HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-14-R--
Dave McClung
Ed Werner
www.cityofardenhills.org
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, wellmaintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
longstanding tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Public inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Councils
attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state
your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being
addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the
Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written
documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to
allow a more timely presentation.
STAFF COMMENTS
3.A.TCAAP Update
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
Documents:MEMO.PDF
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.A.Approval Of Minutes
December 26, 2013, Work Session
January 13, 2014, Work Session
January 21, 2014, Work Session
Documents:WS.PDF,WS.PDF,WS.PDF
CONSENT CALENDAR
Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City
be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which
event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered
separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.
5.A.Claims And Payroll
Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst
Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Documents:MEMO.PDF
5.B.Findings Of Fact And Decision Regarding Application Of TAT Properties, LLC For A
PUD Amendment For Property At 1201 County Road E
Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF
PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general
order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding
7.A.TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity For Residents
Documents:MEMO.PDF
7.B.Franchise Fees
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
Documents:MEMO.PDF,7 FRANCHISE FEES PRESENTATION.PDF,
ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF,
ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF,
ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF,
TRAILS CHART 13.PDF, ARDENHILLSPATHWAY 2014 PRIORITY.PDF
NEW BUSINESS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.A.2 County Road E Feasibility Report
Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk
Documents:ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, MEMO.PDF
February 10, 2014
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
TCAAP Update
Staff will be meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District this week to discuss the upcoming
surface water management study. The City will ask for RCWD’s input on the Scope of Work.
The consultants are compiling feedback from the City Council, Planning Commission, Joint
Development Authority, developer interviews, and the public open house on January 22, 2014.
The project management team will meet at the end of this month to discuss public feedback.
Little work is occurring on-site at this time. Ramsey County reports that a frost depth of five feet
is hampering in-ground work.
Page of
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 26, 2013
5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special City
Council work session at 5:31 p.m.
Present:
Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes (via
telephone), and Dave McClung
Absent:
Councilmember Ed Werner (excused)
Also present
: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; City Planner Ryan Streff; and City
Clerk Amy Dietl
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A.TCAAP Master Plan
Mayor Grant
stated that the purpose of the special work session is to continue the review of the
draft TCAAP Master Plan. He requested comment from Mr. Smalkowski regarding the traffic
questions that were raised at the last work session.
Brian Smalkowski
, Kimley-Horn, addressed the questions raised by the Council from their
December 16, 2013, meeting. He discussed potential access points from County Road I and how
this would affect the thumb, both on the property value and in terms of public safety purposes.
He explained that the County has been discussing these access points. He reviewed how the
proposed connections would connect to the spine road and County Road H.
Andrew Dresdner,
Cuningham Group, reported that the spine road and the roadway connecting
the thumb would be maintained by Ramsey County. The other roadways within TCAAP would
be association or City maintained. He then reviewed how the trip rates were determined for the
development.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20132
Mayor Grant
requested that Mr. Dresdner provide a presentation to the Council addressing the
questions on the TCAAP Master Plan and that the Council refrain from questions and comments
until after the presentation.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that open space, parks and density are a concern for the Council in the
proposed TCAAP Master Plan. He discussed how he devised the percentage of park space for
TCAAP and how the proposed parks would meet the needs of the residents within the
development. He indicated that 3.8% (145 acres) of parks
and open space. The proposed Master Plan has 49 acres of the TCAAP site being used for parks
and open space, including wetlands. He reviewed the wetlands within the site noting they could
be used passively.
Mr. Dresdner
reviewed how he devised the number of employees and residents estimated for
the TCAAP property. The proposed community space was discussed in further detail. He then
explained how the mixed use space would develop in the Town Square area of TCAAP. It was
his opinion that the mixed use space would be difficult to develop but it also would be quite
valuable given the number of residents in the area. He indicated that the site would benefit from
a variety of stores in different sizes.
Mayor Grant
asked for comments or questions from the Council.
Councilmember Holden
expressed concern with the lack of green space near the Town Center.
Mr. Dresdner
indicated that smaller tot lots were being proposed within the housing
developments. These tot lots could be part of the private developments and would be less than
one mile from the Town Center area.
Councilmember Holden
questioned how the water feature would be more than a drainage ditch.
Mr. Dresdner
commented that the clay lining would help with the water feature, along with high
quality plantings and maintenance. He reported that he would provide the Council with several
examples of successful water features in the metro area.
Councilmember Holden
was in favor of having a more pronounced water feature, versus a
drainage ditch.
Councilmember McClung
agreed that the water feature was a major amenity of the site and he
did not see the proposed wetlands meeting that need.
Centennial Lakes.
Mr. Dresdner
indicated that the proposed design followed the lay of the land while also meeting
the wetland mitigation and storm water needs for the site.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20133
Mayor Grant
asked if the army water was clean enough to be used to augment the water feature
to ensure it would not go dry. He suggested bubblers and pumps be installed as well to improve
the water quality in the wetlands.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that this could be investigated.
Councilmember McClung
expressed concern with the proposed roundabout and that the
MnDOT roundabouts are generally too small.
Mr. Smalkowski
believed that the City and the County would be included in the design process.
Mayor Grant
agreed that the roundabouts in the Midwest differ from the roundabouts on the
east coast or throughout Europe. He wanted to see the roundabout wide enough to safely get
traffic in and out without panic. He stated that if the roundabout was done incorrectly, it would
be a detriment to the entire project.
Councilmember Holmes
commented that the roundabout would be an extreme mistake in the
proposed location given the fact that it was a major entrance to the development. She thought
that people would avoid the roundabout and that it should not be used within TCAAP. She
recommended the consultants bring the five roadways together in a different alignment.
Mr. Smalkowski
understood this property was a clean slate, however, in this part of the site, the
only way to provide a connection to I-35W and the thumb property is by constructing a
roundabout. It is the only logical configuration to provide the necessary access. He stated that
roundabouts today are becoming more popular and provide a much safer design.
Councilmember McClung
explained that the roundabouts on the east coast are much broader
and carried a higher capacity of traffic. He recommended that the proposed roundabout be
designed in the same manner. He has concerns with the roundabout if it is designed like others
throughout Minnesota.
Mayor Grant
stated that the thumb did have some constraints with how it could be developed,
however, at this time it is a blank slate and access to and from this area needs to be carefully
considered.
Councilmember Holden
did not oppose the roundabout. She asked if the bridge to the
corporate campus would be able to be viewed from the roundabout.
Mr. Smalkowski
stated that the bridge would be across the spine road, after the roundabout.
Councilmember McClung
indicated that he is interested to hear the public comments regarding
the proposed roundabout.
Mayor Grant
requested clarification on the proposed small, medium and large residential lots.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20134
Mr. Dresdner
reviewed the lot sizes in detail with the Council.
Councilmember McClung
requested that the consultants research price points and proposed
square footage for these lot sizes prior to the open house.
Mayor Grant
indicated that the home values in Arden Hills are higher than neighboring
communities and this is a desirable community for people to live in given the pocket of good
jobs in the surrounding area.
Councilmember Holden
wanted to see senior housing on the TCAAP site woven into the
development.
Mayor Grant
was in favor of TCAAP having a mix of housing to meet the needs of
homeowners throughout the various stages of life.
Councilmember Holden
recommended that the housing density be lowered by 10%.
Mayor Grant
stated that another alternative would be to improve the building materials and
price points. He stated that the mix of housing will be very important.
Councilmember McClung
was comfortable with the density as proposed. He worried that if the
density was decreased by too much, the area would not be able to support the proposed
commercial and retail areas. He wanted to see more green space intermixed in the housing as
this would better support the proposed density.
Mayor Grant
reported that the walking trail would be an amenity available in this development
and would provide additional green space. This trail would go past The Hill and The Creek
neighborhoods. He supported the proposed tot lots in the neighborhoods but recommended the
consultants increase the active recreation areas to meet the needs of children and teens in the 8-
18 age range.
Councilmember HoldenMayor Grant
agreed with .
Councilmember Holmes
thought that the proposed density was too high. She suggested The
Hill and The Creek neighborhoods have more high-end homes.
Councilmember Holden
questioned if the Town Center area would have parking to allow the
area to draw customers from other neighborhoods in Arden Hills.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that Main Street would have parking on both sides of the street and there
would be surface parking behind Main Street. He commented that the office space would have
structured parking to handle its clientele.
Councilmember Holden
turned the discussion to the proposed commercial/industrial area. It
was her opinion that at 82 acres, this portion of the project is too large. She suggested that the
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20135
TCAAP development be 55-60% residential with the remaining portion commercial. She did not
want to see a large commercial/showroom area within TCAAP.
Mayor Grant
indicated that residential may build out faster than commercial space.
Councilmember McClung
saw this to be a policy discussion with Ramsey County.
Councilmember Holmes
asked if the property would build out from south to north. She stated
that this may be difficult given the location of the proposed commercial/industrial area.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that a project is typically developed to the highest value. The last lots to be
developed are typically the most expensive. It was his opinion that the project did not have to
move from south to north. The Town Center area could be built earlier.
Councilmember Holden
commented that a great deal of the build-out would hinge on the
completion of utilities.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that if the commercial/industrial area was reduced in size, the residential
area would be increased. He reviewed how this could impact the site.
Mr. Smalkowski
reported that it was not economically viable to build houses with basements on
the south side of The Hill and for that reason, commercial/industrial was proposed for this area.
Councilmember McClung
questioned how the consultants were made aware that housing would
not work in this area.
Mr. Smalkowski
indicated that this information was provided by Ramsey County.
Councilmember McClung
stated that he would like to hear from Ramsey County on this matter.
Mayor Grant
discussed the thumb property, noting 500,000 square feet of office space was
being proposed. If a connection to County Road I was completed, an additional 100,000 square
feet of office space would be added. He asked what the economic impact of the additional office
space would be to the development.
Mr. Dresdner
estimated that the extra office space would add 300 jobs, along with additional
property taxes.
Mayor Grant
asked if the Council would support the Master Plan moving forward to be
reviewed by the JDA and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Holden
concerns on the plan as proposed.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20136
City Administrator Klaers
summarized that the Council had concerns with the wetlands,
surface water management/water feature, roundabouts, density, housing mix, green space and
active recreation space.
Councilmember McClung
wanted to see the concerns of the Council incorporated into the
conpresentations to the JDA and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dresdner
stated that this could be done.
Councilmember Holden
requested that the commercial/industrial area, the flex space, also be
marked as a concern for the Council.
The Council was in favor of the plan moving forward with the staff and consultants including the
concerns of the City Council.
Mayor Grant
questioned what feedback should be gathered from the JDA and the Planning
Commission on the Master Plan.
Councilmember McClung
was in favor of gathering all feedback even if it contradicted the
direction of the Council.
Councilmember Holmes
was in favor of listing areas where feedback should be gathered as this
would show the plan was not set in stone.
Mayor Grant
suggested that the areas
discussion.
Councilmember Holmes
asked what types of businesses would be located in the
commercial/industrial area. She expressed concern that this area only had one job per 1,000
square feet of space.
Mr. Dresdner
provided several examples of the uses that could occupy this space noting medical
research, product development, light assembly and prototyping as potential uses in this space.
These uses would not be truck intensive and would not be distribution centers.
Councilmember Holden
recommended that the amount of commercial/industrial space be
limited as she did not want a large amount of showrooms in this area.
Councilmember McClung
suspected that the TCAAP site would develop relatively quickly
given the positive turn that the economy has taken. He was pleased that the County would be
driving the development.
Mayor Grant
asked if the Council had any input on how the open house should be structured for
the consultants.
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 26, 20137
Councilmember McClung
was in favor of the consultants showing the proposed density and lot
sizes. This would allow the Council to gather valuable feedback from the residents in
attendance.
Mayor Grant
recommended that the consultants compare the proposed lot sizes, setbacks and
parks to others in Arden Hills. This would provide residents with greater perspective. He was in
favor of breaking The Hill neighborhood into two with a trail through the middle.
Councilmember Holden
suggested that the comment forms collected from the open house have
an address line that can be filled out. She encouraged the consultants to work further on
connecting the TCAAP property to the rest of Arden Hills.
Mr. Dresdner
appreciated the input from the Council stating it would assist staff in refining the
Master Plan.
ADJOURN
Mayor Grant adjourned the special City Council work session at 7:35 p.m.
__________________________ __________________________
Amy Dietl David Grant
City Clerk Mayor
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
JANUARY 13, 2014
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special City
Council work session at 9:13 p.m.
Present:
Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave
McClung, and Ed Werner
Absent:
None
Also present
: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Community Development Director Jill
Hutmacher; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Planner Ryan Streff; and City Clerk
Amy Dietl
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A.Multi-Family Design Standards
Associate Planner Bachler
reported that the multi-family dwelling design standards were
approved by the Council in September of 2012. Included in these standards are requirements for
minimum unit sizes. At the Council work session on January 22, 2013, the Council requested that
-family dwelling units. Currently,
the standards require multi-family dwelling units to be a minimum of 600 square feet, with an
additional 100 square feet required for each bedroom. The Council expressed concern that the
standards could permit multi-bedroom units that do not provide adequate floor area per resident.
Associate Planner Bachler
explained that staff has collected information from seven cities in the
metro region that have adopted similar minimum unit size standards for multi-family dwelling
units. The cities include New Brighton, Blaine, White Bear Lake, Maplewood, Fridley, Coon
Rapids and Bloomington. An analysis was completed comparing the average square footage
also looked at ten multi-family
development projects that have been recently completed or that are under construction in outer-
ring suburban communities to evaluate the average sizes currently being built. He reviewed the
location of these projects and provided the Council with a summary on the data collected from
these projects, along with the minimum size standards for the dwelling units.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 13, 20142
Associate Planner Bachler
stated that based on the analysis, staff is requesting further direction
from the Council on the following questions:
1.)Should the City increase the minimum area required for three-bedroom units in multi-
family developments?
2.)Should the City also consider increasing the minimum additional area required for each
additional bedroom?
3.)Should the City consider any other changes to the minimum area required for other units?
Councilmember Holden
supported the existing standards for efficiency and one bedroom units.
However, she would like to see the two bedroom and three bedroom standards more closely match
the sizes of those found in the study. She recommended that two bedroom units be a minimum of
1,000 square feet and three bedroom units be a minimum 1,300 square feet.
Mayor Grant
stated that changes made to this document would impact the TCAAP development.
He does not want to see three bedroom units at 900 square feet. He indicated that he could
support two bedroom apartments at a minimum of 950 square feet.
Councilmember Holmes
commented that the City was above the market and average size for
efficiency units. one bedroom size standards.
Mayor Grant
questioned if the efficiency units should be decreased to 550 square feet and the
one bedroom units decreased to 650 square feet.
Councilmember Holden
did not agree with suggestion.
City Administrator Klaers
commented that another option would be to have the efficiency units
at 550 square feet, one bedroom units at 700 square feet, and two bedroom units at 950 square
feet.
Councilmember Holden
asked if apartment complexes were required to be constructed under a
PUD and if so, if the minimum size standards could be adjusted.
Associate Planner Bachler
stated that this is the case in the B-2 District, and that any flexibility
requested on the minimum size standards would need to be approved by the City Council.
Mayor Grant
inquired if staff wanted to do further research on current developments prior to
making changes to the design standards.
Associate Planner Bachler
stated that enough information had been collected on current
developments to make changes.
Councilmember Holden
Associate Planner Bachler
reported that the apartment units under this category are generally
less than five years old.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 13, 20143
Discussion ensued regarding the units within the E Street Flats apartment complex.
Councilmember McClung
questioned how the City will respond if the market trends shift and
apartment unit sizes decrease in the future.
City Administrator Klaers
discussed the market standards at this time and stated that the
ordinance can be amended if the market changes.
Mayor Grant
summarized the comments made thus far by the Council and noted there was
agreement to have the minimum size of the efficiency units be 550 square feet, one bedroom units
were to be no less than 700 square feet, two bedroom units were to be no less than 950 square feet
and three bedroom units were to be no less than 1,200 square feet. The Council agreed to have
each additional bedroom require an additional 150 square feet.
Councilmember Holden
stated that she wanted to see the three bedroom units be no less than
1,300 square feet.
2. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember McClung
indicated that Ramsey County has requested the Council support their
bonding request for TCAAP. He found this to be appropriate; however he has an issue with the
timing, as the request has already been submitted to the State. He questioned
why the City is just considering this request tonight, when it should have been delivered to
Ramsey County sooner so that it could be included with the formal legislative bonding request.
He recommended that the County do better to meet deadlines so the City can show its support for
lobbying efforts.
Councilmember Holden
stated that the Chair of the Ramsey County Board only recently met
with the Governor regarding this matter.
Councilmember McClung
commented that may be the case, however, a number of cities in the
metro area had approved resolutions of support and Arden Hills had done nothing. He wanted to
see the City acting as a partner to Ramsey County as the bonding for transportation would impact
the entire region.
Councilmember Werner
provided comment on the number of work session meetings held in
2013.
ADJOURN
Mayor Grant adjourned the special City Council work session at 9:50 p.m.
__________________________ __________________________
Amy Dietl David Grant
City Clerk Mayor
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JANUARY 21, 2014
5:00 P.M. MARSDEN ROOM PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council work
session at 5:00 p.m.
Present:
Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden (arrived at 5:04 p.m.,
left at 5:30 p.m. and returned at 6:50 p.m.), Fran Holmes, Dave McClung,
and Ed Werner
Absent:
None
Also present:
City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer;
Assistant City Engineer John Anderson; and City Clerk Amy Dietl
Public Works Maintenance Workers:
Max Arvidson, Scott Freyberger, Jeff Frid, Dave
Winkel, Dave Schifsky, Darien Schifsky, Tony Nolan, Thomas Mikacevich
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A.Public Works Presentation
Public Works Director Maurer
introduced the Public Works Maintenance Workers to the
Council and discussed the training provided to public works employees. He provided the Council
with a presentation highlighting the accomplishments in 2013. He
reviewed the work that was completed at Valentine Park and on the triangle parcel.
Assistant City Engineer Anderson
explained how the Public Works Department was migrating
towards the use of technology in their day-to-day operations. He explained that the new system
has been extremely helpful with the utility line locate calls. He reported that the City is receiving
approximately 350 Gopher State One calls per month during the summer, making this work
almost a full-time job.
Tony Nolan
described the Korweb program in detail with the Council. He then discussed how
this new technology is assisting to streamline work completed by the Public Works Department.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 21, 20142
Councilmember Holmes
thanked the Public Works staff for their work on Valentine Park, stating
the work was nicely done and that the park has been heavily used.
Councilmember Werner
thanked the Public Works Department for their assistance and
professionalism with a recent watermain break in his neighborhood.
Jeff Frid
discussed the Omni system explaining how it i
stations. He noted that the program is extremely user friendly and can be viewed by staff on a
smart phone.
Public Works Director Maurer
reported that each lift station is still inspected and reviewed each
day by staff to ensure that stations were running properly. Staff will continue this process until
they are more comfortable relying on technology.
Darien Schifsky
provided the Council information on the water tower monitoring software. He
discussed how the program is assisting the Public Works Department monitor the water levels
available in the tower.
Councilmember Holmes
asked if s tied to the water system in St.
Paul.
Public Works Director Maurer
explained s not coordinated with St. Paul
as St. Paul has a very sophisticated SCADA system. He reviewed the graphics of the water usage
in the north tower for January.
Assistant City Engineer Anderson
provided the Council with information on the GIS data that
has been collected by the Public Works Department. He stated that the GIS information collected
lines, along with park benches, valves and street
locations. The data that has been collected i
users on other platforms. The numerous benefits of this system were further discussed.
Public Works Director Maurer
explained how the information collected through the GIS system
is used by his department on a daily basis. He indicated that his crew is working to keep the
A brief video about infrastructure in the State of Minnesota was presented.
Public Works Director Maurer
. He
explained that the City is investing in its infrastructure and these investments are paying off. He
reviewed the efforts the Public Works Department has taken to reduce I&I throughout the City.
He commented that sewer lines are televised, jetted and cleaned on a three year rotating cycle.
He is pleased with the progress his department is making in this area.
Assistant City Engineer Anderson
reviewed the work that has been completed on the storm
sewer lines. He explained that catch basins and rain gardens have been created throughout the
City to assist with managing the quality of the The City needs to continue to
maintain these areas.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 21, 20143
Councilmember Holmes
questioned if the City needs to install rain gardens on the TCAAP
property.
Public Works Director Maurer
reported that rain gardens are mostly used in reconstruction
projects to assist in managing water runoff. He anticipated that rain gardens will not be installed
on the TCAAP site. He reported that rain gardens are a requirement from the Rice Creek
Watershed. The special projects planned for 2014 were then reviewed.
Mayor Grant
thanked the Public Works Department for their presentation this evening. He is
pleased with the growing efficiencies that have been taken on by the department along with the
great work completed by the crew. He understands that water and sewer services are taken for
granted and he appreciates all of the hard work the Public Works Department accomplishes each
and every day.
B.County Road E Bridge Over TH 51 / I-694 MnDOT Landscaping Project
Public Works Director Maurer
presented the Council with information on the current MnDOT
layout for the County Road E Bridge over TH 51. A small scale drawing was reviewed. The
layout shows three 12 foot lanes one in each direction and a center left turn lane. In addition,
there would be a six foot shoulder on the north side, a six foot shoulder on the south side and a 10
foot raised pedestrian facility on the south side.
Public Works Director Maurer
explained that no formal approvals are needed from the City,
however if the City wants to add anything to the design, such as a pedestrian facility on the north
side, it can be added as long as the City is willing to pay for the cost of the additions. For
budgeting purposes, MnDOT estimates the bridge cost at $150 per square foot. He recommended
the bridge remain as proposed by MnDOT without an additional pedestrian facility on the north
side of the bridge.
City Administrator Klaers
asked how pedestrians would cross from one side of the roadway to
the other in order to cross the bridge.
Public Works Director Maurer
explained that there would be crosswalks at the lights before and
after the bridge in order to allow for pedestrians to cross County Road E.
Councilmember Holmes
commented that pedestrians do not always walk where they should, as
seen by the pedestrians currently walking along the north side of the bridge. She asked if there
would be any space along the north side for pedestrians.
Public Works Director Maurer
reported that the north side of the bridge would have a six foot
shoulder, which is an improvement over the two foot shoulder that is currently present.
Mayor Grant
expressed concern with how emergency services would be provided to the west
side of the City while the bridge is out.
Public Works Director Maurer
commented that he will address this concern with the Fire Chief
or the Fire Marshall.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 21, 20144
Councilmember Holmes
expressed concern with the lighting on the County Road E bridge. She
was not concerned with decorative lighting at these intersections, but recommended the lighting
be improved in this area.
Public Works Director Maurer
recommended the City work with Xcel Energy on the lights as
this would be less expensive than the City installing and maintaining its own light poles. He
stated that he would discuss this issue with the County as well.
Councilmember Werner
questioned how traffic would flow through the City while the bridge is
out.
Public Works Director Maurer
indicated that traffic would be rerouted through the City for a
time while the bridge is out.
Further discussion ensued regarding traffic flow and emergency services, and how this would
work with the bridge being out.
Mayor Grant
asked if the Council was comfortable with the bridge layout as proposed by
MnDOT.
The Council supported the plan as presented by MnDOT.
Public Works Director Maurer
discussed the preliminary landscaping plan MnDOT has
prepared for the I-694 corridor that will follow the recent construction. He reported MnDOT has
budgeted $200,000 for this project and it is scheduled for an August 2014 letting with planting
occurring in the spring of 2015.
Public Works Director Maurer
stated that the Council placed a $5,000 item in the 2014 CIP
should they want to make additions to the MnDOT landscaping project. MnDOT would need a
decision on any additions within the next 45-60 days to get this into the final plan. MnDOT has
estimated that additional trees, if added to the project, would cost between $275 and $375
depending on the variety of tree. Therefore, with a $5,000 budget, approximately 15 trees could
be added. He requested direction from the Council on how to proceed.
Councilmember McClung
stated that plantings in the Briarknoll area were the main concern. He
questioned how additional tree plantings would impact this area.
Public Works Director Maurer
explained that additional trees would provide more of an
aesthetic appeal, but would not fully screen the neighborhood from the roadway.
Mayor Grant
recommended that
Public Works Director Maurer
commented that this information could be posted by staff.
Councilmember Holden
expressed concern with the noise level for the residents living on
Norma Circle.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 21, 20145
Assistant City Engineer Anderson
reviewed the plantings proposed for this area of the I-694
corridor. He noted that the plantings would be decorative in addition to providing some measure
of screening.
Councilmember McClung
suggested the Council review where 15 additional trees could be
placed to positively impact the corridor. He recommended this be reviewed after the County hears
back on their grant application and decides what they will do further to the west along TH 10.
Mayor Grant
agreed that the Council should wait to hear back from the County.
Public Works Director Maurer
commented that he would pass along to MnDOT that the City
does not want to add anything to the landscaping project at this time but may want to add some
corridor. Any added plantings would likely be placed after MnDOT implements its current
project.
2. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Holmes
discussed an article she read in the Star Tribune from December 31,
2013, regarding water and sewer bills in Belle Plain. She indicated that she will provide staff with
a copy of the article which could then be passed along to the entire Council.
ADJOURN
Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council work session meeting at 7:03 p.m.
__________________________ __________________________
Amy Dietl David Grant
City Clerk Mayor
February 10, 2014
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
Ashley Bertrand, Sue Iverson
Claims & Payroll
2014 Payroll #3 ..............................................................................$ 100,059.93
Paid Claims (Check No 0 AFLAC EFT) ...........................................$ 327.92
Paid Claims (Check No 0 Greatland EFT) ........................................$ 214.25
Paid Claims (Check No 42994-Check No 43004) .............................$ 44,038.33
Paid Claims (Check No 43005-Check No 43018) .............................$ 16,593.70
Paid Claims (Check No 43019-Check No 43031) .............................$ 17,349.51
VOID (Check No 43032-Check No 43033) ......................................$ 0
Paid Claims (Check No 43036-Check No 43059) .............................$ 38,598.21
Paid Claims (Check No 43034-Check No 43035) .............................$ 41,871.07
Paid Claims (Check No 43060-Check No 43063) .............................$ 94,073.49
Page of
Payment Method
EFT
FIT9,266.90
EFT
SIT3,807.86
EFT
FICA Oasdi5,440.385,440.38
EFT
FICA Medicare1,272.311,272.31
A/P Check*
Health Premium0.000.00
A/P Check*
Dental Premium 0.00
A/P Check*
FSA Health Care Reimb.0.00
A/P Check*
FSA Dependent Care Reimb.0.00
HSA Health Saving 0.000.00
EFT
Health Care Savings Plan0.00
EFT
Health Care Savings Plan-2%337.80
EFT
Health Care Savings Plan-4%216.07
EFT
PERA4,349.825,045.79
EFT
ICMA3,605.07341.04
A/P Check*
Central Pension Fund-Union614.40
EFT
MN State Retirement System328.13
A/P Check*
IUOE 49 Dues (Union)0.00
A/P Check*
LTD/STD Insurance0.00
A/P Check*
PERA Life Insurance0.00
A/P Check*
Life/Addl/Dep Lif0.00
Lif/Addl/DLif0000000.00 A/PChk*
e
EFT
MN Child Support145.82
A/P Check*
Public Employee Long Term Care 0.00
A/P Check*
UNUM 0.00
EFT
AFLAC0.00
A/P Check*
Avesis-Vision Care0.00
Total Employee Deductions29,384.56
PR Check # 17601-17608
Net Payroll10,541.43
EFT
Direct Deposit48,034.42
Gross Payroll Tie-Out87,960.41
STD/LTD Gross - Up0.00
Plus City Paid Benefit12,099.52
ICMA Benefit Held0.00
Gross Payroll87,960.41
Less Total FSA0.00
Plus Employer Match ICMA0.00
Plus ICMA Benefit Held0.00
Net P/R Subject to FICA87,960.41
FICA Oasdi @ 6.20%5,440.38
FICA Medicare @ 1.45%1,272.31
Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means
of utilizing the "Taxtel" Electronic Tax Deposit Service. Trans-
fers are typically made two business days after the payroll date.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval
* A/P Checks can be found on the report.
Checks may be paid this week or the following week.
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<26= >
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
.//."0"1 '*')-23"+4 5 6"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$5597?97659:
@!A596:659:; B
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
5976:7659:F A*D(*1$659?$>/)*&G*$H*/D( 1#*D*!"959;:9=55;:??95$9?355
@!A$596:659:; B$I "&)$$9?355
$5$I "&)2$9?355
$9?355
.//."0"1 '*')-23"+4 5 6":,*)5;
//.<"0"1,5*,-"="> -!3"9- ?"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<:597?97659:
@!A59J?5K5
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?.* *D(*1$659?$L&"*1$I M*1$H*,&($+,&1G*#:99;:K=9:;:?5?5$=:K355
@!A$59J?5K5$I "&)$$=:K355
$:6<<:$I "&)2$=:K355
//.<"0"1,5*,-"="> -!3"9- ?":,*)5;$=:K355
/@A@"0"1')$4 -"B-* 'C'84 43"9- ?"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<=597?97659:
@!A5969659:;BN
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
597697659:%+$9?;596$N# 1 M$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$?<5355
@!A$5969659:;BN$I "&)$$?<5355
$:6<<=$I "&)2$?<5355
/@A@"0"1')$4 -"B-* 'C'84 43"9- ?":,*)5;$?<5355
<<AD"0" BE"9%)F8-F"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<J597?97659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<26=$ >P%&G*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A6<=<86
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?57659?%) ""*1$H*!"&)$+,&1G*#$.* *D(*1$659?86K;:<<55;::9=5$J:39?
@!A$6<=<86$I "&)$$J:39?
$:6<<J$I "&)2$J:39?
$J:39?
<<AD"0" BE"9%)F8-F":,*)5;
G.HI"0" 8*6",J"+'2 -"K8554"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<8597?97659:
@!A596K659:;+ Q
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
5976K7659:.* *D(*1$659?$%*""'$+&#,$H* 959;:=965;:6985$<639=
5976K7659:.* *D(*1$659?$%*""'$+&#,$H* 959;:9=55;::?6=$?:3:9
5976K7659:.* *D(*1$659?$%*""'$+&#,$H* 959;:9=55;::?6=$83:J
@!A$596K659:;+ Q$I "&)$$9?:356
$:6<<8$I "&)2$9?:356
$9?:356
G.HI"0" 8*6",J"+'2 -"K8554":,*)5;
<I<<"0"B5 *'8 )5"> )-8 )5"E 'L8 43"9- ?"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<K597?97659:
@!AR@;56J98J
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?CT$U99$H*E&/1J56;:<:<5;::5:5$9S:J93?5
@!A$R@;56J98J$I "&)$$9S:J93?5
$:6<<K$I "&)2$9S:J93?5
<I<<"0"B5 *'8 )5"> )-8 )5"E 'L8 43"9- ?":,*)5;$9S:J93?5
<I/M"0"N9EO( "0"('?"78-2)":,%)4 558"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:6<<<597?97659:
@!A9696659?;V@TH.+
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967967659?659?$ !"/!G$H*E 1"#959;:9=55;:?955$?SJ5:3=5
@!A$9696659?;V@TH.+$I "&)$$?SJ5:3=5
$:6<<<$I "&)2$?SJ5:3=5
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<26=$ >P%&G*$6
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$?SJ5:3=5
<I/M"0"N9EO( "0"('?"78-2)":,%)4 558":,*)5;
G.H."0"PQ6F -"E 'L8 " ,%C)-63"9- ?"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?555597?97659:
@!A5?6:<<==
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?.* *D(*1$659?$%L$H*!"&)868;:<855;::9=5$K3J9
@!A$5?6:<<==$I "&)$$K3J9
$:?555$I "&)2$K3J9
$K3J9
G.H."0"PQ6F -"E 'L8 " ,%C)-63"9- ?":,*)5;
G.HA"0"R8*- 6"1,S 40> * '"E 'L8 "78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?559597?97659:
@!A8?:<J8:;R 9:6
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
5979?7659:F A*D(*1;.* *D(*1$659?$% #"&G*$H*!"&)$+,&1G*#959;:9=55;::9=5$9S59K355
@!A$8?:<J8:;R 9:6$I "&)$$9S59K355
$:?559$I "&)2$9S59K355
$9S59K355
G.HA"0"R8*- 6"1,S 40> * '"E 'L8 ":,*)5;
<D/G"0"R$5* "N',$C0>#"(8L848,-"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?556597?97659:
@!A96?9659?;9=6J
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?9=6J$W*/",# !$.1/A*$N# 1 M$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$95S555355
@!A$96?9659?;9=6J$I "&)$$95S555355
@!A96?9659?;9=?<
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?9=?<$W*/",# !$.1/A*$N# 1 M$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$95S555355
@!A$96?9659?;9=?<$I "&)$$95S555355
@!A96?9659?;9=86
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?9=86$W*/",# !$.1/A*$N# 1 M$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$:S<?=355
@!A$96?9659?;9=86$I "&)$$:S<?=355
@!A96?9659?;::=K
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<26=$ >P%&G*$?
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
967?97659?::=K$H '&)$Q/))#$.1/A*$N# 1 M$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$95S555355
@!A$96?9659?;::=K$I "&)$$95S555355
$:?556$I "&)2$?:S<?=355
$?:S<?=355
<D/G"0"R$5* "N',$C0>#"(8L848,-":,*)5;
GA//"0"O)%4 6" ,$-*6"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?55?597?97659:
@!A%0BL;59?6K:
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?F A*D(*1$659?$L&"*1D&/!$H*E&/1J59;:<::5;::5:5$?863=<
@!A$%0BL;59?6K:$I "&)$$?863=<
@!A%0BL;59?6<<
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
967?97659?.* *D(*1$659?$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$K?5368
@!A$%0BL;59?6<<$I "&)$$K?5368
$:?55?$I "&)2$9S6563KJ
$9S6563KJ
GA//"0"O)%4 6" ,$-*6":,*)5;
GD</"0"E ,'*"B558,**"K -2'8 !4,-3"9- ?"78- "9* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?55:597?97659:
@!A688=:=
C/!*$@"*D$.&"*C/!*$@"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$@"*D$ !"
597987659:TE1/!"$N# 1 M$.* *D(*1$659?$+,&1G*#959;55555;66555$J=K3<9
@!A$688=:=$I "&)$$J=K3<9
$:?55:$I "&)2$J=K3<9
GD</"0"E ,'*"B558,**"K -2'8 !4,-3"9- ?":,*)5;$J=K3<9
I "&)2$::S5?K3??
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<26=$ >P%&G*$:
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<266 =
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
+./0"1"+22 3')"/'4-*"5"0%)34-3".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>55?597>97659:
@!A9><:65
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
597957659:G& ,)*1$G #/!*##$+&14#959;:9<95;:65>5$9653EF
@!A$9><:65$H "&)$$9653EF
$:>55?$H "&)2$9653EF
$9653EF
+./0"1"+22 3')"/'4-*"5"0%)34-3"6,*)27
89:;"1"<) 2 '=">)** ?".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$5597>97659:
@!A5968659:
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
597687659:I&! &1'$659:$JKD*!#*$L*/C( 1#*C*!"959;:9<95;::>6?$9F355
@!A$5968659:$H "&)$$9F355
$5$H "&)2$9F355
89:;"1"<) 2 '=">)** ?"6,*)27$9F355
@ABC"1" 4*D",E"F,G H422 ".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>55E597>97659:
@!A569F6>5
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975F7659:I&! &1'$659:$@H$G/))86F;:<<55;:>5F5$>M69636?
@!A$569F6>5$H "&)$$>M69636?
@!A569F686
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975F7659:I&! &1'$659:$%, !*$G/))86F;:<<55;:>695$:55355
@!A$569F686$H "&)$$:55355
$:>55E$H "&)2$>ME9636?
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@ABC"1" 4*D",E"F,G H422 "6,*)27$>ME9636?
@AAC"1"I '3$G,-"J)* '?,'!G"K8B9".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>558597>97659:
@!A55E89E>
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5979>7659:%Q$R DD)/*#E59;:<::5;:6695$>693?>
@!A$55E89E>$H "&)$$>693?>
@!A55E8986
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5979E7659:Q&"*1$JS /DC*!"$L*D&/1E59;:<::5;::5:5$?5355
@!A$55E8986$H "&)$$?5355
$:>558$H "&)2$>893?>
$>893?>
@AAC"1"I '3$G,-"J)* '?,'!G"K8B9"6,*)27
@;;L"1"I,' "+% '4 )="0- M".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>55F597>97659:
@!A59:9F?F5
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975E7659:%Q$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$>53>?
@!A$59:9F?F5$H "&)$$>53>?
$:>55F$H "&)2$>53>?
$>53>?
@;;L"1"I,' "+% '4 )="0- M"6,*)27
NO/ "1"N ?2 **"/) !)'P" ,%Q)-D".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>55<597>97659:
@!A?>8E8:88
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975>7659:H* ,! ) N'$R DD)/*#86F;:<<55;:6595$E<?35<
@!A$?>8E8:88$H "&)$$E<?35<
$:>55<$H "&)2$E<?35<
$E<?35<
NO/ "1"N ?2 **"/) !)'P" ,%Q)-D"6,*)27
@A;B"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*" ,'Q,')*4,-".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>595597>97659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$6
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A9>E5:
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975E7659:T9$659:$ !! &)$%)&!$U**959;:9>55;:99>5$6?5355
@!A$9>E5:$H "&)$$6?5355
$:>595$H "&)2$6?5355
$6?5355
@A;B"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*" ,'Q,')*4,-"6,*)27
@A;K"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*"6'$G*"1"B@9C::".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"B@B1@@@@
$5597>97659:
@!A
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5976<7659:%L$G&" ,$55>553593659:$@+= $JCD) '**$%*1 *!"$:59959;55555;698:5$6<:355
5976<7659:%L$G&" ,$55>553593659:$@+= $JCD) '*1$%*1 *!"$:59959;55555;698:5$>:935:
@!A$$H "&)$$E>?35:
$5$H "&)2$E>?35:
$E>?35:
@A;K"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*"6'$G*"1"B@9C::"6,*)27
@A;L"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*"6'$G*1"RA@K:;K".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"B@B1@@@@
$5597>97659:
@!A
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5976<7659:%L$G&" ,$55>553593659:$@+= $JCD) '**$.*4 "/ !959;55555;698:6$6ME?8385
5976<7659:%L$G&" ,$55>553593659:$@+= $JCD) '**$%*1 *!"959;55555;698:6$E?>3>8
@!A$$H "&)$$>M>99358
$5$H "&)2$>M>99358
@A;L"1"0 >+"F *4' % -*"6'$G*1"RA@K:;K"6,*)27$>M>99358
@CB9"1".)! G" ,$-*'D"S 'H4 " ,,Q".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"B@B1@@@@@1KB
$:>599597>97659:
@!A8::9<
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975E7659:659:$=*C(*1#,/D$. *#959;:9>55;::>>5$998355
@!A$8::9<$H "&)$$998355
$:>599$H "&)2$998355
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$>
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$998355
@CB9"1".)! G" ,$-*'D"S 'H4 " ,,Q"6,*)27
+SS>"1"> *'," 4*4 G".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>596597>97659:
@!A:
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975F7659:659:$=*C(*1#,/D$. *#959;:9>55;::>>5$>MF8E355
@!A$:$H "&)$$>MF8E355
$:>596$H "&)2$>MF8E355
$>MF8E355
+SS>"1"> *'," 4*4 G"6,*)27
@KC;"1"/4*- D"<,? G1> * '"S 'H4 ".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>59>597>97659:
@!A8>:<E8:;I 9:
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5979>7659:I&! &1'$659:$L*!"&)$+,&1N*#959;:9?55;::9?5$?5F3E5
@!A$8>:<E8:;I 9:$H "&)$$?5F3E5
$:>59>$H "&)2$?5F3E5
$?5F3E5
@KC;"1"/4*- D"<,? G1> * '"S 'H4 "6,*)27
BA;L"1"S*)-P)'P"0-G$')- " ,%Q)-D".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"B@B1@@@@@1KB
$:>59:597>97659:
@!A9:8:<5;56659:
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
597987659:U*(1 &1'$659:$RH.7BH.7B/V*$@!# 1&! *959;55555;698>>$9M89?365
@!A$9:8:<5;56659:$H "&)$$9M89?365
$:>59:$H "&)2$9M89?365
$9M89?365
BA;L"1"S*)-P)'P"0-G$')- " ,%Q)-D"6,*)27
@AKL"1"S*)Q2 G"<$G4- GG"+PH)-*)3 ".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"B@B1:B8@@1:K
$:>59?597>97659:
@!A>69<>:>696
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975:7659:WVV/ *$R DD)/*#959;:9?55;:6595$6><355
@!A$>69<>:>696$H "&)$$6><355
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A>69<>:>69>
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975:7659:WVV/ *$R DD)/*#959;:9?55;:6595$96?3<F
@!A$>69<>:>69>$H "&)$$96?3<F
@!A>69<><F?:6
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
597587659:WVV/ *$R DD)/*#959;:9?55;:6595$9<<3<<
@!A$>69<><F?:6$H "&)$$9<<3<<
$:>59?$H "&)2$?E:3<8
$?E:3<8
@AKL"1"S*)Q2 G"<$G4- GG"+PH)-*)3 "6,*)27
8B;@"1"6 GG%)-"S P" ,M".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>59E597>97659:
@!AR9F8??6;@X
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5975>7659:@ *$=*)"959;:?655;:66:?$::83?5
@!A$R9F8??6;@X$H "&)$$::83?5
$:>59E$H "&)2$::83?5
8B;@"1"6 GG%)-"S P" ,M"6,*)27$::83?5
@8L9"1"64% S)H '"TEE"S4* "S ' *)'4)2".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>598597>97659:
@!A=656F8
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
5979:7659:5935F39:$%)&!!/!N$+ CC/##/ !$=**"/!N959;:9<95;:>995$6E63>F
@!A$=656F8$H "&)$$6E63>F
$:>598$H "&)2$6E63>F
@8L9"1"64% S)H '"TEE"S4* "S ' *)'4)2"6,*)27$6E63>F
@B@B"1"J4--4 !"S$QQ2D".4- "0* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>59F597>97659:
@!A6EE5><
B/!*$@"*C$.&"*B/!*$@"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$@"*C$ !"
597567659:%Q$R DD)/*#868;:<855;:6695$?F35:
@!A$6EE5><$H "&)$$?F35:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$?
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$:>59F$H "&)2$?F35:
$?F35:
@B@B"1"J4--4 !"S$QQ2D"6,*)27
H "&)2$9EM?<>385
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<266$ =P%&N*$E
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<269 =
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
.//0"1"2 '3 '"2$45*" ,-6*'$ *4,-"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>59<567587659:
?!@5659659:
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
567597659:F# 1 G$H*)*&#*2$IF$6596;55J:8959;55555;66555$6D85E3E6
?!@$5659659:$K "&)$$6D85E3E6
$:>59<$K "&)2$6D85E3E6
$6D85E3E6
.//0"1"2 '3 '"2$45*" ,-6*'$ *4,-"9,*)5:
;<.<"1" )%=& 55">-$*6,-"1"+**,'- ?6")*"7)@"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>565567587659:
?!@>6>9I;96659>
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;?!#C* "/ !#959;:6:55;:>5:5$85355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;H !4$A&-*$H &4:99;:NE65;:>5:5$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;569959;55555;66555$85355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#; 4B/!959;:9>55;:>5:5$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;K+ %959;:9J55;:>5:5$85355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%OP959;:9<95;:>5:5$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%OP959;:9<95;:>5:5$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$99;59J959;55555;66555$<55355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;55>959;55555;66555$85355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;569959;55555;66555$96E355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9:;55E959;55555;66555$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;598959;55555;66555$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;598959;55555;66555$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9:;55E959;55555;66555$9:5355
967>97659>.* *B(*1$659>$A*L&)$M**#;%+$9>;59>959;55555;66555$85355
?!@$>6>9I;96659>$K "&)$$6D:<E355
$:>565$K "&)2$6D:<E355
$6D:<E355
;<.<"1" )%=& 55">-$*6,-"1"+**,'- ?6")*"7)@"9,*)5:
.//<"1" ,$-*'?"A4-)- 4)5"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>569567587659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$Q6787659:$;$$<269$ =R%&L*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
?!@565E659:;+M
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5675E7659:%+$9>;55N$F# 1 G$H*)*&#*959;55555;66555$9DNN63:5
?!@$565E659:;+M$K "&)$$9DNN63:5
$:>569$K "&)2$9DNN63:5
$9DNN63:5
.//<"1" ,$-*'?"A4-)- 4)5"9,*)5:
BCD9"1"()!,*)"E$==5?"F',$=G"8- H"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>566567587659:
?!@N>9>J9E
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
597987659:%S$T CC)/*#J59;:<::5;:6695$9D<563:J
?!@$N>9>J9E$K "&)$$9D<563:J
$:>566$K "&)2$9D<563:J
$9D<563:J
BCD9"1"()!,*)"E$==5?"F',$=G"8- H"9,*)5:
I;.."1"( =*H",J"+K%4-46*')*4,-"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56>567587659:
?!@S9>965J85
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5979E7659:.* *B(*1$659>$%, !*$U/))86N;:<<55;:>695$89J3J5
?!@$S9>965J85$K "&)$$89J3J5
$:>56>$K "&)2$89J3J5
$89J3J5
I;.."1"( =*H",J"+K%4-46*')*4,-"9,*)5:
.ILL"1"74**5 "A)556"D) 4- G"8- "74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56:567587659:
?!@555E6J9:
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5975<7659:V*,/ )*$W959$H*C&/1$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$EN38<
?!@$555E6J9:$K "&)$$EN38<
?!@555E6JJ>
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5975<7659:V*,/ )*$W959$H*C&/1$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$>J:3>J
?!@$555E6JJ>$K "&)$$>J:3>J
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$Q6787659:$;$$<269$ =R%&L*$6
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$:>56:$K "&)2$:6>39E
$:6>39E
.ILL"1"74**5 "A)556"D) 4- G"8- "9,*)5:
I;0M"1"D,$-K6N4 @"O$&54 "E ,,56"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56E567587659:
?!@E66:
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
597587659:.* *B(*1$659>$M& /)/"'$H*!"&)$+,&1L*#959;:E965;::96E$9983E8
?!@$E66:$K "&)$$9983E8
$:>56E$K "&)2$9983E8
$9983E8
I;0M"1"D,$-K6N4 @"O$&54 "E ,,56"9,*)5:
/000"1"#,'54-3G"D 5466)"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56J567587659:
?!@5995659:;=X
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
597957659:M&))7S/!"*1$659>$.&! *$A*## !#959;:E965;:>585$<>E355
?!@$5995659:;=X$K "&)$$<>E355
$:>56J$K "&)2$<>E355
$<>E355
/000"1"#,'54-3G"D 5466)"9,*)5:
PIQ<"1"O) "+-)5?*4 )5"A4 5K"EN "74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>568567587659:
?!@969:55E:
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5979:7659:.* *B(*1$659>$S&"*1$K*1#"/!L$M**#J59;:<::5;:>N69$88<3E5
?!@$969:55E:$K "&)$$88<3E5
$:>568$K "&)2$88<3E5
$88<3E5
PIQ<"1"O) "+-)5?*4 )5"A4 5K"EN "9,*)5:
IP;;"1"R)%6 ?" ,$-*?"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56N567587659:
?!@%0US;59>>95
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5976N7659:Y>$O$Y:$659>$T*1@/ *#$" $FB*1L*! '$%1*;FBC"/ !$T'#"*B959;:6>55;::595$9N:3E<
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$Q6787659:$;$$<269$ =R%&L*$>
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
?!@$%0US;59>>95$K "&)$$9N:3E<
$:>56N$K "&)2$9N:3E<
$9N:3E<
IP;;"1"R)%6 ?" ,$-*?"9,*)5:
ERA "1"ERA" ,-6$5*4-3"F',$=G"8- H"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>56<567587659:
?!@5N>6N355;9
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
967>97659>%+$9>;598$.* *B(*1$659>$+,&1L*#959;55555;66555$:D55:3J8
?!@$5N>6N355;9$K "&)$$:D55:3J8
$:>56<$K "&)2$:D55:3J8
$:D55:3J8
ERA "1"ERA" ,-6$5*4-3"F',$=G"8- H"9,*)5:
IQQ/"1"9H+H"E 4J!6?"S"E,-6G"8- H"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>5567587659:
?!@EJ5N6
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
597957659:659>$S&"1*B&/!$H*C&/1J59;:<::5;::5:5$:6N38E
?!@$EJ5N6$K "&)$$:6N38E
$:>5>5$K "&)2$:6N38E
$:6N38E
IQQ/"1"9H+H"E 4J!6?"S"E,-6G"8- H"9,*)5:
I.M/"1"94% E)N '"TJJ"E4* "E ' *)'4)5"74- "8* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>9567587659:
?!@=656J<
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5979>7659:967<D$9679JD$9676J$++$="L#959;:9955;:>995$88:3>5
?!@$=656J<$K "&)$$88:3>5
$:>5>9$K "&)2$88:3>5
$88:3>5
I.M/"1"94% E)N '"TJJ"E4* "E ' *)'4)5"9,*)5:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$Q6787659:$;$$<269$ =R%&L*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
K "&)2$98D>:<3E9
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$Q6787659:$;$$<269$ =R%&L*$E
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<298 =
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
./.."0"1234..0# 5678"9:-- ;,*)"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"2.20.....0>2?1@
$:>5>?567587659:
@!A>9BC69:
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597667659:G&! &1'$659:$%&'1 ))$.*4 "/ !#959;55555;698>:$?:355
@!A$>9BC69:$H "&)$$?:355
$:>5>?$H "&)2$?:355
$?:355
./.."0"1234..0# 5678"9:-- ;,*)"A,*)BC
+2DE"0"+02"DFG')$B: "8)B ;"H"8 'I: "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>8567587659:
@!A59598C8;@I
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975C7659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$8639>
@!A$59598C8;@I$H "&)$$8639>
$:>5>8$H "&)2$8639>
+2DE"0"+02"DFG')$B: "8)B ;"H"8 'I: "A,*)BC$8639>
5 8="0"+BB" ,I ' G"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>C567587659:
@!AB<::>>
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597657659:659:$ !! &)$=&/!"*!&! *$+ !"1& "959;:9B55;::5:5$9K6B5355
@!A$B<::>>$H "&)$$9K6B5355
$:>5>C$H "&)2$9K6B5355
5 8="0"+BB" ,I ' G"A,*)BC$9K6B5355
3//2"0"+% ': )-"J:B:-K"8,B$*:,-;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5><567587659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A565B659:; =O
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5675B7659:O/)/!L$P" 1&L*$P'#"*E:5C;:C955;:B855$6>KB?C36B
@!A$565B659:; =O$H "&)$$6>KB?C36B
$:>5><$H "&)2$6>KB?C36B
$6>KB?C36B
3//2"0"+% ': )-"J:B:-K"8,B$*:,-;"A,*)BC
5J2"0" -*')B"5 -;:,-"J$-G"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"2.20.....0>2??>
$:>5:5567587659:
@!A59>9659:;+%O
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597>97659:G&! &1'$659:$+ !"1/( "/ !#959;55555;69886$9KC:>365
@!A$59>9659:;+%O$H "&)$$9KC:>365
$:>5:5$H "&)2$9KC:>365
$9KC:>365
5J2"0" -*')B"5 -;:,-"J$-G"A,*)BC
LM<"0" :*F",N"L :* "M )'"<)! "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:9567587659:
@!A<9?>
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975C7659:Q&E#*'$+ !"'$659:$R@P$O**#959;:9<95;::>>5$<?93C<
@!A$<9?>$H "&)$$<?93C<
$:>5:9$H "&)2$<?93C<
$<?93C<
LM<"0" :*F",N"L :* "M )'"<)! "A,*)BC
.11O"0"J 'K$;,-"L)* 'P,'!;">32/"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:6567587659:
@!A55?8B95
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597987659:%J$P FF)/*#?59;:<::5;:6695$B5355
@!A$55?8B95$H "&)$$B5355
@!A55?8B6?
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5979?7659:%J$P FF)/*#?59;:<::5;:6695$:93?>
@!A$55?8B6?$H "&)$$:93?>
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$6
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$:>5:6$H "&)2$<93?>
$<93?>
.11O"0"J 'K$;,-"L)* 'P,'!;">32/"A,*)BC
.2?/"0"J')**)BB,- Q;"D)'GP)' R"=- S"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:>567587659:
@!A5B8:9B;
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597567659:%J$P FF)/*#868;:<855;:6695$>93<<
@!A$5B8:9B; $H "&)$$>93<<
@!A5B8:?5;
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975?7659:%J$P FF)/*#868;:<855;:6695$9<36B
@!A$5B8:?5; $H "&)$$9<36B
$:>5:>$H "&)2$B936:
.2?/"0"J')**)BB,- Q;"D)'GP)' R"=- S"A,*)BC$B936:
@@?."0"T<A "5' %:$%"5)F% -*;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"2.20.....0>2?3>
$:>5::567587659:
@!A9>:C859
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597657659:O*(1 &1'$659:$D !L$H*1E$+&1*959;55555;698B6$9C83::
597657659:G&! &1'$659:$D !L$H*1E$+&1*$ 4S #"E*!"959;55555;698B6$95?36:
@!A$9>:C859$H "&)$$6<>3?C
$:>5::$H "&)2$6<>3?C
@@?."0"T<A "5' %:$%"5)F% -*;"A,*)BC$6<>3?C
.2O>"0"T'):-K 'R"=- "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:B567587659:
@!A<>>?66?56>
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597957659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$:>3B:
@!A$<>>?66?56>$H "&)$$:>3B:
@!A<>>C95B6BC
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5979>7659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$9BB3::
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$>
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A$<>>C95B6BC$H "&)$$9BB3::
$:>5:B$H "&)2$9<C3<C
$9<C3<C
.2O>"0"T'):-K 'R"=- "A,*)BC
.?@2"0"T' -"<:K *;"7 F B:-KR"=- "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:?567587659:
@!A9:;99?8
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597987659:O) 1*# *!"$D/L,"$Q* ' )/!L959;:9<:5;:>C:5$:835?
@!A$9:;99?8$H "&)$$:835?
$:>5:?$H "&)2$:835?
$:835?
.?@2"0"T' -"<:K *;"7 F B:-KR"=- "A,*)BC
.@@?"0"=SUSVS6"<, )B"@O"M - N:*"J$-G0=-;$')- "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*
$:>5:8567587659:
@!A569B659:;@0TU
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5679B7659:=&1 ,$659:$%J$V*!*W/"#959;55555;698>6$9K9B8355
@!A$569B659:;@0TU$H "&)$$9K9B8355
$:>5:8$H "&)2$9K9B8355
$9K9B8355
.@@?"0"=SUSVS6"<, )B"@O"M - N:*"J$-G0=-;$')- "A,*)BC
.>2."0"W)* "J$ B"V:B"8 'I: "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:C567587659:
@!A::??>9
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597587659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$<836B
@!A$::??>9$H "&)$$<836B
$:>5:C$H "&)2$<836B
$<836B
.>2."0"W)* "J$ B"V:B"8 'I: "A,*)BC
33O@"0"W' X :R"8 :B)"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5:<567587659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A59>9659:;PX
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597>97659:%YZ$H1&/!/!L959;:9<95;::>6B$:B536B
@!A$59>9659:;PX$H "&)$$:B536B
$:>5:<$H "&)2$:B536B
$:B536B
33O@"0"W' X :R"8 :B)"A,*)BC
<+Y+"0"<)Z)'$;"6-* '[':; ;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B5567587659:
@!A8C>
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597967659:%)&!!/!L$U!L1&A/!L$P*1A/ *#959;:9<95;:65>5$C3B5
@!A$8C>$H "&)$$C3B5
$:>5B5$H "&)2$C3B5
$C3B5
<+Y+"0"<)Z)'$;"6-* '[':; ;"A,*)BC
9U8W+"0"9$;!)"<:K *:-KR"=- S"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B9567587659:
@!A9C568<
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597957659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$99<35:
@!A$9C568<$H "&)$$99<35:
$:>5B9$H "&)2$99<35:
$99<35:
9U8W+"0"9$;!)"<:K *:-KR"=- S"A,*)BC
.>O>"0"V\FK -"8 'I: " ,%[)-FR"=- S"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B6567587659:
@!A588::9<B
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597957659:%J$P FF)/*#868;:<855;:6695$>CC38>
@!A$588::9<B$H "&)$$>CC38>
$:>5B6$H "&)2$>CC38>
$>CC38>
.>O>"0"V\FK -"8 'I: " ,%[)-FR"=- S"A,*)BC
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$B
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
...1"0"5 '%:*L,'!;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B>567587659:
@!A659:;555:
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975C7659:659:$P FF 1"$%)&!959;:9>55;:>5C5$>55355
5975C7659:659:$P FF 1"$%)&!959;:9<95;:>5C5$9K:<B355
5975C7659:659:$P FF 1"$%)&!959;:6:55;:>5C5$>KBCB355
5975C7659:659:$P FF 1"$%)&!?56;:<:<5;:>5C5$6<B355
@!A$659:;555:$H "&)$$BK?8B355
$:>5B>$H "&)2$BK?8B355
$BK?8B355
...1"0"5 '%:*L,'!;"A,*)BC
@@@3"0"5:,- '"7:%")-G"L B" ,S"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B:567587659:
@!A9;66CC5?
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975C7659:%J$%&1"#868;:<855;:6695$99C3B5
@!A$9;66CC5?$H "&)$$99C3B5
$:>5B:$H "&)2$99C3B5
@@@3"0"5:,- '"7:%")-G"L B" ,S"A,*)BC$99C3B5
222."0"5:*- F"M,P ;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5BB567587659:
@!A596>659:;%V
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5976>7659:G&! &1'$659:$% #"&L*959;:9955;:>665$B9C3:B
5976>7659:G&! &1'$659:$% #"&L*959;:9B55;:>665$9<3<<
@!A$596>659:;%V$H "&)$$B>C3::
$:>5BB$H "&)2$B>C3::
222."0"5:*- F"M,P ;"A,*)BC$B>C3::
.1>?"0"8*)[B ;"M$;:- ;;"+GI)-*)K "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"2.20@23..0@>
$:>5B?567587659:
@!A>69<B5>C89
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5975<7659:TWW/ *$P FF)/*#959;:9B55;:6595$6><3>>
@!A$>69<B5>C89$H "&)$$6><3>>
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$?
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A>69<C<9?6B
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597997659:TWW/ *$P FF)/*#959;:9B55;:6595$6953<?
@!A$>69<C<9?6B$H "&)$$6953<?
$:>5B?$H "&)2$:B536<
$:B536<
.1>?"0"8*)[B ;"M$;:- ;;"+GI)-*)K "A,*)BC
22?3"0"A#A" B )-:-K")-G" ,-;$B*:-KR"=# "<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B8567587659:
@!A6?856?
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597957659:G&! &1'$659:$+)*&!/!L959;:9<:5;:>C:5$C:B355
@!A$6?856?$H "&)$$C:B355
$:>5B8$H "&)2$C:B355
$C:B355
22?3"0"A#A" B )-:-K")-G" ,-;$B*:-KR"=# "A,*)BC
UVJ9"0"U-:I ';:*F",N"9:-- ;,*)"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5BC567587659:
@!A5B5?659:;H=
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
5B75?7659:H1**$Q*;+*1"/W/ &"/ !$H1&/!/!L;=/-& *A/ ,959;:B655;::>6B$CB355
@!A$5B5?659:;H=$H "&)$$CB355
$:>5BC$H "&)2$CB355
$CB355
UVJ9"0"U-:I ';:*F",N"9:-- ;,*)"A,*)BC
.O@."0"Y "9 G: )B"8 'I: ;"<:- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5B<567587659:
@!AB:5BB55>
D/!*$@"*E$.&"*D/!*$@"*E$.*# 1/F"/ !D/!*$@"*E$ !"
597587659:=*4/ &)$P FF)/*#959;:9B55;:6595$86385
597587659:=*4/ &)$P FF)/*#868;:<855;:6595$9B53:B
@!A$B:5BB55>$H "&)$$66>39B
$:>5B<$H "&)2$66>39B
.O@."0"Y "9 G: )B"8 'I: ;"A,*)BC$66>39B
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$8
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
H "&)2$>CKB<C369
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$M6787659:$;$$<298$ =N%&L*$C
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<29< =
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
.//0"1"#,2)13',4*"5- ,'6,')* 7"89- "5* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>:567587659:
?!@9>;9><6
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
9979:7659>H @*B(*1$659>$I&!/"&1'$I*J*1$K*C&/1F56;:<:<5;::5:5$9DE9FG3GG
?!@$9>;9><6$L "&)$$9DE9FG3GG
$:>5>:$L "&)2$9DE9FG3GG
$9DE9FG3GG
.//0"1"#,2)13',4*"5- ,'6,')* 7":,*);<
=>??"1"@)%4 A" ,$-*A"89- "5* %"+ ,$-*"
$:>5>D567587659:
?!@%0MN;59>>6G
A/!*$?"*B$.&"*A/!*$?"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$?"*B$ !"
5976G7659:.* *B(*1$659>$M )-$K& 4$I&)"959;:>955;:66:F$6FE85639<
?!@$%0MN;59>>6G$L "&)$$6FE85639<
$:>5>D$L "&)2$6FE85639<
=>??"1"@)%4 A" ,$-*A":,*);<$6FE85639<
L "&)2$:9EG89358
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$P6787659:$;$$<29<$ =Q%&O*$9
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*12&#,)*'3(*1"1&!4
%1/!"*42567587659:$;$$<29= >
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
./00"1" 232 4567"58- "2* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?5@5567587659:
A!B9:=??=
C/!*$A"*D$.&"*C/!*$A"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$A"*D$ !"
5?7?97659:659:$H*(#/"*$>&/!"*!&! *$+,&1I*#66G;:9<@5;::859$<F=:=355
A!B$9:=??=$J "&)$$<F=:=355
$:?5@5$J "&)2$<F=:=355
$<F=:=355
./00"1" 232 4567"9,*):;
/<<0"1"2=6=>=?"5, ):"<@"A - B8*"C$-D12-E$')- "58- "2* %"+ ,$-*
$:?5@9567587659:
A!B5639=3659:
C/!*$A"*D$.&"*C/!*$A"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$A"*D$ !"
5679=7659:>&1 ,$659:$%H$K*!*L/"#959;55555;698?6$GF5<@355
A!B$5639=3659:$J "&)$$GF5<@355
$:?5@9$J "&)2$GF5<@355
/<<0"1"2=6=>=?"5, ):"<@"A - B8*"C$-D12-E$')- "9,*):;$GF5<@355
/G<H"1"I *',J,:8*)-" ,$- 8:1K)E* "K)* '"58- "2* %"+ ,$-*"
$:?5@6567587659:
A!B55595?56=8
C/!*$A"*D$.&"*C/!*$A"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$A"*D$ !"
5675?7659:>&1 ,$659:$H&#"*M&"*1$N*1B/ *$+,&1I*#@56;:<:<5;:?G=5$=:F5853:G
A!B$55595?56=8$J "&)$$=:F5853:G
$:?5@6$J "&)2$=:F5853:G
/G<H"1"I *',J,:8*)-" ,$- 8:1K)E* "K)* '"9,*):;$=:F5853:G
#7 "1"#,'* "7$&$'&)-" ,%%$-8 )*8,-E" ,%%8EE8,-"58- "2* %"+ ,$-
$:?5@?567587659:
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<29=$ >P%&I*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
A!B9?;:8?
C/!*$A"*D$.&"*C/!*$A"*D$.*# 1/E"/ !C/!*$A"*D$ !"
597697659:659:$+/"'$+ !"1/( "/ !66G;:9<@5;::??5$66F?@6359
A!B$9?;:8?$J "&)$$66F?@6359
$:?5@?$J "&)2$66F?@6359
$66F?@6359
#7 "1"#,'* "7$&$'&)-" ,%%$-8 )*8,-E" ,%%8EE8,-"9,*):;
J "&)2$<:F58?3:<
%;+,* -$.*"&/)$O6787659:$;$$<29=$ >P%&I*$6
CONSENT ITEM 5B
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 10, 2014
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM:
Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of TAT Properties, LLC for
a PUD Amendment for Property at 1201 County Road E (Planning Case 13-017)
Requested Action
Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision regarding the application of TAT
Properties, LLC for a PUD Amendment for the property at 1201 County Road E in Planning
Case 13-017.
Background
On January 27, 2014, the City Council considered the application of TAT Properties, LLC for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at 1201 County Road E in Planning Case 13-017.
The City Council evaluated the submitted project proposal and plans, the staff report and
attachments dated January 27, 2014, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission
meeting of January 8, 2014. The City Council voted to deny (5-0) the application and directed
the City Attorney to draft the Findings of Fact and Decision to be reviewed by the City Council
at the meeting on February 10, 2014. The City Attorney has completed the Findings of Fact and
Decision document, which is included in Attachment A.
Recommendation
The City Council is asked to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision regarding the application
of TAT Properties, LLC for a PUD Amendment for the property at 1201 County Road E in
Planning Case 13-017.
Attachments
Attachment A: Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of TAT Properties,
LLC for a PUD Amendment for Property at 1201 County Road E (Planning Case 13-017).
Attachment A
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE:
APPLICATION OF TAT PROPERTIES, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR A PUD AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY AND DECISION
AT 1201 COUNTY ROAD E
(PLANNING CASE 13-017)
On January 27, 2014, the Arden Hills City Council met to consider the application of TAT
Properties, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at 1201 County Road E.
The City Council considered the following information on the proposal: Previous land use
actions involving the subject property, including Planning Case 12-019, a Master and Final
Planned Unit Development; concept review information provided by the applicant and city staff
at the November 18, 2013 City Council work session; the project proposal and plans submitted
by the applicant, the Staff Report, including Attachments, dated January 27, 2014; information
from the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2014 including its
report and recommendation; heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and;
based upon its knowledge of the subject property and the community, now makes the following:
FF
INDINGS OF ACT
1. The property is located in the B-2 General Business District.
2. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District that outlines future development
principals for the area.
3. The City has adopted additional Design Standards and Special Requirements (§1320.085)
for the B-2 District within the Zoning Code.
4. The Master PUD at 1201 County Road E was approved by the City on December 21, 2012
in Planning Case 12-019 allowing for the repurposing of the existing 56,369 square foot building on
the property for 74 residential apartments and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space.
5. The Master PUD Development Agreement requires that any significant changes to the
approved plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council.
6. The applicant is requesting approval of an Amendment to the approved PUD to construct a
second, 17,743 square foot retail building, along with related parking and landscape improvements
on the southeast corner of the property at 1201 County Road E.
7. The PUD process allows for flexibility within
process with a developer.
8. The approximately two acre eastern portion of the subject property proposed for development
under the PUD amendment would be primarily accessed from County Road E using the existing east
access.
9. In their consideration of the proposed Master PUD at 1201 County Road E in Planning Case
12-
dated November 28, 2012. The study
evaluated two concept site plans for the two-acre eastern portion of the property: one option included
a single 5,625 square foot restaurant generating 715 daily trips, and the second option included a
single 9,000 square foot retail building generating 384 daily trips. Both of these previously proposed
options are less intense uses in terms of building size and traffic generation as compared to the
17,743 square foot retail building proposed in Planning Case 13-017, which was expected to generate
1,016 daily trips.
10. The high volume of traffic, entry and exit restrictions, circulation pattern and turning
movements associated with the proposed use of the eastern access raise safety concerns given the
residential apartment use of the existing structure and traffic on County Road E.
11. The intensity of the use proposed is excessive in light of the residential use currently on the
property, and could be exacerbated by future use(s) of the proposed structure.
D
ECISION
Based upon these findings
the proposed PUD Amendment as detailed in the record for the Property located at 1201 County
Road E is hereby denied.
th
ADOPTED
by the Arden Hills City Council this 10 day of February, 2014.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
BY: ______________________________
David Grant, Its Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Patrick Klaers, Its City Administrator
7A
PUBLIC HEARING
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 10, 2014
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM:
Mayor Grant
SUBJECT:
TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity for Residents
Discussion
UnderthisPublicHearing,citizenshaveanopportunitytodiscussideasregardingTCAAP
development.
PUBLIC HEARING 7B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2014
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Franchise Fee Public Hearing
Attached is the franchise fee report for the presentation at the February 10, 2014, public
hearing. Included with this report are Attachments A I which are also part of the
PowerPoint presentation. Also included is the Trails Map that will available as a public
handout at the meeting.
The City Council requested that the franchise fee public hearing presentation include
information on the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) so that it can be explained what
capital improvements the City is and is not doing and why the City is exploring options
for generating additional revenues. Accordingly, it appears that just under half of the
presentation will be dedicated to the City CIP and the balance of the presentation will be
about franchise fees. The information in this report has previously been reviewed by the
Council at work sessions in 2013. The report and presentation will be directed to the
public in the audience and at home watching on CTV.
The purpose of the public hearing is to present factual information on the City CIP and on
franchise fees and to receive public feedback on the proposal.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2014
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Franchise Free Public Hearing
Introduction
The Arden Hills City Council has called for two public hearings to discuss a proposal to
establish a City franchise fee on electric and gas services provided by Xcel Energy. The
purpose of these hearings is to present information on the proposal and to obtain feedback
from the public.
Before discussing the franchise fee proposal, some background information needs to be
presented on the CityCapital Improvement Plan (CIP) and why the City Council is
exploring additional sources of revenues for the CIP. In this regard, Director of Finance
and Administrative Services Sue Iverson and Public Works Director Terry Maurer will
present information on:
the funding sources for recently completed CIP projects;
the current CIP for streets, parks, and trails and the non-programmed CIP
projects;
reserve funds; and
The funding options available to the City Council if they want to do more
than what is currently in the CIP.
Background
The CIP is a long range plan that matches up needed projects with available funds.
Annually the City Council evaluates the long range CIP and adopts a five year plan. Over
the past few years the City Council has expressed concern regarding having enough
money for trail and park improvements while at the same time completing the needed
street projects in a timely manner. This is a challenge because the main funding source
that is available for the street, park, and trail improvements is the Permanent
Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund and this money tends to be used first for streets; then
is used for trails, parks, and other capital expenditures that are needed.
Part of the problem for funding improvements to trails and parks is due to the fact that the
City has no fund balance in the park dedication reserve. New development projects
15
Page of
typically pay a park dedication fee to the City and, according to state law, these funds can
only be used for park and trail capital improvements. The City has depleted all of its park
dedication funds and, as a fully developed City (excluding the TCAAP site), there are no
additional park dedication funds expected for park and trail improvements. This lack of
park dedication money means that trails and parks are in competition with streets and
other capital expenditures for the same PIR funds.
CIP Projects and Finances
In looking at the City CIP, it needs to be stated that the City is in a good position
financially and the City can keep up the essential street improvement
projects. However, if the City wants to do more improvements to trails and parks and to
complete street improvements in a more timely manner, then additional revenues are
required.
Recently the City completed a number of CIP project for parks, trails and streets.
Attachment A shows the funding for the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013 Pavement
Management Program (PMP) projects. The funding for these projects has come from
assessments to benefitted property owners, City utility funds, and the City PIR reserve.
Attachment B shows the funding for the recent Valentine Park improvement project, the
Hazelnut Park acquisition, and three trail improvement projects. Funding for these
projects came from a wide variety of sources including: grants, donations, Municipal
State Aid funds (MSA), and City reserves (park dedication, PIR, utility funds, and
equipment/building fund).
The City CIP includes a number of PMP projects and other street improvements. These
projects are shown on Attachment C and include projects forecasted out almost 20 years.
The Round Lake Road improvement project, the 2015 PMP project, and the B2 District
improvement project are in the adopted five year CIP while the other street projects listed
are not yet officially programmed. One of the goals of the City Council with the non-
programmed projects is to move them forward in the schedule by identifying additional
funding sources or by adjusting the scope of the projects when appropriate.
The five year CIP includes using PIR funds for some needed park improvements.
Attachment D shows a list of typical park improvements and some of these projects are in
the 2014-18 CIP. Annually the City council evaluates adding park projects into the five
year CIP.
not
Trail improvements are included in the five year CIP. The 2002 Parks Master Plan
includes a significant amount of trail improvements. Attachment E shows the amount of
existing trails and sidewalks that has been developed in the City and the amount of
proposed future trails and sidewalks. This attachment also shows that the cost of a
concrete sidewalk is about $500,000 per mile and that the trails can cost between
$800,000 and $1,200,000 per mile to construct. A map that shows eight miles of high
priority trail projects is available on the back table.
Regarding funds for the CIP projects, the PIR fund is the main source of money.
Attachment F shows the combined total balance of all the Capital funds (Parks, PIR, and
25
Page of
Equipment/Building). The park reserve fund shows the balance being near zero and the
only reason the fund is not in a deficit position is due to transfers from the PIR fund. On
the other hand, the PIR reserve, as shown on the attachment, has a substantial fund
balance. This fund needs a high level of reserves due to the fact that the City does not
issue bonds for PMP projects. This means that the City is internally financing PMP
projects and the assessed portion is paid back over time usually over 7-10 years. So far,
the City has been fortunate to collect a large amount of the assessments up front, but this
might not always be the case. The City Council could also decide that it wants to use the
PIR reserves to undertake a large trail or a large PMP improvement project; and the City
Council needs to be ready if a good project/matching grant opportunity comes along.
During past CIP meetings, the City Council has expressed their concern regarding the
lack of funding for trails and parks and that street improvement projects were not getting
completed in a timely manner. To address these concerns, the City Council looked at
ways to generate additional revenues. The main funding options to generate additional
revenues that the City Council discussed include:
increasing property taxes (general fund levy);
proposing a public referendum to fund a multi-year park and trail
improvement program (bonding with a levy); and
Considering an electric and gas service franchise fee program.
After considering the pros and cons of these three options, the City Council decided to
further explore franchise fees as a source of additional revenues for CIP projects.
Franchise Fee Proposal
The City Council met with our area Xcel Energy representative (Colette Jurek, Manager
Community & Local Government Relations) at three work sessions in 2013 to learn
more about franchise fees and to review funding options. Xcel Energy provides both
electric and gas services throughout Arden Hills.
Franchise fees are allowed by state law. When a franchise fee is established, Xcel
Energy, as the utility provider, will pass the fee on to the customer. The franchise fee is
charged to all utility customers and appears on the utility bill as a City fee. Xcel Energy
will collect the franchise fees for the City and remit the money to the City on a quarterly
basis.
Over the last 20 years, as funding for needed city services and programs has become
harder to obtain, municipal use of franchise fees has increased. Some cities use franchise
fees to compensate for the loss of Local Government Aid (LGA), while other cities use
franchise fees to finance capital projects such as street rehabilitation or trail
improvements.
Within the Xcel Energy service area about 68 cities have electric franchise fees and 27
cities have gas franchise fees. The Xcel Energy website includes a current list of all the
cities in their service area that collect franchise fees. The majority of these cities are in
the metro area and the list of cities with franchise fees includes our neighboring cities of
35
Page of
Mounds View, New Brighton, and Shoreview. The municipality on the list with the
lowest monthly fee at $1.25 per household is Maplewood and the highest monthly fee at
$7.00 per household is Forest Lake. The approach to charging franchise fees that Xcel
Energy approves of is the conversion of the fee to a flat amount per month for each
customer classification.
When comparing franchise fees as a revenue source to property taxes or a public
referendum, the following are viewed as advantages:
Franchise fees cover a wider base than property taxes. All customers pay
the fee, including tax exempt properties (and the City has a significant
amount of tax exempt properties).
Franchise fees will diversify .
Franchise fees are a reliable and steady source of revenue that is not
subject to state restrictions such as levy limits.
Franchise fees are charged as a flat fee; and all households pay the same
monthly amount regardless of property values or regardless of how much
electricity or gas is used in summer or winter.
Businesses and residents in newly constructed buildings or homes
contribute immediately; this eliminates the typical one or two year lag
time between receiving municipal services and paying property taxes.
Franchise fee revenues will increase as the City grows.
On the other hand, the following points can be viewed as disadvantages:
Unlike franchise fees on a service like cable television where the customer
may have some choices to receive the service or not; most businesses and
homes need both electric and gas services.
As franchise fees are charged on a flat fee basis, they could be considered
regressive in nature whereby a home that is valued at $150,000 pays the
same amount as a home that is valued at $500,000.
Unlike property taxes, franchise fees are not tax deductable.
After evaluating the overall City CIP situation, the City Council decided last October to
look at a residential based franchise fee of $3.00 per month for electric service and $1.75
per month for gas service. According to information provided by Xcel Energy, these rates
would generate approximately $439,236 annually and the breakdown by customer
classification for the revenue generated is shown in Attachment G.
The total franchise fee proposal is $4.75 for both electric and gas services. Some of the
percentages that can be derived from the figures in this proposal are listed below:
The electric fee generates 73% of the total revenues; and
the gas fee generates 27% of the total revenues.
The electric fee of $3.00/month is 63% of the $4.75 total proposal; and
the gas fee of $1.75/month is 37% of the $4.75 total proposal.
34% of the electric revenue comes from the residential classification;
and 48.5 of the gas revenue comes from the residential classification.
When combined, 38% of the electric and gas revenue comes from the
residential classification.
45
Page of
The City Council also compared the impact on homeowners of franchise fees verses
property taxes when generating the same amount of revenue. In the vast majority of
situations, homeowners pay less under the franchise fee program as compared to property
taxes. This analysis is shown in Attachments H.
Attachment I provides information on the breakdown between residential properties and
commercial/industrial (C/I) properties when paying a tax levy increase of $439,236. This
attachment also shows the breakdown between residential, C/I, and tax-exempt properties
when looking at the total City estimated market value. This chart shows that the tax-
exempt properties make up about 43% of the total City estimated market value.
In October 2013, the City Council also discussed using 60% of the franchise fee revenues
for trails and parks and 40% of the funds for streets. The City Council further discussed
that, if approved, the franchise fees program would not begin until January 1, 2015. The
City approval process involves the adoption of two City franchise fee ordinances.
Conclusion
This public hearing and the public hearing on February 24 are being held to receive
public input on franchise fees.
If the City Council decides that they need additional revenues to undertake additional CIP
projects or to move CIP projects ahead in the schedule, then establishing a franchise fee
on electric and gas services is an option worth evaluating. One of the advantages for a
franchise fees approach to generating additional revenues as compared to property taxes
as a revenue source is that franchise fees will be paid by all customers including the
customers that are exempt from paying property taxes.
Attachments
Attachment A Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Attachment B Park and Trail Improvements
Attachment C PMP & Other Street Projects
Attachment D - Typical Park Improvements
Attachment E Trails and Sidewalk Facts
Attachment F Reserve Balances
Attachment G - Franchise Fee Example
Attachment H Impact of Franchise Fee Compared to Tax Levy Increase
Attachment I Property Class Breakdown
55
Page of
Attachment A
Proposed Trails
Priority Listings
Trail Location
LengthLength
Segment
FeetMiles
HIGH PRIORITY
C2,956.800.56
New Brighton Road (County Rd. D to Stowe Ave.)
C.15,332.801.01
New Brighton Road (Stowe Ave. to County Road E2)
E1251.570.24
Lake Valentine Road (from segment E.1 path to bridge)
G2787.150.53
County Road E (Indian Pl. to Lk. Joh. Blvd. to Tony Schmidt U. Trail to end of park - north side)
G.11,742.400.33
Lake Johanna Blvd. (From Segment G to Old 10 - Snelling)
H2,184.840.41
County Road E (Old 10-Snelling to Connelly Ave.)
I4,382.400.83
Snelling Ave. (Highway 51 to County Road E)
I.11,056.000.20
Old Highway 10-Snelling (Cty Road E2 through CP Rail)
I.22,270.000.43
Old Highway 10-Snelling (from CP Rail to County Rd. E2)
I.38,870.001.68
Old Highway 10-Snelling (from Cty. Road E2 to Hwy. 96)
J2,258.400.43
Lake Valentine Road (Mounds View H.S. to Old 10-Snelling)
L3,941.460.75
County Road 96 (Hamline Ave. To North Heights (North side)
O3,383.000.64
Lexington Ave. (From County Road F to Grey Fox Road)
MEDIUM PRIORITY
D.1670.910.13
County Road E2 (Cleveland Ave. to New Brighton Rd.)
E.12,871.000.54
R.C. Open Space (from segment E path to MVHS)
Q1,372.800.26
Highway 51 (From Old Hwy. 10/Snelling to just past Glenhill Rd)
LOW PRIORITY
A2,623.310.5
Cleveland Ave. (County Road "D" to Stowe Ave.)
A.21,671.900.32
Cleveland Ave. (Thom Ct. to existing path off Cty E2)
B2,644.360.5
County Road D (Cleveland to New Brighton Road)
K2,395.210.45
Parkshore Dr. (from Old Hwy 10-Snelling to beginning of Rd. Lake Trail)
K12,164.800.41
Gateway Blvd. (from proposed segment K to Round Lk. Road)
K22,421.310.46
Round Lake Trail (Complete the loop that has a gap behind Deluxe Corp.)
K32,633.740.5
Round Lake Road W. (from Gateway Blvd. to existing trail off of 96)
M2,826.820.54
North Snelling Ave. (From County Road 96 to Briarknoll)
O.15,211.700.99
Lexington Ave. (From County Road E to Shoreline Lane)
O.27,889.601.50
Lexington Ave. (From Tanglewood to County Road I - West Side)
P838.190.16
Crepeau Preserve (From Cannon to Crepeau Nature Preserve)
P.11,266.210.24
Pine Tree Drive(From Cty Road E to existing grass trail into Crepeau)
R1,237.000.23
County Road E - (From Lexington to existing Concrete Sidewalk)
Total Future Trails81,904.1115.53
Part or whole segment has tentatively been designated to be built in
near future with road projects or development.
Trails are listed in alphabetical order within each priority category
and it does not reflect priority within the category.
Updated in December, 2013
O.2
)m
ABELE ST (Private)
Sun Fish
)m
Lake
%(d&
Arden
Manor
Park
!(
TODD DR (Private)
?@A÷
!(
?@÷
A
!(
!(
COUNTY ROAD 96 WCOUNTY ROAD 96 W
COUNTY ROAD 96 W
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
KEITHSON DR
!(
PLEASANT DR
M
Round
Long Lake
Regional Park
K.3
ARDEN
I.3
Lake
K.2
Royal
Hills
Park
Cummings
CT
Park
!(
!(
WEDGEWOOD
CIR
!(
)m
!(
Community
Gardens
K.1
DAWN
K
DAWN
!(
CIR W
CIR E
Floral
!(
Park
%(h&
VALENTINE
I.3
CREST RD
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
J
E.1
!(
Valentine
Tony Schmidt
Valentine
Regional Park%(h&
Lake
Park
GRAMSIE RD
Bridge
I.3
VENUS AVE
!(
O
!(
!(
Tony Schmidt
COUNTY ROAD E2 W
Regional Park
!(
!(
!(
D.1
!(
%(d&
I.2
Railroad
A.2
Viaduct
!(
!(
Charles
Perry Park
Arden
!(
!(
Oaks
Park
I.1
Railroad
R
UnderpassH
!(
!(
!(
!(
C.1
G.1!(
!(
!(
!(
Freeway
Lindey's
!(
Park
Park
P.1
!(
!(
I
Tony Schmidt
G
!(
Regional Park
!(
GRANT RD
Lake
P
O.1
Crepeau Nature
!(
Johanna
Preserve
Sampson
!(
Park
AVE
I
!(
!(
!(
Hazelnut
Park
A
Ingerson
C
Park
?@AÖ
!(
!(
Lake
Johanna
Marsh
Josephine
Q
B
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
Arden Hills Pathway
00.2750.551.1Miles
Priority Proposed Trails
µ
Legend
Data Sources and Contacts:
* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/15/13)Priority Proposed Trails
* City of Arden Hills
Prepared by:
DISCLAIMER:
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,
information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
City of Arden Hills Engineering Department
be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare
this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose
mapdoc: ArdenHillsPathway2014 priority.mxd
requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies
January 24, 2014 are found please contact 651-792-7846. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),
and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to
map: ArdenHillsPathway2014 priority.pdf
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which
arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Attachment A
CONSENT ITEM
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 9, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: County Road E (B-2 District) Feasibility Report
Requested Action
Adopt Resolution 2013-043 Receiving the Feasibility Report and authorizing the Preparation of
Plans and Specifications in the matter of the County Road E (B-2 District) Improvements.
Background/Discussion
This project has a long history. In 2008 the City Council prepared a Guiding Plan for the B-2
District with input from several of the business owners. In 2011 the Council hired Bolton and
Menk to prepare an Implementation Plan for the B-2 District based on the findings in the
Guiding Plan. The Implementation Plan was prepared over about an 18 month period which
included three meetings with the Corridor Advisory Committee (CAC), numerous meetings with
individual business owners and a few discussions at Council Work Sessions.
In December 2012 the Council accepted the final Implementation Plan and adopted Resolution
2013-054 Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for County Road E (B-2 District) and
authorized Bolton and Menk to proceed with this work. The Feasibility Report was a refinement
of the Phase 1 improvements discussed in the Implementation Plan and included a topographic
survey of the corridor. During the process several meetings were held with Ramsey County staff
concerning the proposed improvements and in September a written commitment was received
from Ramsey County to fund their portion of the improvements according to their Cost
Participation Policy. There were also two presentations at Council Work Sessions - June 10,
2013, to discuss the refined layout for Phase 1 improvements and October 14, 2013, to discuss
cost and assessment scenarios. A copy of the final Feasibility Report is attached.
12
Page of
As the Council is aware, the construction of these proposed improvements is planned for 2015 to
coincide with the MnDOT reconstruction of the bridge over TH 51.
recommendation that the Council accept the report and authorize Bolton and Menk to begin work
of the preparation of plans and specifications. This will allow work to proceed on more detailed
questions such as what will the new lights look like and where will they be placed; how many,
what variety and where will trees be planted; what existing sidewalks and driveways will be
repaired along with where will new sidewalks be placed; and maybe most important how will
customers continue to access businesses during construction. Also, in the schedule in the
Feasibility Report -
schedule a time to walk the corridor with 90% complete plans to answer specific business
owners questions before being invited to a Council Meeting for the Public Hearing/Assessment
Hearing.
Staff has asked Bolton and Menk to prepare a scope and budget to prepare plans and
specifications and to take the project through bidding and public/assessment hearings. That
scope of services and budget are attached. The total hourly cost not to exceed for these next
phase services is $135,960. -
043 which Accepts the Feasibility Report and Authorizes the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications.
Attachments
Attachment A - Final Feasibility Report
Attachment B - Resolution 2013-043
Attachment C Bolton and Menk Letter
22
Page of
Preliminary Engineering Report
County Road E Improvements
in
Arden Hills, MN
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
By: _______________________________________
Marcus Thomas, P.E.
License No. 26499
Date: November 27, 2013
1.0INTRODUCTION
1.1.PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................................... 1
1.2.BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1.COUNTY ROAD E ROADWAY ......................................................................................... 2
2.2.CONNELLY STREET........................................................................................................... 2
2.3.SIDEWALKS ......................................................................................................................... 2
3.0PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
3.1.COUNTY ROAD E ROADWAY ......................................................................................... 3
3.2.CONNELLY STREET........................................................................................................... 3
3.3.SIDEWALKS ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.4.OPTIONAL PRIVATE DRIVE CROSS ACCESS CONNECTIONS .................................. 4
3.5.TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 4
3.6.LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ...................................................................................... 4
4.0ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
5.0ASSESSMENTS
6.0RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS/PERMITS
7.0PROJECT SCHEDULE
8.0FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
1.1.PROJECT OVERVIEW
This report examines proposed improvements to the County Road E corridor generally between the
northbound Trunk Highway 51 (Snelling Avenue) ramps and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 51
Figure 1
(Lexington Avenue). The project location is depicted on . The primary elements of the
proposed work, which are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.0 of this report include the following:
Pavement seal coating
·
Roadway restriping
·
Median reconstruction
·
Geometric improvements
·
New sidewalk construction
·
ADA improvements (pedestrian ramps)
·
Traffic signal upgrades
·
Lighting and landscaping
·
1.2.BACKGROUND
The City of Arden Hills commissioned a study and plan, completed in October of 2008, entitled
(). County Road E is the central roadway through
Guiding Plan for the B-2 DistrictGuiding Plan
the B-2 District, which is bounded by TH 51 to the west, Canadian Pacific railroad tracks to the north,
Lexington Avenue to the east, and the east-west Harriet Avenue alignment to the south. An element of
the was to create a vision for the County Road E corridor which included transportation
Guiding Plan
(motorized and non-motorized), aesthetic, and general redevelopment recommendations.
In 2012, A process was initiated. Ramsey County
County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan
was a study partner, and the process included extensive local stakeholder engagement. Wide-ranging
transportation alternatives were studied and discussed. Aesthetic and non-motorized improvements
were also addressed. The recommendations that came out of this process advance the baseline goals of
the , but at a reduced initial scale, using a more flexible and incremental approach
Guiding Plan
supported by local stakeholders The baseline project goals are to:
.
Better balance the mobility and access functions of the roadway
·
Better accommodate non-motorized travelers
·
Improve corridor aesthetics
·
Based on the recommendations of the (December,
County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan
2012), the Arden Hills City Council adopted a Preferred Alternative for improvements to the corridor,
and directed Bolton & Menk to proceed with an engineering feasibility study. This work has included:
Additional property owner meetings
·
Completion of survey topography
·
Completion of preliminary engineering and design
·
2.1.COUNTY ROAD E ROADWAY
County Road E is a 5-lane B Minor Arterial Roadway under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County.
Based on MnDOT data, it currently carries over 14,000 vehicles per day. Pavement conditions are
generally good, and major maintenance is not required. Spot sections of concrete curb and driveway
aprons have deteriorated and require replacement.
The roadway has various characteristics which negatively impact operational and safety conditions for
vehicular travel (please note that non-motorized conditions are addressed under section 2.3, below). In
spite of the fact that it is an arterial roadway, full access is provided to all adjacent properties, with
some of these properties having multiple driveway entrances. In addition, the center left turn lane is
20 wide, much wider than the standard for this type of lane. The combination of unrestricted access,
an excessively wide center turn lane, and high traffic volumes (particularly during peak travel times)
creates a large number of traffic conflict points and often leads to driver confusion and uncertain
decision making. Left turns out of adjacent parcels onto County Road E during peak travel times are
particularly challenging.
A more specific existing traffic deficiency involves the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection.
During peak travel times, there is insufficient storage capacity for eastbound travelers turning left onto
Lexington Avenue. This leads excessive traffic queuing and delay.
There currently also is excessive queuing and delay on the westbound approach to the County Road E
intersection with the northbound TH 51 freeway ramps during peak travel times. This is primarily due
to the fact that the County Road E bridge over TH 51 is too narrow (2 lanes) for the volume of traffic it
carries. This deficiency is beyond the Citys authority and responsibility to address. MnDOT is
planning to replace this bridge with an expanded facility in 2015 which will mitigate the existing
westbound queues and delays at TH 51.
2.2.CONNELLY STREET
The curvature of Connelly Street and the location of existing driveways between Arden Bowl and Pot-
O-Gold Bingo are not well delineated, resulting in driver confusion and thus negatively impacting
safety conditions.
2.3.SIDEWALKS
There currently is a continuous 6 to 8 concrete sidewalk along the south side of the County Rd E
between the northbound TH 51 ramp intersection and Lexington Avenue. While this facility is
generally in good condition, there is some need for replacement of cracked, heaved, or otherwise
deficient panels. There is also an existing 6 to 8 concrete sidewalk on the north side of the corridor
between the west leg of Connelly Street and approximately 50 east of Pine Tree Drive. At Pine Tree
Drive, the walk grades are elevated, thus prohibiting the installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps at
this intersection. There is no other existing sidewalk between Pine Tree Drive and Lexington Avenue
along the north side of County Road E, leaving a gap of over one thousand feet.
3.1.COUNTY ROAD E ROADWAY
The proposed roadway improvements to County Road E are identified below:
Seal coating the existing roadway surface. This will provide a regenerative treatment and will
·
allow restriping the lane configurations.
Lane restriping to narrow the center left turn lane width to ten feet and create five foot
·
shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Two thru-lanes would be maintained in each
direction.
Reconstructing the center medians at the Connelly Avenue and Pine Tree Drive intersections,
·
including the introduction of decorative concrete where appropriate.
Addition of a second eastbound left turn lane at the County Road E/Lexington Avenue
·
intersection. This will require widening of County Road E on its north side. The widened
roadway will taper to the existing roadway width approximately 500 west of the intersection.
Widening and restriping the east leg of the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection to
·
match the added width on the west leg necessitated by the additional left turn lane.
Spot replacement of concrete curb sections and driveway aprons as necessary.
·
3.2.CONNELLY STREET
The proposed improvements to Connelly Street are identified below:
Construction of concrete curb along the outside radius of the roadway curve, including
·
better delineation of driveway entrances to Pot-O-Gold and adjacent parking lots.
Provide centerline around the curve to define drive lanes.
·
3.3.SIDEWALKS
The proposed sidewalk improvements throughout the project area are identified below:
Widening existing sidewalk on the north side of County Road E between Connelly Street
·
intersections from 6 to 12 where proposed roadway shoulder is lost to right turn lane.
Lowering the sidewalk elevation at Pine Tree Drive using a 3 (approximate) retaining wall.
·
Construction of a new sidewalk along the west side of Pine Tree Drive extending
·
approximately 875 south from County Road E to the Hunters Park Condominiums driveway
entrance.
Construction of new 6 sidewalk on the north side of County Road E extending from existing
·
sidewalk east of Pine Tree Drive to Lexington Avenue.
Construction of ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps at all intersections and driveways.
·
Spot replacement of sidewalk panels as necessary.
·
3.4.OPTIONAL PRIVATE DRIVE CROSS ACCESS CONNECTIONS
This type of improvement would allow or facilitate access between contiguous parcels along the
corridor without having to travel on County Road E. This is generally a desirable approach to support
the closure and consolidation of driveway access locations on an arterial roadway. These
improvements are considered optional because the City does not have jurisdiction to make
transportation improvements on private parcels. However, the City can coordinate and facilitate the
implementation of such improvements and provide financial resources.
Several cross access locations have been identified and evaluated on a preliminary basis. They include
the following:
Former Carrolls Furniture/Davidson connection; would consolidate two driveways to one.
·
Northpark/Wellington connection; would reduce vehicular trips along County Road E
·
between these properties.
Commers/Wellington connection; would reduce vehicular trips along County Road E between
·
these properties.
3.5.TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS
The proposed project includes upgrades to the signal systems at County Road E intersections at
Connelly Avenue, Pine Tree Drive, and Lexington Avenue, respectively. These upgrades include the
following elements:
New loop detectors as required for lane reconfigurations
·
New LED pedestrian countdown timers
·
New push button activated audio message systems for pedestrians
·
Conversion to flashing yellow arrow systems for eastbound and westbound left turning
·
movements
New poles and mast arms as needed to accommodate roadway widening and/or lane
·
reconfigurations
Based on project coordination discussions with Mn/DOT, it is expected that the Connelly Avenue
signal improvements will be included with Mn/DOTs T.H. 51 bridge project.
3.6.LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING
The existing corridor has roadway lighting that is adequate for general conditions and purposes.
However, the project is recommended to include supplemental decorative pedestrian-scale lighting for
context enhancement. Implementation alternatives may include traditional City construction,
ownership and maintenance, or possible Xcel Energy construction and lease back to the City. The
project also includes the addition of boulevard trees to improve aesthetics and to enhance the
pedestrian experience along the corridor. The supplemental decorative lighting and the boulevard trees
are consistent with the vision identified in the 2008 for the B-2 District.
Guiding Plan
Estimated construction costs presented in this report include a 37 percent contingency factor, in accordance with
City policy. Final costs and assessments will be determined by using low-bid construction costs of the proposed
work.
Appendix B
Estimated construction costs for the proposed improvements are itemized in , and are summarized in
Table 1
, below. These cost estimates are based on public construction cost information. Since the consultant has no
control over the cost of labor, materials, competitive bidding process, weather conditions, and other factors affecting
the cost of construction, all cost estimates are opinions for general information of the client, and no warranty or
guarantee as to the accuracy of construction cost estimates is made. It is recommended that costs for project
financing should be based on actual competitive bid prices with reasonable contingencies.
Table 1. Summary of Estimated Costs
Note: All estimates indicated include total project costs (contingencies, engineering and other professional services,
construction administration, etc.). Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included.
Because the majority of the project involves improvements to County Road E, Ramsey Countys cost participation
policy applies to those road improvements west of Lexington Avenue (Item #2, above). The City would have no
cost participation in those road improvements east of Lexington Avenue (Item #4, above), as they are outside of the
City limits. Mn/DOT cost participation is also expected for the proposed signal system improvements at the
intersection of County Road E and Connelly Street, in association with Mn/DOTs northbound T.H. 51exit ramp at
this intersection. Based on the applicable cost participation policies, the estimated funding split for the project is as
follows:
Agency Cost
City of Arden Hills $856,566
Ramsey County $915,674
Mn/DOT $14,402
Total $1,786,642
The City of Arden Hills assessment policy is most applicable to residential neighborhood road improvements,
where the City funds 50% of the project, and the remaining 50% is assessed to adjacent properties on a per unit
basis. This generally assigns an equal assessment amount to most benefitting properties, except for those larger
properties that could be assigned more than one unit.
Using the Citys existing policy as a basis, assessments for the County Road E improvements were also calculated
using 50% of the estimated Citys cost. This total assessment amount equals $428,823. Those assessable costs
associated with decorative lighting and landscaping trees are assessed, based on a front footage basis, to properties
adjacent to the corridor. The remaining assessed costs are assessed to all properties within the B-2 District on a per
acre basis. This approach recognizes the focused benefit of aesthetic improvements to adjacent properties, the
broader functional and operational benefits the street improvements have to the overall District, and it accounts for
the large variation in parcel sizes and development potential of those properties within the District.
Special consideration was given to the proposed improvements along Connelly Street, which are intended to be
more local improvements, rather than District wide improvements. Accordingly, 50% of the Connelly Street
improvements are proposed to be assessed to the adjacent Flaherty and Pot-O-Gold properties only.
A preliminary assessment map and assessment roll are included in Appendix B of this report.
Right-of-way (ROW) has already been secured to support the widening of the westerly leg of the County Road
E/Lexington Avenue intersection. However, additional ROW will need to be secured by the County for the
Figure 2
corresponding widening of the easterly leg. This area is depicted on .
West of the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection, the City will need to secure temporary and permanent
Figure 2
easements to construct the project as depicted on .
The easements are associated with:
Widened sidewalk between Connelly Avenue intersections (permanent)
·
Retaining wall construction for sidewalk along the Staples property at the Pine Tree Drive intersections
·
(temporary)
Sidewalk construction in front of the former Carrolls Furniture property (permanent)
·
The City will be required to complete the necessary ROW boundary work along County Road E between Connelly
Street and Lexington Avenue as well as prepare any associated easement exhibits. Ramsey County has agreed to
complete the necessary boundary and easement work east of Lexington Avenue and will also conduct all easement
negotiations on behalf of the City. Easement acquisition costs west of Lexington Avenue would be borne by the
City.
Construction permits are anticipated to be needed from Ramsey County, Rice Creek Watershed District and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES).
If this Preliminary Engineering Report is accepted by the City Council, the following schedule is
proposed:
Receive Preliminary Engineering Report (Resolution) ...................................................... December 9, 2013
Authorize Final Plans & Specifications/ Order Boundary/Easement Evaluation .............. December 9, 2013
Final Design/ Easement Acquisition ........................................................ December 2013 December 2014
(1)
Final Design Property Owner Walk-Thru .................................................................................... Fall 2014
Order Improvement & Approve Final Plans/ Authorize Ad for Bids (Resolution) ................... January 2015
Open Bids . ............................................................................................................................ February 2015
Accept Bids / Order Improvement Hearing and Assessment Hearing (Resolutions) .............. February 2015
Conduct Improvement and Assessment Hearings/ Adopt Assessment Roll/ Award Project ...... March 2015
(Resolutions)
Construction .............................................................................................................. April September 2015
(1)
The walk through with area property owners is to coincide with substantial completion of the design
documents (approx. 90% plans). The objective is to share the details of the final design with adjacent
property owners and to refine the design according to any special project concerns or circumstances that
might be identified during these discussions.
From an engineering standpoint, this project is feasible, cost effective, and necessary and can best be accomplished
by letting competitive bids for the work. It is recommended that the work be done under one contract in order to
complete the work in an orderly and efficient manner. The City, its financial consultant, and the persons assessed
will have to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed improvements.
LEXINGTON AVENUE
PINE TREE DRIVE
AVENUE
CONNELLY
SNELLING AVENUE
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION No. 2014-013
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COUNTY ROAD E (B-
2 DISTRICT)
WHEREAS,
pursuant to Resolution 2012-054 the Council adopted December 12, 2012,
a report has been prepared by Bolton & Menk with reference to proposed improvements to
County Road E (B-2 District) and this report was received by the Council on December 9, 2012.
WHEREAS,
the report provides information regarding whether the proposed
improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as
proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement
as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments
for affected parcels.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN
HILLS, MINNESOTA:
1.The Council hereby accepts the County Road E (B-2 District) Feasibility Report
dated November 2013.
2.Bolton & Menk is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The
engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS
10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
_________________________________________
David Grant, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Amy Dietl, City Clerk
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9A
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 10, 2014
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM:
Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
County Road E (B-2 District) Feasibility Report
Requested Action
FollowingthepresentationoftheCountyRoadEFeasibilityReportandquestions/answers,the
Council has three options for further action:
1.DirectstafftomakechangestotheFeasibilityReportandpresentitforactiononafuture
Council agenda
2.AdoptResolution2014-013ReceivingtheFeasibilityReport(withminorchanges
directedbytheCouncil)andAuthorizingthePreparationofPlansandSpecificationsin
the matter of the County Road E (B-2 District) Improvements
3.AdoptResolution2014-013ReceivingtheFeasibilityReport(withnochanges)and
AuthorizingthePreparationofPlansandSpecificationsinthematteroftheCountyRoad
E (B-2 District) Improvements.
Background/Discussion
ThisitemwastabledattheDecember9,2013,Councilmeeting.MarcusThomasfromBolton
andMenk,Inc.willbeattonightsmeetingtomakeabriefpresentationoftheCountyRoadE
FeasibilityReportandtoanswerCouncilquestions.Attachedisthepacketitemfromthe
December9,2013,Councilagenda.Theonlychangestaffhasmadeistoupdatetheresolution
for the Councils consideration to reflect todays date.
Attachments
Attachment A:December9,2013,Councilpacketfortableditem(includes:FeasibilityReport,
Resolution 2013-043, and Bolton and Menk letter dated December 3, 2013)
Attachment B: Resolution 2014-013