the position that this project is exempt from the new processes and should proceed under the old process. This letter is to inform you that Mn/DOT has reconsidered it's position for this project and subsequent to the completion of the environmental process,it is our intention to resume the municipal consent process as described in the statutes,prior to the statutory revisions of 2001. The limits of the project continue to extend from 150'Street in Wisconsin to T.H.5 in Oak Park 11111 Heights/Stillwater. Under the previous action relating to this project,a Memorandum of Understanding was developed and signed by Mn/DOT and Oak Park Heights. I will be calling you to setup a meeting to review the previous Memorandum of Understanding to determine what updates or revisions to the MOU would be appropriate. Thank you for your patience on this matter in working to get it resolved. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to call me after I return from vacation on October 17. Since y, '-- Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Cc: Larry Hanson,Stillwater Jim Schug,Washington County Don Theisen,Washington County An equal opportunity employer 0 TOTAL P.02 12 of 55 C ,rw ,,, Mimtesota Department of 7ransportBBtIon Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 a August 8,2006 Eric Johnson Oak Park Height City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Blvd.North Oak Park Heights,MN 55083 Re:Municipal Consent Process for St.Croix River Crossing Project Dear Eric This letter is to inform the City that Me/DOI'will be submitting the St.Croix River Crossing project layout to the City under the current Minnesota State Statute for municipal consent(Mn Statute161.164). In an October 2004 letter to the City and in recent MOU discussions,we stated that;per the city request,Mn/DOT intended to follow the old municipal consent statute that existed prior to 2001. it was determined However,after recent review and discussion with legal council and Mn/D17T management layout to Oak determined that proceeding under the old statute was not defensible.Submitting y Park Heights,Stillwater and Bayport under the current statute is the only legal option available for this project The current statute is a more defined process than old statute;it lays out what • •information must be provided to each city,and clearly defines the timing of various steps. Essentially nothing changes in our submittal of materials.As planned,Mn/DOT will officially submit the SPEIS,project layout and an estimate of local costs to the City for municipal consent The City will need to schedule a hearing and take a formal action on the consent request within proscribed timeframes of the statute.The request for consent will be made this fall after PHWA has issued their Record of Decision.The PHWA action is expected�is eady September.In the interim, the City and Mn/DOTT' need to continue the MOU discussions and resolve remaining issues. I regret that Mn/DOT needed to change course on this issue,but after reviewing the statutes and discussing the issue with legal council and staff we came to the inevitable conclusion that the new statute was the only reasonable option for this step in the project I look forward to the continued discussions and conclusion on the MOU,the council workshop in September and finalizing preparations for submittal of the project to the City for municipal consent Sincerely i irk Thompson East Area Manager An equal opportunity employer S 13 of 55 Oct-1Q-0T 10:13am From-WASH CNTY COURT ADMIN 6514306278 1-056 P.02/08 F-934 ran YOUR INFORMATION • State of Minnesota Washington County District Court I. Tenth Judicial District Court File Number:82-C0-06.0068I5 Case Type:Civil Other/Misc. MARK J VIERLING Notice of Entry of Judgment ECKBERG LAMMERS BRIGGS ET AL 1809 NORTHWESTERN AVE STE 110 STILLWATER MN 55082 In Re: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS BWE vs. STATE OF MINNESOTA 2 FILES V2 RED You are notified that judgment was entered on October 18,2007. Dated.October 18,2007 Christina M.Volkers Court A�dmtnistrator By '� .. Deputy Court Adtnmtstrator Washington County District Court II 14949-62nd St.N;PO Box 3802 Stillwater MN 55082 651.430-6263 cc: RICHARD L VARCO,Jr. I 14 of 55 t ' Oct-19-07 10:13am From—WASH CNTY COURT AD1+1IN 6514306276 7-056 P 03/08 F-934 File#_� .. _. F wc�5tl1NG1` N"tOUNTY F 110. Di8lit1Cfi COURT 1 DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA �. OCT 1 a a007 L +. NTH JUDICIAL pISTRIC'IT COUNTY OF WASIiINGTO .: = it COURT ADMINISTRATOR Court File: CO-O6-6815 gy Daputy City of Oak Park Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT vs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER State of Minnesota,by its Commissioner Of Transportation Defendants. The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable B. William Ekstrum on July 20, 2007,at the Washington County Government Center, Stillwater,Minnesota,pursuant to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion and Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff was represented by Mark Vierling, Esq.and Jennifer Nodes,Esq. Defendant was represented by Richard Varko,Jr., Assistant Attorney General. Based on all the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FAC I 1. For at least a period of two decades,the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation("Mn/DQT"and-•Wis/DOT"respectively) along with municipalities located along the St. Croix River and affected by the congestion issues have attempted to address increased traffic congestion in and around the Stillwater lift bridge. 2. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, serious discussion and planning began for a replacement 15 of 55 Oct-16-07 10:14am From-RASH CNTY COURT ADMIN 6514306278 T-056 P.04/06 F-934 bridge across the St. Croix River(hereinafter the"project"). • 3. In April 199$, an Environmental Impact Statement("EIS")was completed) The 1995 Final EIS considered three possible crossing areas; the north,central and south corridors. The 1995 Final EIS recommended that the crossing be in the north alignment of the south corridor. 4. On August 14, 1995, The City of Oak Park Heights(the"City")approved the final layout plans from the Mn/DOT regarding the recommended alignment of the bridge. 5. In 1995, after completion of the Final EIS, work began on the project. In 1996,litigation was commenced alleging that work was beginning without a determination as to whether it would have a direct and adverse impact and in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Work on the project was halted as a result of the litigation and a finding by the National Park Service(hereinafter"NPS")that the project as proposed would have a direct and adverse effect on the Lower St. Croix River which was protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 4 Act. As a result of the NPS finding,the federal permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Coast Guard could not be issued. 6. Litigation ensued regarding the NPS finding. The case was filed in federal district court as Civil Case No. 4-96-547 and entitled Sierra Club Northstar Chapter and Voyagers Regional National P k Association and the Cit of Oak Park Hei fits v. Frederico Pena Secretor of the United _rates D artment of Transportation et al The United States District Court, the Honorable Ann Montgomery,denied summary judgment to Mn/DOT which had hoped to upset the NPS determination that the proposed project had an adverse effect on the St. Croix Plaintiff requested that the Court take judicial notice of the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement dated April 1995,the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and the April 13, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order,Hon.Ann Montgomery,United States District Coon,District of Minnesota. Defendant did not object However,the Court does not rake judicial notice of these documents but does acknowledge the existence of these documents and that these documents are pan of the record. 2 • 16 of 55 Oct-18-07 10;14am FromIASH CNTY COURT AMAIN 8514306278 T-056 P.05/08 F-934 • e in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. River 7. After the April 199g Order of the Honorable Ann Montgomery+ Mn/DOT engaged Richard F. Braun, a retired Mn/DOT commissioner,to facilitate discussions regarding the bndge project. Following Mr.Braun's facilitation process, and after the Federal Highway Works Administration pursued a conflict resolution process,a determination was made that a consensus could be reached regarding the project. After a determination was made that regulatory agencies and federal partners were willing to proceed,Mn/DOT and Wis/DOT reinitiated the project in June 2002. S. In 2006,a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was completed. Following completion of the 2006 Supplemental EIS,the Department of Transportation indicated to the City that a submission under the municipal consent statute would be forthcoming. The project for addressing the traffic congestion and issues relating to the Stillwater Lift Bridge was amended from its 1995 version as a result of the litigation and the subsequent discussions and dispute resolution process. Changes were made in the specific implementation of the bridge project. However,the focus and purpose of the project, the history of the project and the parties and players to the project remain the same. 9, The legislature amended the municipal consent layout process in 2001. Minn. Stat. §161.17, §§161.171-- 177 were replaced with Minn. Stat. §§161.162 to 161.167. A dispute between the State and the City arose regarding whether the prior statute or the current statute would govern the municipal consent process. Initially,the State indicated that it would be submitting the plan for municipal approval under the previous statutes,Minn. Stat. §161.1.7, §§161.171 — 177 (2000). In later correspondence from the State to the City, the State indicated that it would be submitting the plan for municipal approval under Minn.Stat. • 3 17 of 55 Oct-l8-07 10:14am From-WASH CNTY COURT ADMIN 6514306278 T-056 p.06/OB F-834 §§161.162 to 161.167(2006). The City maintains that the prior statutes are the applicable • law, and has provided deposition testimony from the chief author of the 2006 Supplemental EIS on behalf of Ma/DOT, who confirmed that the same project had layout approval sought from the City of Oak Park.Heights in 1 995. 10. The goal of the project is to create a river crossing in Washington County, Minnesota to western St. Croix County, Wisconsin to serve significant transportation needs. This goal did not materially change from 1995 to 2006. 11.The identifying numbers for the project used by Mn/DOT were the same or similar in 1995 and 2006. L2. The description of the project did not materially change between 1995 and 2006. 13.Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 191 H.F.No, 1973,the legislation which amended the municipal consent statutes, states in §10, "This act is effective the day following final enactment and applies to highway construction projects for which municipal approval is firs: 40 sought after that date." (Emphasis added). The dispute between the parties arises out of the meaning of this sentence. 14.Based on the record and the submissions and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the project as it was in 1995 and as it currently exists is in substance and purpose substantially the same project and therefore, since it was first submitted for municipal approval prior to the enactment of the 2001 legislative changes to the municipal consent process, the prior statute, Minn. Stat. §161.17, §§161.171 — 177 (2000),should apply for the current municipal consent process. Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact, the Court hereby makes the following: 4 18 of 55 Oct-16-07 1O:14am From-WASH CNTY COURT ADMIN 6514306178 1-056 P.O7/O8 F-934 CONC'LUSXQNS OF LAW 1. No material issue of fact is in dispute between the parties. Rather, the parties request a determination as to what is the applicable law governing the municipal consent process. The City argues that the current project is substantially the same as the project first submitted for municipal approval in 1995- The State argues that the project in its current form has been changed and therefore cannot be the same project as it was in 1995. The Court determines that the statute's effective date is unambiguous.'Therefore,the Court will give the words their ordinary and plain meaning. The statute states that the"act is effective the day following final enactment and applies to highway construction projects for which municipal approval is first sought after that date." The Court determines that the current project at issue in this case is materially and substantially the same project as it was in 1995 when it was first submitted for municipal approval. And because the project was first submitted for approval • in 1995,the new legislation does not apply to any subsequent municipal approval process if the project remains the same. Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Court hereby makes the following: ORDER 1. Plaintiffs motion for sununary judgment is hereby GRANTED. The Court hereby determines that the St. Croix River Project("the project")identified within the St. Croix River Crossing Project Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement released June 16,2006,to be a continuation of the same"project"as identified by the 1.995 Final Environmental Impact Statement with a Record of Decision formally issued on July 10, • 5 19 of 55 , 00-18-0T 10:15am From-WASH CNTY COURT ADMIN 6514306276 1-056 P.08/08 F-934 •1995. The Court further determines that the Commission of Transportation first sought municipal consent from the City of Oak Park Heights for the project in 1995. The Court determines that Minn. Stat. §161.17, §161.171 — 177(2000) and §473.81(2000)apply to and govern the municipal consent process relative to the project and control any submissions on behalf of the State of Minnesota,by the Commissioner of Transportation, to the City of Oak Park Heights for layout approvals under the statutory municipal consent process cited above. 2. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, converted to a motion for summary judgment, is hereby DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is hereby DENIED as moot. 4. All other requested relief is hereby DENIED. 5. The Washington County Court Administrator shall serve a true and correct copy of this Order by U.S. Mail upon the above-named panics. • LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY BY THE COURT: /0// g) Date "` B. William Ekstrum Judge of District Court I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the Judgment and Decree of the Court. DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Dated:_ \z\\ \s� By... ,, . ti - Deputy • 6 • 20 of 55 ■ 6 1, • <2_,. . 0 ?ge, 0 zacio I 1) TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 161.173 93 92 >f Scott, and Washington, presently under the Subd. 5. Metropolitan area. "Metropolitan area" includes the counties of Anoka, ,d projects; and that the Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, h; aY plans must jurisdiction, for metropolitan area planning and coordination purposes, of the metro trunk hig Po1itan council established pursuant to chapter 473, which council is hereinafter of these various consider- Mans for the co within the referred to as"agency". preliminary plan for the proposed ite system report „the Subd. 6. Layout plan. "Layout plan" means a p r osed 1• fans covering construction or reconstruction of a highway facility which o location of proposedr roadway irtiinary p part of a report containing locations, elevation, width of lanes, and the type width, and length the governing body in intersections or interchanges together with the approximate location, where a lica PP 1 to of bridges and the approximate right-of-way limits and access locations, compliance with ble. 1tt held in comp overning character, submission to the g Subd. s'sections and supplementalidrawings{avhich show plan locationts profiles, the public hearing and °D typical cross fans to the within thing dimensions and details of the highway construction or improvement work to be done, pia plans wihin C i three and which are substantially in conformance with the plan which will be submitted to the final plans the Twin Cities plans to (1) prospective bidders. the area li ed History:1969 c 312 s 1;1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1976 c 166 s 7;1980 c 509 s 51 t is within established 1 state-aid rules are in the state.If a member 161.172 MUNICIPALITIES TO CONSENT. :erned that member shall be co or committee shall give the (a) Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk highway or any part the case for or thereof,located n thewnann the e specified corporate to limits of any n without municipality,he consent e constructed ior y h l approve improved o Ian three months disa�prh�le body of such municipality, unless the procedures prescribed by sections 161.172 to shall a with state to or 161.177 shall have been followed by the commissioner of transportation.The highway �aiwent with state and ningr its improvements requiring consent are limited to those improvements which alter access, a written report containing he increase or reduce highway traffic capacity or require acquisition of permanent rights- nd the governing body. of-way.This section shall not limit the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or ruction, reconstruction, °1 install traffic control devices or other safety measures on trunk highways located within the governing body or, if commission or committee days municipalities. (b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way limiting the has had an ails as may commissioner's discretion to determine the priority and programming of trunk highway or such modified the commission or construction. 1980 c 533 s 6 report drt of not a approve the plans History:1969 c 312 s 2; 1976 c 166 s 7; °dy does not app ro ect to proceed with the 161.173 SUBMISSION OF CORRIDOR PROPOSAL. recommended by , with the The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality wherein all, before and body body governing a trunk highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, d containing: arstaten>ent are ree rre the g of each municipality adjacent to any such municipality, a are shall be tmb rs d fro tithe of the need for this proposed construction or improvement, a description of alternate loin cuall de rei the commissioner and an explanation of the advan- ion which were considered by ; incurred by the the commission. tages and disadvantages in the selection of any route considered.The report shall also ion thereru by members of the contain for each alternate, the following cinformation:s r classification, general alignment at es imate, .bes same rules, anm the same approximate points of access, highway er's same extent and in relation to existing and planned regional and local development and to other transpor- er's rubs c 444; tation routes and facilities, and a statement of the expected general effect on present 7. 1985 c 248 s 70; 1986 of the and future use of the property orridor Where eoatsntertrua chig highway is s " proposed to be constructed or improved report shall also be submitted to the metropolitan council. In all areas o the 3 state a tE o 161.17'7,the copy of the report shall be sent to established regional, county 177,the terms defined in commissions in the area affected by the highway project. Not less than 45 nor more to 161 than 90 days, or as otherwise mutually agreed, after the report has been submitted,the of traitsporta- commissioner shall hold a public hearing on thmunicipality proposed highway a porticonstruction of the s the commissioner improvement at such time and place within any lit " proposed construction or improvement is located,as the co shall ionerhall determine. thereof,overning body of a municipality" unicipa Y � Not less than 30 days before the hearing entitled to receive a copy o 5 the governing body of each municipality or agency is y city within the state. � °; , • • , f1 N at Pat, DO ► 0. 161.173 TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM )i report, and shall cause notice of the hearing to he published at least once each week which meets minimum fed( for two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in disapproved within such p such municipalities,the second publication to be not less than five days before the date construction.plans and spe of the hearing. The notice shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing, consistent wth the adopted shall describe the proposed or actual general location of the highway to be constructed the layout plan or any part or improved, and shall state where the report may be inspected prior to the hearing by the commissioner determir any interested person. The hearing shall be conducted by the commissioner or the commissioner shall proceed commissioner's designee, and shall be transcribed and a record thereof mailed to each to proceed with the plan municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report. Al) interested persons modified layout plan to the shall be permitted to present their views on the proposed highway construction or layout plan in the mannez improvement. The hearing may be continued as often as necessary. Within 120 days municipality or agency with after the hearing is completed, the governing body of each municipality or agency modified layout plan or ar. entitled to receive a copy of the report shall submit to the commissioner its approval or agency within 60 days after disapproval of the report. If all or any part of the report is disapproved, the construction plans and spec municipality or agency shall state the reasons for such disapproval and suggested acquire the necessary right changes in the report. The commissioner shall, before preparing additional plans for pality and the commission E the proposed highway construction or improvement, submit to the governing body of modification, the commis each municipality or agency disapproving the report, a statement accepting or rejecting 161.175. If the layout plan i any suggested changes and the reasons for acceptance or rejection. and the commissioner does History: 1969 c 312 s 3; 1980 c 509 s 52; 1984 c 654 art 3 s 52; 1986 c 444; 1994 c the date of the completion e 628 art 3 s 10 a copy of the layout plan h pursuant to section 161.175 161.174 SUBMISSION OF LAYOUT PLANS. commissioner. In the event The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality wherein signer or the municipality, a highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, a proposed layout plan for the appointment of an appeal highway construction or improvement containing: the proposed location, elevation alternative layout plans. width and geometries of the construction or improvement, together with a statement of History:1969 c 312 s 4; the reasons therefor. Said plan shall also contain: approximate right-of-way limits; a 161.175 APPEAL B . tentative schedule for right-of-way acquisition, if known; proposed access points; frontage roads; separation structures and interchanges; location of utilities, when Upon the request of th known; landscaping, illumination, a tentative construction schedule, if known: and the the members shall be selec estimated cost of the construction or improvement. The commissioner shall submit municipality involved. If n more than one layout plan. Each such plan shall also be submitted to the metropolitan governing bodies of the council if any portion of the proposed highway construction or improvement is located appointment shall be made in the metropolitan area. In all areas of the state a copy of the layout plan shall be sent "Which resolutions shall be t to established regional, county and municipal planning commissions in the area resolutions from a majority affected by the highway project. Not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after said said person shall be deeme plan has been submitted, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed include all disapproving r highway construction or improvement at such time and place within any municipality submitted such resolution wherein a portion of the construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner commissioner's request for shall determine. The hearing shall be noticed, held and conducted in the manner of the supreme court shall. provided in section 161,173, except that the commissioner shall mail notice of the upon five days'notice to al. hearing only to those municipalities and agencies entitled to receive a copy of the select a third member. If tl layout plan. The hearing shall be transcribed and a record thereof made available to last member was appointee each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of said plan. Within 18(1 days ? the third member upon ap after the hearing is completed, the commissioner shall formally adopt a layout plan. A first two members. The t copy of the layout plan as adopted shall be submitted to each municipality or agency highway appeal ey sh and entitled to receive a copy of the proposed plan, together with the reasons for any f members and they shall hn change in the plan as presented at the hearing.Within 120 days after the receipt of the provided.Members of the adopted layout plan,each such municipality or agency shall submit to the commissioner the state of Minnesota;or; its approval or disapproval of the layout plan and the reasons for such disapproval, and History:1969 c 312 s 5 proposed alternatives, which may include a recommendation of no highway. Such alternatives submitted by a municipality located within the metropolitan are shall, 161'176 POWERS OF API, upon request of the municipality, be reviewed by the metropolitan council in order to Subdivision 1. Hearin} determine whether such alternatives are likely to meet minimum federal requirements. S3CZner and the affected m The metropolitan council is authorized to provide whatever assistance it deems layout plan as proposed b� advisable to the submitting municipality in order to assist it in arriving at an alternative federal requirements that: : • ,,, .:,, 411 ..:: . , E � • pre -200, 20'x' 95 TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 161.176 90. d at least once each week which meets minimum federal requirements. If said plan or any part thereof is not disapproved within such period, the commissioner may proceed to prepare final n fi general before th on in construction plans and specifications for the highway construction or improvement f n flue days before the date consistent with the adopted layout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way. nd purpose of the hearing, the layout plan or any part thereof is disapproved by any municipality or agency, nd highway to be constructed the commissioner determines to proceed with the plan without modifications, a red prior to the hearing by commissioner shall proceed in the manner provided in section 161.175.On determining the commissioner or the to proceed with the plan with modifications, the commissioner shall submit the art C nt mated •to so modified layout plan to the municipalities and agencies entitled to receive the original art. Alll l interested personns s layout plan in the manner described above, for approval or disapproval by each such d highway construction or municipality or agency within 60 days after receipt of the modified layout plan. If the lecessary. Within 120 days modified layout plan or any part thereof is not disapproved by any municipality or ch municipality or agency agency within 60 days after its receipt, the commissioner may proceed to prepare final +mmissioner its approval or construction plans and specifications consistent with the modified layout plan, and may sport is disapproved, the acquire the necessary right-of-way. If the modified plan is disapproved by any munici- disapproval and suggested pality and the commissioner determines to proceed with the plan without additional wring additional plans for modification, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner provided in section t to the governing body of 161.175. If the layout plan is disapproved, either as originally submitted or as modified nent accepting or rejecting and the commissioner does not act pursuant to section 161.175,within one year from ;etion. the date of the completion of the hearing,any objecting municipality entitled to receive 3 s 52; 1986 c 444; 1994 c a copy of the layout plan by virtue of this section may invoke the appellate procedure pursuant to section 161.175, in the same manner as the same might be invoked by the commissioner. In the event the appellate procedure is invoked by either the commis- sioner or the municipality, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing prior the e ach municipality wherein appointment of an appeal board. Such hearing shall be limited to the proposed layout plan for the,osed alternative layout plans. osed location, elevation, History:1969 c 312 s 4; 1984 c 654 art 3 s 53;1986 c 444;1994 c 628 art 3 s 11 Dgether right-of-way with a statement of 161.175 APPEAL BOARD. mate right-of-way limits; a proposed access points; Upon the request of the commissioner an appeal board shall be appointed.One of location of utilities, when the members shall be selected by the governor and one by the Governing body of the commis, if known; and the municipality involved. If more than one municipality is involved in the proposal the commissioner shall submit governing bodies of the municipalities involved shall appoint one member. This •mitred to the metropolitan appointment shall be made by resolutions of the governing bodies of said municipalities or improvement is located which resolutions shall be submitted to the governor. When the governor has received he layout plan shall be sent resolutions from a majority of the municipalities involved designating the same person, commissions in the area said person shall be deemed appointed. If a majority of the municipalities which must :e than 120 days after said include all disapproving municipalities have not agreed on the same person and lie hearing on the proposed submitted such resolutions to the governor within 60 days after receipt of the ace within any municipality commissioner's request for an appeal board by the commissioner, then the chief justice cared, as the commissioner of the supreme court shall appoint such member upon application by the commissioner conducted in the manner upon five days' notice to all municipalities involved.The two members so selected shall :r shall mail notice of the select a third member. If they cannot agree on a third member within 30 days after the i to receive a copy of the last member was appointed, then the chief justice of the supreme court shall appoint I thereof made available to the third member upon application of the commissioner after five days' notice to the said plan. Within 180 days first two members. The three persons so selected and appointed shall serve as a sally adopt a layout plan. A highway appeal board and as such board they shall choose a chair from among their :ach municipality or agency members and they shall have such duties and exercise such powers as are hereinafter r with the reasons for any provided. Members of the board shall not be employees or consultants of any counties, days after the receipt of the the state of Minnesota,or any of the municipalities involved in the proposal. • submit to the commissioner ; : History:1969 c 312 s 5;1986 c 444 ns for such disapproval,and k Won of no highway. Such 161.176 POWERS OF APPEAL BOARD. o titan council area shall, o Subdivision 1. Hearing.The highway appeal board shall,on notice to the commis- sioner and the affected municipalities, hold an appeal hearing on the entire highway imum federal requirements. <,t layout plan as proposed by the commissioner, and alternates consistent with minimum ever assistance it deems federal requirements that are presented by the disapproving municipalities. The board arriving at an alternative j 23of55 { • 2 P zoo► 161.176 TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM rra 97 • shall take into consideration all aspects of the proposal including highway design, chair of the board. If the c economic development,aesthetics,urban and rural planning, agriculture, transportation approved by the board u planning, and all other factors concerning highways. After considering all the evidence receipt of such plans, shal in the record, the appeal board shall issue an order approving the commissioner's advertisement for construe proposed highway layout plan or one of the alternatives. The appeal board shall be approved by the board, o limited in its ruling to any previously submitted layout plan of the commissioner or an requests the establishment alternate presented by the community in response to the commissioner. A copy of the does not issue its order, as order and a memorandum setting forth the reasons therefor shall be filed with the for construction bids. secretary of state, and shall be mailed to the commissioner and each municipality or History:1969 c 312 s agency entitled to receive notice of the layout hearing.If the cost is not substantially in excess of the programmed estimates for projects included in the commissioner's current ACQ construction program the commissioner shall construct the plan approved by the board in accordance with the original program schedule. 161.18 MS 1957(Repealec Subd. 2, Investigatory powers. The chair of the board, or any member thereof, shall have the power to subpoena witnesses; to administer oaths, and to compel the 161.18 PRIOR EASEMEN production of books, records,and other evidence.The rules of evidence and procedure When any road or hi.' for the trial of civil matters shall apply, but such rules may be modified by the board over by the state as a trunl' when it is deemed necessary. All evidence, including records and documents in the portion thereof, without c possession of the board of which it desires to avail itself, shall be offered and made a titles, easements, and appi part of the record in the proceeding,and no other factual information or evidence shall the political subdivisions o be considered in the determination of the matter. Documentary evidence may be taken over by the state. received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference.The board Histor}, 1959 c 500 an shall cause a record of all proceedings before it to he made and filed with the chair of the board. Copies thereof shall be made available upon such terms and conditions as 161.19 MS 1957[Repealec the board shall prescribe. Suhd. 3. Compensation; reimbursement of expenses. Members of the highway 161.19 CERTAIN RECOR appeal hoard shall receive per diem compensation in the amount.of$100 for the time • Upon the written ret spent in disposing of matters presented to the board. Board members shall be court, the auditor of any a reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in the performance of their city shall furnish a f duties including all costs incurred in connection with any hearing. establishment of and Subd. 4. Expenses of parties. Each party to the appeal shall submit to the appeal been or may be taken ovc board an itemized list of the expenses incurred in preparing its layout plan and shall be filed in the recorc presenting the appeal. The appeal board may determine what portion, if any, of a the existence of the road a municipality's expenses incurred for the services and disbursements of persons not from the trunk highway fur regularly employed by the municipality will be reimbursed from the trunk highway History:1959 c 500 an fund. History:1969 c 312 s 6;1986 c 444 161.20 GENERAL POWEI Subdivision 1. Provisi. 161.177 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. provisions of article 14, i Not less than 120 days before the date specified by the commissioner for the Subd. 2.Acquisition a receipt of construction bids for the construction or improvement of any state trunk railroads;contracts.The c' highway within any municipality, the commissioner shall submit to the governing body c eminent domain proceedii of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the layout plan therefor commissioner deems ec under section 161.174, a copy of as complete a set of construction plans as is possible Consdveting, maintainig, which will be issued to prospective bidders. All such plans shall be in accordance with ational vehicle lanes; t)nn loi • the highway construction or improvement layout plan as approved under section highway system;to purehai 161.174, or section 161.176. If the construction plans are not in accordance with the for the construction. mair layout plan as approved, the governing body of any municipality or agency entitled to buildings, or rent or acquit receive notice of the hearing under section 161.174,within 60 days after the receipt of necessary for the storing a such construction plans, may request the establishment of a highway appeal board as or necessary for office s provided in section 161.175, and the highway appeal board shall approve the plans examinations; to maintain; following the procedures outlined in that section, except that action and comment is acquire by purchase,gift, c limited to changes from or additions to the layout. Changes in design capacity required buildings or structures anc. to accommodate increased traffic forecasts shall not be considered deviations from the reconstructing and maint� layout. A copy of any plans prepared to affect any highway construction or improve- highest responsible bidder: ment plan previously approved by the highway appeal board, shall also be sent to the reestablishment,by the cot I2hy 7.. ii i 9 " ?ft �A _01 '0 0 , • ci TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 161.20 96 97 chair of the board. If the construction plans are,not accordance in ith 60 del layout plan al including highway design, approved by the board under section r c considering range,bane evidence ec , with the plan r considerin all the evidence receipt of;nt ors construction bids until the plans are re�sedrtos�omply withhold�any g advertisement pprheing the commissioner's approved by the board, or are approved by the board. If no municipality or agency m;. The appeal board hall be pp requests the establishment of a highway appeal board, or the highway appeal board commissioner.of the A y f the does not issue its order,as provided above, the commissioner may proceed to advertise cmoner.A copy of the er a each for construction bids. lshall be filed with the History:1969 c 312 s 7 1986 c 444 per and each municipality or the cost is not substantially in ACQUISITIONS; DUTIES AND POWERS in the Comm issioner's current e plan approved by the board 161.18 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 131 ard, or any member thereof, 161.18 PRIOR EASEMENTS VEST IN STATE. es oaths, and to compel the When any road or highway, including any city street or portion thereof, is taken es bof e evidence aby procedure • co cords modidioc documents board over by thereof withoutncompensator paid therefor, shall be vested vwithdal rig of state as a cords and documents in the portion thereof, thereto appertaining, shall be offered and made a titles, easements, and appurtenances information or evidence shall the political subdivisions of the state prior to the time such road, street, or highway is cumentary evidence may be taken over ye e0 all 2 s 18; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 state. scion by reference.The board History: 1959 de and filed with the chair of such terms and conditions as 161.19 MS 1957(Repealed,1959 c 500 art 6 s 13 161.19 CERTAIN RECORDS OBTAINED AND FILED. ivlembers of the highway Upon the written request of the commissioner the court administrator of any oar of em for shall time the clerk of any town, or the recorder or clerk of any Board members shall be court, the auditor of any county, in the performance of their city shall furnish a copy of the proceedings,documents, and plats,ff 1n y road twhich has ing to the establishment of any road or the procuring of the right-of-way a Y tearing. been or may be taken over by the state of Minnesota as a trunk highway. The copy e shall submit to the appeal shall be filed in the records of the commissioner and shall be prima facie evidence of e what its layout any, of the existence of the road as described therein.The legal fee for the copies shall be paid i what portion, if any, 0n a from the trunk highway fund. selfems the trunk nk persons not History:1959 c 500 art 2 s 19;1973 c 123 art 5 s 7;1 Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82 sad from the trunk highway 161.20 GENERAL POWERS OF COMMISSIONER. out the Subdivision 1. Provisions of ConstitutioConstitution commissioner the state shall carry Mh Waseca. NS. provisions of article 14, section 2 of agreements eta. Surd.2.Acquisition of property;buildings;relocation of corners; ag >v the commissioner for the railroads;contracts.The commissioner is authorized to acquire by purchase,gift,or by roveme to of any state trunk eminent domain proceedings as provided by law, in ferties such slesser in estate as out, ry ;/ of tt eo ayo t governing latherefor body commissioner deems necessary, all lands and p p re out, r the pl ns as i po sible constructing, maintaining, and improving the trunk highway system including stshali be plans o is n e with ational vehicle lanes; to locate,construct, reconstruct,improve, and dmaintain the eLtrunk s shall pr in accordance section wn highway system; to purchase all road material, machinery,as approved under ith for the construction, maintenance, and improvement thereof; to construct necessary : not in accordance with the is buildings,or rent or acquire by purchase,gift,or condemnation,grounds, a 0lity or after t entitled to : necessary for the storing and housing of such material, machinery, tools, and supplies I a ighs aft appeal receipt of he necessary; se or necessary for office space for employees or for providing for driver's license f a highway approve beard as examinations; to maintain, repair, or remodel such buildings as may to .ard shall nppnove me plans acquire by purchase,gift, or condemnation, replacement sites for historically significant that action and comment is buildings or structures and to relocate these buildings or structures uo ito those to the sin design capacity required 1 reconstructing and maintaining them until disposed of through o the relocation e iay erns deviations improve-the .+ highest responsible bidder; to make agreements with any county gay construction or improve a ' reestablishment,by the county,of section,quarter section,or meander cornets original ard, shall also be sent to the o , 161.162 TRUtQK r 6 o�� ��t ..' i..5''. HiGH{VAYS _" t 6tap _y, Subd.3.Final construction plan."Final construction plan"means the set of drawings for the construction or improvement o1'a monk highway provided to cont'actotf }bird me nlner. tlnrrd member within l4 days bids. y � Subd.4.Governing body,"Gov erring bod means the elected council of a murnici board shall hod a hearii g atlwhiclhthe c t pal- y.. Subd.5.Municipality."Municipality"means a statute .t',the case for or against approval of the fina } or home rule charter cite, ;.hearing,the appeal board shall recommern History:2001 c 191 s 3;2002 c.364 s 3 Melons,or recommend disapproval of the fi f=consistent with state and federal requiremc 161.163 HIGHWAY PROTECT REVIEW. - .`'ten report containing its findings and recon Subdivision 1.Projects requiring review.Sections 161.162 to 161.167 a) I y only ing body. projects that alter access,increase or reduce highway traffic capacity,or require cquisition gl History:2001 c 191.s 5 of permanent rights—of—way, Subd. 2.'Traffic safety measures.Nothing contained in sections 161.162 t `' 161.165 COMMISSIONER ACTION: limits the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or install traffic control devices or " Subd.2.S Action onlapp oved»al la. other safety measures on trunk highways located within municipalities regardless of their z al of the final layout t does not submit its impact on access or traffic capacity or on the need for additional right—of—way, " Subd.3. Construction program.Nothing contained in sections 161.162 to 161.167 `paretsubs antially similar finalf cosst uctic limits the commissioner`s discretion to determine priority and programming of trunl: • : . y4= ,;, - �C)C?�� pn S o ',-,V;;,.::::: y TRUNK HIGHWAYS 161.163 :':-5`°' ;`'pail appoint a third member within 14 days of the request of the commissioner to appoint the rstruction plan means the set of tnchni "�?�,i�: -;., trunk highway provided to contractors[; fv' d member.Appeal board.Within 30 days after referral of the final layout,the appeal . ,;. ��•�''•-•`� d shall hold a hearing at which the commissioner and the governing body may present ar means the elected council of a municip,-,v- . .; case for or against approval of the final layout referred,rred,mot later than 60 days after ifica- ``:L~ � bearing,the appeal board shall recommend approval, ns a statutory or home rule charter city;':` f. or recommend disapproval of the final layout,making additional recommendations cons, eP ' , tousistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate.It shall submit a writ- .__ report containing its findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the govern- _rr%. jen rep >-' ai;body. ections 161.162 to 161.167 apply only to h History:2001 c 191 s 5 + nay traffic capacity,or require acyuisitio;. ;:;..; 165 COMMISSIONER ACTION;INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. , ;s:-:: ;:161• Applicability.This section applies to interstate highways. -' , Subdivision 1.ApP i y :attained n sections .161.162 o r to devices o 141 Subd.2.Action on approved final layout.(a)If the appeal board recotrunends approv- traffic or install traffic control devices or.' within municipalities regardless of their : al of the final layout or does not submit its findings and recommendations within 60 days of :l for additional right—of—way. • '`�4�; �8tr,a which layout commissioner nay pre- as 16 t h k pare substantially si similar final construction plans and proceed with 1 eprojec priority an d prog ramm in g of tr unk h igh. ` ` ' (b)If the final o f rp change traffic capacity, s ; • mment right—of—way construction the final layout approved by the appeal board, commissioner ..',41.: shall submit for its approval° for disapproval under elation 1611164•,subdhvisgon to the govern- -..- ing body roved with changes.(a)If,within 60 days,the ap- 5ubd.3.Action on final layout app :TaSS. al board recommends approval of the final layout with modifications,the commissioner Before proceeding with the construction, `.y may; ,e trunk highway system lying within any (1)prepare final construction plans with the recommended modifications.notify the governing body a final layout and project governing body,and proceed with the project; used design supporting data to thwah.The fins- (2)decide not to proceed with the project or g g the final layout yo ct su that the The sus '3)prepare final construction plans substantially similar to the final layout referred to owing the fe c costs in which the gave sup the appeal board,and proceed with the project.The commissioner shall,before e proceeding d sc ti ng .ter of all t m costs in which the governing.:,:�', with the project.file a written report with the governing body pP .rst be submitted before final decisions are :;:.. fully the reasons for doing so. alined from the municipality. the If the final for doing plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require la public c receiving a hnaina l layout. the :-?:_. additional acquisition of permanent right—of—way from the final layout reviewed by the ap- t publa outfro the eye final sinner,The peal board or the governing body,the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final t final layout from the commissioner,layout p ' n shall present the final layout �=?� construction plans that shows the changes,to the governing body for its approval or disap- a st 30 auor I c E• proval under section 161.164,subdivision 2. het 30 ,the o ern of they shall hppriov guhd.4.Action on disapproved final layout.(a)If.within 60 days,the appeal board hearing,the governing body shall approve 4;; recommends disapproval of the final layout,the commissioner may either:• X:ay. vs: (1)decide not to proceed with the project;or gout y•does not emedporbee the final lay-. ;'.°?.;; (2)prepare gyp:°layout referred d to { decide are final construction plans substantially or lay SralrUoard the final layout refereed to n n layout is deemed to be approved,the:.... the appeal board,notify the governing body appeal rent. , Before proceeding with the project,the commissioner shall file a written report with the tgrs n access,traffic capacity,or acgwsr act.governing body and the appeal board stating fully the reasons for doing so. out approved plans whet governing body,the • b If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require al t a construction o plsap disapprove changes chans were y:::_: ( ) � hj.•;=,��A additional acquisition of permanent right--of waY from the final layout reviewed by the aP" tint approve is disapprove the Chang peal board or the governing body,the commissioner shall resubmit the portion nal the or final sinner submits them. - construction plans that shows the changes,to the governing body for its approval nal layout,the commissioner may rn � proval under section 161,164,subdivision 2. rd not shall proceed with the member a or refer::,,; .. of Subdnstruct o Final n plans construction thelmunicipality at least 45 commissioner days before the opecomplete g for n- rd shall consist of one member aPP°inted` , -:= final co :he governing body,and a third mein .,.:41,...7,7.->,. formational purposes.erning body.If the commissioner and History:2001 c 191 s 6 err,the chief justice of the Supreme F ,: . y• ■ 1 2 • p II 20 Pos+ 1001 L` 161.166 TRUNK HIGHWAYS 0 - G342 -` 6343 t.161.166 COMMISSIONER ACTION;OTHER HIGHWAYS. highways that are not infer- 161.171[Repealed,2001 c 191 s 9) Subdivision 1.Applicability.This section applies to trunk hi ) state highways. 161.172(Repealed,2001 c 191 s 9) Subd.2.Action on approved final layout.If the appeal hoard recommends approval of '' 161.173[Repealed,2001 c 191 s 9) the final layout or does not submit its findings or recommendations within 60 days of the hearing,in which case the the final layout is deemed approved,the commissioner may pre. 161.174(Repealed,2001 c 191 s 93 pare substantially similar final construction plans and proceed with the project.If the final 161.175(Repealed,2001 c 191 s 9) construction plans change access oi-traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of 161.176[Repealed,2001 c 19] s 9) right—of—way from the final layout approved by the appeal board,the commissioner shall submit the portion of the final construction plan that shows the changes,to the governing 161.177(Repealed,2001 c 191 s 9) body for its approval or disapproval under section 161,164,subdivision 2. Subd.3.Action on finsl layout approved with changes. ACQUISITIONS proves the final layout with modifications,the commissioner may: If the appeal board ttp- 161.18 MS 1957(Repealed, 1959 c 500 (])prepare final construction plans including the modifications,notify the governing body,and proceed with the project; 161.18 PRIOR EASEMENTS VEST (2)decide not to proceed with the project;or When any road or highway,are as (3)prepare a new final layout and resubmit it to the governing body for approval 01'dis- the state as a trunk highway,the state as G approval under section 161.164,subdivision 2. :_; of,without compensation paid therefor, (b)lithe final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require h state priorSto the thereto such road,stf additional acquisition of permanent right—of—way from the final layout reviewed by the ap- peal board or the governing body,the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final History: 79 59 c 500 art 2 s 18;19 construction plans that shows the changes,to the governing body for its approval or disap- 161,19 MS 1957[Repealed, 1959 c 50C proval under section 161.164,subdivision 2. y Subd.4.Action on disapproved final layout.If the appeal board disapproves the final 161.19 CERTAIN RECORDS OBTA layout,the commissioner may: Upon the written request of the car. (I)decide not to proceed with the project;or auditor of any county,the clerk of any to (2)prepare a new final layout and submit it to the governing body for approval or disap- copy of the proceedings,the docu rig an proval under section 161.164,subdivision 2. road or the procuring of the rank a� Subd.5.Final construction plans issued.The commissioner shall send a complete set the state of Minnesota as a trunk e e lwa of final construction plans to the municipality at least 45 days before the bid opening for in The legal and shall be prima facie evidei formational purposes. The legal fee for the copies shall he.pair History:2001 c 191 s 7 History: 1959 c 500 an 2 s 19; 1: 161,167 REIMBURSEMENT OF 161.20 161.2(1 GENERAL POWERS OF C( Members of the appeal board shall submit to the commissioner an itemized list of the Subdivision 1.Provisions of Cons expenses incurred in disposing of matters presented to then.The appeal board members visions of article 14,section 2 of the CE shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in the performance of their Subd. 2. Acquisition of propert: duties.The commissioner shall pay these costs out of the trunk highway fund, . Nuth rat roads; •contracts.(a)The Corr; History:2001 c 191 s 8 } (1)to acquire by purchase,gift,or f F. in fee or such lesser estate as the commis 161.168 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL MATERIALS. essary in preserving future trunk highwr Subdivision 1. Use of agriculture—based deicing solution. The commissioner of . Con and improving the trunk eand highway s!: transportation shall use a deicing solution derived from agricultural products for snow and ,_ z construct,reconstruct,improve,and mat ice control on trunk highways to the extent that the commissioner determines is economical § material,machinery,tools,and s t nece ly feasible,environmentally beneficial,and consistent with public safety. '' s or condemnation,on,gr f;'to construct ding: Subd.2.Effect on environment.The annmissioner,in determining which snow and ;° `r_ or condemnation,grounds,and building: ice control materials to use on trunk highways,shall consider the effect of each type of mate- 4 i.. °al'machinery,tools,and examinations;s nc rial on the environment and on the deterioration of bridges and other structures. be for driver's license examinations;tr. " ` f;.. necessary; History:2002 c 364•s 4 . s Et (2)to acquire by purchase,gift,01..- 161.17 MS 1957(Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13) ;; ,r., 1:;;',': nificant buildings or structures and to re: "- ;.-: 161.17 MS 2000(Repealed,2001 c ]9l s 9) '..reconstructing and maintaining them tin sponsible bidder; + SFr ti 110 4. Economic Impact of St. Croix River Crossing The Proposed St.Croix River Crossing Project is of course anticipated to have ede understand this economic consequences to the City's residents and homeowners. To better impact,the City commissioned a study by its auditing firm Tautges-Redpath,to examine the economic impacts of the proposed Project including those lands already secured by MNDOT and further anticipated losses to the City's tax base. The study is enclosed. Seminal Points of the Study: ➢ Because of the land acquired by MNDOT for the Project,from 1995 through 2005 the City has lost$871,648 in Tax Capacity which would have generated over$T$300,000 in property tax revenue. Though 2010,this cumulative lost tax revenue is over$523,000. ➢ Because of TOTAL lands to be acquired uired by MNDOT for the Project,the City will likely lose over 10 percent of its City-wide market value and tax capacity. The 2 0 study City places this figure higher at over 16 percent,the difference in the interim is that has had additional commercial growth. ➢ Because of the TOTAL lands being acquired by MNDOT for the Projectewhi otakes wll parcels off of the tax roll;the remaining residential and commercial timtesro will average over be impacted to cover these lost revenues and 00 000 and over$1,000 per year for a $107 for a household with an assessed value of$ business for each$1,000,000 in assessed value. 29 of 55 00/28/04 15:20 PAX 651 426 5004 HLB TES REDPATH @1002 HLBTautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below,which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights,solely to determine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently,we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows: S 1. Determine loss of tax base due to el revious] t en Our previous reports(dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995)identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of thc project prepared half-section maps Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value Ca _ Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $64,300 1,10/a The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 total market value and tax capacity. City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate,the 2004/2005 The market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Tele'hone:651 426 7000 Fax:651426 4 Hastings Office::1303 South Frontage Road,Suite 13,Hastings,MN 55033,USA Telephone:651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 500 HIS Taumes Redpatb.Ltd.it a number of me Inurnational A warld•wido ortanuadon of accounting firms sod business advisers. • 30 of 55 + 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 MX TAUTGES REDPATH X1003 410 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from 1995-2005 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Vim Capacity tr) 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996* 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997* 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998* 5,660,786 . 80,223 1998/1999* 5,943,826 84,235 2000/2001 * 6,241,017 88,446 2001/2002* 6,553,068 92,869 2002/2003* 6,880,721 97,512 2003/2004* 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005* 7,585,995 107,507 Cummulativc loss of tax capacity-1995-2005 $871,648 40 *Estimated based on a 5%annual market value growth rate to Based on 1994/1995 class rates 2. Detein'ne loss of tax b; e .u t' •ro.osed ac.uisit_of o ad' o, ,arcels related to ti e planned improvement to_State Highway 36. The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the planned improvements to State Highway 36(option F). Additionally,the impact on the City's tax base was determined using 2004/2005 market values as provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. As stated above,our 1995 report id• 98 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements, an addition.iF 00 p,, eels will be affected,either fully or partially. For purposes of this report,parcels '-.1 w w partially affected were assumed to be fully taken from the tax base. • 31 of 55 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 _ 11JB TAUTGES REDPATH 421004 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures • page 3 The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights is as follows: Market Tax Value Capacity Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 Total for City(payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% City staff believe the acquisition of land by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax levy amount. However,the City's tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base,which would increase the City's tax rate. An estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as follows: Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of Property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Less:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048) (472,821) Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,879 $4,887,931 Net tax levy: Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203) (112,203) Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate 34.382% 39.728% • 32 of 55 4 09/28/04 15:21 FAX 851 428 5004 , HJ.B TAUTGES REDPATH !J005 411 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above,a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition Property Type of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 5500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 commercial 6,619 7,648 Notc: Amounts are presented before reduction of state-paid credits. 3. Determine loss of connection cages onsarcels proposed to be acquired. • The City has determined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed,the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm water connection charges _ 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. p., • 33 of 55 ' s 09/28/04 15:21 FAX.651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH [ 006 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures p PP Page 5 Closing The work performed by our fine is considered an"agreed-upon procedures"engagement under AICPA standards. In this type of engagement,our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The procedures we performed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. Rather,we verified the financial information based on the procedures we performed. Had we performed additional procedures,other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Oak Park Heights and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. September 28,2004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH,LTD. Certified Public Accountants S 410 34 of 55 i Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderllk and Associates,Inc.Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer II Bonestroo and Employee Owned • Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,PE •Marvin L Sorvala.PE.•Glenn R.Cook,P.E •Robert G Schunicht, Rosene Jerry A.Bourdon,PE •Mark A.Hanson,PE. . 4111 11 Anderli t & Associates Consultants:Robert W Rosene.PE.•Joseph C.Anderl,k,P.E •Richard E.Turner,PE •Susan M.Eberle),C PA eS Michael 1. autma al. Keith A. Field,PE.PE.•Kenneth P.Anderson,RE.Richard R Rolfs Foster.PEDwd A.Bonessboo.M.B.A. • Michael T.Rautm o n.RE.•Ted K.Field. P.E.•Ismael Martinez,PE. Sidney P.Williamson,PE.,LS.•Agnes M.Ring,M.B.A.•Allan Rick Schirndt.PE.•Thomas W Peterson,PE.• • Engineers&Architects James It Maland.PE.• Miles B.Jensen,PE.•L Phillip Gravel III.PE• Daniel J.Edgerton, • Thomas A.Syfko,PE •Sheldon J.Johnson•Dale A.Grove,RE.• Thomas A.Roushar.RE.•Robert J Devery.PE. Offices:St Paul.St.Cloud,Rochester and Willmar.MN•Milwaukee.WI•Chicago,IL Website:www.bonesshoo.com September 23,2004 a Mr.Eric Johnson City Administrator C•i1.,of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.,P.O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation BRA File No.55-04-134 Dear Eric: As directed,we have performed preliminary engineering estimates for the utility relocations associated with MnDOT's proposed improvements to Highway:36 and the St. Croix River • Bridge Crossing(SCRBC). The estimates were based on two options for Highway 36,the Preferred Alternate"F"and the Cut&Cover Concept,and two options for the SCRBC,Option B-1 and Option C. The cost estimates e n and rel ated nght-of-way leas m nt cos sassocia ed below i h four possible construction scenarios. The estimates for the improvements to Highway 36 were based on the two-dimensional concept • plans that were available for Alternate"F"and the Cut&Cover Concept. Two-dimensional concept plans were also used for Option B-1 and Opt calculated for SCRBC.llowith foes options, the preliminary utility relocation cost estimates 1. Alternate"F"with Bridge Option B-1 • 2. Alternate"F"with Bridge Option C 3. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option B-1 4. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option C The majority of the City's water and sewer system is located,by permit,within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If the Highway 36 corridor is designated as a freeway these utilities will have to be relocated. As a result,the estimates for all four scenarios include removing and relocating any utility that is currently located longitudinally within the existing right-of-way. • 2335 West Highway 36• St. Paul, MN 55113• 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 35 of 55 t The table below shows the total cost for removing and relocating the existing utilities along the ilkproposed Highway 36 improvements and the SCRBC. These costs have been separated by utilities that are currently within the existing MnDOT right-of-way and outside the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Also included in the total cost is land acquisition for right-of-way and/or easements that will be required for relocation of the utilities that are currently in the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Alternate F Alternate F Cut&Cover Cut&Cover with Bgl with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge Option P Option C Option B-1 Option C Within Existing ROW $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 Outside Existing ROW $2,520,000 $3,190,000 $1,660,000 $2,330,000 Land Acquisition $2,980,000 $2,980,000 2,860,000 2,860,000 Total Cost _ - $8,370,000 $9,040,000 $7,620,000 $8,290,000 Due to the proposed depth of the highway in the Cut&Cover Concept,it would be necessary to construct lift stations to transport sewage from the north side of the highway to the south side. III Accordingly,as shown in the table above,the Cut&Cover Concept has a higher cost for utilities within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at(651)604-4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC. ,ljt��%r� %y% T. Dennis M.Postler,P.E. Cc: Judy Hoist,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director Mark Vierling,City Attorney DMP,KSE,DDH,File—Bonestroo • K:155155041341WoraCorrespondeneelCorreaponde nce_Outgoing_LetterheadOghway 36 relocadon.doc 36 of 55 • 5. City Council Resolutions The City has provided within this packet the following resolutions. The purpose of enclosing these documents is to overtly demonstrate that the City's needs and requests of MNDOT relative to this Project have been consistent,reasonable and timely. In each instance the Cit cites needs for coverint costs for utilit relocation and for addressin t fundamental communit im.acts. Resolution: 03-10-54 A RESOLUTION REVIEWING EAD TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 RIGHT OF WAY UTILITIES AND FRONTAGE 04-09-47- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING RTAT ON ON THE 2004 THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL M STATEMENT T ENT-ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING/ STH 36 RECONSTRUCTION POSITION OF THE CITY OF OAK 04-10-49— A RESOLUTION PROVIDING CT THE PARK HEIGHTS AS IT EFFECTS PROPOSAL OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST CROIX RIVER CROI6SCO�AND IMPROVEMENTS, OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY KNOWN AS THE"PROJECT". 05-03-13- LITY OF OAK HEIGHTS' E JANUARY LETTER FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • 37 of 55 RESOLUTION NO. 03-10-54 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REVIEWING TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILITIES AND FRONTAGE ROAD PROPOSED TURNBACK WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has been continually reviewing proposed transportation plans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation outlining options relative to improvements within Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the City passed Resolution 03-05-30 on the 13th day of May,2003 identifying Concept F as advocated by the Department of Transportation with regard to reconstruction of Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation is aware that the City of Oak Park Heights has significant utilities located within the existing Highway 36 right-of-way;and, •WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation has in past years advocated a tumback of frontage roads serving Trunk Highway 36 to the adjoining municipalities as part of any potential construction project; and, WHEREAS,there are significant issues impacting the residents and City of Oak Park Heights relative to both utility relocation and frontage road turnback,which are essentially intermingled with the trunk highway improvement development plans of the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and, WHEREAS,it would be essential to any resolution of the Trunk Highway 36 improvement plans of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to resolve and confirm agreements with regard to paying for the expense of utility relocation within Trunk Highway 36 and agreements relative to the expense and improvement of frontage roads and turnback of them to municipal units;and, WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights believes it is important to communicate to the Minnesota Department of Transportation that these issues of utility relocation and trunk highway frontage road tumback must be resolved as part of any plan to reconstruct Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has assigned individuals working in committee and in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to review designs and improvements to Trunk Highway 36; and, • 38 of 55 • , WHEREAS,the relocation of utilities and the turnback of frontage roads will likely place a catastrophic financial burden upon�potential fo0iasignificant goss to those he City's commercial 1e by the project and additionally provides business tax base;and, WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights currently receives no funding through the Minnesota State Aid Fund,is experiencing significant significant reduction of locallcomrnerc al tax of local government aids and will probably experience g base as a result of this proposed project if it is completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. That City Council Resolution 03-05-30,as passed by the City Council on the 13th day of May, 2003, a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", is herewith reconfirmed. 2. That the City of Oak Park Heights will not be in the position to grant any final authorities or approvals to any plans 7e relocation relocation frontage of oad Highway 36 t unless and until commitments relative toutility financial elements and essential components thereof have been fully resolved. 3. That the City of Oak Piconcerns into the refinement discussionsrgegarciing 0 : technical advisory committee incorporate these Concept F from the Trunk Highway 36 partnership study. 4. The Minnesota Department of Transportation develop, pursue and implement alternative funding strategies in providing financial relief to of tCe ity relief of Oak Park Y Heights to absorb these anticipated costs and losses which are inevitably p 36 improvement project. Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights th :t' •ay of October,2003. rf ( ,,,..„..- A..._ David Beau*et,Mayor A'."--A''�' S M ric Johnson City Ad ' • or III 39 of 55 EXHIBIT "A" • I • 40 of 55 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION 0 4-0 9-4 7 • A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTARY TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(MnDOT)ON THE 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT-ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING/STH 36 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has been provided a copy of 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(SDEIS); and, Whereas,the City has had an opportunity to review such document,the City submits the following commentary to MnDOT for: • For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining "Concept F" as design layout of STH 36 (buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as PROPOSED. The City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout,concept layout or final layout.And,that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout. • There must be language inserted into the SDEIS that states that the City of Oak Park Heights has rejected"Concept F"in its entirety. • There must be a clear and concise insertion of the "Cut and Cover" concept inserted into the SDEIS.This "Cut and Cover"concept should be referred to as a potential alternative at all points in the document where Concept F is referred. • The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS and its attachments,is wholly inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park Heights. General criteria for the City's position are as follows: The City of Oak Park Heights was not contacted nor directly informed to provide information for such analysis,nor was it made specifically aware that such study was being undertaken. The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed and previous residential and commercial takings. There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Draft Economic Impact Analysis as received by the City,i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs,$41,000. The City is unable to determine the methodology on how these figures these amounts are vastly understated. gores were derived. There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch impacts. • 42 of 55 , , 11 , There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement • expenses. • On page ES-6,please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal consent on the project". • On page 2-10 please clarify that the sp 6�on hlfrom Lake Ave to STH 5tbound-is posted 50 at from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave, p mph after the STH 5 overpass. • rsection Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS I to the crash the removal the Advan1ceeWarning between STH 5 and Osgood Ave p Flashers. • Chapter 2 should have footnotes referencing the PAC study. • On page 3-6 of the Cooperative Agency to state that Da signal t'shall be SDEIS installed" at the asked that MnDOT revise paragraph intersection of Pickett Ave/TH 95/King Plant entrance-versus"if justified".The City was not able to locate this same language in the 2004 Draft SDEIS.If such similar language exists the same comment is applicable. The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor,namely in • Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes the and • presents all twelve months,further broken down by daily hourly reader of the document can anticipate low-use of the corridor. • On 4-28 the SDEIS discusses the veracrash e'atpleaseecite the State intersections verage within the 36 are"two the to three rah Shand cite source by footnote. body of the parag p ( ) • Comments made on page 5-2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual data. Otherwise,please remove the comment. • The City has p rovided MnDOT with an updated zoning map,please insert such current and factual land use map into the Document. • Regarding the noise analysis,please identify whether the echo effect was taken into account, If sound barriers are found to be necessary how then does that effect the are visual impacts.Please identify that the project will bear this ts.cost. Noise impacts a age difficult to analyze until the actual construction is c p inserted that contemplates and outlines additional lso include the possibility aty project is noise complete. Such additional discussion should mitigation inside home/businesses. 410 43 of 55 • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the • removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed.Please state discussion history and cite documentation in appendices. • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion/comments from the Federal Department of Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential proximity to the Allen S. King plant-security risk. • The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with. In some instances,the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US MAIL -7-22-04) • Please insert into the SDEIS maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park Heights along with a visual delineation of each pond watershed source. Clearly identify where the water coming from. • Chapter 4,the intersection of Oakgreen/Greeley is referred as Greeley/Northbrook Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown,which is beyond the project area). • On page 5-10, Cover Park/Moelter Site(Xcel Park)needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4. • Delete the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Park if this is to be the park • contemplated in Oak Park Heights otherwise known as the "Boat Ramp Area and/or Park".Any discussion of such park in Oak Park Heights must first receive City approval and appropriate mitigations. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights submits these comments to the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT)for incorporation into the Final 2004 Supplement Environmental Impact Statement; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City recognizes the need for transportation improvements that reflect the communities values and that this project must minimize the environmental,social,economic,visual and physical impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's comments within this resolution are not to be construed or interpreted as an element of Municipal Consent or approval of any particular proposal for layout or concept;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City specifically reserves its right to amend, supplement or delete from these comments; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City has identified the following list of ( • required mitigations and has previously forwarded such list to MnDOT requesting that • 44 of 55 • these issues be appropriately funded and/or addressed,but to date the City has not yet received any commitments 1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and/or paid for by MDOT. 2. All Traffic Signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City. 3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by parties other than the City. 4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses,etc that may stem from short- term and long-term noise,smoke,odor,construction activities and/or vibration. 5. Deletion of the Boat Ramp Facility. 6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan. 7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook including its view. ' � ,; Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Par_ -04 i; 's 28th da of September 2004. eaudet,Mayor e2 /61 Er c Johns°, ity Administrator 411 45 of 55 • • R • ESOLUTION 04-10-49 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AS IT EFFECTS THE PROPOSAL OF WE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER KNOWN AS THE"PROJECT'. Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has participated in the recent RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process for the State Highway 36 Reconstruction/St. Croix River Crossing Project;and, Whereas,the City regards the RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process as an informal,non-binding mediation based process allowing the various factions of the community and others having input into a Trunk Highway layout and Bridge location process to have input and explore opportunities for consensus; and, Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has studied the Project impacts from various options that have been presented,including the"NO-BUILD"alternative and Concept F layout,from an economic, planning and engineering perspective;and, • Whereas,the funding requirements to fully implement the Project may now exceed$400 million dollars;and, Whereas,the funding for the Project is to be sought from a forthcoming Federal Transportation Bill (TEA-21)which has been represented to include both the Bridge funding and STH 36 reconstruction; and, Whereas,the City will not support any segmentation of the Project and has not endorsed and will not endorse any STH 36 layout,concept or design separate from the bridge design;and, Whereas,as recently as September 22,2004 meeting with MnDOT has suggested that the project be segmented into two separate projects for funding purposes where the Bridge portion of the project would be funded and constructed first and the STH 36 corridor through the Oak Park Heights/ Stillwater Business District may potentially be funded in the future;and, Whereas,the City has concurrently provided several communications to the Minnesota Department of Transportation throughout the RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process outlining its concerns and mitigation needs seeking: 1. A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project(i.e.the Bridge and TH 36 improvements)will proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre-2001 Municipal Consent law, • • 46 of 55 MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary commitment and mitigation plan from MnDO from any modification tr 2. utility full funding will inevitably confront the City resulting ito utility relocation costs that Trunk Highway 36, lam from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the 3. A full funding commitment and mitigation p frontage roads and their continued maintenance, proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by 4. A commitment from MnDOT that installation of the propo Boat Ramp as as it affects a proposed the Department City Natural Resources is or that deleted co comprehensive agreement between location in the City of Oak Park Heigh the City,DNR and MnDOT be completed, traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the 5. A commitment from MnDOT that �City, Project or in the future by parties against negative impacts on protects and mitigates ag 6. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that pro stem from short-term and City homes,businesses,and City owned �adctt���and/or vibration,may long-term noise,smoke,odor,construction aired,or future lands,and not T that all excess lands previously it returned to private and ownership 7. required commitment from MnDOT housing to e required for the Final Project,however that is resolved to be, and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City comprehensive plan, go commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction of the Scenic 8. A full funding CO Overlook preserving its view;and, Transportation has not provided any formal clarification or Whereas the Minnesota Department of Transpo these or other relevant issues;and, commitment to the City to appropriately address and/or mitigate Whereas,the RESOLVE! Stakeholders process nonetheless requests the City indicate its views on a bridge design and location;and Stat. 16l.171 s Whereas,the City has not and will not waive its position on the application of Minn.this process and this project;and through 161.177(the Municipal Consent Process)to is to a later date when MnDOT has es any and all final approvals and consents its final position e when on this project; Whereas,the City reserves requires to determine provided information and commitments the City and, along the City's Whereas,the City wishes to assist the RESOLVE/Stakeholders process in City passing information along the and interim comments on bridge design and location pending couunitments requested from MnDOT; the need for the City o NOW,THEREFORE, Oak Park Heights recognizes gEFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that values and that tlxis Project must minimize transportation improvements that is reflective of community physical impacts to the for the negative the environmental,social,economic,visual and . and mitigate . . City of Oak Park Heights;and, 411 47 of 55 I. . • " . • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City at this date and based on the information received to date,is not in a position to be able to favor or identify a location for a new St.Croix River Crossing • and will not be able to do so until the City receives responses and appropriate commitments to its concerns and mitigation needs itemized as 1 through 8 above. BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City remains committed to working with MnDOT and as well as other parties to come to a viable,suitable and equitable solution for the Project,which includes the Bridge and STH 36 elements,but that such solutions shall effectively and appropriately address all City concerns and must appropriately mitigate negative impacts upon the City,its residents and business community;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will finalize its position for a bridge alternative,as well as consider a STH 36 layout,when the City is provided written commitments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation that effectively and appropriately addresses the City's concerns and mitigations;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City reserves its rights through the powers of Municipal Consent or other means as allowed by law,to deny any final acceptance of the Project and that this resolution shall not be construed to grant municipal consent under Minnesota Statutes 161.163 through161.167 or former statute 161.171 through 161.177. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this lath day of ort:obr 2004. • ,000.( At 4k y b :vid Beaudet,Mayor • A 4 'c Johnsof ity Administrator S • 48 of 55 RESOLUTION 05-03-13 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS' RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 6,2005 LETTER FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS; In 1958 the Minnesota Department of Transportation formally began looking for a new St. Croix River bridge crossing at the time of construction of a 4-lane Highway 36 extension from Minneapolis to Stillwater, and WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation sounded the St. Croix River bottom in the winter of 1961-1962 in the central corridor location for a proposed bridge,and WHEREAS; this proposed 1958 new river bridge crossing did not require any highway improvements to the new expanded Highway 36,and WHEREAS;the average annual traffic count crossing the St. Croix River was less than 6,000 vehicles a day, and,due to the lack of funding and downtown Stillwater business opposition to the loss of through traffic,the project was suspended in 1962, and WHEREAS;in the early 1970's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix River,with the proposed Highway 212 expansion to four lanes from downtown St.Paul to Wisconsin, due to the lack of funding,interest in a new 4-lane freeway to St.Paul the project was suspended in 1972,and 410 ,_ WHEREAS;in the 1972 roadway proposal, local business owners saw the massive road way changes to the local highways proposed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and understand the considerable impact these changes may have on the local business community, and WHEREAS;in the early 1980's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix River,the Minnesota Department of Transportation took the position that bridges in Wild and Scenic Riverways were not reviewable by the National Park Service.The 1995 project was conditionally-approved by the City of Oak Park Heights and was vetoed in 1996 by the Park Service and Federal District Court and upheld the National Park Service Veto in April of 1998, and WHEREAS;in the summer of 1998 renewed efforts began to find a compromise for a new St. Croix River crossing and in the fall of 2000 Braun C compromise was reached by most of the parties,however,the mitigation plan for Wisconsin land use and Wisconsin DNR requirement to remove the existing lift bridge brought on a new project impasse and in January 2001 Minnesota Department of Transportation suspended the project, and WHEREAS;the MNDOT cost estimate to build Highway 36 with the Braun C location and buttonhook freeway design was$169.7 million, and • 49 of 55 WHEREAS;beginning in 2000 an intraregional corridor study began to study g tudy the Highway 36 roadway design from the Highway 95 to Interstate Highway 694 determining that the lane capacity of the new bridge would have a direct impact on the existing Highway 36 roadway,and that the increase of traffic crossing a new proposed bridge would require Highway 36 be a freeway from Highway 95 to Interstate 694. The Minnesota Department of Transportation found • no support from Lake Elmo,Grant,Pine Springs or Mahtomedi to create a freeway design out of Highway 36, and WHEREAS; in 2002 the 12-month Trunk Highway Partnership study was completed,which supported converting Highway 36 into a freeway design with buttonhooks interchanges in the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights area,however,many local businesses did not support the study's outcome, and WHEREAS; Congressional Representatives Kennedy and Kind requested$135 million in extra federal funds for the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin's 80% federal funds share of the new St. Croix River bridge, and WHEREAS: in the fall of 2003 the Technical Advisory Group formed by MNDOT, to minimize the impacts of the Highway 36 buttonhook design at their final meeting in March 2004,the TAG did not pass any final recommendations for a Highway 36 design,the conflict between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the parties could not be resolved,and WHEREAS; at a joint Oak Park Heights,Stillwater and Washington County workshop held on 411 November 30,2004 the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that the buttonhook freeway highway design would not be part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and that the 1995 plan will be their preferred highway design(among existing plans). The communities requested the Minnesota Department of Transportation to respond with a plan for additional highway design work and it was agreed that any MNDOT design recommendations were to be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement must be complete by March 1, 2004, and WHEREAS;Highway 36,with the 1995 roadway design up to the new river crossing,would according to MNDOT estimate,reduce the overall cost of the project from$425 million to$315 million,and WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation's response to the affected communities request for Highway 36 design planning is provided in a letter dated January 6, 2005, and given the conditions of further study and the late response time gives no reasonable time for each community to prepare a recommendation to be incorporated into the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS:the 1995 plan submitted to the City in January 2005 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation substantially deviates from thel 995 plan conditionally approved by the City of Oak Park Heights in 1995, and • 50 of 55 r WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that due to the lack of funding and a need to reduce the funding requested to from Congress,Highway 36 freeway buttonhook design will be postponed and be added to the State of Minnesota Transportation Improvement Plan for the year 2025,and WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department h36 undTransportation their atest currently o of projects plan,it_will spend$20 million to improve Highway WHEREAS;the cost of the project,local opposition from the freeway design,stopped the Minnesota Department of Transportation from including the Highway 36 buttonhook freeway design proposal into the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,and WHEREAS;the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights indicated in a letter to the Minnesota Department of Transportation in January 2001,that it would,not support a new river bridge crossing without improvements to Highway 36. NOW,THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that any proposed Highway 36 improvements must minimize the social,environmental,economic, infrastructure,and community burdens,and local traffic impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;the City of Oak Park Heights in its review of this project will • ' use,among other review processes,the 2000 municipal consent process to fully explore options, community impacts and economic efficiencies to find an acceptable design solution to Highway 36 that fulfills the best interests of its residents;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota Department of Transportation support the TEA-21 Bill which includes$500,000 for design study to determine a final layout for Highway 36;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota Department of Transportation request the State of Minnesota and Congress to fully fund the local utility relocations and other local economic losses and impacts of this project. Approved by the City Council of the City of O. ' . eights this 8th 1 = ch 2005. �/ t4 Dave eaudet,+ayor A tille: LAi -'c°Johnson f ity Administrator • 51 of 55 6. Area Maps.—Downloaded From MNDOT Website—4/1/11. . • 52 of 55 • 1 t,,,u,,` , ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT �.,,, t >1 ,, ,..!{ j A .k `'- ..— t it / p'as+:,,� I e - o ' -� �:. t iii r .>� �y[�zt� L I ;. Y ~S 7.'J �y' !M"' f�a{ ,ay -r---,.,;- .Mif '. jcr ri -'( :;! +s PRELIMINARY l[4LNU I ,-,a- ,�:k 'i •...� ',, •i' ,f,!"7. . S .,:• , ..,uos.win■w....s v „`.1. ` .�, Y art "A �1 '' / "3 1y''•. a F(` - '{M .a;V c it-, 1.'w 't ,.....:�E....: , iP ',4i� � ^a kF to.,'.q YL , .i » is m y A , - .a.a - - ri 7•- .,„ 4d....1'J'A9i' J .,i'',, 1.,.,:r.�t . . f aI! ? jpj w .. �- =..iumw>. C RQ t�{ L & t t 11.E ... ,Y 6P,,0�' . I.. 4 .. - .. ,.... �.....__ �. t[ 3 ,P .�ya TOWN OF w � . ST.JOSEPH M .� V. :STILLWAI L t. , L ' r�'':,'.g ss�. tr;,', A 'I.a: :,‘,00 o � € WISCONSIN MINNESOTA..,,:. ., ' 4.. ,:', i _Y ^,� 12. r*• ' :!s N t�l �4s M . a r ' � 0 � .is ay 1 T 3 1 , ''':":i41( •y qY {j�' x , a� ,1. NMl . t l �l '� j v 7'r if i ML r 1icft ,. 'a t L x fa.E :.rip I -4,,,,,,,-7, d i y r Y,,y ,` _ .n } ' � :„.,0''`* f ' e x AREA L 4 .. ._ m •� C. I l' _i t JT • .: 1 + A• I • MEMO ✓'• f'f vTIILWATER i O .., 8 b F i w/ '1 C c C STILLWATER i// ;- II tl ii ,' ,I Ww ER �x LANES M>. lAES Tay max ra � �� ' r� --:1 L ■ \ � = y I i 1 I �, `5 > r 11;‘,.1..1.,,L°`u I 't, l ii t�i11 yt 1 o- r b� "/ 11 i. j;ir b / OAK PARK i// `t Z.' /' SUM PROJICT 1 mows i m rxles �i m as .x craw - :: ._ s"I ixwn samsoa ■:;,:t si'c°uca,ca sEisi" 68771 8T ` snwx s si r rw sacs ssaiTM ww,wc no � �d asouc o s .A bi OAK PARK 8 - HEIGHTS K / . • • a Zmm yUy Minnesota TH 36(TH 5 to Osgood Avenue)-Preferred Alternative Figure 3-2 St.Croix River Crossing Project 2006 Supplemental Final En dronmental Impact Statement Irma SR of 55 • I 1 3 • 0 S /otilt*-4 1 's 1 ■SEL' 1. ,..7 l''''."..-COFAVERSIICM TO PEOESIRIAINICYCLE FACILITY SI Qv, <dOIX IIIVO DC Elven EXTRADOS.,BRIDGE TYPE 4.. ,2 \ ''''' „'''Ci41••••I.4%410. r 110,11rOWNITIlt="7Y SIPINYEIDE MIURA -7—----------_ ' d -?/------.1 --,-.,rie 67,IF-'''''''A'f, ', -''t''( `4(A,-'''):' - , —1 ■1 7,...,.., ----4,3, ,,4,,',.,.'„,..-S/...s'..<{1,,t,,,e.:4, ,,,\,,,.„„ .,,,,c,vs ,„,. ..„,,,,,,,,,, ii. / ----,--, ,Q'ze,-0*-10,\, ,--,v' -YE.,„/ 7,1 -- / '''.-<-..., ' 96 v,'N ,,,,,04*' (tk ,, -- C // aibb ■' ". '4 op i' i i..,. DAM TM PROPERTY RIM KIWI I.7117 • i''■,, /'' '4' %\))\.'''A. ,)■ \■N..'-'..`',-.lig"illi --- -(--,--1-41-T. ' = ,,-.-. '''-"-- - —.----,: ---- 1°‘ ..."-‘, / ' ''\‘ .'' \•P i ' '- ,. ,n1" '... ---- -, ..,`I'') \ 81ILLWAIIIII\`‘,‘,.. , ■ - ,,,- a, , ,... ,, K 1 7, AA I r I...... <''''6 4.5*.\ ' .1.‘ •.,,, '%''' A., MT -, ' fr #i LECEM \ v, i I, 1 t ^ -.., „Ai V. •- ;/ ; I......... \ ,)/, „. , IPIOLAZ 34, ..„.% !SOUTH MIMI.ROAD I $ wale , i ' 111.711:19rAll pITIV: TH 36 6 TH 95 Interchange Area-Preferred Alternative Figure 3-3 St.Croix River Crossing Project 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement 40.6 4/2.08 55 of 55 I 1 4110 r City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 March 23`x,2011 Senator Ted H. Lillie 75 Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Capitol Building,Room 124 Saint Paul,MN 55155-1606 Representative Kathy Lohmer 521 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. Saint Paul,MN 55155 RE: St. Croix River Crossing Project—Meeting with the Oak Park Heights City Council Dear Senator Lillie and Representative Lohmer: • Following the recent Stillwater Lift Bridge Walk-Through and subsequent discussion by the Oak Park Heights City Council, at this time,the City Council desires to meet jointly with both of you at your earliest convenience in an untelevised work-session format.The Council believes it is imperative that a discussion regarding legislative action be held so as to finally address the concerns continually raised by the City. We certainly acknowledge that this is a busy time,however considering that a solution may require such legislative action to address the City's conceals,the timing may be appropriate. Please note that if you believe Representative Dean and Senator Vanderveer would also be beneficial to this discussion,the City would also welcome their participation. This meeting can certainly be held at the Oak Park Heights City Hall or at another location you may desire. Perhaps your respective staff members could communicate and propose a datepati n. If a meeting could be held prior to April 4th it would be appreciated. . e look fore p3 your response and will immediately respond to any questions you may have. Best Reds iris Johns City A trator Cc: 4' eekly Notes • r RI°181$1"). • 50401 lity )xtit City of Oak Park Heights •Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N o g ( ) ( ) September 28,2010 MEMO geAeg TO: City Council Members FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: MEETING - Chamber of Commerce—STH 36 Business Community/ MNDOT Held on 9/23/10. I have provided a short summary of the meeting that I attended this morning, I believe I have reduced the discussion appropriately below and hopefully in order in which it unfolded, but these are not transcribed comments. • On Thursday morning, Sept 23rd, 2010 I attended the Chamber of Commerce's meeting in which they invited MNDOT to give a presentation/update to the STH 36 business owners. The meeting was held at the Lexington Inn(former Holiday Inn). Generally, the meeting commenced with the traditional introductions and several Oak Park Height's businesses were represented including Grady's, Jerry's Auto Body, McDonalds, Riverfront Cutters, Zachowski Insurance,the Super America(SA) Property Owners, Buffalo Wild Wings to name a few that I recognized. It was a full room,perhaps 75 to 100 persons. Jennifer Severson, of the Chamber then explained that the meeting is an initial attempt to begin to engage the STH 36 business community in conjunction with the Project. I asked if this was part of the effort by the Chamber to commence in the formation of a subcommittee that will engage the City's issues, to which she responded that it was, but more information is apparently forthcoming on that progress? Mr. Todd Clarkowski (Todd C.) from MNDOT then commenced his traditional review and update of the project of which none of his comments went into any detail of the issues the City has had, instead focusing in the reasons for the project, mitigation discussion, legal update (Sierra Club/load testing) and possible timelines for the project. According to Todd C. this project is to be let in the summer of 2013 and will take 3 years to complete, with the bridge portions to commence in 2013 and the rest in 2014. And, that a final • design is almost complete. He did not state where the funding for the project was coming from for MN costs, but rather only stated that it is `programmed'. � a • Mr. Todd C. then began to go through the animation for the STH 36 corridor, initial comments from Todd C. were that it is not anticipated that additional right-of-way would be needed along the frontage roads. Todd C. indicated that for the most part no additional land was needed instead, only temporary construction permits were needed. I asked if that meant that that there would be no loss of parking for City businesses,to which Todd C. indicated that is not anticipated. Later, the owners from MCDONADL'S and the SA site began the questioning of why the turn- off of STH 36 was to be eliminated. Todd C. indicated that MNDOT felt this was an acceptable safety precaution and would have a marginal impact on their businesses.Naturally, many of the business owners then disagreed, quite emphatically. At that point, there were comments that MNDOT has not listened to the concerns of the business community at this end of the project. Discussion then went into the fact that the redesign of two intersections to be reconstructed was generally not acceptable to the business people that were at the meeting. To which Mr. Clarkowski responded that this is the layout and design that the "community" approved. A businesswoman, I believe from Diamonds on Main, asked him to clarify what he meant by "communities",to which Todd C responded that the Cities of Bayport, Stillwater and OPH have provided Municipal Consent to this project. This seemed to be an unsettling issue and in fact at one member of the audience asked if there was someone from Oak Park Heights in the room. (I guess he missed me during the intros) Based on the collective tension of the room with Todd C. statement I made short a point to clarify the City's perspective that such Todd C.'s statement about Municipal Consent is perhaps a bit grey in so far as there is an interpretation difference of such Consent based on the 1995 layout and the `current' design, but that it is a topic MNDOT and the City are still attempting to work on. (Suffice it to say it is now obvious that MNDOT fully intends to use the 1995 Municipal Consent to move forward, assuming funding I suppose). Subsequently, there was a comment made by an attendee that this plan is 15+ years old and MNDOT hasn't changed anything to make it a better project for the area. Todd C. gave no response. It was commented again that MNDOT did not provide any public outreach to the business community in this area. Todd C. did respond citing their efforts, which were correct, however, many of the business property holdings are not the operators on site,thus they are not privy to the mailings. MNDOT and the Chamber agreed they would attempt to remedy that. However, there were comments that nothing is going to change anyway. It was then commented again that is this just another false run at this project, to which Todd C. indicated that was not the expectation of MNDOT; further Jennifer Severson of the Chamber also indicated that the Chamber is taking this seriously and will work to address concerns presented. • . Todd C. finished is animation presentation and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00. I do not Srecall the specific scheduling of the next meeting. However it was quite apparent that the business community in this area most of which are in Oak Park Heights, despite a desire to perhaps move the project forward, were not generally pleased with the layout as provided by MNDOT. Some even citing that they would be put out of business. In hindsight, it was positive that someone from the City was in attendance at this meeting. And, while there were some interesting comments made by Todd C. during the meeting,to engage him in such forum would be difficult. However, when questions of Municipal Consent or direct questions about City's perspectives arise, a fair factual update would seem reasonable as opposed to having items responded to by others. That update again generally consisting of the fact that we are trying to work out a MOU with MNDOT in good faith,that we too have some concerns on layout and construction impacts, but we are willing to listen. • • II • iiinr z lo ;IV!: I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIiiiiii � 2 iii.ia iiiiiiii E I ��, 1 � 9 `,111 1 lif 1,-Q01 MEI I 11111111 a i 1111111 1111111111111M VI IN hrI Ij II ? II 2 I VIM 1 MN • f MIMI MEMINEMENE III P : =UMW I PRIN Emenomempti 0 ' MEM I MINNI I NM EMINIMEMINIE .1 I' o Ems I INE111 EMIN REIMPERMININE I i MN UNION 11111111M 111111111111111111111 11 I Ingel IRON MN MMINMENIMEN" ' MINI 1 MIEN NM MINEMENNEri WE I MN • EMIN MEMPIENNINE Elle low HEE mom mommenom ! itv BM MN MIMI EMINIMEMENE I � i 1 1 i Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo and Employee Owned Rosene Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,PE.•Marvin L. Sorvala.PE.• Glenn It Cook,PE •Robert G.Schunicht,PE.• 14 1. Jerry A.Bourdon,RE •Mark A.Hanson,PE Anderlik& Senior Consultants:Robert W.Rosene,P.E.•Joseph C.Anderlik,RE.• Richard E.Turner.P.E.• Susan M.Eberlin,C.PA Associates Associate Principals:Keith A.Gordon.P.E.•Robert R.Pfelterle,PE.•Richard W.Foster.PE • David O.Loskota,PE.• Michael T.Rautmann,PE.•Ted K.Field,P.E.•Kenneth P Anderson,P.E.• Mark R.Rolls,PE.• David A.Bonestroo.M.B.A • Sidney P Williamson,PE.,L.S.•Agnes M.Ring,M.B.A.•Allan Rick Schmidt,P.E.• Thomas W.Peterson,P.E.• Engineers&Architects James R.Maland.P.E.• Miles B.Jensen,PE.• L.Phillip Gravel III,P.E.• Daniel J.Edgerton,RE.• Ismael Martinez,P.E • Thomas A.Syfko,P.E.• Sheldon J.Johnson• Dale A.Grove,PE.• Thomas A.Roushar.P.E.• Robert J.Devery,P.E. Offices:St.Paul,St Cloud,Rochester and Willmar.MN•Milwaukee,WI•Chicago,IL Website:www.bonestroo.com September 23,2004 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 • Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-04-134 Dear Eric: • As directed,we have performed preliminary engineering estimates for the utility relocations • associated with MnDOT's proposed improvements to Highway 36 and the St. Croix R.iver Bridge Crossing(SCRBC). The estimates were based on two options for Highway 36,the Preferred Alternate"F"and the Cut&Cover Concept, and two options for the SCRBC, Option B-1 and Option C. The cost estimates included below represent potential utility relocation and related right-of-way/easement costs associated with four possible construction scenarios. The estimates for the improvements to Highway 36 were based on the two-dimensional concept plans that were available for Alternate"F"and the Cut&Cover Concept. Two-dimensional concept plans were-also used for Option B-1 and Option C of the SCRBC. With these options, the preliminary utility relocation cost estimates were calculated for the following four scenario: 1. Alternate "F"with Bridge Option B-1 2. Alternate"F"with Bridge Option C 3. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option B-1 • 4. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option C The majority of the City's.water and sewer system is located,by permit, within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If the Highway 36 corridor is designated as a freeway these utilities will have to be relocated. As a result, the estimates for all four scenarios include removing and relocating any utility that is currently located longitudinally within the existing right-of-way. • 2335 West Highway 36 g St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 • The table below shows the total cost for removing and relocating the existing utilities along the proposed Highway 36 improvements and the SCRBC. These costs have been separated by utilities that are currently within the existing MnDOT right-of-way and outside the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Also included in the total cost is land acquisition for right-of-way and/or easements that will be required for relocation of the utilities that are currently in the existing MnDOT right-of-way. (---Alternate Alternate F Cut& Cover Cut& Cover with Brie e with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge Optioc :-1 Option C Option B-1 Option C Within Existing ROW $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 Outside Existing ROW $2,520,000 $3,190,000 $1,660,000 $2,330,000 Land Acquisition $2,980,000 $2,980,000 2,860,000 2,860,000 Total Cost $8,370,000 $9,040,000 $7,620,000 $8,290,000 • Due to the proposed depth of the highway in the Cut&Cover Concept, it would be necessary to construct lift stations to transport sewage from the north side of the highway to the south side. Accordingly, as shown in the table above, the Cut&Cover Concept has a higher cost for utilities within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at(651) 604-4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK &ASSOCIATES INC. Dennis M. Postler, P.E. Cc: Judy Holst,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director Mark Vierling, City Attorney DMP, KSE,DDH,File—Bonestroo K:\55\55041341W ord\Correspondence\Correspondence_Outgoing_Letterhead\Hi ghway 36 relocation.doc • - T '-.4.10.„--:-.14* $,.. Ars ' -17-• . '--11' ;eV 1'''...; r •"."4-14Ni. '''''' ,�* ate' 9 y a i , , ..,�i M t r ;F ' 1 ,T '^' 1 E+ a t § • t �'^! 6�"i. . ,' w p s: � _I t4 f, w Ix 4_ re awn .. ,.+° s �' y{* ' ,,�- ,f } � \i '.•1 v„ . d•:��1 a�C"� +.4,F .-t'•s x `1q. i 3 j0 1 C ,'" ° 1,4!, ,4, ,* ?����F1 ,W .xh s*?� 111)) 4 , ,, r*r r fri"� � .w , r, I --- } .�.�;7 '1 . I. --'s-, ,. ••rw ..•erg a �'ii ,t,,,//, ✓, ,,j. # ,i ,• rr• .ter"9 w :?. rrc #* _ .. _ wrt .- .. Or•,' Or ,• � at*. i• . :H�.,wrw 4 • Ate' '• �,*v. .� " i r ' x , !t e, '+ { t qt- T a s. •{ • 4 t i 1 i x r* �.. ,.n 4 :+1i 'r +„1'fr 'n• ♦ w yeti, t ry'�`rorx ' 4,_,n.1„,o, -�? ./'. l i f �'F• . �. .1*'{*7 s••, • \, ° �,. « 3a)1, Y{�-, i { , !,,§ Wit . ..J 4 At ir'1 T '� 7 J ,' ^''- 7" :Yr^> 'c•',wr+W �c t t r '( ` } tit. . ,,, . .1, i _ 0..... .„,,' t I 'd - .. ‘,,, ..,..: , .. .. oat. , + _ ., . , ,,,,..,._ 44. ' .` -_--rf ' " t ` *All• , y?t 1K.4 ;: :� Y • ' , +�..� Y�- �iw + +i' v � ° l :' t :* #o 1 •Ili _�V i � - ,,y r is u '..# : � r /.L` !{ T. k •ems , Ljii ii, ID IFTT • � �� ' fi • ó :' p.4. * h � •f ,t v * , . s• N 4 . , y E ` -; x . dr ; .x + I ! «,►N y•� ,r. T�T , ♦ .i.i' -. q saf SR �"�" ! r4 -144 As,: 4, ' -� �- * ^ �,. ••�•IN 7. r r . 1 n ' OD o, �Frt t'tAt �� ?.ak $ . " - 7w , i ',. . ,.., , , , , _ , ' • T , ,y / ` , m. •_ \ ��)...,‘i , *: *** ) ' ?......11%.411 l { a y t. w ■ r . Sw • Y• ' • ,,, ,• - •v .'!� !A ��,,,p•4 T{'4FFrir .g, 4//lb ,... . i . -4- -,.., 44-9.--.-•-0,, Irr...... -.....$0. .4‘.. .--.. : ,. t. - 1 1 . , . __,_ . • .., ' 1 ,c-' '.•...":..1.-.•4„e, .. , ' , ,:"„ ..., ..,„ ...,. , t /.4,,,, '4-,,, ' 4 t. ' 11 - te -'' . .:41 ...,,,,, , ,,.1:: ...,.... -4„ .:-*:4,1-, * ...,.. -,4* . •'s -A ' -4',4, , .-...,„ 44...•.,„4, ....,, ,v 44'i. 1 . :. '- • , . . ,4 , ,. ,, '' ' ;le' ' ' 14-'-'le _i_ .- - tf,-• ''' 4:1; ,4, ,,, , i . . . .,- .: ' -:::',--'••• "'-- .11` . 4.,:-`' .t: I :.- • , , ,,, ., i,4441.----- . . ' f ' ''. . . .. . . ..,.:. , ,.-- 70...„,, ;,,,,,,. 1, ttori• 1._ p j1., , . . ,..i ,..,..„,... .,--,..,,,,,...,•,. - 20 ... . ,... ip, .. .-...1.10% .c...-, -kJ- 1,. a , I 14 - C4"4' 'f64 +7 ‘,:..../f-9,..•.:770-,,...'„ . :, . M.,--7 - ' H., .*: '''''f' • '''" '01;" .. :.,,'4.V.'.4. -.1. 't , .44.,!,,,,,,. •,,A .4 ,-ilk 4. .... Li. 4 ..-•it ..,i' ,-,f.'-'..;',„,,,,- - ,--,•*, , f - - 4-4. -' P"'* ' "‘,44,4r, - ,-,. ,f-- •,,4 - _e-,.., -,„ „,„A.-'f.., *.4''''',' -.4•,''.--4 r-* :,..,, • ; ,-,,',',i A..,. ,. .,..1.,,, k4, ,, ...,,,.,,,,7, - 0.,,,..,,.. '.4 ...Nit,. • , ,,,,,•. , 4 , •,'47,;..S.;,f,',V,.;-•:i:44.2.:14, : 0`...' ''''..-`.. E.,.4. - ',-4t..-; t-, 'N,,,, - - c''• ' . ti.0.4-'i4 ' 4 1- 4 ''," . ',4:4...4 '''",' 1 --\-• ;,4dii.. 4 ' ' a - ,,, ..)'... 4,6!;*.f.',-• , - iLii; , 7...,.. 44 .It.. ,: • - ..,7 •,.., i . ,,,,,,,s,..• - , . :,_ .,_ .,. _-_.-,...•.-..4. 14,...,4 ,,.....,•-,.....,,,07 f4.,";';.4 :' -....7'.',.---:-, ,• :, ,:,,v(At , ,I„ -, •' ' • ' * • ' .**i .' ''- ...., -,......, .... ,,, . - it!..9 4,' •*.,. . ., ',„ ....",„,V■41:.,0: , - • ...., , , 4 41z44**.r. . ' i 7 ' ' ,4 • ......, •••1 ... . .---.., . t. • ' „d ,-,,g''' ' ..; - " 7i...1.,,,;.- A...44).4",,,,., , '42!**,.. - ‘0`:' "' '- . . 41116A■44 N^ - $.444iiii0, I t'''" Nt V. \ ‘ .1.' ..,..,_ • 1. .a . ' C 44.1,'.• t 4 , . 4 .., ' - . .''''41 rf' V*- '''': f.• ::; ..-. " __. .. .- . '' ' „ ., 4 ' 11. _- , . . . _ , . . . ,. 4 '-'•I'll' -0* :4,-, , '' f. ' .. , , , . • . ,' •4'‘ _- . • . _ , . , 4 , A.,' .• .... ;' • * „_• fit..', ' - , ...A\ 4. 1 . ' ,• 41 !:,'' '' kt 1.; ,,,, ,.. ,..-.., „ - ,t,„.. , ir. - . .. -: ..-',...i -7/ , .1.a.. . .' ..\. ., ,-,, ,: .. . . , . :.. • i 4act 4 ifr4 I.rii; i : t"..1.....lin't; Ar--":4;.4---.... . . . . . A '1 'a'' ? '' iNal i.,,. ^ '. *'4 Si't•-,- 4 4., 3 .. ' = ` 4j•••:'• -- .", • -4, ;''''', "it 1 ,t4g: "4. ' %.,,;• ' , , '``.-'2,'•"'!:..,LN-0•,-.,z,;7, '_. : .,.'.. -!1" .: ;00/1a ,.. -.- ti;., "-":14'c . -- tkit .../4 - -.II . • It I ...„. .,,,. a, ,„,,• ,, 4 -4: t 4 .4.---.*• g, IF 4 .1,sm..., - , „ , ---- ,„, , ..._ , ..i.i..0-.- : ,,, ,------.. 4 . .1 .1...,...t ,1:4....glyz, ,•-• *I' - ''. -*"- - . ' I.,, • ...„4... . *. 4. „ '..1,144,14 I * * t.'' ' • ' . 7.' ,-- ,1 - -, 1 l'"t 4.* ' ' ' `+-'. f 44. ' - '•, • .. ...„ 'i kik ,-- -.."..7.," - 0,-- . , - 74, , - -:. ,,.. .- • w .- .,, ' - - *-iv...* -,,i-;:t„-,:-_,:-,• ,. ' • . rli,,,,•,„, s, ,„,...„...., : . w • .. .).. , . ,. ,43.# ...7-v....14. ,,, : • ,r4r,•.., 4-sit.:,;•,--T.--$ , I....„_, ,,..„....,, ,,,,........,„ ,..„.... /..------ --.. 1,.. .. * ti:, 7.4 br i. 10:'.0't;. . A I, .r: --r, 1---14., ":..,,,.'r. '1.7....14,1,4r, , ,, . • * 'i-; . . .t • -9 b■*-7 .2rit) . , , _ - ,.. .... ... t,. rt!,.., 4 ..... , .4 ,vs..., _ ' - ; •-%- 1 *4°71 l';';''' '. ' -'''' -' ' . ', ' *'• .4,4•'.' ,* ' -.4.Ah,, • . .4....t.ito . ., .-- . ,..' ',...1,. -1 ..44:,, '- ....' ' '"I. "' .*-.:-.'' a• , •- "• ,., -e,. ' , i:04 :' :''',4".;,' A''''''*-.".',...;:1,,' ';' 4 4'i ".- ■• -,,'''-- . -' i.t nr. !,,,o. .,. .., , , - - . : . ,, ,7 .'-. ='' 4'4•47:-:`,-4.4 ..''':''t ',* , , ,,imi* ' ' ' ,. .., -1 4f Pt ' .y ". . ' - i .-t-- .:., -. - - i--.14 .4, ' sc --ipi ' ,-- ,... '1014,. 01(01 . . ., , ;,,;:i lig; •'-,a 4:7 ... , . .. _ • .,., 04.,....0„,,,,..*1 3,4,4,6.- 444 . 44.,, -I . ..116 ;"°11- '. . . •tio41, 4111. ' ' ; • ,.. ,3,1r-4"v"*" '''' ' Vt .1: '''-•• ' ,.... • N. lc- ' ' tits. .1---3t., if . . i• • . ' i • •••• • . . •.' 141‘...4,..1„,.'.•',': II)4;S' -' 1, • .......-- , . :„.:,., .4. -...M \ *44.44.- . , .1-f"k , tfil.,.;-.• *^1.'1:4!.#' lri/C14,P'' , . 1'.• • ', e- •it; .1- :, . , ..„Ai , ,,„' . - , ,A--,- ' - 1, •or 4 A • • ;et . •, ,- r'' - -• -- :,' t ; 'if 400,... ' '''.',. _. ; '••• •' - 14 '. ' . ,„„4, .,..ar,04*.f t.i4 If 111.. • . ,,,,,, ' . IVIC. :,•■•• • • 10.-•-•,!1,-*- . " At,,.., - r, VI '' ::; . ":I $ '• ''.. `t . .4 I 1.4° ....- ..41.,,T. . ',-,7.41.." ; • •"= r ,... : d • 4. T• \---ici 7 , -,• .....• :„ , ,.., - •-.'„ .., „,.,•.1.04,• t 1- T. -. - . -. ,,,--,4 * , , ii V, g.... '. • _ *a:...* ., WO* .Tjli. , ia. ''' ..* '*, •,-* ,,,-... ; 1 .., . ... 4 ki-. .-,'-,,•. „,.,., _...., .... ),,, ,,,,,..., ,_.4,,,,if!Iiiiiiitiir . 1.,.1.;&t■'‘.....4,I. - 'Mir Lirf',,4,,, *_ \7\s •----' Pailutelk,.,-.,,,-.••.".4.!..-.. - . .,... ,- ,, ,• . ,.., , , 1 i . . , . . . ,... . - . . .. % '',* :s•:. :.!‘„„,_''''' , - 4 ,, . ' Ot) . ** ''• **,‘!- '4,:";; `,..; . , 1 . , . . ., • "`•- ) . . ' ... ' ‘' ...... - . 4..•••'.:7-''.'I' :. • . . . „ . - _ - , - . . . , . . . .. . • .. , ., 1.) i\ . . / t - . . . . "":":"4) . . ., .4. , . - - ...--- - )1S-' -,..---'''''-:----- . .,,-.-...,..# . ....... .- ,.-.- ...-.4-- '':''''''''''',..4. .',. - - ... ..,- 4 Ør.\? -- '' 3: : :.‘., ... 3 „.. ..0. . -„, .. . ..‘„, .. " • „.. -,.., . ',:.• . ... ,. 4144011 \,,\. , `...',,,,:f'op ..\, ... , . ..„. . .,.. . sy, , ,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,..„,...„.... . \ ,. ,.4-.,• .' ." / ....' ' i '. '"'0,... ' .'..•: .1 ,... ...t..- c ,,. . ; ... w,.. .....-....-...--...**, . ,.. ..... 77., ---4 .... „--•- ' . `, 1. **\ ';.... .,1 .-- '•* '; ''''...*;:i 55. •- 4.„.,..,- V' .4,:•■■ • - ■••', '''' ''''..'.•':;. . ,. ,4 a„"1,- '' .--. .,„ e==*•'',4. ., • ....,_■7' S S. . , .. ' 5555 , • 1. ,..„ -."+... • ,. .s. ' •-• , „ , .---.-„,_