02-26-2024 City Council Agenda and PacketA.5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Note: Unless otherwise noted, work sessions are held in the Fountain Conference Room in
the lower level of City Hall and are open to the public. If the City Council does not complete
the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular
agenda.
A.1 Commission Interviews
A.2 82nd Street (CSAH 18) Project Update
A.3 Railroad Depot Building and Parcel Discussion
A.4 Short-Term Rental Ordinance and Licensing Program Discussion
A.5 Audubon Business Park Update
A.6 Future Work Session Schedule
B.REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
C.1 Farewell and Appreciation to Fire Chief Don Johnson
D.CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
D.1 Approve City Council Minutes dated February 12, 2024
D.2 Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2024
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2024
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
1
D.3 Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated January 9, 2024
D.4 Receive Commission on Aging Minutes dated January 19, 2024
D.5 Approve Claims Paid dated February 26, 2024
D.6 Appoint Fire Chief Andrew Heger to the Fire Relief Association Board of Trustees
D.7 Approve Site Plan Agreement for Affinitech located at 2451 Galpin Court
D.8 Approve Proof of Parking Agreement for Affinitech located at 2451 Galpin Court
D.9 Resolution 2024-XX: Approving the City of Chanhassen's 2024 Private Property Inflow and
Infiltration Grant Program and Execution of Metropolitan Council's Grant Agreement No.
SG-20597
D.10 Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Construction Materials Testing Agreement for Construction
of the Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project
D.11 Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Purchases for Annual Lift Station Maintenance
D.12 Resolution 2024-XX: Authorizing 2024 Fleet Purchase
D.13 Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for
Bids for the 2024 City Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 24-01
E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and
submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda).
F.PUBLIC HEARINGS
G.GENERAL BUSINESS
G.1 Year-End Law Enforcement Review
G.2 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project Review
H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
I.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
I.1 Approval of a Three-Year Economic Development Plan
I.2 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
J.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
J.1 Letter of Support for the State Highway 5 Mobility Project dated January 16, 2024
J.2 Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources dated February 20, 2024 - Final
Approval of Chanhassen's Shoreland Ordinance Amendment
2
K.ADJOURNMENT
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the
Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.
That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
Anyone seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is
required to complete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available at
https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers
prior to the meeting.
A total of thirty minutes is alloted for Visitor Presentations. Priority is given to Chanhassen
residents. An additional thirty minutes may be provided after General Business items are
complete at the discretion of the City Council.
Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the
Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is
not a member of the City Council.
If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a
spokesperson that can summarize the issue.
Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the
Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. Comments may also be
emailed to the City Council at council@chanhassenmn.gov.
During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in
discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a
thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an
individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be
directed to the City Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Tequila Butcher, 590 West
79th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the
public are welcome.
3
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Commission Interviews
File No.Item No: A.1
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
The City Council will interview applicants in groups according to their first commission choice as
follows:
5:30 pm - Planning Commission
Erik Overlid
Jeremy Rosengren
Katie Trevena
Kelsey Alto*
Kristin Fulkerson
6:00 pm - Environmental Commission
Paget Pengelly
6:30 pm - Park and Recreation Commission
John Stutzman
4
Michael Leisen
Sean Morgan
*Current commissioner
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission
Two 3-year positions The terms of Commissioners Erik Johnson and Kelsey Alto are expiring.
Kelsey Alto has applied for reappointment.
Park & Recreation Commission
Three 3-year positions The terms of Commissioners Matt Kutz, Heather Markert, and Don Vasatka
are expiring.
Commission on Aging
Three 3-year positions
The terms of Commissioners Jim Camarata, Laura Baumtrog, and
Gwendolyn Block are expiring. Jim Camarata and Gwendolyn Block have
applied for reappointment. This interview will be held at the City Council
Work Session on March 11 at 5:30 pm.
*The Commission on Aging bylaws allow for the appointment of 7 or 8
commissioners.
Environmental Commission
Three 3-year positions The terms of Commissioners Kristin Fulkerson, Greg Hawks, and Scot
Lacek are expiring.
Incumbent Information
Incumbent Commission Terms Served 2022 Attendance
Kelsey Alto Planning 1 79%
Jim Camarata Commission on Aging 1 88%
Gwendolyn Block Commission on Aging 1 100%
Kristin Fulkerson*Environmental 2 90%
*Kristin Fulkerson was on the Environmental Commission and has applied for the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION
On March 11, 2024, the City Council will interview the Commission on Aging applicants followed by
discussion of commission appointments at their Work Session. Appointments will be made during the
5
regular City Council meeting under the General Business portion of the agenda.
BUDGET
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Interview Questions
Interview Scoring Sheet
6
COMMISSION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Briefly introduce yourself and your background to us.
2. What are you most interested in accomplishing through your role on a city commission?
3. Why did you choose to live in Chanhassen? What keeps you here?
4. What do you believe are the biggest concerns of your neighbors?
Tell us about the experiences that you have had serving in similar volunteer roles.
5. Do you understand the time commitments it takes to be a member of the Commission,
and are you comfortable with that?
6. Which commissions are you interested in serving on if you are not appointed to your first
choice?
7
2024 COMMISSION INTERVIEW NOTES & SCORING
Commission Candidate Rank
Planning Erik Overlid
Planning Jeremy Rosengren
Planning Katie Trevena
Planning Kelsey Alto
Planning Kristin Fulkerson
8
2024 COMMISSION INTERVIEW NOTES & SCORING
Commission Candidate Rank
Environmental Paget Pengelly
9
2024 COMMISSION INTERVIEW NOTES & SCORING
Commission Candidate Rank
Park & Rec John Stutzman
Park & Rec Michael Leisen
Park & Rec Sean Morgan
10
2024 COMMISSION INTERVIEW NOTES & SCORING
Commission Candidate Rank
Aging Barbara Solum
Aging Gwendolyn Block
Aging Jim Camarata
Aging Phyllis Mobley
Aging Sidney Lindmark
11
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item 82nd Street (CSAH 18) Project Update
File No.ENG 24-06 Item No: A.2
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Charlie Howley, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Communications
SUMMARY
City staff will give an overview of the current design of the County's 82nd Street extension project
(CSAH 18). This project will extend CSAH 18 from just west of TH41 over to Bavaria Road in
Victoria, which goes around the south side of the Arboretum.
The project is currently finishing the Preliminary Design Phase and thus is an appropriate time to update
the City Council on its status. Construction is scheduled to begin in early 2025.
BACKGROUND
N/A
DISCUSSION
N/A
12
BUDGET
The City is not currently responsible for any project costs.
RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
Project Layout
82nd St Chan City Council Presentation
13
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-62 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-62 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
THRU MOVEMENTS
WB-62 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
WEST R-VALUES
FASTEST PATH
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
NORTH R-VALUES
FASTEST PATH
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
EAST R-VALUES
FASTEST PATH
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
SOUTH R-VALUES
FASTEST PATH
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-40 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND MCKNIGHT RD
LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-40 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND WEST 82ND ST
LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-40 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND MCKNIGHT RD
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS
WB-40 DESIGN VEHICLE
CSAH 18 AND WEST 82ND ST
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN PARAMETERS
APPROACH ICD (FT)
PHI
(DEGREE)
HALF-
WIDTH
ENTRY
WIDTH
ENTRY
RADIUS
FLAIR
LENGTH
SOUTH 150 30.8 16 24.8 108 70.6
EAST 150 14.0 16 25.8 118 81.2
NORTH 150 27.8 16 25.5 95 67.7
WEST 150 16.8 16 23.9 114 77.2
BAVARIA ROAD & CSAH 18/82ND ST ROUNDABOUT - DESIGN SPEED SUMMARY
APPROACH CURVE RADIUS e SPEED SPEED DIFF
(mph) (2)(mph) (1)
WEST
R1 176.6 0.02 24.9 7.5
R2 96.5 -0.02 21.1 3.7
R3 290.7 0.02 29.7 12.3
R4 58 -0.02 17.4 -
R5 114.6 0.02 22.5 5.1
SOUTH
R1 161.8 0.02 24.1 6.7
R2 94.8 -0.02 20.9 3.5
R3 421.8 0.02 34 16.6
R4 58 -0.02 17.4 -
R5 157.2 0.02 25.3 7.9
EAST
R1 177.7 0.02 24.9 7.5
R2 144 -0.02 24.5 7.1
R3 291 0.02 29.8 12.4
R4 58 -0.02 17.4 -
R5 80.5 0.02 19.7 2.3
NORTH
R1 150.9 0.02 23.5 6.1
R2 83.6 -0.02 20 2.6
R3 416.1 0.02 33.8 16.4
R4 58 -0.02 17.4 -
R5 97.4 0.02 20.6 3.2
NOTES:
(1) RELATIVE SPEED DIFFERENCE IS FROM THE MINIMUM SPEED IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
(2) DERIVED SPEED MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL DRIVING CONDITION.
DETAIL VIEW
CSAH 18 AND BAVARIA RD
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018
(US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018
(US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-62
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018
(US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018
(US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-62AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
{ EX CSAH 18 (LYMAN BLVD)
12.0'
EX THRU
0' - 12.0'
PAINTED MEDN
EX LT. TURN/
0' - 8.0'
SHLD
EX
4.0%2.0%2.0%
SHLD
EX
0' - 8.0'12.0'
RT. TURN
EX THRU /
2.0%4.0%
EX BLVD
0' - 10.0'
4.0%
TRAIL
EX
0' - 8.0'
2.0%WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-40
AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
W
B-40AA
SHTO 20
18 (US)
(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-40
AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB
-40
AASHTO
2018 (US)
(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-40
AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2023 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
WB-40AASHTO 2018 (US)
(c) 2024 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
2000100
SCALE IN FEET
R1
100050
SCALE IN FEET
R4
R3
R2
R5
R1
R5
R2
R4
R3
R5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R1
R4
R3
R2
LC
THRU
12.0'
GRADE
PROFILE
2.0%2.0%4.0%2.0%
82ND ST
10.0'
TRAIL
2.0'
1.5%
0' - 12.0'
PAINTED MEDN
LT. TURN / THRU
12.0'
2.0%
B424 C&GB424 C&G
BLVD
10.0'
SHLD
2.0' - 8.0'2.0' - 8.0'
SHLD
82ND ST
VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
2.0%
RT. TURN
0' - 12.0'
2.0%
RT. TURN
0' - 12.0'
2.0%
BLVD
10.0'
LC
VAR
EXISTING
TRAIL
2.0'
GRADE
PROFILE
S524 C&GB424 C&G
(8.0' TYP)
MIN 5.3'
VAR
MEDIAN
RT. TURN
SHLD /
2.0' - 12.0'
2.0%
S524 C&G
LC
GRADE
PROFILE
16.0' - 20.0'
THRUBLVD
VAR
W.B. CSAH 18 (LYMAN BLVD)E.B. CSAH 18 (LYMAN BLVD)
THRU
14.0'
12.0'
CSAH 18 (LYMAN BLVD) ROUNDABOUT APPROACH
VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
2.0%
ROUNDABOUT
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
B424 C&G
40.0'
R424 C&G
2.0%
S524 C&G
1.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
B424 C&G R424 C&G
2.0%
24.0'
CIRCULATING WIDTH
19.0'
CONC APRON
1.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
S524 C&G
ROUNDABOUT
CENTER OF
20.0'
BLVD
6.0
BLVD
28.0'
ISLAND
CENTER
20.0'
BLVD
6.0
BLVD
13.0'
CONC APRON
22.0'
CIRCULATING WIDTH
40.0'
1
:6
1:6
2.0%2.0%
FOR SPECIFICS
SEE ROUNDABOUT DETAIL
FOR SPECIFICS
SEE ROUNDABOUT DETAIL
4.0%4.0%
1.5%
2.0%
0' - 8.0'
TRAIL
2.0' - 14.0'
SHLD
RT. TURN /
0' - 19.1'
VAR
BLVD THRU
12.0' - 14.0'
S524 C&G
MEDN
0' - 6.77'
VAR
THRU
12.0' - 14.5'
2.0%
B424 C&G
2.0%
SHLD
2.0' - 7.0'
BLVD
5.0' - 10.0'
TRAIL
10.0'
GRADE
PROFILE
1.5%
GRADE
PROFILE
LC SB BAVARIA RD NB BAVARIA RDLC
B424 C&G S524 C&G
4.0%
2.0%
LC
THRU
12.0'
GRADE
PROFILE
2.0%4.0%2.0%
82ND ST
10.0'
TRAIL
2.0'
1.5%
THRU
12.0'
2.0%
B424 C&GB424 C&G
BLVD
10.0'
SHLD
8.0'8.0'
SHLD
82ND ST BIG BLOCK WALL
1:4(O
R FLA
TTER)VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
2.0%
BLVD
10.0'
4.0%
0.0' - 6.0'
VAR
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
2.0'
(1:3)
1.0'
2.0%
8.0'
SHLD
B424 C&G
4.0%1.5%
BLVD
10.0'
TRAIL
10.0'
THRU
12.0'
SHLD
8.0'
2.0%2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
2.0%
12.0'
TRAIL
LC
2.0%2.0%
12.0'
THRU
8.0'
SHLD
BRIDE DESIGN MANUAL FIG G 5-392.203
ROAD DESIGN MANUAL TABLE 9-2.01A
DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH
82ND ST
82ND ST BRIDGE
0'-2"
1'-6"
0'-2"
1'-6"
EXISTING CSAH 18 (LYMAN BLVD)
POSTED SPEED = 40 MPH
B424 C&G
VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)
B424 C&G VAR (1:4)
(OR FLATTER)
GRADE
PROFILER 452'R 1932'R 430'R 1910'R 1880'R 770'R 1902'R 748'R 114'R 114'R 140'
R 430'
R 402'
R 1192'
R 1174'
R 1114'
R 1219'
R 1198'
R 112'R 108'R 143'R 3
2
8'R 502'R 480'
R 75'R 2884.789'R 530'R 508'R 118'R 130'R 74'R 130'
R 300'
R 660'
R 1790'
R 1771'
R 1822'
R 1802'
R 115'R 9
5'
R
110
'R 75'
R 40'
R 53'R 75'R 75'1:7
1:71:7
1:71:71:7 EB CSAH 18�
WB CSAH 18�
NB BAVARIA RD�
SB BAVARIA RD�
EB CSAH 18�
WB CSAH 18�
NB BAVARIA RD�
SB BAVARIA RD�
S524
S
5
2
4 S524S524S524
S524
S524
S524 S524S524S524B424
B424
B424
B424
S524S524S524
S524B424R424B4241:510' TRAIL
10' BLVD
8' SHLD
14' THRU
14' THRU 22' THRU11' DRIVEMEDN10' TRAIL11' THRU11' THRU8' SHLD8' TRAIL12'
THRU14'
THRU8' SHLD
14' THRU8' SHLD4'
SHLD8'
TRAI
L7'
SHLD22' TH
RU
22' TH
RU 22' THRU14' THRU
8' SHLD
MEDN
8' SHLD
6'
AGG SHLD5'
BLVD10' BLVD10' TRAIL
13' TRUCK APRON
10
5
100
0
3030
LEGEND
PAVED ROADWAYS
CONCRETE CURBS
EXISTING D&U
AND MEDIANS
CONCRETE SIDEWALKS
PAVED TRAILS
AND GRASS
LANDSCAPED MEDIANS
RETAINING WALLS
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
BRIDGE
AND SHOULDERS
GRAVEL ROADS
PROPOSED TEMP EASEMENT
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
30' R
20' R
25' R
BAVARIA RDHILLPOINTE LN
T
IL
IA
LNOAK DROAK CT
APPLEW OOD CIR
22' R
30' R30' R
EX R/W
EX R/W
TH 41
FLEXENTIAL
BI
OMEDI
CAL
LI
F
ECOREAMER
ICA
AND
ENG
INEER
ING
OF
TEL
MANUFACTUR
ING
30'R30'R
EX R/W
(45 MPH)
e = NC
1000' R
(55 MPH)
e = NC
1700' R
(40 MPH)
e = NC
700' R
(40 MPH)
e = NC
700' R
(60 MPH)
e = NC
2100' R
(70 MPH)
e = NC
3819.7189' R
(65 MPH)
e = NC
2600' R
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
EX R/W
(70 MPH)
e = NC
7639.44' R
(55 MPH)
e = NC
1900' R
(40 MPH)
e = NC
750' R
(30 MPH)
e = NC
450' R
(55 MPH)
e = NC
1912' R
(50 MPH)
e = NC
1200' R
(55 MPH)
e = NC
1730' R
(55 MPH)
e = NC
1792' R
NB BAVARIA RD�
SB BAVARIA RD�
EB CSAH 18�
WB CSAH 18�
CSAH 18�
CSAH 18�
CSAH 18�
MCKNIGHT RD�
CSAH 18�
S OLD 82ND ST�
CSAH 18�
TRAIL�30.00'
30.00'
(30 MPH)
e = NC
300' R
(30 MPH)
e = NC
983.75' R
(30 MPH)
e = NC
4051.99' R
1:401:401:151:40
1:15
1:15
1:15
1:15
PETER C. M OE DRIVESERVICE ROAD45'R
45'R
45'R
45'R
FUTURE TRAIL
FUTURE TRAIL
TRAIL CDS�
N OLD 82ND ST�
(30 MPH)
e = NC
268.90' R
10' TRAIL
12' THRU14' X
300' RT
TURN
12' THRU
10' TRA
IL
10' BLVD
8' SHLD 10' BLVD
8' SHLD
12' THRU
12' X 300' LT TURN
12' THRU
8' SHLD
10' TRAIL14' X 200' RT TURN12' THRU12' THRU8' SHLD
10' BLVD
10' TRAIL12' THRU8' SHLD10' BLVD12' THRU8' SHLD12' X 200' LT TURN
10' TRAIL
10' BLVD
8' SHLD
12' THRU
12' THRU
8' SHLD
10' TRAIL
10' BLVD
12' THRU
12' THRU
8' SHLD
8' SHL
D1
2' THRU1
2' X 1
3
5' L
T TURN1
2' THRU8' SHL
D10' TRAIL
10' BLVD
8' SHLD
14' THRU10' TRAILBLVD13' X 140' RT TURN11' THRU14' THRU
14' THRU
14' X 85' RT TURN
14' THRU
14' THRU
10' DRIVEMEDN
MEDN10' TRAIL12' THRU11' THRU8' SHLD8' TRAIL14'
THRU14'
THRU10' DRIVE15' DRIVE12' DRIVE16' DRIVE18' DRIVE1
4'
D
RI
V
E 14' DRIVE12' DRIVE12' DRIVE12' DRIVE14' DRIVE 12' DRIVE8' SHLD
14' THRU8' SHLD8' SHLD
8'
TRAI
L7'
SHLD14' THRU14' THRU10' TRAIL14' THRU14' THRU8' SHLD10' BLVD11' THRU8' SHLD10' BLVD11' THRU8' SHLD8' TRAIL12' X 80' LT TURN12' TWLTL4'
SHLD6'
AGG SHLD12' DRIVE
18' DRIVE12' DRIVE
10' TRAIL1 8 ' DRIVE
9' DRIVE
18' DRI
V
E
05
0
5
10
0
5
100
0
1015030354045
115 120 125 130
135140 145
150
155
1601651
7
0
1
7
5
180
185
190
195
2002
0
5
2
1
040202530353035
14
CSAH 18 -82nd Street Project
Arboretum Area Transportation Plan (AATP)
Chanhassen City Council Meeting
02/26/24
15
Current Layout
16
•40 mph design,
speed study will
determine posted
speed limit
•Two lane roadway
with trail
•Rolling terrain and
profile
Roadway Characteristics
17
•Bridge spans ravine trail and
open channel
Ravine Area
18
•North Cul-de-sac length is 1850’ South Cul-
de-sac length is 830’
–Maximum length per City Code is 750’
–Variance needed, considered at PC
–Variance also needed for excesively steep grade
•Trail connection between CDS, provides
access to ravine trailhead
•Arb access road between CDS
•Maintenance agreement needed between
Chaska and Chanhassen
82nd Remnant Area
19
•Approximately $23M project
•Fully funded
•No money from Chanhassen
Funding
20
•City Council passed resolution adopting the AATP –Feb 2021
•State Bonding Funding received –May 2023
•Final Layout and Construction Limits –Feb 2024
•Resolution of City support requested for the layout & property acquisition –
Mar 2024
•Final Design and R/W Process –Feb 2024 to Sept 2024
•Final plans and JPA are approved by the County and City –Aug 2024
•Advertising and Letting –Oct 2024
•Construction –Nov 2024 to Nov 2025
•TH 5 Construction –Begins in 2026
Timeline
21
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Railroad Depot Building and Parcel Discussion
File No.Item No: A.3
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Sam DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
City staff will present a proposal from a local resident to utilize the city-owned Railroad Depot
Building and Parcel to operate a private business.
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Staff has been approached by a resident interested in using the depot building to start a coffee shop.
Staff has approached the Historical Society and they are interested in seeing the conversation proceed.
Staff learned from Jack and Paula Atkins, members of the Historical Society, that neither the depot nor
the historic city hall are on the National Register of Historic Places. Since these buildings have been
moved, they aren't eligible. When the depot building was brought back into the downtown, it was placed
as close to the original location as they could get it, which is about 10 feet away from the original
location.
The Depot is a very basic structure and does not have plumbing.
22
A bit of history (courtesy of waymarking.com):
The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad built a small depot in Chanhassen in 1882. Back
then, the newspaper described it as, "one of the handsomest and most convenient of any line." The
railroad provided a connection to Minneapolis and soon businesses sprung up around it. During World
War II the depot was no longer needed and the building was sold to Joseph and Mary Kerber for $75.
They moved it to their farm just west of Lake Ann Park and used it as a workshop.
In celebration of the city's centennial in 1996, the depot was purchased by the Chanhassen Housing &
Redevelopment Authority (today, this is the EDA) and moved to this site, which is near its original
location. To help fund the move and exterior restoration, brick and pavers were sold that were inscribed
with the names of many local families.
In 2009 and in conjunction with the construction of the SW Transit Station, the city purchased the land
the Depot sits on from the owners of the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre.
Photos of the building are attached.
DISCUSSION
Staff is seeking feedback from the city council about of the potential leasing or selling of the depot
building to a commercial user.
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
As this is a discussion, no formal recommendation is being provided at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
Depot #1
Depot #3
Depot #4
23
24
25
26
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Short-Term Rental Ordinance and Licensing Program Discussion
File No.Item No: A.4
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Eric Maass, Planning Director
Reviewed By Eric Maass
SUGGESTED ACTION
No formal action is suggested. Staff is seeking general feedback from the city council on potential
updates to the City's Short-Term Rental Ordinance and license program.
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Operational Excellence
SUMMARY
In 2022, the City Council approved Ordinance Number 698, enacting the Short-Term Rental Licensing
Program in Chanhassen. With the approval of this ordinance, the City Council requested that staff
provide an overview and feedback of the program after one year to evaluate its effectiveness.
The City Council held a listening session at its meeting on February 12 to get community feedback on
the program to date. Following that listening session, the council directed staff to bring this topic back
to them at a future work session meeting for further discussion.
BACKGROUND
Since implementing the short-term license program in 2022, the city has issued 20 licenses. A list of the
licenses and more information on the short-term rental program is available at
chanhassenmn.gov/ShortTermRentals.
27
DISCUSSION
Staff will provide the City Council with more in-depth information regarding program administration,
identified issues and complaints, as well as potential ordinance revisions for consideration.
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
28
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Audubon Business Park Update
File No.Item No: A.5
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Eric Maass, Planning Director
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
Confirm staffs interpretation that the site plan is generally consistent with the previously approved
site plan.
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
Audubon Business Park has secured a single tenant user to occupy both buildings. That user has a
greater need for employee parking than semi-trailer parking and as a result, the developer asked city
staff to consider a refined site plan based on that end user's need. That refined site plan replaces a
portion of what had been shown as semi-trailer parking for employee parking.
With the refinement to the site plan, staff will require that the developer update the traffic report, update
building elevations, and update landscaping plans to align with the update to the underlying site
configuration; however, the site plan is still viewed as being generally consistent with prior approvals.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
29
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
Confirm that the refined site plan as shown is generally consistent with the previously approved site
plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Previously Approved Site Plan - Audubon Business Park
Refined Site Plan - Audubon Business Park
30
31
32
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Future Work Session Schedule
File No.Item No: A.6
Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION
Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold the following work sessions:
March 11, 2024
Commission Interviews
Discuss Commission Appointments
Downtown Design Guidelines and Wayfinding Plan Review
March 18, 2024
City Council Roundtable
City Manager Performance Review (Closed Session)
April 8, 2024
33
Downtown Design Guidelines Draft Plan Review
Highway 5 Update
April 22, 2024
May 13, 2024
Road Funding Discussion
May 20, 2024
SAC and WAC Policy Discussion
June 10, 2024
June 24, 2014
Consider Draft Recommendations Updating SAC/WAC Policy
2025 Preliminary Budget and Levy Discussion
City Council Roundtable
Pending items:
Broadband Service
Audit Presentation (May 13 or 20)
BACKGROUND
Staff or the City Council may suggest topics for work sessions. Dates are tentative until the meeting
agenda is published. Work sessions are typically held at 5:30 pm in conjunction with the regular City
Council meeting, but may be scheduled for other times as needed.
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
34
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Farewell and Appreciation to Fire Chief Don Johnson
File No.Item No: C.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
Recognize and thank retiring Fire Chief Don Johnson.
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
Mayor Ryan will present Chief Johnson with a proclamation recognizing his service and proclaiming
Don Johnson Day in the City of Chanhassen on February 28, 2024.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
35
ATTACHMENTS
36
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Approve City Council Minutes dated February 12, 2024
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council minutes dated February 12, 2024."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 12, 2024
37
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes dated February 12, 2024
38
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2024
Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Schubert, Councilman von Oven, and Councilman Kimber.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.
STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager;
Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Eric Maass, Planning Director; Jerry
Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director; Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director; Ari Lyksett,
Communications Manager; Mitchell Czech, Recreation Supervisor; Priya Tandon, Recreation
Manager; and Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Bryan Harjes, HKGi
Tim Klockziem, Kimley-Horn
Brandon Bourdon, Kimley-Horn
Dan Kjellberg, Kraus-Anderson
Paul Michell, BKV Group (via Teams)
Mike Healy, BKV Group (via Teams)
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
RAILROAD DEPOT BUILDING AND PARCEL DISCUSSION
SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE AND LICENSING PROGRAM DISCUSSION
AUDUBON BUSINESS PARK UPDATE
39
City Council Work Session Minutes –February 26, 2024
2
FUTURE WORK SESSION SCHEDULE
March 11, 2024
Commission Interviews
Discuss Commission Appointments
Downtown Design Guidelines and Wayfinding Plan Review
March 18, 2024
City Council Roundtable
City Manager Performance Review (CLOSED SESSION)
April 8, 2024
Downtown Design Guidelines Draft Plan Review
Highway 5 Update
April 22, 2024
May 13, 2024
Road Funding Discussion
May 20, 2024
SAC and WAC Policy Discussion
June 10, 2024
June 24, 2024
Consider Draft Recommendations Updating SAC/WAC Policy Discussion
2025 Preliminary Budget and Levy Discussion
City Council Roundtable
Pending Items:
Broadband Service
Audit Presentation (May 13 or 20)
Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at p.m.
Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen
City Manager
Prepared by Kim Meuwissen
City Clerk
40
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Schubert, Councilman von Oven, and Councilman Kimber.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None.
STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager;
Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Eric Maass, Planning Director; Jerry
Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director; Sam DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager;
Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director; Ari Lyksett, Communications Manager; Mitchell Czech,
Recreation Supervisor; Priya Tandon, Recreation Manager; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Andrea
McDowell Poehler, City Attorney; and Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Jessica Bliss, 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard
Bruce Geske, 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Kimber seconded that
the City Council approve the following consent agenda items 1 through 10 pursuant to the
City Manager’s recommendations:
1. Approve Special City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 5, 2024
2. Approve City Council Minutes dated January 22, 2024
3. Receive Park and Recreation Minutes dated December 12, 2023
4. Receive Commission on Aging Minutes dated November 17, 2023
5. Approve Claims Paid dated February 12, 2024
6. Approve Professional Services Agreement with SEH, Lake Ann Park Preserve
7. Approve Application from Southern Valley Alliance to Conduct Excluded Bingo at
Chanhassen Brewing Company located at 951 West 78th Street
41
City Council Minutes – February 12, 2024
2
8. Approve Contract for Services with BKV Group for Chanhassen Bluffs Sports Complex
9.Resolution 2024-08:Approve Application for Funding from the Carver County Community
Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Grant Program
10.Resolution 2024-09:Accept Bids and Award Contract for the 2024 Sealcoat Project
All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS.None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
1. Approve On-Sale Beer & Wine Liquor License for Life Time Pickleball located at 2970
Water Tower Place
Assistant City Manager Matt Unmacht presented the request of Life Time Club Operations
Company, Inc. dba Life Time Pickleball, for an on-sale beer and wine liquor license at 2970
Water Tower Place. He described the size of the restaurant, which is anticipated to open in
March of 2024, noting the applicant is required to comply with city code regarding liquor service
on the outdoor patio. Mr. Unmacht stated that there was nothing questionable related to the
background investigation, the certificate of insurance has been submitted, staff has not received
any comments from the public, and staff recommends approval.
Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. There were no public comments.
Mayor Ryan closed the public hearing.
Councilman von Oven moved, Councilwoman Schubert seconded that the City Council
approve the application for an on-sale beer and wine liquor license for Life Time Pickleball
located at 2970 Water Tower Place. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
GENERAL BUSINESS.
1. Short-Term Rental Ordinance with Program Review and Listening Session
City Planner Rachel Jeske described the City Council’s past consideration of a short-term
licensing program and rental ordinance that was implemented in 2022. She provided an overview
of the current ordinance and stated the city has issued 20 licenses in 2023 with 22 active licenses
in 2024. The city uses Host Compliance software to track licensed and unlicensed rentals within
the city with the software costing $3,303.83, offset by license revenue of $1,600 with another
$3,000 in revenue expected. She reviewed complaints received in 2023, violation notices, and
42
City Council Minutes – February 12, 2024
3
violation types, and contrasted the City of Chanhassen’s Ordinance with the cities of Golden
Valley, Plymouth, and Eden Prairie. Staff is proposing a change to the maximum overnight
vehicle parking standards to allow four vehicles across the board, and a second change that if the
license is revoked, the period of revocation should be decreased from seven years down to one
year, which would still be the most stringent of surrounding cities. In 2025, staff proposed that
all licenses be renewed annually on the same day, February 1. Staff requests feedback regarding
the revocation date aligning with the calendar year or the licensing period, as well as whether the
City Council would like to continue monitoring through Host Compliance software.
Councilman Kimber asked whether the three strikes were based on the calendar year or within
the license period. Ms. Jeske replied it was based on the license period.
Councilman McDonald asked if someone gets three strikes in a year, are they disqualified from
receiving a license the following year? Staff replied in the current ordinance that if a license is
revoked after three strikes, one cannot renew a license for seven years. Staff is proposing that
changes to one year.
Mayor Ryan asked if a renter remedies a violation within 24 hours, is it still considered a
violation? Planning Director Eric Maass explained the Host Compliance software is meant to
gain near-immediate compliance. With a complaint, it notifies the 24-hour manager for that
property who then responds through various apps and technologies. If the renter remedies the
complaint, there is a resolution.
Mayor Ryan would like to discuss the matter further in the future to address renters who might
continually disobey the rules.
Mayor Ryan opened the listening session on the short-term licensing program and invited the
public to comment.
Jessica Bliss, 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard, commented on a neighboring short-term rental she has
had issues with, noting the limit with overnight guests and the problem with daytime guests
getting close to 20 people. One issue with her property is the shared driveway with no off-street
parking; daytime guests blocking the driveway, parking in the turnout, and parking on Ms. Bliss’
grass, which is all documented and has been sent to the city. In the evenings, the renters shuffle
cars to other neighborhoods, which results in the constant moving of cars with headlights in her
house causing her dog to bark. Ms. Bliss explained that she has young children and must get up
early in the morning for work and school. She spoke about party buses in the driveway with
inebriated people getting off the bus at the property at 2:00 a.m. Ms. Bliss noted two violations
for overnight parking with one additional third complaint being made past 10 p.m. but a violation
was not issued. Ms. Bliss asked for more clarity as she thought if she reported it, then it was a
violation, but now it sounds like if it is reported and the renters fix it, then it is not a violation. At
that point, Ms. Bliss felt like a property babysitter for the house and asked where the prevention
is. She restated that the number of cars is an issue and asked what happens if she cannot get out
43
City Council Minutes – February 12, 2024
4
of her house or if emergency vehicles cannot get to her house. Currently, she has to log in to a
web platform and then wait for the people to move their cars just so she can leave her house.
Also, when a license is renewed, the violations will be wiped from their record and they will be
able to do these things all over again the following year. Ms. Bliss believes short-term rentals
devalue neighborhoods, noting the people renting are on vacation, hosting events, and likely do
not have to get up early to get ready for work or take children to school. Renters do not care
about disruptions such as noise, trash issues, and traffic coming to and from the rental. She
suggested a daytime parking limit, changes to the number of individuals allowed to stay at the
house, enforcing a minimum night stay such as three days, and that violations should be
cumulative regardless of licensure year, so a property is not able to rent with violations year after
year. Ms. Bliss noted the shared driveway must be kept clear, as she is on-call for emergency
surgeries and does not have time to log on to a web platform to make a complaint as she must
report for work within 30 minutes. She described off-leash dogs that come onto her property and
defecate in her yard and noted the ordinance does not address these animals.
Bruce Geske, 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard, stated that he is a neighbor of Ms. Bliss and also has
concerns. He stated that he recently saw a toddler on a scooter coming down the path as someone
came barreling down the driveway and almost hit the toddler. Mr. Geske’s concern is that the
city will suffer the worst from someone being hit on the path as the renters are reckless, careless,
and do not have one bit of concern over anything – they pay their fee to use the property and do
not care. Mr. Geske believes this property has gotten out of hand and there are no tough
consequences for the owners. He does not believe the city’s restrictions are tough enough at this
point.
Mayor Ryan closed the listening session.
Following the listening session, Mayor Ryan proposed a work session to look further into the
short-term rental program and to evaluate some of the suggestions brought forth by the public.
Councilman von Oven noted the same property has been in question and he is 100 percent
behind giving more teeth to the restrictions. He asked if the item is tabled tonight, what effect
does that have on the property’s ability to renew its license?
Mayor Ryan clarified it would not be tabled but brought to a work session for discussion and a
recommendation may be made to Mr. Maass to go through the channels of updating the
ordinance.
Mr. Maass clarified that upon adoption of a new ordinance or amendment, the ordinance at that
time would apply to the licenses in place.
City Attorney Andrea McDowell-Poehler spoke about the current ordinance, which has language
addressing three violations within a 365-day period. She clarified the minute one gets the first
violation, the 365 days would start, which gives the most opportunity to catch the three
44
City Council Minutes –February 12, 2024
5
violations and move into the next licensed year. She advised that with each license,those
violations would not go away.
Councilman Kimber clarified if a short-term rental renews their contract with two strikes,
depending on the date of violations, those two strikes may still be active.
Attorney McDowell-Poehler replied in the affirmative.
The City Council agreed to bring the item to a work session.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
1.Receive the 2023 Economic Development Annual Report
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.None.
Councilwoman Schubert moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor,and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City
Council meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen
City Manager
Prepared by Kim Meuwissen
City Clerk
45
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2024
File No.Item No: D.2
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Amy Weidman, Admin Support Specialist
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 2024."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission minutes dated January 16, 2024
46
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 2024
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Erik Johnson, Kelsey Alto, Perry Schwartz, Ryan
Soller, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Planning Director; Joe Seidl, Water
Resource Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Kevin Brueggeman 2840 Tanagers Lane
Tiffany Brueggeman 2840 Tanagers Lane
Holly Bussell 651 Bighorn Drive
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING LOT COVER STANDARDS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) ZONING DISTRICT
Eric Maass, Planning Director, gave a summary of the current ordinance for Residential Single-
Family (RSF) zoning district and the proposed ordinance for RSF zoning district to increase the
ordinance to 30 percent impervious lot cover.
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, provided background information to define impervious
surfaces and highlighted problems for stormwater management. Mr. Seidl shared information
regarding the best management practices to offset these problems along with government
regulations of impervious surfaces. Mr. Seidl reviewed the potential impacts residents could
experience, including increased pollutant loads, increased frequency and duration of street
flooding and high water levels, increased erosion of natural and manmade stormwater
conveyance systems, and an increased frequency and duration of nuisance drainage. He noted
that increasing lot cover limits was inconsistent with the goals and policies adopted in the Local
Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Seidl shared that the Water Resources Department does not
support the code amendments as written.
Chair Noyes opened the public hearing.
Kevin Brueggeman, 2840 Tanagers Lane, stated he built a new house in 2021 and considered
using permeable pavers. He was informed by his builder that there were necessary certifications
47
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
2
to obtain to install permeable pavers and they were unable to locate an individual with these
requirements. He questioned what brought the amendment into consideration.
Mr. Maass shared the background considerations of this ordinance. The City Council discussed
this topic on various occasions and the Planning Commission discussed permeable pavers during
2023 sessions.
Mr. Brueggeman stated they would enjoy additional lot cover opportunities but also value water
management issues.
Mr. Maass shared that the City Council has heard concerns from residents about the lot cover
limitations.
Tiffany Brueggeman, 2840 Tanagers Lane, asked if there was data about the amount of pollution
over time, based on a lot cover increase.
Mr. Seidl stated he did not have a certain answer. The city would need to hire a firm and
complete many hours of modeling to find a concrete answer. Mr. Seidl explained there are
standard models, such as the mids-model, which would allow a resident to consider the lot cover
in a scenario to see how many average pollutants would be generated.
Holly Bussell, 651 Bighorn Drive, requested the city analyze the proposed changes. She
constructed a shed and considered how it would impact her desire to expand her kitchen in the
future. She stated if this change is made, all residents would use the additional 5 percent lot
cover. Ms. Bussell stated that she and her daughter utilize the lakes in Chanhassen, and it would
have a negative impact on the water quality of the lakes if this change was made.
Chair Noyes closed the public hearing.
Chair Noyes stated it is important to consider the why behind changing the lot cover. He stated
residents can readily consider the lot cover requirements when purchasing the property.
Commissioner Alto said the Planning Commission considers variances for lot cover carefully
and often says no so as not to set a precedent. She questioned the purpose of changing the
ordinance.
Commissioner Goff asked about the new developments being built and the model used to
consider the capacity of climate change for heavy rains. He asked how the old stormwater
systems and new stormwater systems interact.
Ms. Seidl stated that city staff does not build the infrastructure for new developments. Those
engineers design infrastructure based on current rules and regulations and reference an Atlas
2014 dataset. Those engineers use updated data and can consider climate change. When building
infrastructure, engineers consider 10- and 100-year storms. Mr. Seidl asked if Commissioner
Goff is wondering if there is built in room with existing best management practices to treat
48
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
3
excess lot cover. He explained the more impervious area that is built out, the more volume is
conveyed and there is decreased performance.
Commissioner Goff asked about tying in other sites to increase capacity.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the requested change to the ordinance is due to aligning
Chanhassen with other cities.
Mr. Maass confirmed the City Council brought this change forward based on concerns from
Chanhassen residents who observed Chanhassen is more restrictive than neighboring towns.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired what factors are motivating the city to consider the ordinance
when staff has not recommended increased lot cover. He questioned whether there were
additional factors aside from neighboring districts. He noted that increasing lot cover would
negatively impact the red areas highlighted on the map.
Mr. Maass shared that the City Council took into account water resources, planning, future
infrastructure, and other perspectives before providing direction to city staff.
Chair Noyes asked if the information presented to the Planning Commission was already seen by
city staff and the City Council. He inquired about information flow.
Mr. Maass explained the City Council receives the Planning Commission packet. The City
Council held a work session and provided direction for the basis of the ordinance. The ordinance
specifications required coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Mr.
Maass stated the City Council has seen approximately 75 percent of the ordinance presented
tonight.
Commissioner Schwartz shared that if this ordinance is approved, the likelihood of a property
owner maintaining permeable pavers is very low. He encouraged the City Council and the
Planning Commission to take this information into account.
Chair Noyes recognized the proposed ordinance does not include a requirement to use permeable
pavers. Property owners could install a bigger driveway or kitchen if they were under 30 percent
lot coverage.
Commissioner Alto stated the Planning Commission previously did not agree to an additional
five percent lot cover with permeable pavers. The ordinance focuses on 30 percent of lot cover.
Commissioner Soller clarified if the current ordinance allows for 25 percent lot cover with five
percent additional coverage with permeable pavers. He questioned the current ordinance
language if permeable pavers do not work long-term.
Chair Noyes shared a resident could increase lot coverage by five percent with permeable pavers
but not other materials. The math is similar, but the materials are different.
49
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
4
Commissioner Soller asked if there were different degrees of impervious surfaces. He noted that
whether residents use pervious or impervious surfaces, the runoff increases.
Commissioner Alto stated the Planning Commission might not agree with permeable pavers. She
wondered if the ordinance should consider allowing 25 percent lot cover and not allow additional
permeable pavers.
Commissioner Goff referenced the difficulties of installing permeable pavers and wondered if
the additional five percent of permeable pavers are not utilized due to costs.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the property owner could not find a contractor to install
permeable pavers and does city staff know of what steps the property owner takes.
Mr. Maass stated residents submit a lot cover calculation worksheet with an image of what they
are proposing to build on their property. Staff reviews this worksheet to ensure the lot cover falls
within the current ordinance. Mr. Maass agreed pervious pavers are expensive and difficult to
maintain.
Commissioner Soller requested clarification about the map with different shades of red. He asked
if they have the potential to get worse and whether they are trending towards a worse degree.
Mr. Seidl shared that if a water resource is below a threshold for its intended use, it is considered
impaired water. The city is responsible for managing the resource.
Commissioner Soller asked if other agencies assist in maintaining water quality.
Mr. Seidl answered the local government agency is responsible for taking the lead on
maintaining the bodies of water.
Commissioner Soller asked if the city can continue to improve water quality.
Mr. Seidl explained it is rare to take lakes off the impaired water list and many more lakes are
added to the impaired water list than are being removed. The city has projects planned to
improve the quality of local water resources.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned if there were metrics that defined the water quality level on
the maps in red in comparison with neighboring communities.
Mr. Seidl did not have a direct answer and stated the information would have to be gathered
through an extensive research project.
Commissioner Alto shared that without data from other cities, it is difficult to consider the
impacts of this ordinance.
50
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
5
Mr. Seidl stated the lot cover is dependent on when the specific cities were built out. The concept
of best management practices for stormwater regulations did not exist when older areas of the
metro were being constructed.
Mr. Maass highlighted that new developments are designed according to the ordinances at the
time of construction. New developments are more capable of satisfying stormwater runoff
generation volumes. It is difficult to manage existing lots that would impact stormwater runoff
generation. He stated they would need to manage and mitigate for both future and existing
properties.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned if it would be easier for Chanhassen to develop construction
if the lot cover was increased.
Mr. Maass shared that the Chanhassen development is strong and did not think the lot cover
would be a determining factor for a developer.
Chair Noyes stated the new developments are creating stormwater management systems for lot
sizes. The new developments can create an infrastructure for whatever current lot cover
requirements are in place, but properties undergoing rebuilds do not have the infrastructure in
place if there is a five percent increase so there would be further stress on the system.
Commissioner Soller asked for the lot cover restraint on commercial and industrial development.
Mr. Maass did not have a specific number available. In the downtown area, there is not a
maximum lot cover requirement. Often, commercial and industrial have larger lot cover
requirements.
Commissioner Soller questioned if new commercial developments can mitigate their impact with
new infrastructure being built. He asked if these commercial developments are having an adverse
impact on water resources or if they are fully mitigating their impact. Additionally, he wondered
whether the 5 percent increase in residential lot cover is minimal when compared with these
other properties.
Mr. Maass shared that commercial properties walk through the same process to determine the
best water management practices and generate permitting with watershed districts. These
properties also consider soil type and design a specific solution for their property that aligns with
city ordinances and watershed district requirements. The five percent increase in lot cover is
minimal compared with these properties, but these commercial properties create private best
management practices on site. On a residential aspect, no offsetting best management practices
are required to be installed. The exception is with subdivisions, which trigger the subdivision
ordinance and requires stormwater mitigation such as rain gardens.
Commissioner Soller wondered if commercial properties with a majority of paved surfaces have
a negative impact on water bodies to such a large degree, that the proposed five percent increase
of lot cover for houses has negligible impact.
51
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
6
Mr. Maass shared that these commercial areas with large impervious surfaces manage their water
runoff through onsite best management practices prior to being discharged into the city’s
systems. He stated the comparison between a commercial and residential lot are not even on the
same scale.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pollutants generated by business parks significantly impact
bodies of water or if they are mitigated on-site by best management practices.
Mr. Seidl explained the best management practices are designed to meet the removal
requirements of pollutants in stormwater. There should be no net impact on the downstream
water resource as the pollutants should be removed.
Commissioner Soller wondered if the lot cover increase would have an impact on water quality
resources in the future. He also wondered what the appropriate balance between lot cover
increase and water quality would be and stated it is difficult to decide.
Commissioner Alto referenced the number of current impaired waterways. She stated it does not
make sense to increase lot cover requirements if there are already negative impacts on the
waterways.
Commissioner Johnson asked why best management practices were not included in this section
but were included in the Shoreland Overlay District.
Mr. Maass noted that best management practices were discussed originally. The priority was
placed on the shoreland overland district for offsetting best management practices, as there is
stormwater management infrastructure in place in these residential zoning districts.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed ordinance amending lot cover
standards in the RSF zoning district. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
2. ORDINANCE XXX: AMDENDING LOT COVER STANDARDS IN THE
SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
Eric Maass, Planning Director, gave a summary of the staff report, noting the proposed
ordinance amendment for the Shoreland Overlay District that would allow lots platted before
January 1, 1976, to have an increased impervious lot cover up to 30 percent. For riparian lots,
there would need to be 25 percent or 20 feet of vegetative lake buffer of the shoreline. Mr. Maass
shared that the city worked with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to establish the
draft ordinance in accordance with the DNR’s alternative approach method for deviating from
the DNR’s template shoreland ordinance.
Rachel Jeske, Planner, provided multiple examples so the Planning Commission could
understand the diversity of the shoreline properties.
52
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
7
Mr. Maass stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wanted to see one square foot
of impervious area over 25 percent with one square foot of best management practices. There
would be the ability to scale the width and the depth of the best management practices based on
the lot and property owner’s preferences with the guidance of the city.
Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments.
Chair Noyes closed the public hearing.
Chair Noyes understood the association of the platted lots with the ordinance. He asked if there
were other considerations beyond the date to fall into the lots that are allowed to have a five
percent impervious coverage increase, such as the lot grade. He gave an example that if a lot had
a certain grade above a specific amount, they would be ineligible for increased impervious lot
cover to protect the lakefront.
Mr. Maass shared that city staff consider the slope for erosion control measures in terms of
construction. He stated the city could explore additional regulation options such as the rate of
discharge in this measure.
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
considers the aesthetics and characteristics of the lake with the goal of naturalizing the shoreline
rather than the considerations of the slope.
Chair Noyes asked if a property owner was granted a five percent increase, if they would need to
have the best management practices in place before project construction, or if it was a
simultaneous requirement.
Mr. Maass answered the impervious lot cover and best management practices are all in one
permit so city staff would investigate the information for both. The best management practices
should be installed at the same time as the project completion.
Chair Noyes asked whether the Planning Commission should not allow the ordinance for
Shoreland Overlay Districts considering the previous ordinance vote.
Commissioner Jobe asked why the plant species were selected for the buffer zone. He questioned
whether the buffer zone was just for aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Seidl shared that native vegetation has deeper root systems, so there is more water and
pollutant uptake they can take on. The deeper root system also better holds together the shoreline
and helps stabilize the site.
Commissioner Schwartz shared that his neighborhood association is applying for a grant to
install a vegetative buffer. Certain plants are required for the vegetative buffer. He asked for
clarification about the vegetative buffer on the examples provided by Ms. Jeske and why it is not
required to expand upon the entire shoreline.
53
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
8
Mr. Maass understood applicants might prefer options for a beach or a dock. There are
requirements that the best management practice would be located where it would capture runoff
directed towards the lake due to increased lot cover. He shared that vegetative buffers are
beneficial as they provide a deep root system and would provide diversity in vegetation to
capture pollutants.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if staff could direct and enforce the property owner to place the
vegetative buffer in a certain place on the lot based on runoff.
Mr. Maass confirmed for a best management practice to work, it needs to be in a location that the
stormwater runoff is moving towards.
Commissioner Schwartz asked who would monitor the compliance of this ordinance.
Mr. Maass stated this would be monitored through the building or zoning permit process.
Property owners would need to complete the math and figure out the amount of run-off
generated.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned who would monitor the vegetative buffers in future years
after installation.
Mr. Maass shared that an operations and maintenance agreement would be established along
with an easement and boundary markers would need to be installed.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if there would be passive or active enforcement of these
vegetative buffers.
Mr. Seidl shared these best management practices could be turned into assets and placed into the
assets management system. City staff will need to travel out to these sites to ensure they are
maintained. If they are not maintained, city staff will need to work with the resident to re-
establish the best management practice.
Chair Noyes asked if the 1-to-1 ratio was the minimum the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources required.
Mr. Seidl confirmed this was his understanding.
Chair Noyes asked why the city did not require larger buffer requirements to help protect the
lakes. He questioned whether the city could go above and beyond what the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources required.
Mr. Maass stated the shoreland vegetative buffer could be used as the required best management
practice if it is of an adequate scale to treat the additional stormwater. If the vegetative buffer is
not adequate, there would still need to be a best management practice created to capture the
increased stormwater runoff. The city staff did not discuss an additional requirement beyond the
54
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
9
1-to-1 ratio but could do so after discussions with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Seidl explained that part of his job is to consider the naturalization of the shoreline while still
allowing property owners to utilize their properties. He considers reconstructed areas to ensure
regulations are applied to improve water management options. He provided an example that a
new home construction would allow for the potential for better water management options.
Commissioner Soller questioned whether the best management practice needs to create a net zero
impact on the new construction. He wondered if there was an algorithm to determine this
number.
Mr. Maass shared that Mr. Seidl's review of the design and calculations are effective and are the
best solution.
Mr. Seidl explained the department reviews the permits and confirms they are good designs that
operate properly.
Commissioner Soller wondered if a trade-off system in place with a net zero or a net positive
impact would allow the Planning Commission to approve the proposed ordinance. He asked if
there was any evidence that would support a net positive impact and increase lake health by
requiring a larger trade-off above a 1-to-1 ratio.
Mr. Seidl answered any treatment beyond the current proposal would be a net positive but he
would need to study the information further to understand different limitations.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if there could be language in the ordinance that stated the
minimum trade-off for impervious lot cover and best management practices would be 1-to-1 to
allow residents to go beyond the minimum requirements.
Chair Noyes questioned how the city would respond to a resident in the residential single-family
district who desired to increase lot coverage to 30 percent and was willing to put a stormwater
pond in their yard, as this would meet the requirements in the Shoreland Overlay District. He
stated affirming the Shoreland Overlay District would potentially provide a variance route for
residential single family district members.
Commissioner Soller stated a stormwater pond is not a vegetative buffer on a lake.
Chair Noyes stated not all lots in the Shoreland Overlay District are on the lake.
Mr. Maass confirmed there are riparian and non-riparian lots in the district. The basis is the
offsetting best management practice to mitigate the increase of stormwater. A vegetative buffer
could be the best management practice if it meets the requirements and design needs.
55
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
10
Chair Noyes asked if the best management practices in the non-riparian lots could be employed
in the residential single-family district as well. He thought there could be confusion for residents
regarding this differentiation.
Commissioner Alto inquired whether Mr. Seidl engaged in a discussion with the Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District regarding this topic and the letter sent and reviewed at the May
16, 2023, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Seidl stated staff did engage the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District in a
conversation but did not hear back in a specific memo. He stated the information read in the
letter still applies to the situation and the watershed district does not support the construction of
impervious surfaces without offsetting best management practices.
Commissioner Alto stated it is more important not to have an increase in lot cover closer to the
bodies of water that are already negatively impacted.
Commissioner Soller asked if there were differences between the residential single family district
lots and the non-riparian Shoreland Overlay District lots and if the runoff with these lots would
be similar.
Mr. Maass shared that the difference would be the distance to the resource. Lots farther away
have a diminishing effect on the lake, as there are streets with stormwater infrastructure to assist
in catching stormwater.
Commissioner Alto suggested the city should implement the best management practices without
allowing increased lot cover.
Commissioner Soller asked if the water resources city staff had a negative impression of the first
proposed ordinance tonight.
Mr. Seidl said the water resources city staff is not in favor of the code amendment for the
residential single-family district because it does not have best management practice
requirements. For the Shoreland Overlay District, he recognized there are impaired waterways in
Chanhassen. The ordinance might not go far enough and there could be consideration to move
towards a net positive rather than a net neutral.
Commissioner Schwartz asked how far the ordinance would need to go to be acceptable to the
Water Resources Department.
Mr. Seidl did not have this information prepared for tonight.
Commissioner Goff stated this ordinance is designed for a very small portion of residents in
Chanhassen. Residents can propose a variance if necessary.
56
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
11
Chair Noyes said residents can know the standards when purchasing the lots. By approving this
proposed ordinance, residents might try to submit variances to move beyond 30 percent lot
cover.
Commissioner Soller asked if the riparian lots could be significantly improved by this proposed
ordinance. He questioned why the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources wanted to limit it
to specific properties if it was truly beneficial to the lake.
Mr. Maass shared that the model ordinance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
does not require the naturalization of the shoreline for a certain percentage of impervious
surfaces. The naturalization of the shoreline was viewed as a tradeoff for additional lot cover.
Commissioner Alto stated all roads lead to water, whether in the Shoreland Overlay District or in
the residential single-family district. Both districts are responsible for the water moving towards
the lakes.
Commissioner Soller stated improving natural vegetation along the shoreline helps improve the
Shoreland Overlay District in ways other properties could not.
Chair Noyes said this idea is accurate, but there are additional ways to approach this topic. If the
Planning Commission is trying to improve and protect the lakes, it would be beneficial not to tie
it to the five percent impervious lot cover.
Commissioner Schwartz shared all residents are impacting a water resource, whether residents
live on a lake or not. The Planning Commission should consider the total impact on water
resources from all residents.
Mr. Maass stated variances in the past required naturalization of the shoreline as a condition.
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends denial of the proposed ordinance amending lot cover standards
in the Shoreland Overlay zoning district. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Commissioner Soller voted Nay.
GENERAL BUSINESS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2023
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen
Planning Commission summary minutes dated December 5, 2023 as presented. All voted in
favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
57
Planning Commission Minutes – January 16, 2024
12
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Planning Director Maass shared there will be an open house at the Chanhassen Recreation Center
on January 17th to share about the improvements to the redevelopment of the Chanhassen
Cinema and Country Inn & Suites.
Mr. Maass stated January 9th was Bob Generous Day. City staff ate beef jerky in honor of Bob
Generous. He noted that Rachel Jeske accepted a full-time role with the city. Mr. Maass
announced that Jamie Marsh had accepted the position of Environmental Resource Specialist.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Alto seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning
Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Submitted by Eric Maass
Planning Director
58
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated January 9, 2024
File No.Item No: D.3
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Amy Weidman, Admin Support Specialist
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council receives the Economic Development Commission minutes dated
January 9, 2024."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
59
Economic Development Commission minutes dated January 9, 2024
60
CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 9, 2024
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Anderson, Vice Chair Duke Zurek, Stacy Goff, Luke
Bame, Cohen Lee
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Freeman
STAFF PRESENT: Samantha DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager; Eric Maass,
Planning Director (remotely)
PUBLIC PRESENT: Nick Anhut, Ehlers, and Nick Asta and Peter Schroeder, Roers.
Commissioner Zurek moved, and Commissioner Goff seconded to approve the agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER
12, 2023
Commissioner Bame moved, and Commissioner Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Economic Development Commission meeting dated December 12, 2023, as presented. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
DISCUSSION/GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS:
1. West 78th Street Renewal and Renovation TIF District Application—Roers
Economic Development Manager, Samantha DiMaggio, reviewed the TIF application from Roers
Companies for a TIF District for the redevelopment of the closed Chanhassen Cinema and the
Country Inn & Suites.
Roers is proposing to construct two new vertical mixed-use buildings. Each building would include
both residential and commercial space as well as underground parking. The total redevelopment is
estimated to cost $134.6 million. The developer is showing a financing gap of $6.2 million which is
why they are requesting TIF assistance. The funds generated from the TIF District will be used to
pay for demolition and site work, including stormwater, utilities, and the extension of Laredo Drive.
State statute establishes these expenses as eligible to be paid for through TIF.
61
Economic Development Commission – January 9, 2024
2
This would be a "pay-as-you-go" TIF, which means that the taxes would be paid by the
owner/developer and would be rebated once it is determined that the expenditures are valid, and the
goals of the project are met. Pay-as-you-go financing relies on the private developer or property
owner to initially finance the costs of the TIF improvements. A development agreement between the
authority and the developer then provides the developer will be repaid as tax increments are
collected. This form of TIF structuring removes financial risk to the city.
Commissioner Bame moved, and Commissioner Zurek seconded to recommend that the City
Council, acting as the Economic Development Authority, approve the request to establish a
renewal and renovation TIF district and enter into a development contract for TIF assistance
with the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Bame moved, and Commissioner Goff seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Economic
Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Submitted by Samantha DiMaggio
Economic Development Manager
62
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Receive Commission on Aging Minutes dated January 19, 2024
File No.Item No: D.4
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council receives the Commission on Aging Minutes dated January 19, 2024."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Commission on Aging Minutes dated January 19, 2024
63
January 19, 2024
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gwen Block, Jim Camarata, Ruth Lunde, Bhakti Modi, Beth Mason, Ruth
Slivken, Kara Cassidy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Baumtrog
STAFF PRESENT: Mary Blazanin, Senior Center Coordinator
GUESTS PRESENT: Patrick Jones, Chanhassen Library Branch Manager
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Lunde made the motion to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Cassidy seconded. All members voted in favor and the motion carried. Agenda was
approved.
COMMISSION ON AGING MINUTES November 17, 2023. Commissioner Block made the motion to
approve the minutes. Commissioner Mason seconded. All members voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes were approved
Visitor Presentations
Carver County Health and Human Services was not able to attend the meeting but sent an email to Mary
Blazanin to give an update. Carver County is offering a Move Mindfully class on Wednesdays from 9:45-
10:15 on January 24, February 14 & 28, and March 12 & 27. Carver Community Connect will be on
Wednesday, January 24, from 12-6 pm at Chaska Event Center for all ages that will be coordinating non-
profits and services for people in the area. Carver County is seeing an increase in Covid cases and there
are vaccinations available through Carver County.
Patrick Jones, Chanhassen Library Branch Manager, the library is putting more money into
electronic books and large print books next year. He reported that 60% of the circulation is now in
children's books and has increased from 48%. Digital books must be leased and are not less
expensive than paper copies.
Commissioner Slivken gave an overview of the multigenerational book club which they have named
Bridging Book Club. The group is limited to 12 people, and there is a wait list. The first book is
Lessons in Chemistry. The first meeting will be on January 20, 2024 at the Chanhassen Library.
Discussion was had about finding ways to offer more Tech Help sessions for older adults using high
school student volunteers, and about encouraging local schools to independently collaborate with
The Humanity Alliance for more volunteer opportunities.
Goals and Strategic Plans
Housing is an ongoing goal and Ms. Blazanin is the liaison. Mary will continue to lead this and can
ask for assistance as needed from the Commissioners. No changes were made to the housing section.
Transportation and Mobility was suggested as a title instead of just Transportation.
WeCab has been going through changes and the suggestion was made to have a COA commissioner
on the board of WeCab. Commissioner Cassidy volunteered to be the contact with WeCab. There
was a presentation about all the transportation options in Chanhassen and the commissioners would
like to have another presentation. Ms. Blazanin and Commissioner Cassidy will work on setting up
another presentation for transportation that is available within the city.
Under the heading Information, Education, and Outreach, Commissioner Modi discussed the things
that she has been working on with the city communications staff. There will potentially be a rollout
of the new web page in February.
Other updates to the Goals and Objectives were made and Ms. Blazanin will update the goals. The
finalized list will need to be approved in February.
64
2024 Open Commission on Aging Positions and Application Process
Jim Camarata, Gwen Block, and Laura Baumtrog all have terms that are up. The commission
vacancies can be applied for online.
Discussion: Senior Center Web Page Project
Commissioner Modi has been working with communications to roll out the new webpage and once it
goes live she will have updates for the Commission on Aging.
Chanhassen Villager Articles and Press Releases
Commissioner Camarata discussed using the Chanhassen Villager for better communication for
seniors. Ms. Blazanin discussed that the Commission on Aging would have a sub-group of the
commission that could work on articles that have relevance for seniors. Commissioners Camarata,
Modi, and Slivken volunteered to be part of this group.
Senior Center Program Updates
Ms. Blazanin reported that there is a February 14 Valentine's Day Luncheon event that she could use
help with setup at 10 am and assisting with guest check-in for the event. Commissioners Block,
Slivken, Cassidy and Mason volunteered.
The new Connection was mailed in January with updated activities.
No new commission presentations.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Cassidy called for meeting adjournment. Commissioner Camarata seconded the motion. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:16a.m.
Minutes prepared by Jenny Potter, Senior Administrative Assistant
Minutes Submitted by Mary Blazanin, Senior Center Coordinator
65
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Approve Claims Paid dated February 26, 2024
File No.Item No: D.5
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Danielle Washburn, Assistant Finance Director
Reviewed By Kelly Grinnell
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council Approves Claims Paid dated February 26, 2024."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Financial Sustainability
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The following claims are submitted for review and approval on February 26, 2024:
Total Claims $480,235.97
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
66
ATTACHMENTS
Payment Summary
Payment Detail
67
Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Summary
Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 02/07/2024
0.00 7,516.92
DeeAnn Triethart 02/07/2024
0.00 32.54
IUOE Local #49 02/07/2024
0.00 735.00
JERRY RUEGEMER 02/07/2024
0.00 521.80
Metropolitan Area Management Association 02/07/2024
0.00 45.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 02/07/2024
0.00 32.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 02/07/2024
0.00 32.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 02/07/2024
0.00 32.00
MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 02/07/2024
0.00 144.00
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 02/07/2024
0.00 7,875.46
Thomas Erdmann 02/07/2024
0.00 152.93
VERIZON WIRELESS 02/07/2024
0.00 5,208.19
Abdo LLP 02/08/2024
0.00 12,000.00
ASPEN MILLS 02/08/2024
0.00 1,742.17
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 63,199.06
Carver County 02/08/2024
0.00 1,275.00
Cleaning Solutions Services 02/08/2024
0.00 8,147.20
COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 02/08/2024
0.00 4,200.00
Diamond Snow & Ice Control 02/08/2024
0.00 1,920.00
DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 02/08/2024
0.00 2,211.00
Earl F Andersen Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 397.40
Enterprise FM Trust 02/08/2024
0.00 20,855.72
Escape Fire Protection LLC 02/08/2024
0.00 52.72
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 02/08/2024
0.00 524.54
GRAYBAR 02/08/2024
0.00 3,500.56
GREEN MEADOWS INC 02/08/2024
0.00 278.25
GS DIRECT INC 02/08/2024
0.00 1,022.15
Guard Guys, LLC 02/08/2024
0.00 389.80
HALLOCK COMPANY 02/08/2024
0.00 89.66
Innovative Office Solutions LLC 02/08/2024
0.00 61.90
INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS 02/08/2024
0.00 3,450.00
Juli Al-Hilwani 02/08/2024
0.00 285.00
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 02/08/2024
0.00 1,200.00
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 02/08/2024
0.00 35,196.39
Lano Equipment 02/08/2024
0.00 14,962.16
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 02/08/2024
0.00 350.00
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 02/08/2024
0.00 240.94
Metropolitan Area Management Association 02/08/2024
0.00 25.00
Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 02/08/2024
0.00 2,460.15
MID COUNTY COOP 02/08/2024
0.00 93.39
Minnesota Pump Works 02/08/2024
0.00 1,200.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 02/08/2024
0.00 3,678.11
MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD 02/08/2024
0.00 535.50
Mobile Mini, Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 1,890.00
Page 1 of 3 68
Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 02/08/2024
0.00 135.60
Nuss Truck & Equipment 02/08/2024
0.00 98.86
NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 02/08/2024
0.00 6,954.00
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 94.76
PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS 02/08/2024
0.00 363.29
Safe-Fast, Inc. 02/08/2024
0.00 1,482.00
Senja Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 96.00
Snow Kreilich Architects 02/08/2024
0.00 1,227.51
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 02/08/2024
0.00 7,271.56
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 02/08/2024
0.00 203.52
Sun Life Financial 02/08/2024
0.00 3,761.67
Teresa O'Neill 02/08/2024
0.00 20.00
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 02/08/2024
0.00 944.50
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 02/08/2024
0.00 1,955.00
True North Controls 02/08/2024
0.00 4,613.00
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 02/08/2024
0.00 78.05
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 02/08/2024
0.00 35.13
Washington County 02/08/2024
0.00 8.07
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 02/14/2024
0.00 5,705.85
CenturyLink 02/14/2024
0.00 64.00
FLEX TITLE COMPANY 02/14/2024
0.00 39.49
FRANK & BONNIE FILKO 02/14/2024
0.00 34.23
JOSEPH & ANN DRAPCHO 02/14/2024
0.00 45.66
LAKE TITLE LLC 02/14/2024
0.00 51.23
LUIS PIGUILLEM 02/14/2024
0.00 47.23
Marco Inc 02/14/2024
0.00 1,010.00
MATTHEW & LISA CLIFFORD 02/14/2024
0.00 407.73
Metronet Holdings, LLC 02/14/2024
0.00 56.11
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 02/14/2024
0.00 327.58
NATHANIEL & ANGELA MAIER 02/14/2024
0.00 27.64
RESULTS TITLE 02/14/2024
0.00 22.65
TITLE MARK LLC 02/14/2024
0.00 50.57
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 02/14/2024
0.00 43.62
XCEL ENERGY INC 02/14/2024
0.00 2,943.58
Ador Bespoke Homes 02/15/2024
0.00 1,730.00
Ascensus 02/15/2024
0.00 2,500.00
ASPEN MILLS 02/15/2024
0.00 671.24
Barr Engineering Company 02/15/2024
0.00 2,343.00
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 02/15/2024
0.00 67,876.03
BS & A Software 02/15/2024
0.00 1,652.00
Carver County 02/15/2024
0.00 175.00
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 02/15/2024
0.00 360.00
Compass Minerals America, Inc 02/15/2024
0.00 8,969.36
DEM-CON LANDFILL 02/15/2024
0.00 231.08
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 02/15/2024
0.00 3,183.00
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 02/15/2024
0.00 3,801.42
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 02/15/2024
0.00 122.22
FASTENAL COMPANY 02/15/2024
0.00 43.30
Ferguson Waterworks #2518 02/15/2024
0.00 949.48
JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 02/15/2024
0.00 608.80
Juli Al-Hilwani 02/15/2024
0.00 56.00
Justin & Madeline Hayman 02/15/2024
0.00 115.00
Lennar 02/15/2024
0.00 27,500.00
Page 2 of 3 69
Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 02/15/2024
0.00 1,218.51
Michael Henry 02/15/2024
0.00 150.00
MID COUNTY COOP 02/15/2024
0.00 1.42
Minnesota Safety Council 02/15/2024
0.00 713.00
MOSS & BARNETT 02/15/2024
0.00 2,074.50
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 02/15/2024
0.00 56.36
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 02/15/2024
0.00 203.20
NvoicePay 02/15/2024
0.00 771.50
Paul Young 02/15/2024
0.00 345.00
Pinnacle Pest Control 02/15/2024
0.00 200.00
PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 02/15/2024
0.00 25.99
PRECISE MRM LLC 02/15/2024
0.00 273.00
SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER 02/15/2024
0.00 2,100.00
SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 02/15/2024
0.00 741.65
Sophia Martin 02/15/2024
0.00 227.50
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 02/15/2024
0.00 1,214.65
Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 02/15/2024
0.00 246.91
Springbrook 02/15/2024
0.00 74,610.05
Stephen Sundberg 02/15/2024
0.00 100.00
Stericycle, Inc 02/15/2024
0.00 248.00
SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 02/15/2024
0.00 420.00
The Mustard Seed, Inc. 02/15/2024
0.00 56.00
US Home Corporation 02/15/2024
0.00 5,000.00
Val Roder / Olivine Yoga LLC 02/15/2024
0.00 200.00
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 02/15/2024
0.00 16,170.50
Report Total:0.00 480,235.97
Page 3 of 3 70
AP
Check Detail
User: dwashburn
Printed: 2/16/2024 8:01:44 AM
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Abdo LLP 101-1130-4301 12,000.00 2/8/2024 2023 Audit services
12,000.00 2/8/2024
Abdo LLP 12,000.00
Ador Bespoke Homes 701-0000-3806 1,730.00 2/15/2024 Sewer Refund - Double Charge - 6681 Galpin Blvd
1,730.00 2/15/2024
Ador Bespoke Homes 1,730.00
Al-Hilwani Juli 101-1530-4347 285.00 2/8/2024 Al-Hilwani 10 pack Koestler
285.00 2/8/2024
Al-Hilwani Juli 101-1539-4343 56.00 2/15/2024 2 Fit For Life Classes Jan/Feb
56.00 2/15/2024
Al-Hilwani Juli 341.00
Ascensus 101-1130-4301 2,500.00 2/15/2024 GASB 75 Actuarial Valuation/Report
2,500.00 2/15/2024
Ascensus 2,500.00
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 547.65 2/8/2024 Class A for Heger
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 1 of 25
71
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 219.34 2/8/2024 Thomas Erdmann-New Hire order
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 230.85 2/8/2024 Marissa Smith-DC Pants
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 576.65 2/8/2024 Andrew Heger-New Hire Order
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 167.68 2/8/2024 Thomas Erdman- Uniform Badges
1,742.17 2/8/2024
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 158.45 2/15/2024 Ray Bolger-Class B uniforms
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 162.45 2/15/2024 Mchael Hines-Class B uniforms
ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 350.34 2/15/2024 D. Anderson High Viz Jackets
671.24 2/15/2024
ASPEN MILLS 2,413.41
Barr Engineering Company 700-7025-4300 2,343.00 2/15/2024 Well #10 & 12 Rehab
2,343.00 2/15/2024
Barr Engineering Company 2,343.00
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 414-4010-4300 63,199.06 2/8/2024 Chan Civic Campus/Senior Center & Park
63,199.06 2/8/2024
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 414-4010-4300 54,024.19 2/15/2024 Professional Services-November 2023
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 414-4010-4300 13,851.84 2/15/2024 Professional Services-December 2023
67,876.03 2/15/2024
Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc 131,075.09
BS & A Software 101-1160-4236 1,652.00 2/15/2024 Online Permit Fees - Q4 of 2023
1,652.00 2/15/2024
BS & A Software 1,652.00
Carver County 700-1160-4326 650.00 2/8/2024 Dark Fiber WWTP W3 W7 W8 LS24
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 2 of 25
72
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Carver County 101-1160-4326 625.00 2/8/2024 500MB Internet + Dark Fiber City Hall FD1 FD2 PW
1,275.00 2/8/2024
Carver County 101-1130-4301 175.00 2/15/2024 End of Year Tax Certificate
175.00 2/15/2024
Carver County 1,450.00
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 101-1160-4131 360.00 2/15/2024 Getac Tablet Ext Warranty
360.00 2/15/2024
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 360.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1170-4321 1,714.14 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 700-0000-4321 90.74 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 700-0000-4321 3,040.01 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1550-4321 511.87 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 700-7019-4321 641.84 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 700-7043-4321 1,469.98 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 701-0000-4321 26.24 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1600-4321 22.10 2/7/2024 Gas Charges
7,516.92 2/7/2024
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 701-0000-4321 384.87 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 700-0000-4321 384.87 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1312-4321 3,078.97 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1530-4321 364.38 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1170-4321 140.79 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1220-4321 1,351.97 2/14/2024 Gas Charges
5,705.85 2/14/2024
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 13,222.77
CenturyLink 701-0000-4310 32.00 2/14/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
CenturyLink 700-0000-4310 32.00 2/14/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 3 of 25
73
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
64.00 2/14/2024
CenturyLink 64.00
Cleaning Solutions Services 700-0000-4511 64.27 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-January
Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1220-4511 257.09 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-January
Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1170-4511 3,198.15 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-January
Cleaning Solutions Services 701-0000-4511 64.27 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-Janaury
Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1190-4511 4,049.23 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-January
Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1312-4511 514.19 2/8/2024 Cleaning services-Janaury
8,147.20 2/8/2024
Cleaning Solutions Services 8,147.20
CLIFFORD MATTHEW & LISA 720-0000-2020 98.29 2/14/2024 Refund Check 097452-000, 8900 AUDUBON ROAD
CLIFFORD MATTHEW & LISA 700-0000-2020 12.47 2/14/2024 Refund Check 097452-000, 8900 AUDUBON ROAD
CLIFFORD MATTHEW & LISA 700-0000-2020 296.97 2/14/2024 Refund Check 097452-000, 8900 AUDUBON ROAD
407.73 2/14/2024
CLIFFORD MATTHEW & LISA 407.73
Compass Minerals America, Inc 101-1320-4156 8,969.36 2/15/2024 road salt
8,969.36 2/15/2024
Compass Minerals America, Inc 8,969.36
COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4205 4,200.00 2/8/2024 Barracuda Email Archiver Annual Renewal
4,200.00 2/8/2024
COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 4,200.00
DEM-CON LANDFILL 101-1320-4150 231.08 2/15/2024 street sweeping/illegal dumping
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 4 of 25
74
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
231.08 2/15/2024
DEM-CON LANDFILL 231.08
Diamond Snow & Ice Control 101-1320-4156 1,920.00 2/8/2024 chemicals to treat road salt
1,920.00 2/8/2024
Diamond Snow & Ice Control 1,920.00
DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 101-1550-4120 2,211.00 2/8/2024 Flag Replacements (Restock)
2,211.00 2/8/2024
DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 2,211.00
DRAPCHO JOSEPH & ANN 701-0000-2020 20.69 2/14/2024 Refund Check 098095-000, 8691 CHAN HILLS DR NO
DRAPCHO JOSEPH & ANN 720-0000-2020 11.20 2/14/2024 Refund Check 098095-000, 8691 CHAN HILLS DR NO
DRAPCHO JOSEPH & ANN 700-0000-2020 12.40 2/14/2024 Refund Check 098095-000, 8691 CHAN HILLS DR NO
DRAPCHO JOSEPH & ANN 700-0000-2020 1.37 2/14/2024 Refund Check 098095-000, 8691 CHAN HILLS DR NO
45.66 2/14/2024
DRAPCHO JOSEPH & ANN 45.66
Earl F Andersen Inc 101-1320-4155 397.40 2/8/2024 street signs
397.40 2/8/2024
Earl F Andersen Inc 397.40
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1530-4510 289.00 2/15/2024 Warming House Furnace Repair
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1190-4510 300.00 2/15/2024 Weekly Boiler Maint.
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1190-4510 300.00 2/15/2024 Weekly Boiler Maint. 1.10.24
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1190-4510 340.00 2/15/2024 Weekly Boiler Maint. 1.16.24
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1312-4510 1,465.00 2/15/2024 Rooftop Repair
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 101-1190-4510 489.00 2/15/2024 Boiler Repair
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 5 of 25
75
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
3,183.00 2/15/2024
Edina Heating & Cooling Inc 3,183.00
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 400-4135-4704 3,801.42 2/15/2024 lighting and equipment
3,801.42 2/15/2024
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 3,801.42
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 570.70 2/8/2024 202 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVJ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 360.00 2/8/2024 505 - 23 Chev Silv #26RP8Z
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 648.96 2/8/2024 403 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMK
Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 282.03 2/8/2024 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 627.93 2/8/2024 402 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMF
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 367.26 2/8/2024 203 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPC3
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 180.47 2/8/2024 001 - 22 Ford Esca #26M3MH
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 618.42 2/8/2024 401 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPBZ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 164.95 2/8/2024 606 - 22 Ford Rang #25G23Z
Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 174.50 2/8/2024 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K
Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 83.25 2/8/2024 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 560.43 2/8/2024 408 - 22 Chev Silv #25G89X
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 178.00 2/8/2024 408 - 22 Chev Silv #25G89X
Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 83.25 2/8/2024 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 570.70 2/8/2024 204 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVL
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 652.95 2/8/2024 132 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNCN
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 286.54 2/8/2024 419 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMJ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 473.03 2/8/2024 412 - 22 GMC Sier #25H28F
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 128.22 2/8/2024 412 - 22 GMC Sier #25H28F
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 370.86 2/8/2024 001 - 22 Ford Esca #26M3MH
Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 174.50 2/8/2024 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 148.71 2/8/2024 140 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5J6
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 160.34 2/8/2024 605 - 22 Ford Rang #25G25M
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 167.19 2/8/2024 411 - 22 Chev Silv #25G8CL
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 281.29 2/8/2024 132 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNCN
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 647.20 2/8/2024 420 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMS
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 164.02 2/8/2024 214 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5D2
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 652.94 2/8/2024 134 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNKR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 549.90 2/8/2024 612 - 23 Chev Silv #26RL44
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 357.99 2/8/2024 401 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPBZ
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 6 of 25
76
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 254.78 2/8/2024 502 - 23 Chev Blazer #25XQVB
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 560.51 2/8/2024 140 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5J6
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 611.48 2/8/2024 505 - 23 Chev Silv #26RP8Z
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 464.85 2/8/2024 502 - 23 Chev Blazer #25XQVB
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 318.00 2/8/2024 204 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVL
Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 83.71 2/8/2024 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K
Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 83.71 2/8/2024 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 575.64 2/8/2024 203 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPC3
Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 282.03 2/8/2024 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 381.21 2/8/2024 606 - 22 Ford Rang #25G23Z
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 223.88 2/8/2024 405 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QQ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 318.00 2/8/2024 202 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVJ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 568.05 2/8/2024 411 - 22 Chev Silv #25G8CL
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 541.41 2/8/2024 214 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5D2
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 286.51 2/8/2024 403 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMK
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 421.44 2/8/2024 605 - 22 Ford Rang #25G25M
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 281.28 2/8/2024 134 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNKR
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 665.42 2/8/2024 201 - 22 GMC Yuko #25MPSN
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 649.04 2/8/2024 419 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMJ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 185.06 2/8/2024 201 - 22 GMC Yuko #25MPSN
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 370.92 2/8/2024 612 - 23 Chev Silv #26RL44
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 647.49 2/8/2024 416 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMC
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 515.40 2/8/2024 405 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QQ
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 285.87 2/8/2024 416 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMC
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 307.76 2/8/2024 402 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMF
Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 285.74 2/8/2024 420 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMS
20,855.72 2/8/2024
Enterprise FM Trust 20,855.72
Erdmann Thomas 101-1220-4240 152.93 2/7/2024 Duty crew Boot
152.93 2/7/2024
Erdmann Thomas 152.93
Escape Fire Protection LLC 101-0000-2033 52.72 2/8/2024 Plan Review Refund -Permit 2024-00157 - 1709 Lake Dr W
52.72 2/8/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 7 of 25
77
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Escape Fire Protection LLC 52.72
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 101-1320-4140 524.54 2/8/2024 batteries
524.54 2/8/2024
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 700-0000-4140 122.22 2/15/2024 Battery
122.22 2/15/2024
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 646.76
FASTENAL COMPANY 101-1320-4560 43.30 2/15/2024 street signs supplies
43.30 2/15/2024
FASTENAL COMPANY 43.30
Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4550 949.48 2/15/2024 curb box parts
949.48 2/15/2024
Ferguson Waterworks #2518 949.48
FILKO FRANK & BONNIE 720-0000-2020 12.57 2/14/2024 Refund Check 012292-000, 550 BIGHORN DRIVE
FILKO FRANK & BONNIE 700-0000-2020 1.55 2/14/2024 Refund Check 012292-000, 550 BIGHORN DRIVE
FILKO FRANK & BONNIE 701-0000-2020 13.59 2/14/2024 Refund Check 012292-000, 550 BIGHORN DRIVE
FILKO FRANK & BONNIE 700-0000-2020 6.52 2/14/2024 Refund Check 012292-000, 550 BIGHORN DRIVE
34.23 2/14/2024
FILKO FRANK & BONNIE 34.23
FLEX TITLE COMPANY 701-0000-2020 23.31 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100642-008, 7513 WEST 77TH STREET
FLEX TITLE COMPANY 700-0000-2020 14.31 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100642-008, 7513 WEST 77TH STREET
FLEX TITLE COMPANY 700-0000-2020 1.87 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100642-008, 7513 WEST 77TH STREET
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 8 of 25
78
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
39.49 2/14/2024
FLEX TITLE COMPANY 39.49
GRAYBAR 101-1350-4120 768.40 2/8/2024 light bulbs
GRAYBAR 101-1350-4120 34.64 2/8/2024 250 watts light bulbs
GRAYBAR 101-1350-4120 2,697.52 2/8/2024 New LED streetlights
3,500.56 2/8/2024
GRAYBAR 3,500.56
GREEN MEADOWS INC 101-1220-1193 278.25 2/8/2024 Snow Plowing
278.25 2/8/2024
GREEN MEADOWS INC 278.25
GS DIRECT INC 101-1120-4359 29.78 2/8/2024 Toner for Plotter in Eng/LC Per MN Statute 471.425
GS DIRECT INC 101-1120-4110 992.37 2/8/2024 Toner for Plotter in Eng/LC Per MN Statute 471.425
1,022.15 2/8/2024
GS DIRECT INC 1,022.15
Guard Guys, LLC 700-0000-4300 318.00 2/8/2024 DOT Screen Breath Test
Guard Guys, LLC 101-1120-4352 71.80 2/8/2024 Background Checks
389.80 2/8/2024
Guard Guys, LLC 389.80
HALLOCK COMPANY 701-0000-4551 89.66 2/8/2024 lift station supplies
89.66 2/8/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 9 of 25
79
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
HALLOCK COMPANY 89.66
Hayman Justin & Madeline 101-1250-3305 113.75 2/15/2024 Duplicate Permit Refund P2024-00267
Hayman Justin & Madeline 101-0000-2022 1.25 2/15/2024 Duplicate Permit Refund P2024-00267
115.00 2/15/2024
Hayman Justin & Madeline 115.00
Henry Michael 101-1560-4343 150.00 2/15/2024 Mike Henry Valentine Music Program
150.00 2/15/2024
Henry Michael 150.00
Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1120-4110 61.90 2/8/2024 Receipt roll sheet protectors file jacket nametags (General)
61.90 2/8/2024
Innovative Office Solutions LLC 61.90
INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS 101-1220-4140 3,450.00 2/8/2024 Truck Organizer design build install
3,450.00 2/8/2024
INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS 3,450.00
IUOE Local #49 101-0000-2004 455.00 2/7/2024 Union dues-February 2024
IUOE Local #49 701-0000-2004 106.97 2/7/2024 Union dues-February 2024
IUOE Local #49 700-0000-2004 173.03 2/7/2024 Union dues-February 2024
735.00 2/7/2024
IUOE Local #49 735.00
JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 101-1220-4120 608.80 2/15/2024 Helmets for Heger and Vance
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 10 of 25
80
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
608.80 2/15/2024
JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 608.80
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 605-6502-4300 1,200.00 2/8/2024 #14-08 Acquisition of ROW for CR-101
1,200.00 2/8/2024
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 1,200.00
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 605-6502-4300 1,624.13 2/8/2024 #14-08 TH101 Project @ 89.88%
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 605-6503-4300 182.87 2/8/2024 #14-08 TH101 Project @ 10.12%
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 601-6057-4303 32,643.42 2/8/2024 #25-02 Market Blvd Project
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 601-6059-4300 745.97 2/8/2024 #26-03 Pleasant View Rd -LRIP App.
35,196.39 2/8/2024
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 35,196.39
LAKE TITLE LLC 720-0000-2020 0.12 2/14/2024 Refund Check 015349-000, 7676 BLUEBONNET BLVD
LAKE TITLE LLC 700-0000-2020 0.18 2/14/2024 Refund Check 015349-000, 7676 BLUEBONNET BLVD
LAKE TITLE LLC 701-0000-2020 35.91 2/14/2024 Refund Check 015349-000, 7676 BLUEBONNET BLVD
LAKE TITLE LLC 700-0000-2020 15.02 2/14/2024 Refund Check 015349-000, 7676 BLUEBONNET BLVD
51.23 2/14/2024
LAKE TITLE LLC 51.23
Lano Equipment 400-0000-4705 14,962.16 2/8/2024 street trailer
14,962.16 2/8/2024
Lano Equipment 14,962.16
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 101-1120-4370 350.00 2/8/2024 2024 Elected Leaders Institute registration for Haley Schubert
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 11 of 25
81
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
350.00 2/8/2024
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 350.00
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built escrow 7184 Pearl Drive -Receipt #00536758
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 1976 Paisley Path
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7169 Purple Parkway -Receipt #00494098
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7170 Purple Parkway -Receipt #00503152
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7101 Pearl Drive -Receipt #00536759
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7136 Pearl Drive -Receipt #00541890
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7148 Pearl Drive -Receipt #00541891
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 1926 Fathers Song -Receipt #00503153
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7310 Paisley Court -Receipt #00507278
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow - 7182 Purple Parkway -Receipt #00503147
Lennar 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 1950 Visionary Court -Receipt #00549202
27,500.00 2/15/2024
Lennar 27,500.00
MAIER NATHANIEL & ANGELA 720-0000-2020 11.58 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100587-000, 8561 FLAMINGO DRIVE
MAIER NATHANIEL & ANGELA 700-0000-2020 1.42 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100587-000, 8561 FLAMINGO DRIVE
MAIER NATHANIEL & ANGELA 701-0000-2020 12.04 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100587-000, 8561 FLAMINGO DRIVE
MAIER NATHANIEL & ANGELA 700-0000-2020 2.60 2/14/2024 Refund Check 100587-000, 8561 FLAMINGO DRIVE
27.64 2/14/2024
MAIER NATHANIEL & ANGELA 27.64
Marco Inc 700-0000-4410 101.00 2/14/2024 Copier lease
Marco Inc 701-0000-4410 101.00 2/14/2024 Copier lease
Marco Inc 101-1170-4410 757.50 2/14/2024 Copier lease
Marco Inc 720-0000-4410 50.50 2/14/2024 Copier lease
1,010.00 2/14/2024
Marco Inc 1,010.00
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 12 of 25
82
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Martin Sophia 101-1539-4343 227.50 2/15/2024 Art Class Instruction
227.50 2/15/2024
Martin Sophia 227.50
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.101-1370-4170 240.94 2/8/2024 propane
240.94 2/8/2024
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 240.94
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 700-0000-4510 33.36 2/15/2024 Blk Slv Nbrs Adv
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 101-1320-4150 3.99 2/15/2024 Guard Switch Plastic CD2
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 701-0000-4150 16.18 2/15/2024 Electrical Tape
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 101-1220-4290 4.94 2/15/2024 Fasteners Magnetic Tape
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 101-1220-4142 749.50 2/15/2024 Oil Absorbent Oil Dry
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 101-1320-4155 69.00 2/15/2024 Fasteners
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 700-7043-4150 117.15 2/15/2024 Fasteners Ice Melt
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 101-1550-4120 117.46 2/15/2024 Sawzall Blade Fasteners Earmuff
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 700-7043-4120 54.39 2/15/2024 Respirator Fasteners Sand Paper
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 700-0000-4550 19.18 2/15/2024 Cable Tie
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 701-0000-4510 33.36 2/15/2024 Blk Slv Nbrs
1,218.51 2/15/2024
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 1,218.51
Metronet Holdings, LLC 700-7043-4310 56.11 2/14/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
56.11 2/14/2024
Metronet Holdings, LLC 56.11
Metropolitan Area Management Association 101-1120-4360 45.00 2/7/2024 Membership-Hokkanen
45.00 2/7/2024
Metropolitan Area Management Association 101-1120-4370 25.00 2/8/2024 Luncheon - L Hokkanen
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 13 of 25
83
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
25.00 2/8/2024
Metropolitan Area Management Association 70.00
Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 101-1250-3816 -24.85 2/8/2024 January 2024 SAC
Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 701-0000-2023 2,485.00 2/8/2024 January 2024 SAC
2,460.15 2/8/2024
Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 2,460.15
MID COUNTY COOP 101-1320-4153 93.39 2/8/2024 spray for buckhorn
93.39 2/8/2024
MID COUNTY COOP 101-1320-4153 1.42 2/15/2024 spray for buckthorn
1.42 2/15/2024
MID COUNTY COOP 94.81
Minnesota Pump Works 701-7015-4751 1,200.00 2/8/2024 custom lifting rings for new pump at LS24
1,200.00 2/8/2024
Minnesota Pump Works 1,200.00
Minnesota Safety Council 101-1560-4343 713.00 2/15/2024 Driver Safety Class instructor/supply fees
713.00 2/15/2024
Minnesota Safety Council 713.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 700-0000-4370 32.00 2/7/2024 Water Supply System Operator Exam-Wegner
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 700-0000-4370 32.00 2/7/2024 Water Supply System Operator Exam-Casebeer
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 700-0000-4370 32.00 2/7/2024 Water Supply System Operator Exam-McLellan
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 14 of 25
84
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
96.00 2/7/2024
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 96.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 101-1250-3818 -75.06 2/8/2024 January 2024 Surcharge
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 101-0000-2022 3,753.17 2/8/2024 January 2024 Surcharge
3,678.11 2/8/2024
MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 3,678.11
MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD 101-1220-4300 535.50 2/8/2024 Haz Mat Testing
535.50 2/8/2024
MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD 535.50
MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 101-0000-2037 144.00 2/7/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
144.00 2/7/2024
MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 144.00
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 701-0000-4320 926.77 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1600-4320 123.68 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 49.89 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 46.02 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 6,093.70 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 115.52 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 700-0000-4320 208.19 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 311.69 2/7/2024 Electric Charges
7,875.46 2/7/2024
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 327.58 2/14/2024 Electric Charges
327.58 2/14/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 15 of 25
85
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 8,203.04
Mobile Mini, Inc 101-1617-4400 945.00 2/8/2024 January 16 - February 12 City Center warming house
Mobile Mini, Inc 101-1617-4400 945.00 2/8/2024 January 19 - February 15 warming houses
1,890.00 2/8/2024
Mobile Mini, Inc 1,890.00
MOSS & BARNETT 210-0000-4300 2,074.50 2/15/2024 Professional Services - December 2023
2,074.50 2/15/2024
MOSS & BARNETT 2,074.50
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 101-1550-4120 56.36 2/15/2024 mower parts
56.36 2/15/2024
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 56.36
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1370-4120 61.35 2/8/2024 antifreeze pump
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1550-4120 6.23 2/8/2024 Fuel Primer
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1220-4120 68.02 2/8/2024 filters lights
135.60 2/8/2024
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4120 133.04 2/15/2024 Filters & Belt
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1550-4120 70.16 2/15/2024 Spin-On Fluid Filters & Radial Seal Filter
203.20 2/15/2024
NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 338.80
Nuss Truck & Equipment 101-1320-4140 98.86 2/8/2024 Quick Coupling
98.86 2/8/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 16 of 25
86
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Nuss Truck & Equipment 98.86
NvoicePay 101-1130-4300 771.50 2/15/2024 January 2024 AP Payments
771.50 2/15/2024
NvoicePay 771.50
NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 101-1120-4330 2,143.21 2/8/2024 Label Postage Carrier Route Postage Spring News & Rec 2024
NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 101-1125-4335 4,810.79 2/8/2024 Label Postage Carrier Route Postage Spring News & Rec 2024
6,954.00 2/8/2024
NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 6,954.00
Olivine Yoga LLC Val Roder /101-1560-4343 200.00 2/15/2024 olivine yoga class instructor fee
200.00 2/15/2024
Olivine Yoga LLC Val Roder / 200.00
O'Neill Teresa 101-1611-3630 20.00 2/8/2024 refund of fishing contest entry fees by check
20.00 2/8/2024
O'Neill Teresa 20.00
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 700-0000-4140 7.43 2/8/2024 Mini blub
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 700-0000-4140 17.63 2/8/2024 str whl cvr
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 101-1370-4140 19.39 2/8/2024 Washer Pump
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 701-0000-4140 17.63 2/8/2024 Str whl cvr
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 701-0000-4140 32.68 2/8/2024 Flange Bolt Premium Grey
94.76 2/8/2024
O'Reilly Automotive Inc 94.76
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 17 of 25
87
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
PIGUILLEM LUIS 720-0000-2020 47.23 2/14/2024 Refund Check 103460-000, 7500 FAWN HILL ROAD
47.23 2/14/2024
PIGUILLEM LUIS 47.23
PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS 101-1220-4300 363.29 2/8/2024 Jan 2024 laundry services
363.29 2/8/2024
PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS 363.29
Pinnacle Pest Control 101-1170-4510 200.00 2/15/2024 pest control services
200.00 2/15/2024
Pinnacle Pest Control 200.00
PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 101-1320-4120 25.99 2/15/2024 chainsaw parts
25.99 2/15/2024
PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 25.99
PRECISE MRM LLC 101-1320-4310 273.00 2/15/2024 AVL for plow trucks
273.00 2/15/2024
PRECISE MRM LLC 273.00
RESULTS TITLE 701-0000-2020 10.80 2/14/2024 Refund Check 014922-000, 7659 CENTURY PLACE
RESULTS TITLE 700-0000-2020 1.43 2/14/2024 Refund Check 014922-000, 7659 CENTURY PLACE
RESULTS TITLE 700-0000-2020 8.42 2/14/2024 Refund Check 014922-000, 7659 CENTURY PLACE
RESULTS TITLE 720-0000-2020 2.00 2/14/2024 Refund Check 014922-000, 7659 CENTURY PLACE
22.65 2/14/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 18 of 25
88
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
RESULTS TITLE 22.65
RUEGEMER JERRY 101-1520-4381 521.80 2/7/2024 Flight-National P & R conf in Dallas
521.80 2/7/2024
RUEGEMER JERRY 521.80
Safe-Fast, Inc.101-1550-4240 1,482.00 2/8/2024 Class 3 jacket (1 new hire 1 replacement). Winter safety boot
1,482.00 2/8/2024
Safe-Fast, Inc. 1,482.00
SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER 101-1110-4360 2,100.00 2/15/2024 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force - 2024 Dues
2,100.00 2/15/2024
SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER 2,100.00
Senja Inc 101-1539-4343 96.00 2/8/2024 Tai Chi Payment
96.00 2/8/2024
Senja Inc 96.00
SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 720-7201-4300 741.65 2/15/2024 brush/woodchip
741.65 2/15/2024
SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 741.65
Snow Kreilich Architects 402-4003-4300 1,227.51 2/8/2024 Fire Station 1
1,227.51 2/8/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 19 of 25
89
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Snow Kreilich Architects 1,227.51
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 101-1160-4203 733.86 2/8/2024 VMWare VSphere 8 Renewal - PW Host
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 101-1160-4218 3,419.20 2/8/2024 Adobe Acrobat Pro Renewals /Adobe Creative Cloud Renewal (4)
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 101-1160-4216 3,118.50 2/8/2024 Adobe Acrobat Pro Renewals /Adobe Creative Cloud Renewal (4)(27)
7,271.56 2/8/2024
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 7,271.56
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1110-4336 38.40 2/8/2024 Ordinance 720
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 410-4410-4300 138.24 2/8/2024 Bid for Lake Ann Park Project
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1110-4375 26.88 2/8/2024 Notice - Wildlife Management
203.52 2/8/2024
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1130-4336 138.24 2/15/2024 2024 Budget
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1120-4359 3.05 2/15/2024 Service Charge - Dec 2023 billing
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1120-4340 391.60 2/15/2024 Display Advertising
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1310-4336 161.20 2/15/2024 Ad for Bid
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1120-4340 391.60 2/15/2024 Display Advertising
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 101-1310-4336 128.96 2/15/2024 Legal 2wks project
1,214.65 2/15/2024
SOUTHWEST NEWS MEDIA 1,418.17
Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 101-1250-4240 236.91 2/15/2024 Sweatshirts/Tshirts/LC per MN Statute 471.425
Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 101-1250-4359 10.00 2/15/2024 Sweatshirts/Tshirts/LC per MN Statute 471.425
246.91 2/15/2024
Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 246.91
Springbrook 700-1130-4227 7,109.86 2/15/2024 Annual Subscription Fees
Springbrook 101-1160-4227 56,835.39 2/15/2024 Annual Subscription Fees
Springbrook 720-1130-4227 3,554.94 2/15/2024 Annual Subscription Fees
Springbrook 701-1130-4227 7,109.86 2/15/2024 Annual Subscription Fees
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 20 of 25
90
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
74,610.05 2/15/2024
Springbrook 74,610.05
Stericycle, Inc 101-1120-4300 248.00 2/15/2024 Document Shredding
248.00 2/15/2024
Stericycle, Inc 248.00
SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 700-7043-4310 420.00 2/15/2024 service call communication trouble
420.00 2/15/2024
SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 420.00
Sun Life Financial 720-0000-2011 19.34 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 720-0000-2015 38.26 2/8/2024 LTD February 2024
Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2037 108.28 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2015 1,297.15 2/8/2024 LTD February 2024
Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2011 656.87 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2011 31.31 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2011 48.56 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2037 108.28 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2011 119.74 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2037 1,175.83 2/8/2024 Life Insurance-February 2024
Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2015 61.98 2/8/2024 LTD February 2024
Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2015 96.07 2/8/2024 LTD February 2024
3,761.67 2/8/2024
Sun Life Financial 3,761.67
Sundberg Stephen 700-7204-4901 100.00 2/15/2024 Water Wise Rebate- Dishwasher
100.00 2/15/2024
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 21 of 25
91
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
Sundberg Stephen 100.00
The Mustard Seed, Inc.101-1550-4300 56.00 2/15/2024 Halloween Setup
56.00 2/15/2024
The Mustard Seed, Inc. 56.00
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 101-1125-4300 944.50 2/8/2024 January Minutes Transcription
944.50 2/8/2024
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 944.50
TITLE MARK LLC 701-0000-2020 13.05 2/14/2024 Refund Check 102366-000, 7114 PONTIAC CIRCLE
TITLE MARK LLC 700-0000-2020 1.85 2/14/2024 Refund Check 102366-000, 7114 PONTIAC CIRCLE
TITLE MARK LLC 720-0000-2020 12.40 2/14/2024 Refund Check 102366-000, 7114 PONTIAC CIRCLE
TITLE MARK LLC 700-0000-2020 23.27 2/14/2024 Refund Check 102366-000, 7114 PONTIAC CIRCLE
50.57 2/14/2024
TITLE MARK LLC 50.57
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 101-1550-4300 1,955.00 2/8/2024 Fence repair
1,955.00 2/8/2024
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 1,955.00
Triethart DeeAnn 101-1120-4110 32.54 2/7/2024 Plates
32.54 2/7/2024
Triethart DeeAnn 32.54
True North Controls 701-0000-4551 4,613.00 2/8/2024 Radios /communications for lift station
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 22 of 25
92
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
4,613.00 2/8/2024
True North Controls 4,613.00
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 101-1370-4150 78.05 2/8/2024 Brake Solenoid
78.05 2/8/2024
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 78.05
US Home Corporation 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7253 Rogers Court -Receipt #00441066
US Home Corporation 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 2/15/2024 As Built Escrow 7290 Purple Parkway -Receipt #00441067
5,000.00 2/15/2024
US Home Corporation 5,000.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1540-4310 40.01 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1370-4310 89.52 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1250-4310 342.44 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1160-4310 138.72 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1310-4310 243.71 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1420-4310 278.67 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1120-4310 157.50 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1312-4310 128.72 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1600-4310 249.42 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 720-0000-4310 467.46 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 701-0000-4310 497.92 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1110-4310 40.01 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1520-4310 52.01 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1530-4310 41.24 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1170-4310 46.24 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1220-4310 840.43 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 700-0000-4310 674.99 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1320-4310 296.67 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1125-4310 41.24 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1550-4310 541.27 2/7/2024 Telephone & Communication Charges
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 23 of 25
93
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
5,208.19 2/7/2024
VERIZON WIRELESS 5,208.19
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 701-0000-4551 35.13 2/8/2024 lift station parts
35.13 2/8/2024
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 35.13
Washington County 101-0000-2033 8.07 2/8/2024 MESB Narcan Reimbursement-Shipping Overpayment
8.07 2/8/2024
Washington County 8.07
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 700-0000-2020 13.00 2/14/2024 Refund Check 007121-001, 8712 OSPREY LANE
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 701-0000-2020 22.36 2/14/2024 Refund Check 007121-001, 8712 OSPREY LANE
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 700-0000-2020 0.90 2/14/2024 Refund Check 007121-001, 8712 OSPREY LANE
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 720-0000-2020 7.36 2/14/2024 Refund Check 007121-001, 8712 OSPREY LANE
43.62 2/14/2024
WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 43.62
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 720-0000-4300 1,760.00 2/15/2024 Water Resources Support Services
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 414-4011-4303 568.75 2/15/2024 Boundary Topo Survey-December
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 101-1311-4306 9,527.00 2/15/2024 GIS Support Services
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 414-4010-4303 568.75 2/15/2024 Boundary Topo Survey-December
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 720-7025-4300 3,546.00 2/15/2024 2023 Pond Maintenance
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 720-0000-4300 200.00 2/15/2024 Wetland Violation TEP work
16,170.50 2/15/2024
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 16,170.50
XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1550-4300 2,943.58 2/14/2024 Claim for damages to xcel energy property.
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 24 of 25
94
Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description
2,943.58 2/14/2024
XCEL ENERGY INC 2,943.58
Young Paul 101-1701-4345 345.00 2/15/2024 Sweetheart Dance DJ Services 2024
345.00 2/15/2024
Young Paul 345.00
480,235.97
AP - Check Detail (2/16/2024)Page 25 of 25
95
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Appoint Fire Chief Andrew Heger to the Fire Relief Association Board of
Trustees
File No.Item No: D.6
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council Appoints Fire Chief Andrew Heger to the Fire Relief Association
Board of Trustees."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Chanhassen Fire Relief Association Board of Trustees oversees all financial and pension matters
for the association. This includes oversight of pension investments, amendments to bylaws, and a
special discretionary fund that is raised through donations and fundraising. The Board meets quarterly.
State statute requires that the Board have three municipal trustees, including one elected official, one
elected or appointed official, and the Fire Chief.
DISCUSSION
On January 8, 2024, the City Council made the required annual appointments to the Chanhassen Fire
Relief Association Board: Councilmember Haley Schubert, Finance Director Kelly Grinnell, and Fire
96
Chief Don Johnson.
Fire Chief Don Johnson will retire on February 28, 2024 and be replaced by new Fire Chief Andrew
Heger, effective February 26, 2024.
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council appoint Fire Chief Andrew Heger to the Chanhassen Fire Relief
Association Board effective February 26, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
MN Statute 424A.04
97
I MINNESOTA STATUTES 20 I 7 4244.04
424A.04 VOLUNTEER RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS; BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Subdivision l. Membership. (a) A relief association that is directly associated with a municipal fire
department must be managed by a board of trustees consisting of nine members. Six trustees must be elected
from the membership of the relief association and three trustees must be drawn from the officials of the
municipalities servedby the fire departrnent to which the relief association is directly associated. The bylaws
of a relief association which provides a monthly benefit service pension may provide that one of the six
trustees elected from the relief association membership may be a retired member receiving a monthly pension
who is elected by the membership of the relief association. The three municipal trustees must be one elected
municipal oflicial and one elected or appointed municipal official who are designated as municipal
representatives by the municipal governing board annually and the chief of the municipal fire department.
(b) A relief association that is a subsidiary of an independentnonprofit firefighting corporation must be
managed by a board of trustees consisting of nine members. Six trustees must be elected from the membership
of the relief association, two trustees must be drawn from the offrcials of the municipalities served by the
fire departrnent to which the relief association is directly associated, and one trustee must be the fire chief
serving with the independent nonprofit firefighting corporation. The bylaws of a relief association may
provide that one of the six trustees elected from the relief association membership may be a retired member
receiving a monthly pension who is elected by the membership of the relief association. The two municipal
trustees must be elected or appointed municipal officials, selected as follows:
(l) if only one municipality contracts with the independent nonprofit firefighting corporation, the
municipal trustees must be two officials of the contracting municipality who are designated annually by the
governing body of the municipality; or
(2) if trvo or more municipalities contract with the independent nonprofit corporation, the municipal
trustees must be one offrcial from each of the two largest municipalities in population who are designated
annually by the governing bodies of the applicable municipalities.
(c) The municipal trustees for a relief association that is directly associated with a fire departrnent
operated as or by a joint powers entity must be the fire chief of the fire departrnent and two trustees designated
annually by the joint powers board. The municipal trustees for a relief association that is directly associated
with a fire department service area township must be the fire chief of the fire deparhnent and two trustees
designated by the township board.
(d) If a relief association lacks the municipal board members provided for in paragraph (a), (b), or (c)
because the fire department is not located in or associated with an organized municipality, joint powers
entity, or township, the municipal board members must be the fire chief of the fire deparment and trvo board
members appointed from the fire department service area by the board of commissioners of the applicable
county.
(e) The term of the appointed municipal board members is one year or until the person's successor is
qualified, whichever is later.
(f) A municipal trustee under paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) has all the rights and duties accorded to any
other trustee, except the right to be an offrcer of the relief association board of trustees.
(g) A board must have at least tlree offrcers, who are a president, a secretary and a treasurer. These
officers must be elected from among the elected trustees by either the full board of trustees or by the relief
association membership, as specified in the bylaws. [n no event may any trustee hold more than one officer
position at any one time. The terms of the elected trustees and of the offrcers of the board must be specified
Copyrrght @ 2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
98
4241..04 MINNESOTA STATUTES 20 I 7
in the bylaws of the relief association, but may not exceed three years. If the term of the elected trustees
exceeds one year, the election of the various trustees elected from the membership must be staggered on as
equal a basis as is practicable.
Subd. 2. X'iduciary duty. The board of trustees of a relief association shall undertake their activities
consistent with chapter 3564.
Subd. 2a. tr'iduciary responsibility. In the discharge of their respective duties, the officers and trustees
shall be held to the standard ofcare specified in section I14'.09. In addition, the trustees shall act in accordance
with chapter 356A. Each member of the board is a fiduciary and shall undertake all fiduciary activities in
accordance with the standard of care of section 11A.09, and in a manner consistent with chapter 356A. No
fiduciary of a relief association shall cause a relief association to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary
knows or should know that the transaction constitutes one of the following direct or indirect transactions:
( I ) sale or exchange or leasing of any real properry between the relief association and a board member;
(2) lending of money or other extension of credit between the relief association and a board member or
member of the relief association;
(3) furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the relief association and a board member; or
(4) nansfer to a board member, or use by or for the benefit of a board member, of any assets of the relief
association. A transfer of assets does not mean the payment of relief association benefits or administrative
expenses permitted by law.
Subd. 3. Conditions on relief association consultants. (a) If a volunteer firefighter relief association
employs or conffacts with a consultant to provide legal or financial advice, the secretary of the relief
association shall obtain and the consultant shall provide to the secretary ofthe reliefassociation a copy of
the consultant's certificate of insurancc.
(b) A consultant is any person who is employed under contract to provide legal or financial advice and
who is or who represents to the volunteer firefighters relief association that the person is:
(l) an actuary;
(2) a certified public accountant;
(3) an attorney;
(4) an investrnent advisor or manager, or an investment counselor;
(5) an invesfinent advisor or manager selection consultant;
(6) a pension benefit design advisor or consultant, or
(7) any other financial consultant.
History:1979c201 s14; 1980c607artl5sl2;1981 c224s210; 1983c219s8; 1989c319art8
s 27;2000c461 art l5 s l0; lSp200l c l0art 16s l; lSp2005 c8 art9 s 14;2009c 169art 10s 38;2012
c 286 art 12 s 16
2
Copyriglrt @ 2017 by the Rcvisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
99
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Approve Site Plan Agreement for Affinitech located at 2451 Galpin Court
File No.Planning Case 2023-22 Item No: D.7
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Reviewed By Eric Maass
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the site plan agreement for Affinitech subject to the
conditions stated in the agreement."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
Eden Trace Corporation is requesting a site plan agreement for the development of a 33,283-square-foot
office and light industrial building.
BACKGROUND
Eden Trace Corporation brought a site plan for review at City Council on January 8, 2024, that received
approval. They are now bringing forth a site plan agreement, this agreement is a standard template and
staff recommends approval of the agreement.
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
100
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Affinitech site plan agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
Affinitech Site Plan Agreement
101
1
229879v3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT #2023-22
AFFINITECH
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated February 12, 2024, by and between the CITY
OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, (the "Developer").
1.Request for Site Plan Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site plan
for a 33,283 square foot building and associated site improvements to be located on land in Carver
County, Minnesota legally described in Exhibit B (“Subject Property”), which buildings include the
following: office and light industrial warehouse (referred to in this Agreement as the "project").
2.Conditions of Site Plan Approval. The City hereby approves the project on condition that
the Developer enters into this Agreement and furnish the security required by it.
3.Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the
following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. If the plans vary from the
written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A – Title Sheet prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan B – Construction Notes prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan C – Existing Conditions prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan D – Site Plan prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan E – Grading Plan prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan F – Erosion Control Plan Pages C5.01-C5.04 prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan G – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Pages C5.05-C5.06 prepared by Sambatek,
dated 12/19/2023.
Plan H – Utility Plan prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan I – Detail Plan Pages C9.01-C9.05 prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan J – Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan K – Landscape Plan Pages L1.01-L1.02 prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
Plan L – ALTA/NPS Land Title Survey prepared by Sambatek, dated 05/09/2023.
Plan M – Stormwater Memo prepared by Sambatek, dated 12/19/2023.
102
2
229879v3
Plan N – Architectural Perspectives prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 09/06/2023.
Plan O – Architectural Elevations prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 09/06/2023.
Plan P – Site Line Plan prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 09/06/2023.
Plan Q – Floor Plan prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 09/06/2023.
Plan R – Photometric Plan prepared by Pulse, dated 11/6/2023.
4.Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping
by September 12, 2025. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City.
If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the
Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
5.Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all of the Plans,
payment of all the costs of all public improvements and construction of all public improvements,
the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank
acceptable to the City, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for $2,224,234.00 (erosion control,
grading, landscaping, stormwater, public improvements, etc.). The security shall be 110 percent of
the following:
Grading/ Erosion Control/ Landscaping $218,817.96
Street impact $264,343.64
SanitarySewer $11,349.33
Watermain $78,948.14
Storm Sewer $90,550.13
Sub-Total $664,009.20
110%$730,410.12
The City may draw down the security, on five (5) business days written notice to the Developer,
for any violation of the terms of this Contract or without notice if the security is allowed to lapse
prior to the end of the required term. If the required public improvements are not completed at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down without
notice. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of
proof satisfactory to the City that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City
have been satisfied, with City approval the security may be reduced from time to time by ninety
percent (90%) of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the
amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements
have been complete, all financial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as constructed"
plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements
are accepted by the City Council.
If the Developer requests a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the installation of site landscaping,
then the Developer shall provide to the city an updated letter of credit or cash escrow in an amount
sufficient to insure the installation of said landscaping.
103
3
229879v3
PROCEDURES FOR
LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION
a. Requests for reductions of Letters of Credit must be submitted to the City in writing by
the Developer or Developer’s Engineer.
b. Partial lien waivers totaling the amount of the requested reduction shall accompany each
such request.
c. Any reduction shall be subject to City approval.
6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at
the following address:
Eden Trace Corporation
8821 Sunset Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager or
mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address:
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317,
Telephone (952) 227-1100.
7.Other Special Conditions. City Council hereby approves a site plan for a development of
a 33,283 square foot office and light industrial warehouse subject to the conditions provided in this
Agreement and the following conditions:
Building:
1. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
4. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the
code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable
size, protected openings, and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be
addressed when the complete building and site plans are submitted.
5. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key
Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers,
104
4
229879v3
Separated or non-separated, fire resistive elements (Ext walls, bearing walls - exterior or
interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel
distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count.
6. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a separate
building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under
four feet in height requires a zoning permit.
7. Accessibility to be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter
1341.
Engineering
1. The north access shall either be relocated south to be wholly on Lot 3, Block 2,
Chanhassen West Business Park, in accordance with Chanhassen City Code, or a private
access agreement or cross-access easement shall be recorded against Lot 4, Block 2,
Chanhassen West Business Park, benefiting the development, prior to or concurrently
with recording of the site plan agreement.
2. All newly constructed water mains shall be privately owned and maintained.
3. Developer shall construct all sanitary sewer and water main improvements on the site in
accordance with the latest edition of the City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates.
4. The Developer shall record public drainage and utility easements over all public utilities
prior to or concurrently with the site plan agreement.
5. The Developer and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction
plans, dated November 2, 2023, prepared by Brady D. Busselman, PE with Sambatek., to
fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns in accordance with the City code.
Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording
of the site plan agreement.
6. Developer shall obtain all required permits from all other agencies with jurisdiction over
the project (i.e., Carver County, Carver County WMO, Board of Water and Soil
Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) prior to the commencement of
construction activities.
Natural Resources
1. The tree survey shall include a delineation of existing canopy coverage on site which
outlines all areas covered by tree canopy, including the Northeast side of the site. A
canopy coverage percentage based off of current site conditions must be calculated. This
105
5
229879v3
percentage will be used to determine the minimum canopy coverage requirements-
outlined in the City Code- and therefore, the number of trees that must be replanted.
2. Developer shall include existing plantings on Outlot A in the plan set if they are being
counted towards buffer yard planting requirements laid out in Chapter 20 Article 25.
Planning:
1. The Developer shall enter into a proof of parking agreement with the city for 35 parking
spaces that will not be constructed.
Water Resources:
1. The Developer shall provide a copy of conditional approval from the Carver County
Water Management Organization (“CCWMO”) as part of any future construction plan
submittals.
2. The Developer shall update the models (HydroCAD and MIDS) per City any CCWMO
comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the
final site plan and final construction plans.
a. An additional HydroCAD model for the PUD plans utilizing Atlas 14 conditions
and discharge rate analysis shall be included in future submittals.
b. The Developer shall confirm the 90% and 60% removals of TSS and TP are being
met with future plan submittals.
3. The Developer shall confirm the proposed stormwater design will not adversely impact
adjacent and/or downstream properties and water resources through revising design to
match existing high-water levels of downstream ponds, supplying a detailed analysis of
downstream resources and adjacent properties, or an option deemed equivalent by the
Water Resources Engineer.
4. The Developer shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any
proposed privately owned stormwater facilities prior to or concurrently to recording of
this agreement.
5. The Developer shall work with City staff and the CCWMO to confirm the ownership of
the regional BMP and ensure that a plan is in place for its perpetual maintenance, prior to
the recording of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Agreement.
8.General Conditions. The general conditions of this Agreement are attached as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein.
9.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
106
6
229879v3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___,
by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and by Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted
by its City Council.
__________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
107
7
229879v3
DEVELOPER:
EDEN TRACE CORPORATION
BY:
Its:_____________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________,
20___ by ________________, the __________________ of Eden Trace Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation, on behalf of the entity.
__________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
108
8
229879v3
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT
2451 GALPIN, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of all or part of the
subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Agreement,
affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same
may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by it.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2024.
2451 GALPIN, LLC
By:
__________________________ [print name]
Its: _______________________ [title]
STATE OF ______________ )
)ss.
COUNTY OF __________)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________,
2024, by _________________________, the _______________________________________ of
2451 Galpin, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said entity.
________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
651-452-5000
AMP/smt
109
1
229879v3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SITE PLAN AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL CONDITION
1.Right to Proceed. Within the Subject Property, the Developer may not grade or otherwise
disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, construct public or private utilities, or any
buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Agreement has been fully
executed by both parties, filed with the City Clerk and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office
or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County of the Subject Property, 2) the necessary security and
fees have been received by the City, 3) the necessary insurance for the Developer and its contractors
has been received by the City, 4) a preconstruction meeting has been held by the Developer and the
Developer’s Engineer, and 5) the City has issued a building permit provided the foregoing
conditions having been satisfied.
2.Maintenance of Site. The Subject Property shall be maintained in accordance with the
approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die
shall be promptly replaced.
3.License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors
a license to enter the site to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in
conjunction with site plan development.
4.Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be installed in accordance with City
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and City Ordinance. The Developer shall submit plans
and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the
City for approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide
adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that
the Developer’s engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City
standards as a condition of City acceptance. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding
with construction. In addition, the City may, at the City’s discretion and at the Developer’s expense,
have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis.
The Developer’s engineer shall provide for on-site project management. The Developer’s engineer
is responsible for design changes and contract administration between the Developer and the
Developer’s contractor. The Developer or its engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at
a mutually agreeable time at the City with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review
the program for the construction work. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the
improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a
complete set of reproducible “as constructed” plans and an electronic file of the “as constructed”
plans prepared in accordance with City standards. After completion of the improvements, a
representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final
inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City
Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the
City Engineer certifying that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans
110
2
229879v3
and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of
the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution.
A. Warranty. The Developer warrants all public improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer
shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the
improvement, or 2) a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the
original cost of the improvements. The required warranty period for materials and
workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two
(2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work.
5.Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued,
the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The
City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas
disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the
completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed
shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas
shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties
recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with
the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The
City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City
to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development
will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the
erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been
restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a
need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures.
6.Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on
and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has
resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
7.Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall
be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be
warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s)
shall post a letter of credit or cash escrow to the City to secure the warranties at the time of final
acceptance.
8.Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims
made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site
plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and
employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in
consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees.
B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this
Agreement, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred
under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time,
111
3
229879v3
the City may halt all development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30)
days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
D. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the
development of the site and installation of public improvements, including but not limited
to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with
approval of the site plan, the preparation of this Agreement, review of any other plans and
documents.
E. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and
special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
(“SAC”), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building
permit fees.
9.Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be
performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first
given written notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Agreement
is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for
permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its
other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
10.Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site
offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject
property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in
accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be
grounds for denial of building permits.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of
this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Agreement.
F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a
building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until
the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities
tested and approved by the city.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City
Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not
be a waiver or release.
H. Recording. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to
the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns,
that the Developer has fee title to the Subject Property and/or has obtained consents to this
Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the
property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property; and that the Developer will
112
4
229879v3
indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants.
I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in
addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising,
available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every
right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from
time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall
not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or
remedy.
J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this Agreement shall be from
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such
activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Construction activities in
conjunction with new developments and City improvement projects, including but not
limited to grading, utility installation and paving, requiring the use of heavy equipment shall
be permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday and 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No such activity is permitted on Sundays or public holidays.
Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes
beyond the normal working hours will require City Council approval.
K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly
identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first
provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot.
This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of
these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located
for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit.
L. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site plan,
the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following
authorities:
1.City of Chanhassen;
2.State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3.United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4.Watershed District;
5.Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory
to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Agreement.
N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or
warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Subject Property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make
use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or
actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the Subject
Property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the Subject
Property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of
suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist.
P. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has
accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of
113
5
229879v3
Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed
by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one
person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less
than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or
more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer
shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the
Agreement. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance
written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
114
6
229879v3
EXHIBIT B
Legal Description:
Lot 3, Block 2
Chanhassen West Business Park
115
1
229879v3
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO:City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft
drawn on sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
15, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 15 of
each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends
to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by
certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days
prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager,
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and
is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be
modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or
agreement, whether or not referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one
draw may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No.
600.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be
duly honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its _____________________________
116
229879v3
117
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Approve Proof of Parking Agreement for Affinitech located at 2451 Galpin
Court
File No.Planning Case 2023-22 Item No: D.8
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Reviewed By Eric Maass
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the proof of parking agreement for Affinitech subject to the
conditions stipulated in the agreement."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
Eden Trace Corporation is requesting deferment for constructing 35 parking spaces as permitted by city
code section 20-1124.5. The development will construct 74 parking spaces, which the developer, owner,
and tenant believe to be sufficient for the needs of the building in terms of use. This parking agreement
ensures that if the city deems it necessary, additional parking spaces are constructed in the future. If
approved, the agreement would be recorded to the property.
BACKGROUND
This agreement is in addition to the site plan agreement for Affinitech located at 2451 Galpin Court.
DISCUSSION
118
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Affinitech proof of parking agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
Affinitech Proof of Parking Agreement
119
1
PC 23-22
229865v1
PROOF OF PARKING AGREEMENT
THIS PROOF OF PARKING AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated
, 2024, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (“City”), and 2451 GALPIN LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, hereinafter
referred to as (“Owner”).
RECITALS
A.Owner is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Chanhassen,
Carver County, Minnesota and legally described as:
Lot 003, Block 002 Chanhassen West Business Park
(the “Subject Property”).
B.Owner is allowing construction of a 33,283 square foot office and light industrial
warehouse on the Subject Property.
C.Pursuant to Section 20-1124.5 of the City Zoning Ordinance in and for the City of
Chanhassen, 109 parking spaces are required on the Subject Property. The Owner
is constructing 74 parking spaces on the Subject Property. The Owner is requesting
deferment for 35 parking spaces.
D.Ownerhas demonstrated that: (i) the proposed use of the Subject Property will have
a parking demand less than the required parking under Section 20-1124.5 of the
120
2
PC 23-22
229865v1
Zoning Ordinance and (ii) the Subject Property has sufficient property area under
the same ownership to accommodate expansion of parking facilities to meet
minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if the parking demand exceeds the
actual on-site supply.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above and the terms and
conditions herein, Owner and the City agree as follows:
1.Parking shall only occur in areas designated and constructed for parking in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2.Owner hereby unconditionally guarantees to City that it shall construct additional
parking spaces upon the Subject Property in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance if the parking
demand for the Subject Property exceeds the actual on-site parking supply and that concrete curb
and gutter must be installed at the time the additional spaces are striped for parking.
3.When the City, in its sole discretion, determines that the parking demand exceeds
the number of constructed parking spaces, the City may terminate the parking deferment granted
herein and require Owner, upon written notice from the City, to construct 35 additional parking
spaces, the construction of which has been deferred pursuant to this Agreement, and install
concrete curb and gutter at the time those additional 35 spaces are striped for parking. If the
Developer fails to construct the 35 deferred parking spaces (including concrete curb and gutter)
within six (6) months after so requested by the City, the City may rescind the certificate of
occupancy for the building located on the Subject Property.
4.Miscellaneous.
A.Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
B.If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, sentence, paragraph, or phrase
of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Agreement.
5.The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed
121
3
PC 23-22
229865v1
by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to
promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or release
of any term or condition herein.
6.This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the
Subject Property.
7.Required notices shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to 2451
Galpin LLC, its successors, and assigns, or mailed to 2451 Galpin, LLC by certified mail at the
following address: 1930 Edgewater Place Victoria, MN 55386. Notices to the City shall be in
writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator or mailed by certified mail in
care of the City Administrator at the following address: 770 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen MN
55317.
{The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Signature pages to follow.}
122
4
PC 23-22
229865v1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: _________________________________
Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND: ______________________________
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by Elise
Ryan, Mayor, and by Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
_________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
123
5
PC 23-22
229865v1
OWNER:
2451 GALPIN, LLC
By:___________________________
Its: ___________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________,
20___ by ___________________, the Chief Manager of 2451 Galpin, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability corporation, on behalf of said entity.
__________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
124
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item
Resolution 2024-XX: Approving the City of Chanhassen's 2024 Private
Property Inflow and Infiltration Grant Program and Execution of Metropolitan
Council's Grant Agreement No. SG-20597
File No.PW257 I&I Item No: D.9
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Reviewed By Charlie Howley
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution approving the establishment and execution of the
Grant Program for infiltration and inflow mitigation, as presented in the provided guidelines and
eligibility criteria, and execution of Metropolitan Council's Grant Agreement No. SG-20597."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Financial Sustainability
SUMMARY
Mitigating infiltration and inflow (I/I) is an important task for the city. This newly created Grant
Program will allow for reimbursement of costs for work performed in abating infiltration and inflow
located on private property, which typically has not been eligible for grant money.
BACKGROUND
Infiltration and inflow refers to "clean" water entering the sanitary sewer system. Since all of the flow
into the sanitary sewer system gets conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
(MCES) conveyance system and wastewater treatment plants, the quantity of the flow has a direct
relationship with cost. The city pays for all of the flow in the sanitary sewer system we discharge into
the MCES system, and therefore only paying for actual sanitary waste, rather than "clean" water, is a
125
priority.
It has been estimated that at least half the I/I in the wastewater conveyance system comes from private
property. Investment in reducing private property I/I remains an underfunded area and would benefit
from consistent financial support. The 2024 MCES pilot grant program is an attempt to address this
need, and in response, the City of Chanhassen has developed our 2024 Private Property Grant Program
for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation to administer the allocated funds to the city.
DISCUSSION
The Met Council has set aside funds to help private property owners with costs related to repairs that
remove I/I from the wastewater collection system. For 2024, the Met Council is making $1.5 million of
wastewater revenue available to help with this important work. The City of Chanhassen has been
allocated $130,000.00 of the available revenue.
In this pilot grant program, a city or township is eligible to participate if the Met Council has designated
it an excessive I/I contributor or the community has had a measurable flow rate within 20% of the
permitted peak flow limit, such as Chanhassen. Cities and townships pre-applied for grant funding and
to participate in the program. The City of Chanhassen was approved and was awarded $130,000.00
which is now available to distribute to private property owners who have eligible expenses. This grant
is for work covered in 2024 only, and due to the larger number of already interested applicants, it is
anticipated the 2024 program will utilize all allocated funds.
Eligibility
Grant reimbursement for residents is to be 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000, for applicants not
meeting the equity criteria set by the City of Chanhassen. Eligible work includes:
Private lateral repair and/or replacement
Foundation drain disconnections and new sump pump, if associated with the foundation drain
disconnect
Lateral televising and cleaning costs if:
Applicant meets the equity need or
Televising and cleaning result in repair or replacement of sewer lateral
Equity
The Met Council allows higher grant funds for property owners in participating communities who meet
equity criteria. The equity criteria for the city's Grant Program is for properties that are currently being
or will be, assessed in association with an MS 429 project (typically a local road project). The
reasoning for this is twofold; 1) to not burden a property owner with both an assessment for the road
project and an I/I improvement; and 2) to capitalize on the disruption of the actual road project
construction.
If a property owner meets the equity criteria, up to a $10,000 grant may be awarded to that property
owner for eligible work, rather than the $5,000 cap with no equity consideration.
Application
Once an application is completed and approved by the city (see the attached Application Form and
Guidelines and Criteria documents for full details), and defects associated with I/I identified through
televising the private sewer service, homeowners must complete eligible work between 1/1/2024 and
12/31/2024. The city provides a pre-approved contractor list while offering flexibility for property
126
owners to obtain quotes from other contractors if desired (a minimum of two quotes will be required to
commence work). The Grant Program will operate on a first-come, first-served basis until the allocated
funds are exhausted.
The Grant Program overview, guidelines, eligibility criteria, and program documents are attached for
additional reference.
BUDGET
At this time, the city will not provide any funding that would impact the budget. All incurred costs are
either covered by the grant program or paid directly by the private property owner to their selected
contractor should they elect to make the improvement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the establishment and execution of the 2024 Private
Property Inflow and Infiltration Grant Program and enter into Metropolitan Council's Grant Agreement
No. SG-20597.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Metropolitan Council's Grant Agreement No. SG-20597
MCES - PPII Program Guidelines
2024 Grant Program Guidelines and Criteria
2024 Grant Program Application Form
2024 Grant Program Pre-Approved Contractor List
2024 Grant Program Certificate of Completeness
2024 Grant Program Subgrant Agreement
2023 PPII Task Force Report
127
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 26, 2024 RESOLUTION NO:2024-XX
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN’S 2024 PRIVATE PROPERTY INFLOW
AND INFILTRATION GRANT PROGRAM AND EXECUTION OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
GRANT AGREEMENT NO. SG-20597
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Division has committed $1.5
million in funding to provide grants to private property owners to help with repairs that will remove and prevent
infiltration and inflow (I/I) from entering the wastewater treatment system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen was awarded $130,000 in grant funds from MCES to address I/I on
private properties, and
WHEREAS,the proposed Grant Program is designed to reduce I/I in private properties, contributing to
the preservation of environmental quality, maintenance of efficient sanitary service lines, and enhancing the
region's wastewater system's efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and
WHEREAS,the City Council acknowledges the importance of initiating this Grant Program on a first-
come, first-served basis until the allocated funds are exhausted, ensuring equitable access to interested residents,
and
WHEREAS,the implementation of this Grant Program aligns with the City's objectives to enhance the
overall infrastructure and environmental sustainability within the community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota,
hereby approves the establishment and execution of the Grant Program for infiltration and inflow (I/I) mitigation,
as presented in the provided guidelines and eligibility criteria; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or their successor or
assignee, will act as the city’s designated authorized representative and point of contact for this Grant Program
and execute the Metropolitan Council’s Grant Agreement No. SG-20597.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 26th day of February 2024.
ATTEST:
Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
128
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
2024 PRIVATE PROPERTY INFLOW AND INFILTRATION (I/I)
GRANT AGREEMENT NO. SG-20597
This Council (MCES) Funded Grant Agreement ("Grant Agreement") is entered into this [date of signature
by both parties] between the Metropolitan Council, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota ("Met Council") and the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation ("Grantee").
RECITALS
1. In 2022, Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 471.342 was amended to authorize towns and political
subdivisions to establish inflow and infiltration prevention programs and make loans or grants to
property owners.
2. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES, Council) calculates the peak hourly
flow discharge limit (I/I Goal) for each community connected to the metropolitan sanitary sewer
disposal system. Wastewater flow that exceeds the respective I/I Goal is considered excessive
flow. Communities that have a measured wastewater flow rate greater than 80 percent of the I/I
Goal are eligible to apply for the Grant.
3. The Council authorizes its staff to enter into a private property inflow and infiltration grant
agreement with local municipalities that are eligible for this grant program.
GRANT AGREEMENT
1. Term of Grant Agreement.
1.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Grant Agreement is the date on which the Grant
Agreement has been duly executed by both parties.
1.2. Grant Activity Period. The first day of the month following the Effective Date through and
including the expiration date.
1.3. Expiration Date. The latter of (i) 2 years after final distribution of funds to Grantee; or (ii) until
all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.4. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration, termination, or cancellation of
this Grant Agreement; 9. Liability and Insurance; 10. Audits; 11. Government Data Practices; 13. Data
Availability; 14. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venues; 16. Data Disclosure; 18. Future Eligibility.
2. Duties, Representations and Warranties of Grantee and Use of Grant Funds.
2.1. The Grantee agrees to conduct, administer, and complete in a satisfactory manner the program
("Grantee Program") which is described in Grantee's application to Met Council for assistance under the
Met Council's Private Inflow and Infiltration grant program, which application is incorporated into this
Grant Agreement as Exhibit A (Grant Application), and in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Grant Agreement. Specifically, the Grantee agrees to perform the “Grant Program” in accordance
with a specific timeline, all as described in Exhibit A (Grant Application) and to undertake the financial
129
2
responsibilities described in Exhibit A (Grant Application) to this Grant Agreement. The Grantee has
the responsibility for and obligation to complete the “Grant Program” as described in Exhibit A (Grant
Application). The Met Council makes no representation or warranties with respect to the success and
effectiveness of the “Grant Program”. The Met Council acknowledges that “Grant Program “work may
be limited to soliciting participation by building owners in the “Grant Program” and requires additional
work by the Grantee only to the extent that building owners choose to participate in the “Grant Program”,
all as described in the Grantee's application attached as Exhibit A (Grant Application).
The Grant Funds cannot be used for:
Normal municipal operating or overhead costs, including such related to the Grant
Program;
Grantee's own public sewer infrastructure costs;
The cost of studies;
Engineering costs;
Planning costs; and
For equipment, machinery, supplies or other property to conduct the Grant Program, except
for equipment, supplies or other property which is used primarily for the Grant Program
and is specifically listed in Exhibit A (Grant Application).
2.2. Grantee Representations and Warranties. The Grantee further covenants with and represents and
warrants to Met Council, as follows:
A. It has the legal authority to enter into, execute and deliver this Grant Agreement and all
documents referred to herein, has taken all actions necessary to its execution and delivery of such
documents and has provided to Met Council a copy of the resolution by its governing body which
authorizes Grantee to enter into this Agreement, to undertake the Private Property I/I Grant Program,
including the Grantee financial responsibilities as shown in Exhibit A (Grant Application) and which
also designates an authorized representative for the Grant Program who is authorized to provide
certifications required in this Grant Agreement and submit pay claims for reimbursement of Grantee
Program costs.
B. It has legal authority to conduct and administer the Grant Program and use the Grant Funds
for the purpose or purposes described in this Agreement.
C. This Grant Agreement and all other documents referred to herein are the legal, valid and
binding obligations of the Grantee enforceable against the Grantee in accordance with their respective
terms.
D. It will comply with all the terms, conditions, provisions, covenants, requirements, and
warranties in this Agreement, and all other documents referred to herein.
E. It has made no materially false statement or misstatement of fact in connection with the
Grant Funds, and all the information it has submitted or will submit to the Council relating to the Grant
Funds or the disbursement of any of the Grant Funds is and will be true and correct. It agrees that all
representations contained in its application for the Private I/I Grant are material representations of fact
upon which the Council relied in awarding this Grant and are incorporated into this Agreement by
reference.
130
3
F. It is not in violation of any provisions of its charter or of the laws of the State of Minnesota,
and there are no material actions, suits, or proceedings pending, or to its knowledge threatened, before
any judicial body or governmental authority against or affecting it and is not in default with respect to any
order, writ, injunction, decree, or demand of any court or any governmental authority which would impair
its ability to enter into this Grant Agreement or any document referred to herein, or to perform any of the
acts required of it in such documents.
G. Neither the execution and delivery of this Grant Agreement or any document referred to
herein nor compliance with any of the terms, conditions, requirements, or provisions contained in any of
such documents is prevented by, is a breach of, or will result in a breach of, any term, condition, or
provision of any agreement or document to which it is now a party or by which it is bound.
H. The Grantee will not violate any applicable zoning or use statute, ordinance, building code,
rule or regulation, or any covenant or agreement of record relating thereto.
J. The Grant Program will be conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws, statutes,
rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or other political subdivisions having
jurisdiction over the Grant Program.
K. It has complied with the financial responsibility requirements contained in Exhibit A
(Grant Application).
L. The Grant Program will be conducted substantially in accordance with Exhibit A (Grant
Application) by the Completion Date as stated in Exhibit A (Grant Application).
M. It shall furnish such satisfactory evidence regarding the representations described herein as
may be required and requested by the Met Council.
3. Time.
Grantee must comply with all time requirements described in this Grant Agreement.
4. Eligible Costs.
Eligible costs are those costs incurred by parties within the jurisdiction of the Grantee generally
only for sewer service lateral repairs or replacements and foundation drain disconnections as described in
Exhibit A (Grant Application). The Grantee shall not be reimbursed for non-eligible costs. Any cost
not defined as an eligible cost or not included in the Grant Program or approved in writing by the Council
is a non-eligible cost.
5. Consideration and Payment.
5.1 The Met Council will reimburse Grantee for eligible costs performed by the Grantee during the
Grant Period in an amount of up to the prequalified work’s grant amount ("Grant Amount"). The Met
Council shall bear no responsibility for any cost overruns that may be incurred by the Grantee or
subrecipients of any tier in the performance of the Grantee Program. The initial Grant amount to Grantee
under this Grant Agreement is $130,000.
5.2. Advance. The Met Council will make no advance of the Grant Amount to Grantee. The
disbursement of the Grant Amount shall be in the form of reimbursement for eligible costs as provided
ahead in this Section 5.
131
4
5.3. Payment. To obtain payment under this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall submit a
Reimbursement Request/Progress Report on forms provided by or acceptable to the Met Council.
Reimbursement Request/Progress Reports may be submitted once per quarter after this grant agreement
has been executed. The Grantee shall describe its compliance with its the financial requirements and
construction work completed and specific addresses where work was undertaken in connection with the
grant and shall provide sufficient documentation of grant eligible expenditures and such other information
as the Met Council’s staff reasonably requests. The Met Council will promptly pay the Grantee after the
Grantee presents to the Met Council a Reimbursement Request/Progress Report and an itemized invoice
for all eligible services actually performed and the Met Council’s Authorized Representative accepts the
invoiced services.
6. Conditions of Payment.
6.1. The Grantee must certify to the Council that work at each site for which payment is requested is
done, that Grantee has received receipts for such work, that the work was not performed in violation of
federal, Met Council, or local law or regulation and that Grantee has issued the appropriate permits for
the work completed in the Grant Program.
6.2. Conditions Precedent to Any Reimbursement Request. The obligation of the Met Council to make
reimbursement payments hereunder shall be subject to the following conditions precedent:
A. The Met Council shall have received a Reimbursement Request/Progress Report for such
amount of funds being requested for which the amounts for each individual site have been pre-qualified
by Met Council.
B. The Met Council shall have received evidence upon request, and in form and substance
acceptable to the Met Council, that (i) the Grantee has legal authority to and has taken all actions necessary
to enter into this Agreement and (ii) this Agreement is binding on and enforceable against the Grantee.
C. No Event of Default under this Grant Agreement or event which would constitute an Event
of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or time elapse shall have
occurred and be continuing.
D. The Grantee has supplied to the Met Council all other items that the Met Council may
reasonably require to assure good fiscal oversight of this grant program.
7. Authorized Representative.
The Met Council’s Authorized Representative is:
Name: Ward Brown or successor
Title: Financial Analyst, MCES Pretreatment & Finance
Mailing Address: 390 North Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (651) 602-1263
E-Mail Address: ward.brown@metc.state.mn.us
132
5
or his successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to
accept the services provided under this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the Met Council’s
Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is:
Name: Erik Henricksen
Mailing Address: 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1165
E-Mail Address: ehenricksen@chanhassenmn.gov
If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Grant Agreement, the Grantee
must immediately notify the Met Council and within 30 days provide a new City resolution (if such
resolution is necessary) specifying the new Representative.
8. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant contract Complete.
8.1 Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Grant
Agreement without the prior consent of the Met Council and a fully executed Assignment Agreement,
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Grant Agreement, or their
successors in office.
8.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Grant Agreement must be in writing and will not be
effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the
original Grant Agreement, or their successors, or their delegatee in office.
8.3 Waiver. If the Met Council fails to enforce any provision of this Grant Agreement, that failure
does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.
8.4 Grant Contract Complete. This Grant Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements
between the Met Council and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this Grant Agreement,
whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
9. Liability and Insurance.
9.1 The Grantee and the Met Council agree that they will, subject to any indemnifications provided
herein, be responsible for their own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law, and they
shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of the Met
Council is governed by the provisions contained in Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 as it may be amended,
modified or replaced from time to time. The liability of the Grantee, including but not limited to the
indemnification provided under Section 9.2 is governed by the provisions contained in such Chapter 466.
9.2 Indemnification by the Grantee. The Grantee shall bear all losses, expenses (including attorneys'
fees) and damages in connection with the Grant Program and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Met Council, its agents, servants and employees from all claims, demands and judgments made or
recovered against the Met Council, its agents, servants and employees, because of bodily injuries,
including death at any time resulting therefrom, or because of damages to property, or others (including
loss of use) from any cause whatsoever, arising out of, incidental to, or in connection with the Grant
Program whether or not due to any act of omission or commission, including negligence of the Grantee
or any contractor or his or their employees, servants or agents, and whether or not due to any act of
133
6
omission or commission (excluding, however, negligence or breach of statutory duty) of the Met Council,
its employees, servants or agents.
Grantee further agrees to indemnify, save and hold the Met Council, its agents and employees, harmless
from all claims arising out of, resulting from, or in any manner attributable to any violation by the Grantee,
its officers, employees, or agents, or any provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
including legal fees and disbursements paid or incurred to enforce the provisions contained in Section 11.
The Grantee's liability hereunder shall not be limited to the extent of insurance carried by or provided by
the Grantee, or subject to any exclusions from coverage in any insurance policy.
The Grantee shall maintain or require to be maintained adequate insurance coverage for the Grant Program
in such amounts with such limits as it determines in good faith to be reasonable or in such amounts and
with such limits as may be reasonably required for participating cities by the Met Council from time to
time.
9.3 Relationship of the Parties. Nothing contained in this Grant Agreement is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners or a joint venture
between the Grantee and the Met Council, nor shall the Grantee be considered or deemed to be an agent,
representative, or employee of the Met Council in the performance of this Grant Agreement, or the Grant
Program.
The Grantee represents that it has already or will secure or cause to be secured all personnel required for
the performance of this Grant Agreement and the Grant Program. All personnel of the Grantee or other
persons while engaging in the performance of this Grant Agreement the Grant Program shall not have any
contractual relationship with the Met Council related to the work of the Grant Program and shall not be
considered employees of the Met Council. In addition, all claims that may arise on behalf of said personnel
or other persons out of employment or alleged employment including, but not limited to, claims under the
Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota, claims of discrimination against the Grantee, its
officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the Met Council. Such
personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any
kind whatsoever from the Met Council, including but not limited to, tenure rights, medical and hospital
care, sick and vacation leave, disability benefits, severance pay and retirement benefits.
10. Audits.
Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices relevant to this grant contract are subject to examination by the Met Council and/or the State
Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the termination date of
this Grant Agreement.
11. Government Data Practices.
The Grantee and Met Council must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn.
Stat. Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided by the Met Council under this grant contract, and as it
applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee
under this Grant Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data
referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the Met Council. If the Grantee receives a request to
release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the Met Council.
134
7
12. Workers’ Compensation.
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’
compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered Met
Council employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers Compensation Act on behalf
of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on
the part of these employees are in no way the Met Council’s obligation or responsibility.
14. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue.
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this Grant Agreement. Venue for
all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal
court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
15. Termination.
The Met Council may cancel this Grant Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’
written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment for services
prequalified and satisfactorily performed before the termination notice.
16. Data Disclosure.
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its
federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided
to the Met Council, to federal and state tax agencies and Met Council personnel involved in the payment
of Met Council obligations. Grantee will require compliance with this Section 16 by Grantee’s
subrecipient of Grant funds and shall submit evidence of such compliance to Met Council as requested.
17. Notices.
In addition to any notice required under applicable law to be given in another manner, any notices required
hereunder must be in writing and shall be sufficient if personally served or sent by prepaid, registered, or
certified mail (return receipt requested), to the business address of the party to whom it is directed. Such
business address shall be that address specified below or such different address as may hereafter be
specified, by either party by written notice to the other:
To the Grantee at:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attention: Erik Henricksen
135
8
To the Met Council at:
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street North
St. Paul, MN 55101
Attention: Regional Administrator
With copy to:
MCES General Manager
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
390 Robert Street North
St. Paul, MN 55101
MCES Finance Director
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
390 Robert Street North
St. Paul, MN 55101
18. Prevailing Wages
The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable provisions contained in chapter 177 of the
Minnesota Statutes, and specifically those provisions contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.435,
as they may be amended, modified or replaced from time to time with respect to the Grantee Program. By
agreeing to this provision, the Grantee is not acknowledging or agreeing that the cited provisions apply to
the Grantee Program.
19. Default and Remedies.
19.1 Defaults. The Grantee's failure to fully comply with all of the provisions contained in this Grant
Agreement shall be an event of default hereunder ("Event of Default").
19.2. Remedies. Upon an event of default, the Met Council may exercise any one or more of the
following remedies:
a. Refrain from disbursing the Grant;
b. Demand that all or any portion of the Grant already disbursed be repaid to it, and upon such
demand the Grantee shall repay such amount to the Met Council.
c. Enforce any additional remedies the Met Council may have at law or in equity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives on or as of the date first above written.
136
9
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By: ________________________________
Regional Administrator, successor, or delegate
Date: _______________________________
GRANTEE:
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate
person(s) have executed the grant contract on
behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable
articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances.
By: ________________________________
_____________________________________
Printed Name and Title
Date: _______________________________
137
Page - 1
PRIVATE PROPERTY INFLOW & INFILTRATION GRANT PROGRAM
Grant Requirements, Guidelines & Timeline – 2024
Information
The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (Met Council, ES) is implementing a private property
inflow and infiltration (I/I) grant program beginning January 2024. The goal of the program is to assist
private property owners with financial assistance to remove I/I from the regional interceptor system
through repairs of the sewer lateral or foundation drain on the property. ES has committed to assigning
funds every year from the PayGo fund for this grant program.
Council Guidelines
Eligible Municipalities
Eligible municipalities include those that have been designated excessive I/I contributors by the Met
Council or that have had a measurable flow rate within 20 percent of the permitted flow limit.
Eligible Work
• Grants to private property owners shall be for a percentage of actual, reasonable, and verifiable
I/I mitigation costs. No costs of studies, engineering, or planning shall be eligible.
• Grant reimbursement shall be 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000, for applicants not meeting
equity criteria set by the participating municipalities. Eligible work includes:
o Private lateral repair and/or replacement
o Foundation drain disconnections and new sump pump, if associated with the foundation
drain disconnect
o Lateral televising and cleaning costs if:
▪ Applicant meets the equity criteria or
▪ Televising and cleaning result in repair or replacement of sewer lateral
• Grants of up to $10,000 may be given to private property owners meeting the municipality’s
equity criterion.
• The private service line or foundation drain must be active and serving an occupied building.
• All repairs and replacements must be made with materials and methods consistent with local
codes and permit requirements.
• Qualified spending on eligible work must occur between January 1, 2024, and December 31,
2024.
Grant Process
Application
• ES will notify all eligible municipalities and request grant applications.
• Eligible municipalities will apply for the program and request a total grant amount for anticipated
grant reimbursement to private property owners.
• Applying municipalities must submit the Application for Participation and a resolution from City
Council authorizing application and execution of the grant.
• After all applications are received, ES will review requested grant amounts for proposed work
and encumber a grant amount for each participating municipality. It is anticipated that more
138
Page - 2 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
grant funds will be requested than what is available, meaning applicants may not receive their
full request. Grant awards will be encumbered to each municipality by this process:
o Half of the available grant funds will be divided equally among participants.
o The remaining half will be distributed to participants based on the size of their grant
request.
• Municipalities will be informed of their total grant amount for the program year at the start of the
program year.
• ES will send grant agreements to municipalities for signature and, upon return, will sign, and will
create purchase orders payable to the applicant municipality.
• Signed agreements and application must be returned to ES prior to participation in the program.
Reporting Requirements and Reimbursement
• Each quarter, municipalities will submit the PPII Reporting Form Excel workbook of work
completed, invoices, and certificates of completeness to certify the work for each grant was
done and records auditable. Only one grant per property may be awarded.
o ES has provided a list of verified Metropolitan Council Underutilized Business (MCUB)
contractors able to perform water and sewer work (attached). It is not required to use the
contractors on that list, but it is provided as an option. More information on the Met
Council MCUB program can be found here: https://metrocouncil.org/About-Us/What-We-
Do/DoingBusiness/Small-Business-Programs/mcub.aspx
• ES will review the PPII Reporting Form Excel workbook and supporting documentation and
issue grant reimbursement. Municipalities have until March 31 of the following year to submit all
paperwork for work performed during the program year.
• Any funds encumbered to a municipality and not spent during the program year will remain in
ES’s PayGo fund.
• The Council reserves the right to change these guidelines if, in its sole discretion, the results of
the process do not equitably allocate the funds.
Equity Component
Thrive MSP 2040 is the Met Council’s vision for the region through the year 2040. It reflects concerns,
needs, and aspirations for the region and addresses our responsibility to future generations. Thrive
MSP 2040 has five outcomes that reinforce and support each other to produce greater benefits for the
region. Those outcomes are Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability.
Thrive MSP 2040 provides the following definition of equity: “Equity connects all residents to
opportunity and creates viable housing, transportation, and recreation options for people of all races,
ethnicities, incomes, and abilities so that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of
growth and change. For our region to reach its full economic potential, all of our residents must be able
to access opportunity. Our region is stronger when all people live in communities that provide them
access to opportunities for success, prosperity and quality of life.” (Metropolitan Council, 2014).
The equity component of allowing grant reimbursement up to a $10,000 cap for private property owners
meeting a municipality’s equity criterion is one way equity is incorporated into this program. It is
acknowledged that each municipality has different equity considerations and knows the needs of their
residents the best; therefore, it is up to the municipality to determine if a resident has an equity need
and up to the municipality to determine the resident’s final grant award, up to $10,000.
If a repair is higher than the program cap of $10,000, options, among others, to cover that cost include
a municipality match, assessing the property for the remaining amount, or requesting payment from the
resident. The means of collection are up to each municipality. Be advised, if grant awards are paid
directly to the private property owner, it is recommended to speak with a tax professional, as the
municipality may have to provide a 1099 tax form.
139
Page - 3 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Calendar
Send notice of grant program guidelines to municipalities, requesting
applications November 20, 2023
Grant applications due from municipalities December 15, 2023
ES notifies municipalities of their grant amount December 29, 2023
Municipalities submit pay claims for completed work April 30, July 31, October 31,
2024; January 31, 2025
ES processes reimbursement upon receipt of signed agreement Quarterly
Links/References
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/Wastewater/Inflow-and-Infiltration.aspx
Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040: One Vision, One Metropolitan Region. (2014).
https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Thrive-2040/Thrive-MSP-2040-Plan.aspx?source=child.
140
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Private Property Grant Program for
Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation
The Met Council has set aside funds to help private property owners with costs related to repairs that
remove inflow and infiltration (I/I) from the wastewater collection system. I/I is clear water (stormwater and
groundwater) that enters the wastewater
collection system. This clear water can
overload the system causing costly
sewer backups into homes and buildings
all the while creating undue costs that
the city and residents pay for to convey
and treat clear water, among other
environmental and community impacts.
Areas where I/I can enter the system
on private property are illustrated in the
accompanying figure.
For 2024, the Met Council is making $1.5
million of wastewater revenue available
to help with this important work. The City
of Chanhassen’s application to participate
in this pilot grant program was accepted
and the city was awarded $130,000
to offer to its residents. The eligibility
criteria to enter into the program, the application process, and other requirements and information regarding the
City of Chanhassen’s Private Property Grant Program for I/I Mitigation can be found below.
1. Qualified spending on Eligible Work must occur between 1/1/2024 – 12/31/2024.
2. The private sanitary service line or foundation drain must be active and serving an occupied building.
3. Applicants must enter into a sub-grant agreement with the city and submit a W-9 form along with the
application as the grant disbursement will be directly made to the applicant and a 1099 may be required to be
issued to the applicant.
4. If Eligible Work is identified through a lateral televising inspection, a minimum of two (2) quotes from
contractors will be required to be obtained by the applicant. Applicants are encouraged to utilize the pre-
approved contractor list provided by the city, however they may obtain quotes from other contractors
(approval of contractor from city required) if desired.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:
Eligible Work includes:
»Private lateral repair and/or replacement as determined necessary by the city
»Foundation drain disconnections
Continued on next page
OBJECTIVE:
141
2
»New sump pump installation (if associated with the foundation drain disconnect).
»Lateral televising and cleaning costs if the applicant meets the equity criteria or if televising/cleaning
results in the repair or replacement of the sewer lateral.
1. Grant reimbursement is 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000.
2. If the applicant meets the equity criteria of the program, grant reimbursement is 100% of eligible costs, up to
$10,000.
GRANT REIMBURSEMENT:
Equity Criteria:
»An applicant meets the equity portion of the grant program if the property owned by the applicant is
currently under MS 429 assessment or is planned to be assessed within one (1) year as identified on the
most recent 5-Year CIP Pavement Management Plan. The city’s maximum financing term for assessments
per the most recent Assessment Policy will be used to determine if the property is currently under
assessment.
1. Submit a completed Private Property Grant Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation Application Form
to the city along with all required submittals:
APPLICATION PROCESS:
2. Once the application is approved (first come, first served), applicants must conduct a televised inspection of
their sanitary service line from inside the house to the public sanitary main to identify I/I-related defects.
3. Video recordings from the televised inspection must be submitted to the city for review.
4. If defects contributing to I/I are identified (Eligible Work), applicants must obtain two quotes from contractors
to address the necessary repairs or replacements. Quotes must be submitted to the city for review and
approval of Eligible Work and approval of the selected contractor.
5. Upon completion of Eligible Work, applicants and contractors must sign a Certificate of Completeness, submit
a video recording of the completed work, and provide the final inspection associated with the required
Plumbing Permit.
6. Submit the Certificate of Completeness to the city for grant reimbursement.
»Executed Sub-Grant Agreement
»W-9 Form
»Documentation meeting the Eligibility Criteria (if applicable)
»Proof of Property Ownership
The city reserves the right to review and approve all documentation and all completed work before granting
reimbursement.
For inquiries and submissions, please contact:
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, 952-227-1165 or ehenricksen@chanhassenmn.gov
Note:
Contact Information:
142
1
CITY OF CHANHASSENApplication Form
Private Property Grant Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE:
Signature:Date:
First Name:
Applicant’s Name:
Last Name:
Property Address:
Street Address:
City:State:Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Contact Information:
Email:
APPLICANT’S INFORMATION:
Eligibility Criteria Confirmation:
I confirm that I have reviewed and meet the eligibility criteria for the grant program.
I confirm that I don’t meet the eligibility criteria for the grant program.
Preferred Contractor:
I plan to obtain quotes from a contractor on the city’s pre-approved list if eligible work is identified.
I plan to obtain quotes from other contractors if eligible work is identified.
Video Recording Submission:
I understand that upon approval of my application, I must submit video recordings of the televised
inspection of my sanitary service line to the city.
SUBMISSION CHECKLIST:
Completed Application Form
Executed Sub-Grant Agreement
Attached W-9 Form
Grant Eligibility Documentation
(e.g. an assessment letter)
Proof of Property Ownership
Continued on next page
143
2
Submit the Completed application to:
City of Chanhassen
Attn: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Note:
The Private Property Grant Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation is a first come, first served program,
and an approved application is not an approval of disbursement of grant funds. The city reserves the right to
review and approve all documentation and all completed work before granting reimbursement.
CITY OF CHANHASSENApplication Form
144
1 of 2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Private Property Grant Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation
Pre-Approved Contractor List
The City of Chanhassen is committed to helping residents participate in the 2024 Private Property Grant Program
for I/I Mitigation by providing access to pre-approved lists of contractors. These lists include city-verified
businesses that perform water and sewer work, verified Metropolitan Council Underutilized Businesses (MCUB),
and businesses that ensure homeowners have reliable professionals available to undertake necessary repairs
and improvements to their sanitary service lines and foundation drains as covered under the Grant Program.
Once an application is approved, a televised inspection of the sanitary service line from inside the house to
the public sanitary main must be conducted and submitted to the city for review. If defects contributing to
I/I are identified, applicants must obtain two quotes from contractors to address the necessary repairs or
replacements.
Quotes must be submitted to the city for review and approval of eligible work and approval of the selected
contractor (if not on the Pre-Approved Contractor List).
Property owners participating in the Grant Program can expect the following benefits from utilizing the city’s pre-
approved contractor list:
»Trusted professionals: Access to a curated list of contractors vetted and approved by the city, ensuring
reliability and quality workmanship.
»Expertise in I/I Mitigation: Contractors on the pre-approved list possess expertise in addressing
Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) issues, ensuring effective solutions tailored to the needs of participating
homeowners.
»Streamlined process: Working with pre-approved contractors streamlines the process for homeowners,
facilitating smoother communication, scheduling, and completion of eligible work.
INTRODUCTION:
WHAT TO EXPECT:
145
2 of 2
CITY PRE-APPROVED CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION
MCUB PRE-APPROVED CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION
PRE-APPROVED CONTRACTOR LIST
Services Company Contact Phone E-Mail
T & E PWS, Inc.Estimating Team 763-515-7428 bids@pwsmn.com
E BKJ Excavating Estimating Team 952-496-1060 amahowald@bkj-ajt.com
tjohnson@bkj-ajt.com
E Quad E
Companies,
Inc.
Liz Ennenga 612-462-0629 elizabeth.ennenga@quadecompanies.com
Services Company Contact Phone E-Mail
T & E Highview
Plumbing
Kyle Swanson 952-933-8600 office@highviewplumbing.com
T & E Diversified
Plumbing
Collin King 952-334-2794 collin@diversifiedph.com
E Ouverson
Sewer & Water
Kelli Ouverson 612-751-6888 office@linemysewer.com
T Drain Busters,
Inc.
Nicole Sowada 952-925-9583 drainbusters@msn.com
»T & E = contractor can complete both the initial television inspection and eligible work
»E = contractor can complete eligible work and repairs
»T = contractor can complete initial television inspection
»T & E = contractor can complete both the initial television inspection and eligible work
»E = contractor can complete eligible work and repairs
»T = contractor can complete initial television inspection
For more information about the pre-approved contractor list or inquiries regarding the Grant
Program for I/I Mitigation, please contact Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, at 952-227-1165
or ehenricksen@chanhassenmn.govehenricksen@chanhassenmn.gov
146
CITY OF CHANHASSENCertificate of Completeness
PROJECT INFORMATION:
First Name:
Applicant’s Information:
Last Name:
Private Property Grant Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation
Property Address:
Street Address:
City:State:Zip Code:
Company Name:
Contractor’s Information:
Primary Contact’s Name:
Street Address:
City:State:Zip Code:
Grant Approval Number (to be filled out by the city):
Final Plumbing Inspection (to be filled out by the city):
The applicant has provided the final inspection for the associated Plumbing Permit.
COMPLETION VERIFICATION:
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the eligible work under the City of Chanhassen Private Property Grant
Program for Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Mitigation has been completed in accordance with the approved
application and the terms outlined in the sub-grant agreement and that the eligible work was re-televised to
ensure completeness and compliance with program requirements and has been submitted to the city with this
Certificate of Completeness. The work was conducted between these start and end dates:
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE:
Signature:Date:
CONTRACTOR’S SIGNATURE:
Signature:Date:
CIT OF CHANHASSEN REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE:
Signature:Date:
Final Cost of Eligible Work to be Reimbursed (to be filled out by the city):
147
229472v2
SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ________ day of ______________, 2024, by and between the
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and ____________________
___________________________, a ________________________________ (“Subgrantee”).
RECITALS
A. Subgrantee is the fee owner of certain real property situated in the City of
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, with a street address of _________________________
and legally described as follows:
(“Subject Property”).
B. The City applied for and received a 2024 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration
(I/I) grant from the Metropolitan Council (“Met Council”) to be used in accordance with the
Grant Agreement No. SG-20597, which includes as an attachment, the Grant Program
Application for Participation and terms of the program contained at the following link:
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Funding-Finance/Available-Funding-Grants/Private-
Property-Inflow-and-Infiltration-Grants.aspx (collectively, the “Grant Agreement”).
C. The City established a Grant Program related to the use of the grant funds
received under the Grant Agreement by Resolution No. ___ (“City Program”).
D. The City desires to subgrant a portion of the Metropolitan grant funds to
Subgrantee on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Documents. The Grant Agreement and the City Program are
incorporated herein. In the event of a conflict between the Grant Agreement, the City Program
and this Agreement, the documents shall be deemed to be controlling in the following order: 1)
Grant Agreement, 2) the City Program, and 3) this Agreement.
2. Award. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees to reimburse
Subgrantee a portion of the Grant received by the City under the Grant Agreement for the
activities described in the Grant Agreement, City Program, as further identified in this
Agreement. The amount to be reimbursed to Subgrantee is as follows:
__ 50% of eligible costs as defined in the Grant Agreement, up to $5,000; or
__ 100% of eligible costs as defined in the Grant Agreement, up to $10,000, if the
Subgrantee meets the equity portion of the City Program.
148
2
229472v2
Subgrantee shall not be reimbursed for non-eligible costs. In the event that the City does not
receive the grant funds under the Grant Agreement, no reimbursement will be made to the
Subgrantee.
3. Performance.
A. In order to be eligible for the reimbursement of grant funds under this Agreement,
Subgrantee shall complete the Eligible Work on the Property as defined and authorized under the
Grant Agreement and the City Program.
B. The Subgrantee shall comply with the City Program and requirements that are
applicable to the Subgrantee and City in the Grant Agreement. Any action or inaction of
Subgrantee which could result in a default under the Grant Agreement or City Program will
constitute noncompliance with this Agreement.
C. Qualified spending on Eligible Work by Subgrantee must occur between January
1, 2024 and December 31, 2024 or the City will not make any payment to the Subgrantee. In
order to ensure that all funds are drawn prior to the Grant Agreement term end date, all payment
requests from the Subgrantee must be received by the City at least thirty (30) days prior to
January 31, 2025. The City is not obligated to provide funds for any Eligible Work or
reimbursement requests that do not comply with this subparagraph.
D. Subgrantee agrees to use the Subgrant funds solely for the Eligible Work only at
the Property. The Subgrant shall not be used for costs not included in or allowed by this
Agreement, the Grant Agreement, or the City Program. The Subgrant funds may be used for
labor costs related to any Eligible Work only if the labor is done by a third-party who has no
financial interest in the Property, other than the value of such work, and the contractor has been
determined to be acceptable by the City. Subgrantee must not contract with vendors who are
suspended or debarred in Minnesota.
4. Conditions Precedent to Disbursement. Subgrantee acknowledges that the sole
source of the Subgrant funds is the Grant Amount from the Met Council and that the City is not
responsible for any funding under this Agreement. The following requirements are conditions
precedent to the City’s disbursement of any of the Subgrant funds to Subgrantee.
A. The Subgrantee must have provided evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer, or
their designee, showing that Subgrantee has title in fee simple and site control of the Property.
B. The Subgrantee must have provided to the City Engineer, or their designee, such
evidence of compliance with all of the provisions of this Agreement , the Grant Agreement, and
the City Program as the City or Met Council may reasonably request or require, including, but
not limited to, the following:
149
3
229472v2
(1) certification of completion of the Eligible Work on the Property and that work
was not performed in violation of federal, Met Council, or local law or regulations
and appropriate permits were issued and finalized for the work on the Property;
(2) invoices for Eligible Work in accordance with the Grant Agreement and
City Program.
(4) if applying to meet the eligibility criteria of the City Program, documentation of
being assessed through the MS 429 process in accordance with the City Program
(5) a complete W-9 form
C. Subgrantee is not in default of the Grant Agreement, City Program or this
Agreement.
D. Neither the City nor the Met Council has suspended its performance under the
Grant Agreement or this Agreement based on a determination that a default has occurred under
the terms of the Grant Agreement or this Agreement.
E. The Subgrantee has supplied to the City all other items that the Met Council or
the City reasonably require under the terms of the Grant Agreement, the City Program or this
Agreement.
5. Disbursement. It is expressly agreed and understood that the total amount to be
disbursed to Subgrantee by the City under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount identified
in Paragraph 2. The City will make disbursements only upon receipt of a written Reimbursement
Request/Progress Report to the Met Council in a form provided by or acceptable to the City and
Met Council (Reimbursement Request) and all necessary supporting invoices from Subgrantee
acceptable to the City and Met Council. Payment requests must be accompanied by invoices
supporting the reimbursement of the Subgrantee for the Eligible Work, the City will disburse the
approved amount of Subgrant funds in accordance with the information provided in the
Reimbursement Request.
6. Notices. Communication and details concerning this Agreement must be directed
to the following Agreement representatives:
If to Subgrantee: ________________________
________________________
________________________
If to City: City of Chanhassen
Attn: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
150
4
229472v2
7. General Conditions.
A. General Compliance. The Subgrantee agrees to comply with all applicable
federal, state, county, and local laws and regulations governing the Project and Subgrant funds
provided under this Agreement, including without limitation all applicable OSHA regulations.
B. Subcontracts. The Subgrantee shall require that contractors performing work
being paid with the Subgrant funds comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations governing the Eligible Work on the Property. Subgrantee shall require that
contractors performing work being paid with the Subgrantee funds be in compliance with all
applicable OSHA regulations.
C. Termination. In the event the Grant Agreement is terminated, this Agreement
shall contemporaneously terminate.
D. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The Subgrantee shall hold harmless,
defend and indemnify the City and Met Council from any and all liability, claims, actions, suits,
charges, damages, losses, costs, expenses, and judgments whatsoever, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees, that arise directly or indirectly out of the Subgrantee’s, its contractor’s, or
subcontractors’ performance or nonperformance under this Agreement and any of its operations
or activities related thereto, excluding the willful misconduct or the gross negligence of the
person or entity seeking to be defended, indemnified, or held harmless. The provisions of this
paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This indemnification shall not be
construed as a waiver on the part of either the City or Met Council of any immunities or limits on
liability provided by applicable State law.
8. Miscellaneous.
A. Assignability. The Subgrantee may not assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written consent of the City.
B. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by the Subgrantee and thereafter waived by the
City, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to
waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
C. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the City
is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such
remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any breach or default shall impair any such right or
power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be
exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the
151
5
229472v2
City to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than
such notice as required under this Agreement.
D. Time. Time is of the essence in the performance of the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
E. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by, and construed
in accordance with, the laws of the State of Minnesota. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction
for any litigation hereunder shall be in a court located in Carver County, Minnesota or as
otherwise provided under the Grant Agreement.
F. Data Disclosure. Subgrantee agrees to disclose to the City and consents to
disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number and/or Minnesota tax identification
number to the City, City Personnel involved in processing Reimbursement Requests, to the Met
Council, federal and state tax agencies and Met Council personnel involved in the payment of
Met Council obligations.
G. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which is deemed an original, but all of which taken together constitute one and the same
agreement.
H. Survival. Any terms of this Agreement which by their nature extend beyond
termination of this Agreement shall survive and bind the parties and their successors and assigns.
I. Default and Remedies.
(1) Defaults. The Subgrantee’s (a) failure to fully comply with all of the provisions
contained in this Agreement, the Grant Agreement and the City Program, or (b) Subgrantee
providing a false statement in Subgrantee’s application for the subgrant or any documentation
provided to the City, shall be an event of default hereunder (“Event of Default”).
(2) Remedies. Upon an Event of Default, the City may exercise any one or more of
the following remedies:
a. Terminate this Agreement by written notice;
b. Refrain from disbursing the subgrant funds;
c. Demand that all or any portion of the subgrant already disbursed be repaid to it,
and upon such demand the Subgrantee shall repay such amount to the City.
d. Pursue whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any amounts due under this
Agreement or to enforce the performance and observance of any obligation,
agreement, or covenant of the Agreement, including refusal to disburse additional
funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
152
6
229472v2
If action to correct substandard performance is not taken by the Subgrantee within thirty (30)
calendar days, or such longer period specified by the City Engineer, or their designee, after
written notice, the City may terminate this Agreement.
J. Audit. Under Minn. Stat. Section 16C.05, subd. 5, the Subgrantee’s books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are
subject to examination by the City, the Met Council and/or the State Auditor or Legislative
Auditor, as appropriate for a minimum of six (6) years from the termination date of this
Agreement.
K. Government Data Practices. The Subgrantee must comply with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided
to the City under this Agreement and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored,
used, maintained, or disseminated by the Subgrantee under this Agreement. The civil remedies
of Minnesota Statutes § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause. If the
Subgrantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause, the Subgrantee must
immediately notify the City. The City will give the Subgrantee instructions concerning the
release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Subgrantee’s response
to the request shall comply with applicable law.
L. Severability. In the event any provision herein shall be deemed invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect and shall be
binding upon the parties to this Agreement.
M. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and documents incorporated herein by
reference, constitutes the entire agreement between the City and Subgrantee and supersedes all
prior written and oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereto.
[Signature pages to follow]
153
7
229472v2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this document to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
By:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
SUBGRANTEE
Print Name:_____________________
154
2023 PRIVATE PROPERTY INFLOW & INFILTRATION
TASK FORCE REPORT
JUNE 2023
155
The Council’s mission is to foster
efficient and economic growth for
a prosperous metropolitan region
Metropolitan Council Members
Charlie Zelle Chair
Judy Johnson District 1
Reva Chamblis District 2
Tyronne Carter District 3
Deb Barber District 4
Anjuli Cameron District 5
John Pacheco Jr. District 6
Robert Lilligren District 7
Yassin Osman District 8
Diego Morales District 9
Peter Lindstrom District 10
Susan Vento District 11
Gail Cederberg District 12
Chai Lee District 13
Toni Carter District 14
Tenzin Dolkar District 15
Wendy Wulff District 16
The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization
for the seven-county Twin Cities area. The Met Council operates
the regional bus and rail system, collects and treats wastewater,
coordinates regional water resources, plans and helps fund
regional parks, and administers federal funds that provide housing
opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and
families. The 17-member Council board is appointed by and serves
at the pleasure of the governor.
On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with
disabilities. Call Metropolitan Council information at 651-602-1140 or TTY 651-291-0904.
156
Page - 1 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Formation of Task Force .................................................................................................................... 3
Background, History, Milestones ............................................................................................................ 4
Inflow & Infiltration Mitigation Efforts ................................................................................................... 4
Climate Action Work Plan ................................................................................................................... 6
Past Met Council Private Property Grant Programs ............................................................................ 6
Task Force 1 – Inflow/Infiltration Task Force ...................................................................................... 8
Task Force 2 – Demand Charge Task Force ...................................................................................... 9
Task Force 3 – Inflow & Infiltration Task Force ................................................................................. 10
2023 PPII Task Force Discussion ........................................................................................................ 11
Private Property I/I Grant Program ................................................................................................... 11
Peak Hour Factor and I/I Goal Calculation ....................................................................................... 13
Task Force Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 13
Equity Advisory Committee .............................................................................................................. 15
Pilot Program ................................................................................................................................... 15
References .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix.............................................................................................................................................. 17
Private Property I/I Task Force Meeting Minutes .............................................................................. 17
157
Executive Summary
In late 2022, the Metropolitan Council appointed a task force of local community representatives to
discuss and define a grant program to assist private property owners with costs to mitigate inflow and
infiltration from their private property. The task force, consisting of previous task force members, public
works directors, finance professionals, engineering staff, and city administrators, met in early 2023.
This 2023 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration Task Force Report (Report) is a summary of the
discussions and recommendations made to the Metropolitan Council.
The task force discussed whether I/I is still an issue in the metro area and whether there is a need for
this grant program. They agreed that I/I is still impacting the wastewater conveyance and treatment
system and that I/I from private property sources is an untouched area needing mitigation.
In addition to the grant program, the task force revisited the current peaking factors used to determ ine
an acceptable level of I/I into the wastewater system.
In summary, the task force recommended the following guidance for a grant program:
1. Any municipality that has exceeded their I/I goal or come within 20% of that goal may apply to
participate in the program.
2. Eligible work for reimbursement includes:
a. Private lateral repair and/or replacement
b. Foundation drain disconnections and new sump pump, if associated with the foundation
drain disconnect
c. Lateral televising and cleaning costs if:
i. Applicant meets the equity need of the participating municipality or
ii. Televising and cleaning result in repair or replacement of sewer lateral
3. Grant reimbursement will be 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000, for applicants not meeting any
equity criteria set by the participating municipalities.
158
Page - 3 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Introduction
Formation of task force
This task force was formed in response to a recommendation from the 2016 Inflow & Infiltration (I/I)
Task Force and the amendment of an existing state statute. The 2016 task force made a
recommendation to “Support efforts to secure funding for public and private I/I mitigation projects
including State Bond and Clean Water Legacy Funds. Consider the provision of financial assistance
through regional sources, such as a portion of the wastewater fee, to provide assistance to
communities for private property I/I mitigation.” After two legislative session efforts to change the
existing statute that allows “cities” the authority to offer private property owners grants for I/I mitigation
work, the statute was modified to include: “…a home rule charter or statutory city, township, or any
political subdivision of the state with statutory sewer ownership or operational responsibilities.” (Minn.
Stat. § 471.342, subd. 1) to offer grants.
The amended statute was signed into law by Governor Walz in April 2022 and allowed the Metropolitan
Council (Met Council) and other political subdivisions of the state to “provide loans and grants to
property owners to assist the owners in financing the cost of abating inflow and infiltration on their
property” (Minn. Stat. § 471.342, subd. 3).
The 2023 Private Property Inflow & Infiltration (PPII) task force was assembled and met four times in
2023 to design a grant program using Met Council funds to provide financial assistance to property
owners for mitigating private property I/I. The membership consisted of previous task force members,
public works directors, finance professionals, engineering staff, and city administrators. The task force
represented the range of geographical locations and municipality sizes across the metro area. The task
force was chaired by Metropolitan Council Member Wendy Wulff.
Task Force Chair
• Wendy Wulff, Council Member, District 16, Metropolitan Council
Task Force Members
• Ron Hedberg, Finance Director, Apple Valley
• Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent, Bloomington
• Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, Chanhassen
• Jim Hauth, Public Works Superintendent, Columbia Heights
• Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator, Cottage Grove
• Russ Matthys, Public Works Director, Eagan
• Chad Millner, Engineering Director, Edina
• RJ Kakach, Assistant City Engineer, Golden Valley
• Heather Butkowski, City Administrator, Lauderdale
• Angie Craft, Director of Surface Water and Sewers, Minneapolis
• Eric Hoversten, City Manager/Director of Public Works, Mound
• Matt Yokiel, Public Works Superintendent, Newport
• Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director, St. Anthony
• Bruce Elder, Sewer Utility Manager, Saint Paul
• Eldon Rameaux, I/I Inspector, West St. Paul
• Dale Reed, Public Works Director, White Bear Township
• Patricia Nauman, Executive Director, Metro Cities
159
Metropolitan Council Representatives
• Kyle Colvin, Manager, Wastewater Planning & Community Programs
• Anna Bessel, Assistant Manager, Wastewater Planning & Community Programs
• Emily Steinweg, Principal Engineer, Wastewater Planning & Community Programs
• Ned Smith, Director, Pretreatment & Finance
• Dan Schueller, Principal Financial Analyst, Pretreatment & Finance
• Andrea Kaufman, Program Coordinator, Workforce & Equity
• Angela Mazur, Senior Administrative Specialist, Wastewater Planning & Community Programs
• Jana Larson, Senior Outreach Coordinator, Administration & Communication
Background, History, Milestones
I/I is clear water – stormwater and groundwater – that enters the wastewater system. It overloads the
system and can cause costly sewer backups into homes and buildings. I/I can also cause sewer
overflows into rivers and lakes. Common sources are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Sources of I/I
Inflow & infiltration mitigation efforts
Met Council and communities across the region have invested significant time and money into
mitigation of public I/I sources. The Ongoing I/I Mitigation Program, which identifies areas in the region
where I/I is excessive by Met Council definition and works with communities to mitigate the excess I/I,
has been in place since 2004 with good success. From 2004 to 2020, communities invested over $170
million in their public system and Met Council invested over $100 million in the interceptor system. The
efforts have been impactful, with the Met Council able to defer capacity improvements that are
estimated at $1 billion. Despite all the work, I/I is still present in the system, evident by flow
exceedances during wet weather events.
Communities also agree that I/I from private property is a major, largely unaddressed source. Local
communities, through their 2040 Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) submittals, indicate that at least
50% of I/I comes from private property. In their plans, they also have identified a need for funding to
promote I/I mitigation for private property sources. Figure 2 shows common contributors of I/I from
private property.
160
Page - 5 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Figure 2: Sources of I/I from private property
Studies do not align on the exact amount of I/I from private property. It is a challenging estimation, with
many contributing factors, including topography, stormwater infrastructure, soil type and moisture at the
time of the rainfall, and intensity of precipitation events. The Environmental Protection Agency cites a
study from 1972 by Field and Struzeski that proposes that “inflow from roof leaders, sumps, yard and
area drains, foundation drains, cooling water discharges, manhole covers, cross connections from
storm sewers and combined sewers, catchbasins, surface runoff, street washwater, and drainage…
can contribute as much as 70 to 80% of the I/I load” (EPA, 2008). Note this number includes more than
only private property sources. The Water Environment Research Federation performed a study of 58
US water agencies and 3 foreign water agencies. Of the reporting agencies, the average I/I from the
private side ranged from 7% to 80% (WERF, 2006).
The Met Council estimates that each private connection that contributes I/I increases the peak hour
flow by 6 gallons per minute (Metropolitan Council, 2005). I/I is not measured or metered from the
private property from which it comes. The expense of conveyance and treatment is shared among all
rate paying customers, not only the customer at the source. Increases in flow over time can be costly
and could eventually necessitate the construction of an additional treatment plant as well as lead to a
higher frequency of spills during extreme wet weather events. Continued efforts are still needed to
remove I/I from the system to maintain system hydraulic capacity to allow for the planned growth of the
region.
In 2016, Brown and Caldwell, in partnership with Met Council, performed a Meter Review and Analysis
for I/I mitigation documentation (Brown and Caldwell, 2016). The study used measured rainfall and
wastewater flows in a model to determine the amount of flow reduction attributable to I/I mitigation
efforts. The analysis was performed for four communities with varied I/I mitigation programs and types
of mitigation activities.
161
Table 1: 2016 Meter Review and Analysis Summary
Reductions
I/I Activities Base Flow Peak Flow I/I Flow
Shoreview Extensive public I/I mitigation 24% 17% 11%
Minneapolis Extensive public and private I/I mitigation 11% 69% 75%
Golden Valley Public and private I/I mitigation 5% 24% 28%
Burnsville Baseline – no I/I mitigation 6% 4% 0%
The reductions in Table 1 are the percent reductions from the pre-rehabilitation (2004 to 2007) and
post-rehabilitation (2013 to 2015) flows for the study areas. The results show greater I/I flow reduction
for communities addressing private I/I mitigation in addition to public mitigation. This study continues to
support the need for a focused effort on private sources.
Another effort supported by the Met Council that may illustrate the impact of private I/I mitigation on
flow rates is the I/I study in Saint Paul. The City of Saint Paul was awarded a grant from the Met
Council to better understand the effects of service lateral repair on I/I flow. The study focuses on the
West Side Flats area in Saint Paul and will measure flow pre-and post- service lateral rehabilitation.
Work is ongoing with much interest from the Met Council. More information can be found on Met
Council’s website: https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Wastewater-Water/Newsletters/I-I-project-
effectiveness-grant-2019.aspx.
Climate Action Work Plan
In December 2022, the Met Council approved the Climate Action Work Plan, which details Met Council
efforts designed to respond to the impacts of climate change. This is an internal-facing effort outlining
vision and action for the next five years. The Climate Action Work Plan recognizes the impact climate
change may have on I/I, both through changing precipitation patterns and a potential increase in more
intense rainfall events. While more extreme rainfall events may increase the stress on aging
infrastructure, changing precipitation patterns may result in higher volumes of I/I, especially if the
groundwater tables rise.
The Climate Action Work Plan proposes to “evaluate the impacts of climate change on inflow and
infiltration to the regional wastewater collection system and develop recommendations to respond
accordingly” (Metropolitan Council, 2022).
Past Met Council private property grant programs
The Met Council has implemented two private property I/I mitigation programs in the past. Historically,
only a small amount of available funding has been put toward private property I/I mitigation. Funding
and mitigation have been very intermittent due to the unreliable funding sources which posed
challenges to local communities to commit to the work.
Foundation Drain Disconnection and Service Line Repair
This grant program was established in 2008 with unallocated funding from the Metropolitan
Environmental Partnership and the Twin City Water Quality Initiative. Total grant funding was $800,000.
162
Page - 7 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Eligible work to receive grant funding included foundation drain disconnections and service line repairs.
Four municipalities participated in the program.
This grant program reimbursed applicants 50% of costs up to $1,000 for foundation drain work and
50% of costs up to $2,000 for service line work.
Private Property Grant Program
The second grant program, executed from 2013 to 2014, was funded by the Clean Water Land &
Legacy Amendment. Total grant funding was $1,000,000. This program focused on repairs or
replacements on active, non-municipal sewer infrastructure. Most of the completed work included
service line repair and replacement. This program was very popular, with all funds being encumbered
within nine months of implementation.
This grant program reimbursed applicants one third of actual, reasonable and verifiable repairs costs,
limited to $2,000 per project.
Both programs were very successful and sought after, with funds being allocated in a short amount of
time. The following are the lessons learned from these two programs that will be considered in the
development of this PPII grant program:
• Encumber funds on application, to ensure availability of funds for future applicants
• Process for grant application and reimbursement should be streamlined and made as easy as
possible
• Improve grant announcements to municipalities to increase participation in the program
• Communication in different languages and modes will be essential to communicate the benefits
of the program. Communication and application process must be accessible as well.
• One-time funding sources make it challenging to make an impact in private property I/I sources
163
Task Force 1 – Inflow/Infiltration Task Force
Based on the recommendations of the Interceptor Master Plan,
the first I/I Task Force of community public works directors, city
engineers, city managers, and finance directors met in 2003 and
2004. The 2004 Task Force concluded that:
• The capacity of regional wastewater conveyance and
treatment facilities is exceeded during significant rainfalls
because of excessive I/I.
• Overloaded wastewater conveyance and treatment
facilities result in unacceptable conditions such as
private property damage, spills, and sanitary sewer
overflows.
• Environmental Services (ES), as the regional
wastewater utility and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permittee, must take action
to reduce the risk of overloading the regional wastewater
facilities.
• It is not feasible to enlarge ES facilities to accommodate
all of the I/I from tributary communities.
• ES has a fiduciary responsibility to not expend funds to convey and treat clear water from illegal
connections associated with private property sources such as sump pumps and rain leaders.
• The ES design allowance (based on the Ten State Standards) for I/I in the interceptor system is
reasonable as many local communities meet this standard.
Based on the Task Force conclusions, ES developed an I/I Mitigation Program.
In fall 2005, a significant rain event occurred in the region that resulted in 47 communities exceeding
their I/I goal peak flows. Based on the program guidelines, these communities were given the option of
working on I/I mitigation activities or paying a surcharge that could be used for I/I mitigation within the
surcharged community. With one exception, all local communities chose to perform I/I mitigation work.
Council staff worked with the surcharged community, which identified and mitigated the I/I source,
allowing funds to be returned to the community upon completion of the work.
164
Page - 9 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Task Force 2 – Demand Charge Task Force
The Met Council’s 2030 Water Resources Management Policy
Plan called for the implementation of a wastewater demand
charge in 2013 for communities with excessive I/I. The intent of
the demand charge was to help fund the cost of providing
storage of excessive I/I to avoid overloading downstream
facilities. In 2009, the Met Council appointed a Demand Charge
Task Force to develop recommendations for the program,
including specific features and a 2013 implementation date. The
Task Force sought a balanced approach to foster continued
progress for I/I mitigation and recommendations for the next
phase of the program, including implementing an ongoing
program rather than a demand charge. As a result, ES
developed an Ongoing I/I Program, with the following goals:
• Effective in achieving I/I policy goals
• Equitable among served communities
• Defensible using measured flow data
• Fiscally responsible: consistent with cost of service and
other policies, accounts for regional economics
• Reasonable, uniform rules and procedures
• Flexible, to deal with uncertainties and change
• Understandable
Based on the Task Force conclusions, ES developed an Ongoing I/I Program.
In spring 2014, much higher than normal rainfall resulted in saturated soils and elevated surface water
features. Those factors, combined with the precipitation received in June 2014, resulted in 46
communities exceeding their I/I goal peak flows and subsequently participating in work plans.
Communities had four years to complete work plan assignments.
165
Task Force 3 – Inflow & Infiltration Task Force
The 2016 task force was convened to discuss and identify areas
of improvement for the existing Ongoing I/I Program and the
potential for future inflow and infiltration mitigation strategies for
both public and private infrastructure. The task force reviewed the
existing program, mitigation actions undertaken across the
region, and system responses to wet weather. They also
discussed the challenges, means, and methods to address
private I/I.
The Task Force recommended that ES continue to work with
local communities to:
1. Maintain the regional planning policy of balancing regional
standards with the needs of local communities to tailor
programs to individual circumstances.
2. Develop a robust public outreach program for I/I and
wastewater system maintenance that would include target
audiences such as elected officials, the real estate
community, public works professionals, and the public. Topics would include proper
maintenance of wastewater collection systems, ownership of sanitary sewer service laterals,
and impacts of excessive I/I during wet weather events. Public information toolkits would be
developed that could be customized for use by local communities.
3. Pursue consistent funding sources for public and private I/I projects.
a. Continue to advocate on behalf of metropolitan communities for State Bond Fund
allocation for I/I mitigation in the local collection system.
b. Assist Metro Cities in advocating for funds from Clean Water Legacy or other state
sources for private property I/I mitigation.
c. Consider the provision of financial assistance through regional sources, such as a
portion of the wastewater fee, to provide assistance to communities for private property
I/I mitigation.
4. Develop a model ordinance for a private property sewer service lateral inspection program in
conjunction with the League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, and local communities.
5. Develop best practices for a private property I/I inspection program in conjunction with
representatives from local communities and Metro Cities. The best practices toolkit would
include inspection standards and training for community personnel using methods such as
record keeping and performance standards for repair and rehabilitation of private service
laterals.
6. Investigate the ability to develop master contracts held by ES that could be used by
communities for private property I/I inspections and service lateral repairs. Communities would
have the option of using the inspection service on a fee basis but would be required to schedule
the inspection and keep records of the inspection results.
7. Provide technical assistance to communities on sub-metershed flow metering to better quantify
the impact of private property I/I mitigation. Design and implement a private property I/I
mitigation demonstration project that would provide additional opportunity for measurement of
impact on wastewater base and peak flows. These results will help in identifying strategies for
private property I/I mitigation and public outreach.
8. Review the exceedance peak hour factors used to develop I/I goals currently in place at the time
that the 2050 Water Resources Policy Plan is prepared.
166
Page - 11 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
2023 PPII Task Force Discussion
Private property I/I grant program
The task force was assembled in early 2023 and met four times to provide guidance and input on what
a private property I/I grant program should entail. Discussions centered on the topics below.
Challenges and concerns
The task force discussed some challenges and concerns with implementing a private property grant
program and discussed solutions or ways to remove some challenges.
- Ease of application process for applicants – It can be time consuming to apply for grants.
Challenges could be the number of documents needed to provide or fill out, language of the
application, lack of plain language on the application, and time to fill out the application in the
timeline of the grant. Task force members noted that first-come, first-served grant programs are
difficult for certain populations to take advantage of for many reasons, including those listed
above.
- Staff time for processing applications – The task force noted that not all communities in the
region have staff available to review and process grant applications. They suggested the
required documents and process be as streamlined and simple as possible, to allow those
smaller communities with fewer resources to still participate.
- Incentivizing program use – Sewer lateral repair costs have been increasing. An average lateral
repair can cost $8,000 or more, a large sum of money. It could be challenging to convince a
resident to undertake a lateral repair if they have not experienced a clogged lateral or back up. It
will be important to emphasize the environmental benefits of a repair, the future cost savings of
not building another wastewater treatment plant, and the benefit of reducing the likelihood of
sewer backups into the residence.
Eligible work
The task force discussed various activities for private property I/I mitigation that could be eligible for
grant reimbursement. It was noted that foundation drain rehabilitation is very effective at reducing I/I
and costs less than service lateral replacement. Many communities across the metro have already
established I/I mitigation programs and began with foundation drain disconnections. These programs
are also useful in identifying areas of high I/I in the community.
Funding source
When the statute was changed, ES Finance committed to assign funding from the PAYGO fund for this
grant program. The PAYGO consists of funds from user fees and is used to fund capital expenses in
lieu of debt-created funding sources, such as General Obligation bonds or Public Facilities Authority
loans. The use of PAYGO funds for private property I/I mitigation grants is considered consistent with
its intent, as eliminating the capacity robbing effects of I/I will defer the need for system capacity
improvements or construction of system flow storage facilities.
The first year of the program is estimated to have $1 million in funding, from the PAYGO fund.
Assuming an average repair cost of $8,000, a total of 125 service lines could be repaired, at full grant
reimbursement. If half of the 111 communities and townships served by ES apply for the grant program,
each municipality that applied would receive enough grant funding for approximately two service line
repairs, at the full grant amount. If the program continues to be desired and successful, it would be
advantageous to find ways to increase the grant funding amount to have a greater impact on I/I
mitigation.
167
Tax impacts
In past grant programs, the grant funds were considered taxable income to the resident. The task force
wanted to avoid any negative impact this may have on a resident’s personal finances, such as creating
additional taxable income that may render an applicant ineligible for other need-based assistance. One
way to administer the grants without tax impact to the resident is for the municipality to directly pay the
bill for the work. If there are remaining expenses owed by the resident, municipalities have multiple
options for recouping those costs, including setting up an assessment on the home for the remaining
grant amount. Municipalities also have the option to provide the grant to the resident and then would
provide the appropriate tax form.
Equity
Thrive MSP 2040 is the Met Council’s vision for the region through the year 2040. It reflects concerns,
needs, and aspirations for the region and addresses our responsibility to future generations. Thrive
MSP 2040 has five outcomes that reinforce and support each other to produce greater benefits for the
region. Those outcomes are Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability.
To further support the goals in Thrive MSP 2040, there was a specific ask for the task force to include a
component of equity in the program. Thrive MSP 2040 provides the following definition of equity:
“Equity connects all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing, transportation, and recreation
options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities so that all communities share the
opportunities and challenges of growth and change. For our region to reach its full economic potential,
all of our residents must be able to access opportunity. Our region is stronger when all people live in
communities that provide them access to opportunities for success, prosperity and quality of life.”
(Metropolitan Council, 2014).
A representative from the Met Council’s Workforce and Equity department participated in task force
meetings to provide expertise in this area. The task force discussed many different options for an equity
metric for the program, including housing cost burden, age of housing stock, income, marginalized and
vulnerable populations, and promoting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contractors. Task
force members also shared information about programs in their communities that promote and
encourage equity. These examples helped facilitate a discussion on the feasibility of including an equity
component in this program.
During the task force meetings, a bill was proposed in the Minnesota Legislature pertaining to the public
inflow and infiltration grant program. This bill suggested that higher grant amounts be given to cities for
work in specific areas of the city that meet at least three of the “Affordability Criteria” listed in the bill.
That criterion is:
"Affordability criteria" means an inflow and infiltration project service area that is
located, in whole or in part, in a census tract where at least three of the following apply as
determined using the most recently published data from the United States Census Bureau
or United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
1. 20 percent or more of the residents have income below the federal poverty thresholds;
2. the tract has a United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability
Index greater than 0.80;
3. the upper limit of the lowest quintile of household income is less than the state upper limit of the
lowest quintile;
4. the housing vacancy rate is greater than the state average; or
5. the percent of the population receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits is greater than the state average (Minn H.F. 1514 (Proposed)).
168
Page - 13 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The task force thought that for this program, these criteria are complicated and would be a challenge to
verify, especially for smaller communities that may not have staff capacity to review the criteria. It was
suggested that each municipality implement equity in their own way. Task force members shared that
each community is in the best position, given local knowledge, of where residents are in need of extra
financial support, as well as where areas of higher or potential I/I are.
The task force also expressed a desire to continue this program every year, with funds from the
PAYGO account. With stable and reliable funding, the region can continue to support residents with
financial assistance and take system capacity back to allow for growth. Consistent funding also allows
the program to grow and reach a broader audience. The task force also volunteered to continue
supporting this program and provide feedback on any modifications needed to create something
beneficial and impactful to the region.
Communication and outreach
The task force discussed the challenges with incentivizing residents to participate in this program. Many
residents do not know the condition of their sewer lateral and would not see a need to fix something
that doesn’t cause them any issues. It was also noted by the task force that it is much cheaper to clean
roots out of a pipe, even if it must be done every few years, rather than line or replace the lateral. Many
residents also may not understand the impact of I/I on the regional wastewater system and why the Met
Council and municipalities are working hard to remove it.
Task force members requested assistance from Met Council to create informational flyers, social media
content, and other presentation material as requested to share this grant program and the importance
of this work with residents. Met Council committed to helping create these communication materials.
Another action to incentivize this work was shared by a task force member. In that community,
residents that repair their sewer lateral get a reduced sewer bill. This could be implemented by other
communities looking for ways to increase participation.
Peak hour factor and I/I goal calculation
Another recommendation from the 2016 I/I task force was to review the peak hour factors used in
sewer design and I/I exceedance calculations in preparation of the 2050 Water Resources Policy Plan.
The 2016 task force modified the existing peak hour factors to account for the lower regional average
flow per capita by adjusting the design flow variation factors upward (divided by 0.85), to reflect
available capacity for I/I.
The question was raised to the 2023 task force of whether to keep or modify the adjusted peak hour
factors. The task force had no issues with the adjusted peak hour factors and agreed to maintain as is.
The maintained peak hour factors are included in Appendix A, Table A-2, of the 2040 Water Resources
Policy Plan.
Task Force Recommendations
The task force supported and recommended the following guidelines for a private property I/I grant
program:
Participation: Any municipality that has exceeded their I/I goal or come within 20% of their I/I goal may
participate. A pre-application will be required, and municipalities must apply each year for funding.
Grant Amount: The grant amount for each community will vary year to year, depending on how much is
available in the PAYGO account and how many municipalities apply. Funding will be distributed in a
similar fashion to the Municipal I/I Grant Program fund distribution. This method allows communities to
169
know how much grant funding they will receive that year and will help them with communication and
outreach efforts. The distribution method is described below, with more detail provided in the program
documents:
After all applications with requested grant amounts are received, Met Council will review
eligibility of proposed grant request amounts and determine a Preliminary Minimum Allocation
(PMA) of grant funds based on number of participating municipalities. The remaining grant
funding will be distributed to participating applicants proportional to their grant request.
Participating municipalities will be informed of their total grant amount before the start of the
program year.
The Met Council recommends the following for eligible work for grant reimbursement:
1. Private lateral repair and/or replacement
2. Foundation drain disconnections and new sump pump, if associated with the foundation drain
disconnect
3. Lateral televising and cleaning costs if:
a. Applicant meets the equity need of the participating municipality or
b. Televising and cleaning result in repair or replacement of sewer lateral
Grant reimbursement will be 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000, for applicants not meeting any equity
criteria set by the participating municipalities. This increase in funding amount, from previous program
caps, considers the increase in prices for repairs. It was also recommended to increase the cap
reimbursement amount for applicants meeting their municipalities’ equity criteria. After reviewing
average repair costs from 2020 to 2023 provided by the task force members, the cap was
recommended to be two times the non-equity applicant grant amount, setting a $10,000 cap.
Municipalities are not required to follow the recommendations from the Met Council in choosing how to
distribute their grant funding. Municipalities may distribute funds differently if the funds are specifically
used for private property efforts. Many on the task force supported the flexibility to use money to repair
sewer laterals in conjunction with pavement projects. This may result in lower costs due to efficient
mobilization and better prices with contractors. It also prevents needing to return to an area to fix a
sewer lateral when it could have been fixed with the road project. In these scenarios, it was noted that
the grant money would only be spent on private property repairs. Municipalities using funds with street
projects will need to submit documentation to show that the grant funds were used as intended.
Another example of a repair that could use grants funds, if the municipalities have flexibility, are sump
pump disconnections. This was not included in previous programs because sump pump connections
are already illegal, per the state plumbing code. Sump pumps are still a major source of I/I, and
addressing the problem could be a cost-effective way of reducing I/I. There has never been a region-
wide requirement that homes be inspected for sump pumps, so whether municipalities have done so
depended on the priorities of their local elected officials. It can be left up to the applying municipalities
whether to provide grant reimbursement for sump pump disconnection work.
Equity: The task force recommended that each participating municipality have the flexibility to
determine how to implement equity in their grant distribution. This gives the ability to provide full grants
for those meeting the municipality’s equity standards/goals. The task force shared that each
municipality knows what areas in their communities could use extra financial assistance for this type of
work.
170
Page - 15 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The task force shared many instances of how they could implement equity considerations, if given the
flexibility. They shared examples of elderly residents unable to sell their home because of an expensive
sewer lateral repair. This would be an example where the city would have provided a full grant for the
repair cost.
The task force also recognized that not having the resident directly accept the grant monies, which
would increase their taxable income, opens the program up for widespread participation. Residents can
apply without impact on their taxes or other programs they may be enrolled in.
Another example of a benefit of flexibility was the use of funds to repair laterals during street
reconstruction projects. The grant funds could be used to repair all the sewer laterals in the project
area, offsetting any potential assessment on the resident as well as improve the efficiency of grant
money use. In the long run, the more I/I removed from a municipality’s system results in lower
wastewater charges for the municipality and residents.
This also allows municipalities to target areas that are known for I/I or have the potential for high I/I, no
matter the resident equity eligibility or needs. This can support the municipality’s I/I work plan as the
municipality may know where the I/I is coming from or the areas that have certain characteristics that
may lead to I/I, like clay service laterals.
Equity Advisory Committee
In May 2023, this program was presented to the Metropolitan Council Equity Advisory Committee
(EAC). The EAC advises the Met Council in its work to advance equity in the metropolitan region, with a
goal to create more equitable outcomes for the people who live and work in the region.
The EAC was consulted regarding equity in the program. One suggestion from the committee was for
this program to provide Met Council’s list of underutilized businesses (MCUB) that would be able to
perform this work so that a resident or applicant municipality may choose to support an MCUB
business. The EAC also suggested including rental properties in the grant eligibility.
Pilot program
The task force and Met Council staff acknowledge that this is the first year of implementation and
modifications to the program and application process may need to be changed for future years. The
task force membership was supportive of continuing to participate and advise the Met Council and help
decide what, if any, modifications should be made for future years.
Other items that came up in discussion that may be revisited as the program progresses are whether to
allow grant reimbursement to other property owners, including landlords and commercial properties.
Any repair of a sanitary sewer lateral provides a benefit to the regional system and maintains capacity
for future growth. This first year, due to limited funds and the uncertainty of municipality participation, it
was decided to focus eligibility on homeowners. The task force did discuss rental properties, and a
component that was discussed by the task force and will need further discussion is how municipalities
can verify that any cost to repair a rental sewer lateral does not get passed on to the renters, as that is
counteractive to the goal of equitable fund distribution.
171
References
Brown and Caldwell. (2016). I/I Task Force Assistance: Meter Review and Analysis.
Environmental Protection Agency. Review of Sewer Design Criteria and RDII Prediction Methods.
(2008). https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1008BP3.PDF?Dockey=P1008BP3.PDF.
Metropolitan Council. Climate Action Work Plan. (2022).
https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Climate/Climate-Action-Work-Plan/Climate-Action-Work-
Plan.aspx.
Metropolitan Council. Preliminary Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge Program. (2005).
Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040: One Vision, One Metropolitan Region. (2014).
https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Thrive-2040/Thrive-MSP-2040-Plan.aspx?source=child.
Minn. Stat. § 471.342 Inflow and Infiltration Program (2022).
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/471/full#stat.471.342.
Minn H.F. 1514 (Proposed). Metropolitan Cities Inflow and Infiltration Grants. (2023). Posted
03/09/2023.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1514&version=latest&session=92&sessio
n_number=0&session_year=2023.
Water Environment Research Federation. Methods for Cost-Effective Rehabilitation of Private Lateral
Sewers. (2006). https://mwrd.org/sites/default/files/documents/Cost-
Effective_Rehabilitation_of_Private_Lateral_Sewers.pdf.
Resources
2016 Inflow and Infiltration Task Force Report
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WASTEWATER/Inflow-
Infiltration/Inflow-Infiltration-Task-Force-Report,-2016.aspx
Demand Charge Task Force Report
Upon Request
Inflow/Infiltration Task Force Report
Upon Request
I/I Toolbox
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/Wastewater/Inflow-and-Infiltration.aspx
2040 Water Resources Policy Plan
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/2040-Water-Resources-Policy-Plan.aspx
Municipal I/I Grant Program
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Funding-Finance/Available-Funding-Grants.aspx
172
Page - 17 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Appendix
Private Property I/I Task Force Meeting Minutes
173
This page intentionally left blank
174
1 Metropolitan Council Minutes
Private Property I/I Grant Program Task Force
Meeting Date: January 13, 2023 Time: 9:30 AM Location: Teams - Virtual
Members Present:
Wendy Wulff, Chair
Ron Hedberg, Apple Valley
Scott Anderson, Bloomington
Erik Henricksen, Chanhassen
Jim Hauth, Columbia Heights
Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove
Chad Millner, Edina
Heather Butkowski, Lauderdale
Angie Craft, Minneapolis
Eric Hoversten, Mound
Matt Yokiel, Newport
Shelly Rueckert, St. Anthony
Eldon Rameaux, West St. Paul
Dale Reed, White Bear Twp
Patty Nauman, Metro Cities
Members Absent:
Russ Matthys, Eagan RJ Kakach, Golden Valley Bruce Elder, St. Paul
Metropolitan Council Staff Present:
Emily Steinweg (facilitator)
Kyle Colvin
Anna Bessel
Ned Smith
Dan Schueller
Andrea Kaufman
Angela Mazur
Jana Larson
Other Attendees:
Kelly Moriarity, Minneapolis
Welcome and Introductions
Wendy Wulff (task force chair) welcomed the task force and began the meeting. Emily Steinweg
(MCES) recorded the meeting and gave a welcome on behalf of Kyle Colvin (MCES), who was
having some technical difficulties.
Patty Nauman (Metro Cities) gave a welcome and background on what Metro Cities does and the
role played over the years relating to I/I.
Emily Steinweg led the group through introductions.
Overview of Inflow and Infiltration Efforts
Emily Steinweg shared a PowerPoint presentation on the history of the I/I program, the previous
private property grant programs supported by the Met Council and explained the need for a
concerted effort to mitigate private property I/I (PPII). She shared the recommendations from the
previous I/I Task Forces and explained the statute change that allows for Met Council to establish
a PPII grant program.
Consensus Discussion
Chair Wulff led the group through a consensus discussion. The task force needed to determine
whether a PPII program should be pursued. The following questions and comments were
presented to the task force through Mentimeter:
175
2 Metropolitan Council
Chair Wulff stated that 100% agreement was not needed, only clear support to continue this
conversation to establish an PPII grant program. Poll results indicated a strong support to continue
developing a PPII grant program.
Heather Butkowski raised the concern that the last grant program was most beneficial to someone
who had a sewer issue at the moment of the grant program. She expressed support for doing this
program differently, so it is not only convenience for grant fund reimbursement. She stated she had
residents asking for grant money for years after the funds ran out. Chair Wulff agreed for the desire
for an ongoing program, so that funds are not depleted.
At the end of the four questions, the space was opened for general discussion. Scott Anderson
asked what a private property owner’s motivation is to do this work. He stated a big challenge will
be getting people to engage, even with full reimbursement. Scott also raised concern on enforcing
ordinances in cities (ex: point of sale).
Chair Wulff asked what steps would be needed to get to point of sale across the region.
Eric Hoversten agreed and noted there is also an education component to the work, educating
residents that this is or could be a problem for them. And then providing support for why they
should fix something that isn’t an issue for them or is cheaper to maintain (ex: clean roots yearly)
than pay for a full fix. He noted that now is a good time because we are unsure what will happen in
the economy. It might be less expensive to fix now rather than later.
Angie Craft suggested a sliding scale based on need. She also mentioned that the City of
Minneapolis has a number of private sewer mains and wondered if those would be included in the
program.
Jim Hauth shared that Columbia Heights began a project to televise 200 service lines but no follow
up has occurred. He shared that raising utility rates is already a challenge so any request to add
cost or work to a community to provide a service will be a tough sell.
Heather Butkowski shared that she has seen higher rehabilitation and repair costs for sewer
laterals. Residents of Lauderdale have seen repairs ranging from $8,000 - $15,000, using both
excavation/PVC repairs and lining repairs. She also shared that new technology exists for lateral
repair and there are preferred and non-preferred repair options.
Eldon Rameaux agreed and sees the average cost closer to $7,800 (in West St. Paul). When
West. St. Paul started their I/I program the hardest hurdle was the cost and residents asking why
they had to pay repair costs. Eldon told residents this was a shared responsibility, and we all have
to work together for a benefit.
176
3 Metropolitan Council Erik Henricksen shared that each city is at a different point in their ability to implement a PPII
program. Some cities already have inspection ordinances, some don’t.
Break (10 minutes)
Program Design Brainstorming Session
Emily Steinweg led the group through a brainstorming session using Mural, an online collaboration
tool. She walked the task force through 4 questions.
1. What, if any, private I/I work are you seeing in your community?
2. What work should be eligible for this private I/I grant program?
3. What work should NOT be eligible for this private property I/I grant program?
4. What other information do you need to help design this program?
Figure 1: Mural board from PPII grant program meeting.
The ‘thumbs up’ or check mark icon over the sticky notes mean another task force member liked or
agreed with that was in the sticky note.
The text on the sticky notes for each question, with the number of ‘thumbs up’ or repeated
statements, are as follows:
177
4 Metropolitan Council 1. What, if any, private I/I work are you seeing in your community?
- Lateral sewer lining and spot repairs (at failure point) - 6
- Voluntary replacement with:
o Street reconstruction by allowing them to put the cost on the PID with special
assessments - 2
o Mainline lining project
- Lateral replacement during scrap/demo-rebuild residential redevelopment - 2
- Lateral pipe bursting - 2
- Downspout disconnection - 2
- Foundation drain disconnection
- Sump pump disconnection
- Cross connection elimination
- Private property I/I study
- Recommendation of pre-sale lateral inspection from realtors
- Cleanout cap repair
- Wye replacement
- Point of sale inspections
2. What work should be eligible for this private I/I grant program?
- Pavement restoration – 4
- City administration costs – 4
- Lateral repair/replacement – 3
- I/I studies – 3
- Cleaning/televising – 3
- Temporary services during lateral replacement – 2
- Sump pump discharge repairs
- Landscaping
- Permit fees
- Shared laterals
- Engineering costs
- Re-lining
- Pulling a toilet to gain access
- New sump equipment for foundation drain disconnect
- Root removal
- Dewatering if needed for replacing lateral
- Private mains
3. What work should NOT be eligible for this private property I/I grant program?
- Lateral cleaning (without lining) – 5
- Root removal (without lining) – 4
- Root foaming – 4
- Landscaping – 4
- FOG issues – 4
- Spot lining – 3
- Permit fees – 2
- Interior plumbing – 2
- Drywall restoration (if removed for access) – 2
- Sewer repairs that don’t contribute to I/I – 2
- Projects that don’t correct whole I/I problem
- Sewer stack repair
178
5 Metropolitan Council - Cleanout access work for inspection
- Routine maintenance that may have been needed prior to the televising work (shut off
valve for water supply to the toilet)
4. What other information do you need to help design this program?
- Who will administer program (the city?) – 5
- Will there be an approved list of contractors? Or pre-approved contractor list? – 4
- How much money will be available ongoing? – 3
- Technical support for private property owners – 3
- Whether the grant is to the city or individual property owners? – 2
- Will cities be given an allotment or will funds be as requested? – 2
- What legal language/code updates would be required on the municipal side to protect
liabilities? – 2
- Will MCES create educational material to share for cities if they are responsible to
administer? – 2
- Suggest capping the per foot cost that lining contractors can charge – 2
- If municipalities administer, it may take additional resources… what if a city doesn’t
have the resources? – 2
- Updated repair costs.
- How will requests be prioritized – first come first serve or greatest need, etc?
- What types of repairs will be approved? Will design plans be required?
- Will we require quotes for digging and lining?
- There needs to be a solid justification process and ensure it is equitable.
- How much say will a homeowner/contractor have on the repair to be conducted
(homeowner wants new lateral when a short liner would suffice)
- Will the scope of this program restrict any other MCES programs?
- Are all cities eligible or just I/I cities?
- Can private properties who have received funds apply the following year?
- Inventory of services likely to be contributing to I&I?
- Will MBE/DBE contractor use be encouraged?
- Will warranties be provided for the repairs completed (e.g., if failure occurs 1 or two
years later)?
- Will this money trigger the need to send 1099-Gs?
- Will communities with residents below the median HH income of the state have different
considerations or amounts?
Items brought up in conversation include private sewer main, how much of a lateral in city right of
way is owned by a resident, and restoration costs. Scott Anderson raised the point that
landscaping and restoration will vary site to site, depending on whether the restoration is in a yard
or street, or if a homeowner had unique landscaping or retaining walls.
Jim Hauth suggested that costs covering things in violation of the plumbing code should not be
allowed.
Emily Steinweg and Kyle Colvin shared that funds for this round of grant funding will come from the
PAYGO account, which is revenue set aside from the municipal waste charge and is associated
with funding capital projects. Each year, MCES has on average $1-1.5 million left over each year in
the PAYGO fund.
Chair Wulff also brought up a study that is going on in St. Paul. This project will compare flow rates
from a specific neighborhood before and after repair of all deficient sewer laterals. The project has
been delayed due to COVID.
Scott Anderson revisited the challenge of getting participation. He asked what the driver for PPII is.
179
6 Metropolitan Council If Met Council does not address PPII, a plant capacity upgrade would be needed and that would
increase rates for all. He asked if there could be a fee on homeowners until they inspect their
lateral. Scott acknowledged that this idea would not be the best option.
Wendy reiterated the goal to make this an ongoing program. Progress may be slow, but each fix
lowers a community’s bill.
A question was raised whether the Met Council could reimburse residents directly, and therefore
remove some additional costs or inefficiencies. Chair Wulff shared that she can’t think of any Met
Council grant programs that are not pass through grants.
Erik Henricksen then suggested that cities are better setup to tackle I/I with data: set up sub-
metersheds, meter the flow, and identify areas to target for PPII mitigation. He asked if
identification of I/I hotspots or an established I/I program should be a prerequisite for communities
to receive grant funds.
Kyle Colvin shared some data the Met Council has, collected through the Comprehensive Plans,
that could help target I/I. The Comprehensive Plans had specific questions to estimate excess I/I,
the percentage of housing stock built prior to 1970, geology, pipe material, and how much work the
community has undertaken with I/I. Note that is data for the public system. Housing age is the
closest proxy for lateral pipe material. The task force echoed the importance of targeting I/I, either
through a community having a program or using data to dial in to hotspots. Some data when
collected was deemed sensitive and was stripped from the dataset.
Kyle Colvin raised another question the task force will have to decide. There are 81 communities in
the metro area that have excessive I/I or come within 20% of their I/I goals. Should only those
communities be eligible for grants? Two task force members shared their preference to target
communities that already have excessive I/I or come within 20% of their I/I goals. The other
communities may not have I/I issues because they are newer construction, new pipe material,
therefore less I/I overall. The communities that have I/I work plans already have costs added to
them, so the grant program could be an added benefit/assistance to them. It is possible that
communities without work plans contribute excessive amounts of I/I, they just aren’t metered.
Patty Nauman shared that on the bonding side of I/I and Metro Cities, Metro Cities has focused
efforts for bonding bills for those communities with excessive I/I or within 20% of I/I goals. If cities
with excessive I/I continue to do work to address it, all communities benefit.
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
At the end of the meeting, another Mentimeter question was shared: Anything you’d like more
information on for the next meeting? Any specific topics you’d like to address? Any last
comments?
Responses:
- Define who is eligible.
- Outline how equity plays into program.
- Eventually… when and how we’ll engage community engagement/relations folks in the
municipalities that have them and communities groups/nonprofits elsewhere
- How will recipients be selected? Works issue? Greatest need? First come? Will cities
with a greater percentage of flow receive a greater percentage of grant funding?
- If we had answers to some of the questions posed in the mural exercise (orange
stickys)
- For communities that have a well established I&I program, at what point should the
program end?
- Discuss allotment vs. first come first serve to allow cities the ability to develop and scale
their program to what they have available.
- How we can prioritize equity in the eligibility, outreach efforts, and weighting/scoring of
applications
180
7 Metropolitan Council - Incentivize cities to take on the televising of private lines if that is of interest to them. As
Kyle said, that could be done through the city-side grants. Share that option to cities.
Then we could steer those with poor lines to the private program
- Ensure cities are supported with education, technical support, draft program ideas,
keep program requirements simple in order to not be a heavy administration burden.
- Are there higher priority areas for MCES – interceptors that are near or over capacity?
Would these be higher priority areas?
- What key talking points are needed as we roll this out – what decisions do we anticipate
needing to defend or further explain to municipalities not on this committee and property
owners who may not be eligible.
- What about the property owners we didn’t fund last time – would we reach back out
proactively to let them know when the application opens that they may be eligible?
- Kyle touched on an interesting defining concept… using known soils, asset conditions,
past performance, etc. to create risk “heat map” for the service area to guide
investments.
- More information on an estimate of private lateral contribution and an estimate or other
surrogate for identifying hot spots. Equity analysis/impact on disadvantaged
communities. Estimated impact from program implementation – estimated vol reduction.
- Will timing be considered? Many cities may require city council approval prior to
accepting funding.
- To help identify in which areas to focus, should one of the initial efforts be to complete
“sub metershed” metering in areas of the MCES system that are having capacity
problems.
- Say grants are $2000 per household, which would fund about 600 homeowners, would
we do first come first served, or allocate so much to qualified cities?
- Since the majority of communities do not have a point of sale requirement at this time
would that put the communities who do at an advantage for a larger share of the grant
$$$?
Adjournment
Chair Wendy Wulff adjourned the meeting at 11:30 am
Meeting Facilitator and Contact:
Emily Steinweg, Principal Engineer
Emily.Steinweg@metc.state.mn.us
181
This page intentionally left blank
182
1 Metropolitan Council Minutes
Private Property I/I Grant Program Task Force
Meeting Date: February 9, 2023 Time: 9:30 AM Location: 145 University Ave. W., Saint Paul, MN 55103
Members Present:
Wendy Wulff, Chair
Ron Hedberg, Apple Valley
Scott Anderson, Bloomington
Erik Henricksen, Chanhassen
Russ Matthys, Eagan
Chad Millner, Edina
Heather Butkowski, Lauderdale
Angie Craft, Minneapolis
Eric Hoversten, Mound
Shelly Rueckert, St. Anthony
Dale Reed, White Bear Twp
Patty Nauman, Metro Cities
Members Absent:
Jim Hauth, Columbia Heights
Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove
RJ Kakach, Golden Valley
Matt Yokiel, Newport
Bruce Elder, Saint Paul
Eldon Rameaux, West St. Paul
Metropolitan Council Staff Present:
Emily Steinweg (facilitator)
Kyle Colvin
Ned Smith
Andrea Kaufman
Angela Mazur
Jana Larson
Welcome and Introductions
Wendy Wulff (task force chair) welcomed the task force and began the meeting. After brief
introductions, members were asked if anyone had comments or revisions to the meeting notes;
there were no comments.
Emily Steinweg noted a change to the agenda order, with the eligibility discussion moved before
the break to accommodate some attendees’ scheduling needs.
Overview of Inflow and Infiltration Efforts
Emily Steinweg shared a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the I/I program goals, the need for
private property I/I (PPII) funding, and a recap of the results of the Mural exercise and Mentimeter
questions from Meeting #1. The group did not have any additional comments on these when
asked.
Kyle Colvin reminded the group that the recent statute change allows Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services to use Municipal Wastewater Charge (MWC) funds for PPII and explained
that the intent was to use funds from “PAYGO”, a capital program funding source.
PAYGO is revenue set aside for small projects and system studies for which it doesn’t make sense
to take on long-term debt. Historically there is approximately $1M to $1.5M in leftover funds in the
PAYGO account. At the end of each year, the balance is applied to specific projects to offset debt
that would otherwise be incurred. There should be adequate capacity in the PAYGO program to
fund a grant program in that range, as Council staff explained during committee hearings last year
when asked about the impact of a PPII program on rates.
Ned Smith added that Finance staff are comfortable with this because the purpose of PAYGO
funds is to reduce the amount of debt that would otherwise be incurred from using GO Bonds.
183
2 Metropolitan Council Reduction of I/I from the system maintains hydraulic capacity and reduces the need for future
capital investments. Therefore, the use of PAYGO for PPII is an appropriate use of those funds.
Group members commented on the Mentimeter question from meeting 1, which asked “In your
opinion, is there still an issue with excess I/I in the Twin Cities wastewater collection system?”,
pointing out that the existence of excess I/I is a matter of fact, not opinion, and requesting that this
statement either be quantified or rephrased to reflect the group’s knowledge of the I/I problem,
particularly for outreach and public communications.
Chair Wulff mentioned that the current Saint Paul study could offer one source for solid numbers,
but Kyle Colvin added that due to COVID-19-related delays, that information may not be available
until late 2024 or early 2025. Council metering data used by cities that had already done PPII work,
such as Chanhassen and Eagan, was also mentioned as a possible data source.
Further details were offered on what was learned from PPII work that had already taken place in
some cities: in Eagan, most of the work needed was related to sump pumps, and Russ Matthys
suggested that this could be a good starting point for work done elsewhere, while also
acknowledging that that systems differ in other cities like Minneapolis. Chair Wulff noted that this
depends upon when a community was built and what soil types it has.
The issue of tax liability for grant funds received was discussed. This topic arose in recent years
related to lead line replacements which received federal funding. Grants or forgiven loans are
recognized as additional income for tax purposes, which a member noted could significantly impact
the equity discussion for a program. Angie Craft said that Minneapolis offers up to 20-year
assessments for needed repairs, which spreads the cost out over time, but involves a fee and low
interest. Edina also uses assessments spread out over time for affordability; residents must sign a
waiver and get two estimates for the work, which are reviewed and approved by the city, which
pays the contractor.
Eligibility Discussion
Emily Steinweg led the group through a discussion on work items that should and should not be
eligible for funding, and what the priority level should be for eligible types of work.
Examples were given from past PPII grant programs:
For the 2008 PPII grant program, eligible work included foundation drains, non-municipal service
lines, and service line repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement. Reimbursement was 50% of up to
$2,000 for a service line or $1,000 for a foundation drain.
For the 2013 PPII grant program, eligible work included non-municipal sewer infrastructure, any
rehabilitation or service line replacement, foundation drain disconnections, or city-owned service
laterals under “Right of Way” (as long as the full connection to the service line is repaired.)
Reimbursement was of repair costs only (performed by a licensed contractor, not by the
homeowner), and inspection costs only if the service line inspection resulted in eligible repairs.
Reimbursement was up to one third of actual, reasonable, and verifiable eligible repair costs,
limited to $2,000 per site.
Ned Smith inquired whether the group thought sump pump problems were continuing to occur
despite their discharge to sanitary sewer being illegal, and the group responded that yes, it is still
occurring. This problem is resolved by disconnecting the pump from the sanitary sewer and either
connecting it to a storm sewer or discharging out in the yard.
Russ Matthys said that the rate of prohibited reconnections in his community is low; the city
inspects about 800-1,200 connections per year out of 21,000 and find 1-2 pumps annually that are
no longer in compliance. Eric Hoversten agreed and said that while ongoing attention to this
problem is needed, the fix has a good half-life between the low rate of reconnections and the issue
not occurring in new construction because of inspections. Russ Matthys noted that there are
surcharges for the 1-2 pumps per year that are out of compliance.
The group identified the following work types as high priority:
184
3 Metropolitan Council •Pavement restoration
•Lateral repair/replacement
•Sump pumps when associated with foundation drain disconnections
The following work types were not a priority:
•City administrative costs
o Members noted that funds spent on this are funds not being spent on repairs, thus
counteracting the motivation the program is intended to create.
•New sump pumps
o Sump pumps that are non-functioning due to general wear and tear or due to
negligence of the homeowner are not eligible
•Temporary conveyance during sewer repair
o The group did not believe this would usually be needed, as repairs typically take a
few hours or one day.
The following work types generated further discussion:
•Landscaping
o If we’re including pavement, we should also restore green space.
o Clarify as “restoration” rather than “landscaping”, consider limiting scope of
restoration (e.g., only grass)
•Additional repairs where work was previously done
o It was agreed that if a lateral had a new defect unrelated to a previous repair, the
work to fix the new defect would be eligible for reimbursement
o Could be an insurance issue if first repair was not done correctly
•Requirement of identification of “active or evident” I/I to prevent use of program to upgrade
antiquated infrastructure that isn’t contributing to I/I (e.g., old clay pipe with no water
currently coming in.)
•I/I studies, cleaning/televising, root removal
o More definition was desired for these related items.
o Kyle Colvin noted that all these activities are eligible work credits in the current
public I/I program; the question here is whether they’d be eligible in the PPII
program.
o Members were concerned that studies should lead to repair work, for the intent of
the program to be realized, but there was discussion about there being a need to
identify a problem and its extent before it can be repaired – if we don’t find the
problem, we don’t get the shared benefit of reduced I/I. Various suggestions were
made to address this:
▪Including an “only if” clause – reimbursement only for cleaning or root
removal “required for televising” or if it’s part of a repair.
▪Focusing on older construction where these problems are more prevalent.
▪Pay only a portion of televising costs, as is done in the public I/I program.
▪Limiting eligibility for reimbursement of these costs to low-income
households.
o There were differing opinions about what the priority of this work should be, with
some members rating it “low” or “no” priority, while others felt it was an important
equity consideration, and that having an initial inspection covered makes the
program more appealing.
o The complexity and data privacy implications of making inspections eligible only for
low-income households was discussed, and other metrics were suggested, such as
185
4 Metropolitan Council assessed home value, Census data, and the presence of vulnerable people in the
home (such as children, senior citizens, or disabled residents).
o Chair Wulff proposed revisiting the practical side of how this item could be
structured at a later time.
▪ It was suggested that identifying how these projects would be initiated could
be a starting point for this conversation.
o It was noted that while most PPII work done in the area so far took place in point of
sale programs, not all cities have these.
The conversation shifted to incentivization. Shelley Rueckert said that her city offers a percent
discount on sewer rate for a set number of years after the repair work is done. These savings show
on customers’ bills and generate word-of-mouth discussion among neighbors. She expressed the
need to find some way to show people that there is a benefit – a return on investment – for this
work, rather than just emphasizing the environmental benefits. Ned Smith noted that avoiding
sewage backups into one’s basement is another visible benefit.
While some cities have tried surcharges in the past, this has not always been successful, and in
some cases, cities have had to later repay the surcharges as a result of legal litigation.
Break (10 minutes)
Equity Discussion
Andrea Kaufman led the group through an equity discussion, starting with a PowerPoint slide with
the Thrive outcomes of Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability. The Equity
outcome from Thrive MSP 2040 was defined, and discussion questions were introduced.
1. Is your community integrating equity in decision making? If so, how?
2. What are ways equity can be incorporated into this grant program?
3. What equity metrics pertain to this program and program goals?
4. What would successful implementation of equity look like for this program? For the first
year? (This question was not specifically addressed in the group’s conversation.)
Question 1:
• Edina had an equity task force in 2016 after a contentious sidewalk project and has been
looking at equity more since then. That task force developed scoring criteria and a values
tool that asks questions about equity, sustainability, public health, and engagement. The
city has approached a recent project from the viewpoints of the public, staff, and elected
officials. Chad Millner suggested some of those ideas could be used for this project.
• Angie Craft said that Minneapolis incorporates racial and economic equity in many
decisions and just refreshed the racial equity framework for project prioritization in
transportation. Her department uses an equity lens when looking at flood mitigation
projects. She noted that those approaches are more community-based vs. the individual
resident approach this program would take, and also emphasized the importance of
keeping the program simple for accessibility.
Questions 2 and 3:
• Suggested metrics included city-identified green zones in Minneapolis, areas where smoke
testing or other methods have already established there is a PPII problem, household
income as percentage of poverty line, households that qualify for EBT, housing cost burden
(more information available at https://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/Default.aspx), and age
of housing
186
5 Metropolitan Council • Patty Nauman supported the need for an equity lens to include ranking criteria for grant
fund awards for cities across the region – however, the equity ranking should not result in
any eligible city being unable to apply and receive funds.
o Heather Butkowski asked if there were a way to identify each city’s percentage of
the problem, and Kyle Colvin said that the Council has the data for each
community’s wet weather related peak flow which could be used to identify severity
of impact. Heather also suggested that impact could be weighted using population,
such as excess flow per capita.
o Kyle Colvin pointed out that cities’ potential to contribute to excess I/I could change
over time as weather patterns change and work is completed, so ranking on the list
would likely change year to year.
o Angie noted that the 30-some cities that have not been identified as having an I/I
problem or being near the threshold of an I/I problem are not represented on the
task force.
Andrea Kaufman asked what concerns the group might have with regard to using an equity lens,
and the need to be able to explain the reasoning behind the equity-based decisions to the public
and to elected officials was noted as important.
Russ Matthys pointed out that in a previous infrastructure improvement initiative, equity-based
approaches reflected the neighborhoods with the worst infrastructure condition, so the equity-
based approach seems to help ensure the highest impact for the investment – though members
expressed a desire to have the data to support this observation.
Age of housing overlaid with flow data was mentioned as a potential approach; Kyle Colvin
explained that 1970 is a common cutoff date due to improvements in materials and technology and
plumbing code changes around that date.
Eric Hoversten noted that a map-based eligibility standard has the potential to create situations
where one house may be eligible, but its neighbor would not be – and that the group has to
recognize that as a potentially unpopular outcome of using this approach rather than using
applications reviewed with equity, performance, and condition scoring.
Emily Steinweg offered examples of programs with rubric scoring where up to 50% of cost of
certain work might be eligible for reimbursement for everyone, but meeting certain criteria might
increase the potential reimbursement percentage. Group members expressed support for this style
of program and noted that it is both simple and resembles past programs presented to city
councils.
Chair Wulff noted the need to make the program objective enough to be fair, rather than rewarding
talent/experience at writing applications. Chad Millner suggested basing it on data that already
exists, such as Census data, with regard to the previously-mentioned equity considerations.
Andrea Kaufman discussed the use of outreach to community organizations and city community
engagement staff as a means to make the program more accessible, including potentially including
a couple of members with these backgrounds in the task force if there is interest.
Angie Craft asked whether the program would be “first-come, first served” or distributed based on
criteria, and added that community groups could be engaged to help residents complete
applications. Andrea Kaufman suggested that MCES could assist with this.
Chair Wulff cautioned that past experiences have emphasized the importance of making sure
funds are available for work before the work is completed. Patty Nauman agreed and added that it
takes time for cities to set up programs, and if they do so, they want to know that funds will still be
available at the time they request them - some kind of guarantee for cities that they will receive the
funds they are eligible for. She pointed out that statutory authority exists currently but could be
taken away in the future. Chair Wulff suggested setting a minimum per-city threshold, after which
unused funds could be returned to the pot and redistributed for other cities to request.
Erik Henricksen asked whether the program will dictate how much each city is eligible for based on
metrics, or if cities will be required to do outreach to assess how much work is needed. Eric
187
6 Metropolitan Council Hoversten noted that cities will want to know that funds are available before putting in the effort of
outreach. Chad Millner asked for information at the next meeting about how many people might
need to be contacted based on the distribution of the I/I problem. He suggested that this might help
inform how much work to put into criteria and outreach, since some cities might only need to talk to
a few people.
Throughout the meeting, community eligibility was discussed. In the public Ongoing I/I Program,
only communities that have exceeded their I/I goals or come within 20% of their goal receive a
work plan and are eligible for reimbursement through the program. Communities with work plans
have measured I/I exceedances. The task force discussed whether all communities in the region
should be eligible for this PPII grant money or only communities that have a work plan because
that community has measured I/I exceedances. The task force appeared to support the PPII grant
funding for communities who already have I/I exceedances and an I/I work plan.
Chair Wulff asked if most cities know how big their service lateral problem is, and members replied
that it differs from city to city. Kyle Colvin added that during the comprehensive plan update
process, communities were asked to include information to quantify and characterize the amount
of I/I within their system from private and public portions of the collection systems. Most
communities found it difficult to quantify or characterize the susceptibility of I/I on the private part of
the system.
Previous grant programs and surcharges were discussed, including the 2008 grant program,
during which funds ran out before work was completed, and the demand charge from the 2004-
2005 task force, which allowed cities to pay a surcharge in lieu of doing I/I work. Kyle Colvin noted
the surcharge was phased out around 2013 as the Council saw the impact of the I/I work that had
been completed, though the option still exists for a demand charge to be implemented in the
future.
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
At the end of the meeting, another Mentimeter question was shared: Anything you’d like more
information on for the next meeting? Any specific topics you’d like to address? Any last
comments?
One response was received: “Each city needs to decide where they are with I&I. Only spend
money you can get or believe in I&I program as right thing to do. That will guide your
communication plan and effort. The investment will pay for itself. I’m happy to share our efforts.”
Adjournment
Chair Wendy Wulff adjourned the meeting at 11:34 am
Meeting Facilitator and Contact:
Emily Steinweg, Principal Engineer
Emily.Steinweg@metc.state.mn.us
188
1 Metropolitan Council Minutes
Private Property Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Grant Program Task Force
Meeting Date: March 7, 2023 Time: 1:30 PM Location: 145 University Ave. W., Saint Paul, MN 55103
Members Present:
Wendy Wulff, Chair
Patty Nauman, Metro Cities
Scott Anderson, Bloomington
Erik Henricksen, Chanhassen
Jim Hauth, Columbia Heights
Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove
Chad Millner, Edina
RJ Kakach, Golden Valley
Heather Butkowski, Lauderdale
Angie Craft, Minneapolis
Eric Hoversten, Mound
Matt Yokiel, Newport
Shelly Rueckert, St. Anthony
Bruce Elder, Saint Paul
Eldon Rameaux, West St. Paul
Dale Reed, White Bear Twp
Members Absent:
Ron Hedberg, Apple Valley
Russ Matthys, Eagan
Metropolitan Council Staff Present:
Emily Steinweg (facilitator)
Kyle Colvin
Ned Smith
Andrea Kaufman
Dan Schueller
Anna Bessel
Jana Larson
Angela Mazur
Welcome and Introductions
Wendy Wulff (task force chair) welcomed the task force and began the meeting. Emily Steinweg
asked for comments on the Meeting #2 minutes; there were none. She then recapped last
meeting’s discussion to ensure there was consensus and to take any additional comments.
Key points were:
- Program would include municipalities eligible for the public program: those that already had an
I/I work plan or were within 20% of their I/I goal.
- Eligible work listed as high priority would include private lateral repair/replacement, foundation
drain disconnection (including new sump pump costs when associated with a drain
disconnection), restoration (including but not limited to turf and pavement), and lateral
televising and cleaning costs (when resulting in repair/replacement of the sewer lateral).
In response to a question from Ned Smith, Kyle Colvin clarified that eligibility for the public program
includes any community that was eligible in any year since the inception of the program in 2004.
Emily continued the recap by summarizing the equity questions discussed: how communities are
currently integrating equity, which ways equity might be incorporated into this program, what
metrics to use, and what successful equity implementation would look like for the first year.
Emily mentioned a few additional topics from the meeting #2 minutes:
- Incentivization
- Prioritizing outreach to certain areas
- Pre-allocation of funds to communities vs. “first-come, first-serve” approach
189
2 Metropolitan Council o If pre-allocating, should it be by I/I needs/response?
- What equity metrics should be used for this program, and how should it be implemented?
Patty Nauman added that on the public side with I/I bonding, funding has been pre-allocated,
which means any eligible city can apply and be sure of receiving some funding. Chair Wulff
clarified that this means a minimum amount per community is set, with any additional funds divided
up based on requests. Ned commented that this could be more problematic with a private
program, as cities get less work funded than they would like, and homeowners are less likely to
accept that situation – if they do work, they will want to know they will receive funds. For the Clean
Water Fund money that was previously available for private property work, there was about $1
million, and because it was first-come, first-serve, most funds went to a small number of cities.
This was unpopular, and it would be expected that future programs would allow people across the
region to have a chance to receive funds.
Chair Wulff asked those in the group who might apply for such a program if they know the size of
the problem regarding sewer laterals needing replacement. Many group members nodded,
indicating that they suspected significant problems, especially in older neighborhoods.
Erik Henricksen noted that this ties into incentivization: it’s hard to know how to best do that
without knowing how much funding is available. Jim Hauth added that it could be dependent on a
city council’s willingness to require repairs: it’s less likely that a resident will choose to pay half the
cost of a repair unless they’re told they must, but cities requiring repairs could eliminate more I/I.
Ned and Kyle clarified that cities that have done a good job of repairing public I/I would still qualify,
in response to an equity concern about whether a robust work plan on the public side might
prevent that community’s residents from qualifying for the program. Cities that have never had a
work plan, like Cottage Grove, would not qualify based on the eligibility discussed. Jennifer Levitt
questioned whether that’s equitable, when older neighborhoods in that city still have many laterals
needing repair or replacement.
Angie Craft added that she expects that uncertainty about funds, such as in a reimbursement-
based, first-come, first-serve program, would greatly reduce participation by Minneapolis residents,
particularly since many might qualify for the higher percentage of reimbursement based on equity
measures. These residents are unlikely to proceed until they have confirmation of funding and
might be at a disadvantage if needing language assistance slowed their application submittal.
Kyle said a wait list could be possible with this program, which had not happened with the previous
program. He also believed that residents could be provided with confirmation that reimbursement
will occur. Matt Yokiel asked whether this would include a repair deadline to avoid long delays
between receiving funding and completing the work. Emily and Kyle believed there was a one-
year deadline before, and residents needed to submit a quote from a contractor. Jim asked
whether that level of administration work for the program is something that the Metropolitan
Council is willing to take on, and Emily and Kyle said yes.
Erik Henricksen asked if unused funds would roll over or be returned to the general fund for others
to apply for. Ned said that PAYGO funds such as the program would use typically don’t roll over,
but he could ask the CFO about whether it’s possible to set up a reserve for that purpose. Eric
Hoversten suggested looking at how MnDOT does capital with MSA funding as an example of
program with predictability and consistency on the funding end and flexibility on the user end.
Chair Wulff expressed support for all applying communities receiving at least a minimum amount,
with the overage distributed based on need. This could also include communities not on the list
doing a street reconstruction where this work could be done, since all cities ultimately pay into the
funding source for the program. Shelly Rueckert commented that this aspect of the existing public
program has worked well; communities feel they’re being treated fairly and are getting a
proportional share of the overage. This allows them to do a certain amount of planned work, then
choose how much risk to take on while applying for a share of overage funds.
Heather Butkowski pointed out that for the vast majority of homeowners doing private lateral work
190
3 Metropolitan Council at this point, it’s an emergency situation rather than a choice. Therefore, this program is likely to
be oversubscribed, as similar programs have been. She recommended the task force members
consider that emergency repairs alone could consume available funding. Members noted that this
varies by city, with West St. Paul estimating 10-12 in the last 7 years, out of 200+ inspections.
Minneapolis, on the other hand, had 2,000 repaired in a recent 2-year period.
Emily gave an example calculation of how grant funds might be allocated (Figure 1). If the
program had $1 million divided by 81 communities currently on the public I/I grant eligibility list, and
the average award were $5,000 (approximately 50% of the typical repair cost), each city would be
able to give two awards. In 2022, 10 communities had an I/I exceedance or were within 20% of
their I/I goals. If the funding were focused on those 10 communities, each could give 20 awards.
Figure 1: Sample calculations for a $1,000,000 grant program
Erik Henricksen asked how many of the 81 communities applied for the 2020 public grant. MCES
staff weren’t sure, but Kyle said that the 2008 grant of $800,000 had four applicants.
Patty said the bonding program has had strong participation, and even though the Council doesn’t
currently have a demand charge, communities are still required to deal with their I/I. This may be a
reason for broader eligibility vs. focusing on communities with exceedances, because solving the
problem in as many cities as possible is important. However, group members expressed concern
that it will be difficult to get cities excited about a program where they might receive only $9,000.
Chair Wulff asked if it makes sense to focus on the biggest bang for the buck first. Scott Anderson
thought so, particularly earlier in the program. This might mean prioritizing cities with current
exceedance problems, then if they don’t want the funding, making it available to other cities. Jim
agreed and added that the group’s mandate is to allocate the money for maximum impact reducing
I/I in the metro area, so an even allocation may not be the best option, given limited funds.
Kyle was asked by Chair Wulff if it was known what proportion of the recent exceedances were
due to private I/I vs. public I/I. He estimated around 50% to 60%, but noted that it varies by
community. Chair Wulff continued that cities on that list are likely motivated to be taken off of it,
and Scott added that that could make those cities more aggressive about dealing with the public I/I
first, and then figuring out where the rest is coming from. Erik Henricksen asked if that doesn’t
change the goal of the program. Shelly was concerned that focusing on just the heaviest I/I areas
would concentrate the benefits of the savings in only a few communities. Ned pointed out that in
the long run, everyone benefits from reducing flow capacity.
Patty asked about the difference between being on the exceedance list for 2022 vs. 2021. Kyle
explained that it’s a measurement of flow vs. a community’s goal and doesn’t characterize location
of flow source. Eric Hoversten added that it varies based on precipitation across the metro area
and the age of construction, and that there is some integration between allocation of these funds
and work plan penalty cost. A community can reduce the sewerage rate to all of its residents by
191
4 Metropolitan Council seeking out private properties with an I/I problem and getting them to participate in the program. In
response to a question about this being for proven, rather than suspected, cases of I/I, Eric noted
that use for unproven cases would be counter to equity goals.
Patty asked how you’d compare the priority of funding for two cities if one had a big exceedance
problem in 2021 and the other in 2022. Five-year rolling eligibility or intermittent eligibility with 25
or so cities eligible per year were both mentioned as a possibility, but both would be challenging to
administrate. However, the more money that is available in the program, the greater the political
sensitivity is to all communities having a chance at funding.
Heather wondered if it might be better to focus the program on more significant sources of I/I such
as exterior drains, rather than lining or replacing laterals. Chad Millner suggested that each
eligible city should decide what to target. Angie wondered if starting with communities that meet
affordability criteria would work, assuming that groups that don’t meet those criteria will make
repairs anyway, and Chair Wulff noted that they still needed to discuss those criteria.
Bruce Elder asked whether the intent was to exclude properties making repairs unless they could
demonstrate significant I/I. Kyle said that was a question the task force is here to figure out. For
past grants, the Council relied on local communities’ interpretation of televised lines, with the
application describing the problem. Bruce noted that video review is subjective due to fluctuations
in groundwater throughout the year.
Chair Wulff thought that as long as cracks are found by smoke testing or televising, that could be
eligible – just so long as intact pipes weren’t being replaced. Chad noted that just repairing a
cracked pipe doesn’t meet the task force’s goal, particularly if each community could do only a
couple per year. Jim agreed that pipe assessment doesn’t necessarily prove I/I, so we need to be
discriminating in how funds are allocated. Erik Henriksen thinks that cities should make that
determination, because it’s difficult in some areas to know whether a crack will contribute to I/I.
Scott was still concerned about the ease and cost of finding private property I/I problems -- who’s
televising the lines to look for deposits, and what is the motivation to convince property owners to
split the cost of that work with the grant, when they might say that this isn’t affecting them? Chad
replied that that goes to Angie’s point about 100% reimbursement and affordability.
Erik Henricksen suggested that’s where a city council’s willingness to require repairs comes in –
would they say, “It’s our ordinance that you can’t discharge this water, but luckily there’s funding”?
Scott noted that it’s hard to gear up a program like that when you can only offer two grants.
Based on past programs, Chair Wulff didn’t think everyone would sign up. She asked if members
generally agreed that cities should decide, and Chad responded that it should require evidence of
I/I, and then the cities should have the latitude to decide what that means. There was broad
consensus among the group on this point.
Bruce had concerns about having to demonstrate active I/I or a history of I/I because part of this is
proactive, to avoid future problems. Service replaced will be affected for 70 years, during which
we don’t know what will happen with climate. Requiring active I/I for eligibility could lead to
situations where one person isn’t eligible, but their neighbor is. He also noted that it takes a large
amount of resources to make a determination of whether there’s an I/I problem. He agreed with
the consensus of letting cities decide, but felt that pipes with the potential for I/I should be included.
Chair Wulff asked if anyone disagreed, and no one did.
The group took a short break, after which Emily proposed they discuss affordability criteria.
Break (10 minutes)
Emily introduced the draft public I/I bond bill language sent out before the meeting and noted that it
mirrors what the group has discussed with regard to using an equity focus to target funding. The
task force could choose to use the same or different equity criteria. Chair Wulff pointed out that we
don’t yet know if the bill will pass.
192
5 Metropolitan Council The draft public I/I bill uses a 50% reimbursement rate, with up to 100% possible for applicants
meeting 3 of 5 eligibility criteria. Erik Henricksen asked how this ties into the conversation about
how funds will be allocated to cities, and if the Council or individual communities will decide the
equity portion. Chad and Eric Hoversten noted that the eligibility map for the public bill doesn’t
include all the communities, and that the criteria are based on neighborhood rather than individual
qualifications. Chair Wulff added that many areas on the map have more renters than
homeowners, so using this approach could target funds at landlords rather than residents.
Jim commented that using geographic data for public funding might make sense, but these criteria
are very restrictive and may not be the best choice for a private property program targeted at
individuals. Members noted that you could get to a finer level of detail by using applications, but
cities haven’t previously done that level of detail work for I/I programs.
Patty asked if it would be possible to map out eligibility, and Emily said yes. Kyle asked Andrea
Kaufman if some of the criteria previously mentioned, such as presence of a vulnerable individual
in the home, are public information, and she said that it’s not. Some mapping could be done using
public information like SNAP usage or reduced-rate lunch usage in schools. Staff were unsure
what information the Council is allowed to request and retain related to these applications.
Eric Hoversten asked how cities with robust COVID-19 relief programs for financially distressed
households filtered those requests, suggesting that similar methods could be used here. Andrea
added that some cities, such as Minneapolis, and counties, are able to accept individual income
information, but she wasn’t sure what’s needed to be able to do that. Angie offered to explore how
that works, but noted that it needs to be as simple as possible on the application: perhaps a
checkbox asking whether a household receives any of a list of benefits.
Chair Wulff asked if the program should be used for homesteaded homes rather than rental
properties, and the group agreed that it should.
The group then discussed how to include residents who might make too much to qualify for benefit
programs, but still live in poverty. Possible methods of identifying this population included looking
at percent of federal poverty level, if using income, or looking at home values – though it was
pointed out that market volatility makes that measure difficult.
Jim brought up a potential problem discussed at the last meeting, when it was clarified that the
reimbursement would be taxable and could potentially increase residents’ tax liability or even make
them ineligible for benefits they had previously received. Andrea said this would need to be a
disclaimer in the application. Chair Wulff questioned whether people would be willing to share their
personal information with a city, and Andrea acknowledged that that is their choice.
Chad suggested that city staff have a good idea of which areas of their city particularly need this
help. He proposed the program could lay out a goal, suggest equity factors to consider, but
ultimately let the city decide. This would allow for local knowledge to identify areas where housing
price may not be a good indicator of financial need.
Erik Henricksen returned to the tax topic and asked if residents participating in the program would
receive a 1099 form from their community. Heather said that her community’s financial software
would generate one, but recommended each member speak to their finance staff to confirm that’s
the case for them as well. Erik pointed out again that the consequences of receiving a taxable
reimbursement could be significant for some homeowners, and Chair Wulff agreed, offering
examples of how other reimbursement programs had affected eligibility for the Earned Income Tax
Credit in the past. Angie suggested that using assessments to spread the cost out over time could
be an option, though Chair Wulff questioned whether this would reduce the impact or just spread it
out over a longer period.
Bruce observed that his staff specialize in public works, and the financial and administrative
nuances of a complex program are outside their area of knowledge, since these issues are
generally handled by other city departments. He was concerned about the security needed and
risks involved in handling private information, and also the possibility that a complex program could
discourage cities from pursuing the 100% reimbursement option. Chair Wulff noted that the base
193
6 Metropolitan Council 50% reimbursement combined with assessing the work over time could at least offer a less
complicated first-year option, particularly for cities with fewer staff.
The possibility of using liens to defer impact until there is income from the sale of a home was also
raised, but there was consensus from the group that this issue as a whole would require specific
tax expertise to solve, as it has the potential to complicate both administrating the program and
meeting equity goals. Heather suggested asking the Department of Revenue.
Jennifer asked how this program’s reimbursement might compare with programs cities already run
to subsidize businesses, particularly given the much smaller dollar amounts involved in individual
reimbursements. She expressed concern over the impression that individuals would fare worse
than developers, despite receiving less money. Others noted that these programs are structured
in a variety of ways that may waive fees rather than giving funds directly, and that forgivable loans
used in these programs probably also have a tax impact on the recipient.
Chair Wulff asked how West St. Paul handled it when they received grants for private property I/I
work during a 2008 program. Eldon Rameaux explained that he was not with the city at that time,
but that the city currently uses a point-of-sale program. The buyer and seller can negotiate with
each other, put money in escrow, and pay the contractor, after which the city reimburses at 50%.
He wasn’t sure about the tax implications because that’s outside his area of expertise.
Chair Wulff asked whether a pilot study being conducted in Saint Paul should impact the city’s
eligibility for the first year of this program. Kyle noted that the money for that study was from a
levy. Bruce didn’t think eligibility should be impacted because the city chose to partner with the
Council on a study to determine feasibility and effectiveness of a PPII program. He added that the
study was not yet far enough along to demonstrate that or show a citywide meaningful reduction in
I/I, since they were only now entering contracts for lining services. He also pointed out that the
study had cost Saint Paul $750,000. Scott asked how the study was handling the tax issue, but
Bruce wasn’t sure, and said he’d need to follow up with his legal department. He explained that
the city is doing the work in the pilot study, so the situation is different from the proposed program.
Angie suggested that having the city pay the contractor could offer an option for the proposed
program, if that has worked during the Saint Paul study.
Bruce added that their study has offered perspective on the difficulty of persuading property
owners to participate when they don’t perceive a problem with their existing service. Even the
study, which replaced or lined services from the sewer main to the house at no cost to the property
owner, required a significant amount of outreach and follow-up to get participants. He emphasized
the importance of not overlooking the difficulty of communicating technical and financial aspects to
property owners. Chair Wulff asked whether the neighborhood was primarily comprised of renters
or homeowners, and Bruce confirmed it was largely owner-occupied, and that notices went to the
owner rather than the occupants in the case of rentals.
Scott returned to the tax question, noting that it could be a significant disinvestment to participation
in the program if a homeowner would need to both pay for half the work and have a tax burden for
the other half. How could such a program be attractive and successful? The group agreed again
that expert opinion is needed on this topic before the next meeting, and that work on a disclaimer
should wait until these questions are resolved.
Andrea asked whether city finance staff could help with these questions. Angie committed to
connecting with Minneapolis finance and real estate staff and getting back to Andrea; she thought
asking about CPED loans could offer some insight. Andrea asked other task force members to
ask the relevant staff at their cities, and said staff would do the same at the Council. Shelley
Rueckert again suggested involving the Department of Revenue.
Jim expressed concerns that he doesn’t have enough information to make well-informed decisions
about what equity criteria should be part of the program, and suggested inviting an expert to guide
the group through that conversation so they could be sure that the program is fair and equitable,
but also that it had the intended impact in focusing funds on the most vulnerable residents.
Erik Henricksen asked if cities would have the ability to implement their own equity criteria above
194
7 Metropolitan Council and beyond that specified by the program. Emily noted that cities have the option of reimbursing
additional funds beyond the baseline 50%, using their own criteria, and that that investment could
count towards a city’s I/I work plan. Erik added that if the whole program used this approach, it
would essentially drop equity at the program level unless the city included something in its
application that affects prioritization for those funds based on equity criteria. Dale Reed was
concerned about the impact of each city determining its own equity criteria. Jim said that he
supports including equity if the Council wants to, since that’s where the funds are coming from, but
Council staff noted that it is ultimately ratepayer money.
Bruce offered thoughts on approaching private property I/I work from another angle, by considering
where other road or utility work is already being done and using those opportunities to target
private property I/I work in the same area at the same time. The city could document the I/I
problem in the area ahead of time, initially focus on the public work, and then propose private I/I
work in the same area that would significantly reduce I/I. The equity component could be
considered as part of the process, and the public and private work could be completed at the same
time, which would be more cost-effective. This approach would minimize the daunting
administrative burden of working with individual properties, but would still allow cities to do private-
property I/I mitigation work they’d previously not had funding for. It would also offer good data to
show the effectiveness of the work in reducing I/I. Chair Wulff liked the idea, and thought that it
probably costs less to do a whole neighborhood at once, but wanted communities that have a
small number of individual properties with problems to also be able to address those.
The group briefly discussed differences from city to city on where owner responsibility for a sewer
lateral begins. Typically the property owner owns it from the house to the connection to the sewer
main in the street, but in some cities it may only be from the house to the boulevard. Eldon noted
that the plumbing code states that it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain their sewer line in
its entirety. Chair Wulff asked that we seek clarification on the issue.
Chair Wulff asked for final comments from the group. Eldon said he wouldn’t be able to attend the
next meeting. He added that he envisioned this program being able to help citizens such as an
elderly woman in his community who had to sell her modest midcentury house when she moved
into assisted living. He would hope that the program would retain the ability to help individuals who
needed it, rather than only focusing on work that covers a whole neighborhood.
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
Emily confirmed that she would gather the maps and information requested during the meeting and
send them to the group quickly. She reminded the group that the next meeting will be at the same
time and same location on April 4. Erik Henricksen asked how the group was tracking progress
toward attaining its goals from meeting to meeting, particularly as the focus became more granular.
Would they start with the draft language presented and update it?
Kyle gave the example of the Council’s I/I program: at its past task force, the group discussed
elements and reached consensus on eligibility, after which Council staff developed a draft manual.
The manual was sent to the task force members, who could submit comments or meet to discuss
it. He envisions this process working similarly. Chair Wulff ensured members that they would
have the chance to comment on the final product.
Adjournment
Chair Wendy Wulff adjourned the meeting at 3:31 pm.
Meeting Facilitator and Contact:
Emily Steinweg, Principal Engineer
Emily.Steinweg@metc.state.mn.us
195
This page intentionally left blank
196
1 Metropolitan Council Minutes
Private Property Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Grant Program Task Force
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023 Time: 1:30 PM Location: 145 University Ave. W., Saint Paul, MN 55103
Members Present:
Wendy Wulff, Chair
Patty Nauman, Metro Cities
Scott Anderson, Bloomington
Erik Henricksen, Chanhassen
Jim Hauth, Columbia Heights
Chad Millner, Edina
RJ Kakach, Golden Valley
Heather Butkowski, Lauderdale
Angie Craft, Minneapolis
Matt Yokiel, Newport
Shelly Rueckert, St. Anthony
Dale Reed, White Bear Twp
Members Absent:
Jennifer Levitt, Cottage Grove
Eric Hoversten, Mound
Ron Hedberg, Apple Valley
Russ Matthys, Egan
Bruce Elder, Saint Paul
Eldon Rameaux, West St. Paul
Metropolitan Council Staff Present:
Emily Steinweg (facilitator)
Kyle Colvin
Ned Smith
Dan Schueller
Jana Larson
Angela Mazur
Welcome
Wendy Wulff (task force chair) welcomed the task force and began the meeting. She asked for
any comments or revisions to the previous meeting’s minutes, and there were none.
Peaking factors
Kyle Colvin gave background from the 2016 I/I task force, which recommended a secondary set of
peaking factors to determine the threshold for community peak flow. This considered the decrease
in base flow from water conservation and I/I mitigation and gave communities flexibility to use more
of the reclaimed capacity. Staff recommended continuing with this adjustment and reevaluating it
in the future. There were no objections from the task force to this approach.
Program potential tax impact
Emily Steinweg said staff spoke with grant administrators about tax implications of the program,
and the easiest option was determined to be having the city pay the contractors directly for the
work. West St. Paul used this approach for its program. In this model, the resident gets bids, the
city reviews those bids, and the city pays for the work. The grant is given to the city, which has the
option of assessing any remaining balance or using other methods like forgivable loans. Emily
noted that this is an administrative effort from the community receiving the grant, and asked
whether any task force members had discussed the topic with their finance staff.
Scott Anderson had had preliminary conversations with finance staff and confirmed that the model
Emily described has been used before, but could be onerous from a staffing perspective. This
included keeping track of the financials, finding applicants, and probably an inspection component.
Jim Hauth thought many communities probably had a system for this, since cities may pay for
urgent repairs and assess the homeowner, even if that’s not their preferred approach.
Dan Schueller wondered whether this would necessitate excluding restoration costs. The group
197
2 Metropolitan Council thought it might not be important because in most cases the maximum grant amount would be
reached by other work.
Chair Wulff suggested parking that topic until the group reached the survey agenda item. She then
asked if it matters whether the city or resident chose the contractor. Heather Butkowski said her
city requires the resident to have an agreement with the contractor in case something goes wrong,
even if the city is paying. The contractor knows the city will pay, but the agreement is with the
resident. Scott agreed, and noted that if the city chose the contractor, they’d have to go out to bid.
Chad Millner agreed and added that his city requires the resident to get at least two estimates.
Angie Craft said that with this approach, the city would need to know ahead of time how much
money would be available, and Chair Wulff agreed that they would know that.
Survey results
Discussion shifted to the results of the survey sent out before the meeting, which are shown below.
198
3 Metropolitan Council
Responses with additional comments:
• No application - allocate funding to ~20 of the 81 communities per year
• Maybe. It would be a small amount but the cities would then be able to focus the money
where they saw fit.
• More discussion on this would be helpful
• I like: All cities that have applied to the program by May 1 of each year, are allocated a
proportion of that year's grant money (e.g. $1.5M) based on either flow or number of single
family homes.
• For Bonding dollars we have to certify that the location and facility of use are public... This
would be exception to that normal part of the public I/I process
199
4 Metropolitan Council
Responses with additional comments:
• Are private sewers included in definition of private lateral? If so, I agree with these
statements
• Agree except don't think site restoration should be included because this is a separate
project which is unnecessary to include since most times the maximum grant will be given
without adding this cost. Plus it adds extra admin work and the timing messes things up
since it could be done months later. Also it adds a judgement element because someone
could add extra landscaping costs. In effect including it doesn't accomplish much except
extra work, confusion and delay.
200
5 Metropolitan Council Responses with additional comments:
• Should it read "A maximum grant of 50% up to $5,000?
• Need to think about this one more
• Would this be better determined by the municipality?
Responses:
• Providing program details and benefits.
• One pager about program to send out to residents or put on our website
• Produce a pamphlet or sheet explaining the process
• If the money will be allocated to each city to direct as they please, then I think we would be
looking for more general information about I/I?
• Language for inclusion in a letter that clearly states the requirements. A city will determine
the process through which they will accept applications, but the requirements should be
uniform.
• A summarized brochure and a web site for reference would be helpful.
• General promotion materials and a website. Application site or forms.
• Fact sheets that we can distribute to potential users
• Benefits of the program; help sell the "buy-in" from the public to act.
201
6 Metropolitan Council
Responses:
• This may seem simple or may already be somewhere else on your website but defining
'clear water'
• I think it looks pretty good. I like the videos.
Responses with additional comments:
• If needed
Survey discussion
Question four generated discussion. Ned Smith asked if communities with too little I/I to be on the
list of 81 might still have areas with more I/I due to their topography, and the group said yes.
Heather agreed with Patty Nauman’s previous comments about wider eligibility raising fewer
objections and possibly resulting in more funding. She thought that cities not in the I/I program
might not request many funds anyway. Chair Wulff agreed. Erik noted that everyone pays into the
funding source used for this program. RJ Kakach asked about public grant eligibility, and Chair
Wulff confirmed it was the 81 cities mentioned, and that that count includes threshold cities. Ned
added that 69 cities participated in the most recent program – about an 85% application rate.
Erik Henricksen asked what the justification was for previous programs including only the 81 cities,
and Kyle said those cities had work plans, but didn’t think only including them was a task force
recommendation. Erik asked if the logic used previously would follow through with this program.
Members discussed how the ultimate goal impacts the answer to this question. Scott was torn
between prioritizing the program goal vs. addressing largest need; Jim said that if the goal was to
reduce I/I overall, all cities should be eligible, while a goal of removing cities from I/I work plans
would require a different approach. Shelly Rueckert pointed out that city staff know where the
problem is on the public side, but not as much on the private side.
Erik thought this was a good opportunity to include everyone. Scott asked if it would be possible to
prioritize the 81 cities, since it could be a good incentive to participate if a community still had a
202
7 Metropolitan Council problem after working on public I/I. Chair Wulff asked if the group was suggesting that the initial
allocation be to the 81 communities in the I/I program, with any remaining funds distributed among
the wider group. Patty noted that requirements from the Council for communities to address I/I has
provided a reason to secure funding, and asked whether a city would need to have a private
property inflow and infiltration (PPII) program to be eligible for this funding. Chair Wulff responded
that in some cities, PPII only comes up if there’s a blockage. Jim questioned whether an
emergency repair would automatically be I/I work.
Shelly described two different approaches: reducing the burden on individuals, or helping cities
lessen the overall burden of PPII on ratepayers. Chair Wulff thought the latter approach was the
program’s goal, but that the program could be broadened later if there were more funding.
Jim brought up the $1M annual figure from the previous meeting and expressed hope that there
could be more funding through the legislature. Chair Wulff said not this year, and Patty added that
while there are proposals, they are unlikely to pass. Jim asked whether either proposed approach
to the program would improve the chances of securing additional PPII funding from the legislature.
Patty didn’t think so and noted that funding from the legislature would also come with its own
requirements She added some context that while there is more understanding of I/I at the
legislature than in the past, it has always been difficult to secure reliable I/I funding, and having
another source of funding available could actually make it more difficult. Chair Wulff thought the
benefits of a reliable funding source would outweigh this concern. Erik Henricksen added that he
thought the Saint Paul study results might help in the future.
Chad thought starting with the 81 communities could make it more attractive to cities to participate,
because they could get more properties done per city, and that this could always be expanded
later. RJ asked whether there were likely to be more than 81 communities in the I/I program in the
future, and Kyle said hopefully not. Chair Wulff thought it would be easier to expand eligibility than
to narrow it, so she leaned toward starting with the 81 communities.
Chair Wulff asked the group if a consensus had been reached on starting the program with the 81
communities. There were no objections, though Patty requested that the program documentation
include wording about revisiting that issue on an annual basis.
Jim asked if larger cities were prioritized over smaller ones. Emily said no, but that they do more
work, so they might receive more funding. Shelley asked whether communities would need to
submit expenditures before applying for leftover funds, and Kyle confirmed that that was the case.
Chad suggested allocating leftover funds to 20 communities per year with no application process,
with the requirement that they be used for PPII mitigation, and that documentation be submitted
proving that. Chair Wulff thought that would create perception problems with residents who would
be upset that their neighbor had received funding the previous year for the same work while they
were ineligible. Chad acknowledged this concern, but said the approach could still save time.
Angie expressed concern about the riskiness of a second allocation because communities wouldn’t
know how much funding they’d receive, and timing messaging to residents appropriately in that
situation would be difficult. Kyle clarified that the second allocation is just a way to distribute the
remaining balance, and it would occur right after the first allocation, not months later, so the
community would know how much funding it would receive up front.
Chair Wulff raised the question of what to do if a community doesn’t spend all of its funds in a year,
and task force members expressed support for a program that allows them to roll the funds over.
Erik asked if it would help if communities applying were required to gauge interest from
homeowners. He thought it could help cities manage the risk of not knowing the scope of the
problem when asking for funds.
Matt Yokiel suggested that in a smaller community like his, they could use the funding to reduce
the cost-of-service replacements assessed to residents during a larger reconstruction project,
which would reduce the effort of searching for individual interested residents. He expected larger
cities with more reconstruction projects could get a lot of work done in this way. Erik noted that it
would have to be I/I work, and Matt said he knew that any work in certain parts of town would
203
8 Metropolitan Council address I/I. He thought that this funding could encourage reconstruction work, vs. just lining.
Heather proposed allocating extra funds per service line but was concerned the amounts available
are small compared to the project cost. She did think it helped if cities could roll over funds. She
said that it was difficult to find the middle ground, and a way to balance the size of the city. Chair
Wulff agreed that it’s an art to figure out a fair balance, and that we won’t be sure until we receive
the first year’s applications, so it may be best to find a starting point and revisit next year.
Patty asked if Council staff had a sense of how many communities might apply. Kyle recalled
around 13 applicants for the Clean Water program and four in the 2008 program, so fewer than 81.
Chair Wulff thought there might be around 20 applicants initially. Kyle thought the predictability
and sustainable funding for this program could increase the number of applicants over time.
Chad returned to Matt’s idea and asked if the funds could be inserted into a street reconstruction
program. Chair Wulff asked Matt to expand on that, and he said that in his city of fewer than 4,000
people, they do an approximately $3M construction project every four to five years. They replace
out to the edge of the right-of-way and residents are assessed a portion of that value. They’re not
fixing the entire line but are fixing the part most likely to have I/I problems. Chad liked the idea of
cities having the option to use the funding in this way. Chair Wulff thought that was okay but
wanted the funding to be proportionate to the work addressing I/I, not just funding city programs.
Erik thought work specific to I/I could be broken out, but if groundwater was raised by the work, the
problem could spread if the whole line wasn’t fixed. Matt said the cast-iron joints farther up the line
do a better job than the clay being replaced, so there would still be vast I/I improvements.
Angie asked if the expectation was that all cities would implement the program the same way, or
would there be flexibility, including for affordability criteria?
Chair Wulff questioned whether it was decided to not do the 100% reimbursement option this year,
and Kyle said that that hadn’t been decided yet.
Kyle recalled that at the program start in 2008, there were projects where a city replaced part of
the service line, and then the homeowner applied for funding to repair the rest. He questioned
whether one property should be awarded two grants, particularly since the combined total
exceeded the maximum amount for grant eligibility. Should there be a “one grant per property”
rule?
Chair Wulff thought a maximum of $5,000 per property was appropriate, and also thought Matt’s
suggestion to let cities offset the cost of I/I-addressing reconstruction projects to residents seemed
reasonable. Angie expressed concern over the $5,000 amount resulting in homeowners electing
not to proceed with repairs, especially if the total cost is higher and the repairs are not required.
Jim agreed that this would also be a problem in his city – most people would not do the work if the
100% funding option were not available. Based on conversation at the last meeting, he expected
that there would be more discussion of the equity aspect. He acknowledged that it would increase
the administrative complexity of the program, but thought that for many residents, having the
option would make the difference between the work being done or not.
Scott noted that the model suggested by Matt looked more like the public model and asked if that
changed how the Council views it, since it’s supposed to be for PPII. Kyle thought it was fine,
since the purpose of having a PPII program is to fill the gap, since public funding cannot be used to
address private-property I/I issues. However, cities using the funds that way would need to submit
service addresses and amounts with their documentation.
The group revisited concerns over tax liability in this model, and Chair Wulff reminded them that
the earlier information about the city paying the contractor directly would still apply here.
Returning to Angie’s earlier question, Chair Wulff agreed that it was better to allow cities flexibility.
Chad and RJ also expressed support for letting cities decide.
Chad noted that equity would still need to be considered and was concerned that the application-
per-household model could lead to the previously discussed issues where one neighbor’s repair
was funded at 100%, but the person next door only received 50%. Kyle thought that since the
204
9 Metropolitan Council publicly available information is by Census block, this would be unusual, though it could still occur.
Chair Wulff raised the concern that using Census block data could lead to inadvertently rewarding
communities that concentrate poverty into smaller geographic areas.
Jim referenced the public I/I bill currently moving through the legislative process and described its
equity requirements as being difficult to meet. Only two areas of his city met those requirements,
and no other areas outside Minneapolis in his part of the metropolitan area did, that he could
recall. He said that the strictness of the requirements is good if the focus is equity, and his
community would benefit under that model, but if the goal is to address the maximum amount of
PPII, these may not be the ideal metrics. In response to Patty’s question, Kyle confirmed that
Council staff were working on a map with this information.
Chair Wulff questioned the option of using assessed home value, and Chad thought that would go
back to the “neighbor vs. neighbor” comparison problem. Matt preferred to break down the funding
between the properties being rehabilitated, rather than giving just one or two homeowners money.
Scott thought that brought the group back to the original problem: it’s a hard sell to get
homeowners to complete a $10,000 project where they’ll only receive $5,000 of funding, especially
when the homeowner doesn’t perceive that there’s a problem. He wasn’t sure there was a way
around that aside from offering the program the first year, seeing who applies, and using that
information to inform future program changes.
Dan asked about focusing only on those with backups, and Chad said that those are not always I/I-
related. Matt said that in his city, I/I is where the roots are, but that might not be true for everyone.
Jim thought Matt’s idea was a great way to reduce PPII. He asked if his city could use the money
to install T-liners to cover the first two joints in a lateral, which are the homeowner’s responsibility.
He noted that since the work is done to avoid cleaning roots out of city-owned lines, and isn’t
normally charged to the homeowners, he wouldn’t have initially considered using the funds for this
work and was not sure if doing so would fit the purpose of the program. Chad replied that the city
would be reducing I/I if more of that work was done, and that would meet the program goal.
Angie mentioned residents calling her to ask about how to handle this. Ned asked if the calls were
disproportionately from wealthier residents, and Angie said that she’s received calls from residents
who don’t have much money and are at a loss for ways to find funding so they can flush their toilet.
Jim said that the conversation had convinced him that allowing cities flexibility could be beneficial,
so long as there was documentation that the funds were used on private service lateral issues.
Chad added that the flexibility could always be revisited in a few years, if needed. Chair Wulff
asked for confirmation that the group meant to give each city the opportunity to create its work plan
and then decide where to use 100% funding. Jim said he thought it took the burden off of MCES
of defining equity and puts it on local experts who are familiar with what equity looks like in their
specific communities. Matt suggested that wording could be added to the application to require
cities to consider equity in the distribution of funds, and then show that they did so. Jim agreed
and said that it’s in cities’ best interest to document that to avoid liability. Matt added that it only
helps secure future funding if you can show that 85% of the funding went to qualified residents.
Erik commented that he liked the flexibility that had been discussed but wasn’t sure we had
enough information yet to show where to spend the minimal dollars available for maximum impact.
Dan proposed allocating based on single-family home count, so big industries didn’t skew the
numbers. Kyle asked what data set would be used to determine number of households, and Chad
thought Census data would be close enough. Erik asked if the date of lateral construction would
be considered as a way to allocate funds, and Kyle said that while we can get date for housing
stock older than 1970, we don’t have information about which areas have been reconstructed
since then. Matt thought repairs done by individual homeowners wouldn’t make a big difference in
that consideration, but big city reconstruction projects would have.
Chair Wulff thought newer communities were less likely to apply for funding and noted that some
communities have already done reconstruction in their older neighborhoods. She proposed using
205
10 Metropolitan Council these metrics and addressing any outliers when they come up.
Matt asked if the amount of overage (of wastewater flow) should be considered. Emily said that
the challenge is how precipitation varies across the metropolitan area. Chair Wulff said that
minimum amount plus number of households seems to be the best way to go for now, plus
households constructed prior to 1970 for the second allocation, and the group agreed.
Heather asked for clarification that allocation wouldn’t occur until cities had applied, and staff
confirmed that that was the case. She asked when communities would know about the funding,
and Emily said the schedule would still need to be determined. Chair Wulff asked whether the
intent was to get the first year of the program allocated this calendar year, and Emily said that
allocating it this year for expenditure next year was the goal. In response to a question from Ned,
Chair Wulff confirmed that backup documentation for costs would be required.
Angie thought that the city paying the contractor directly and getting reimbursement could work for
larger cities like hers because they have the money, but questioned if it would work for everyone.
Matt asked how fast reimbursement would be and noted that having one reimbursement per year
would be best for bookkeeping purposes. Ned said that’s how the current program is handled.
Angie noted that capital programming numbers for 2024 were already submitted for her city, so
that could complicate things, but discussions with finance staff would be needed.
Heather thought auditors would be okay with the suggested approach if there’s a commitment for
reimbursement, and Shelly agreed. Patty suggested that whatever plan is chosen, fiscal staff
should be evaluating it and making sure it’s sound. Chair Wulff added that municipalities would
receive their full amount at once since allocations are decided at the same time.
Erik asked if MCES would provide boilerplate documents to help communities make agreements
with homeowners, particularly to help cities that might not already have those documents
developed. Emily said MCES would have contracts between the Council and communities, but
Kyle thought it would be best if municipalities developed those agreements. Chad noted that his
city already has legal documents used when homeowners were assessed for work done during
street reconstruction, and that they could share them.
Kyle added that MCES would create a standard reporting form, and Ned said that MCES could
also help with promotional materials. Jana Larson was interested in how communities intend to
promote the program, since that could impact MCES’s materials. Angie said that she would write
text that could easily be added to her city council members’ regular newsletters to constituents.
Chair Wulff suggested that outreach could be targeted to certain parts of communities.
Jim thought targeting sump pumps would be much faster than repairing or replacing sewer lines,
and asked if others thought plumbing work to disconnect sump pumps should be included for that
reason. This was not included in previous programs because it’s already illegal per the state
plumbing code, but Jim would like it considered despite that, since sump pumps are still a major
source of I/I, and addressing the problem could be a cost-effective way of reducing I/I. Dale Reed
asked if these should have been discovered previously by communities inspecting homes. Jim
and Kyle explained that there was never a region-wide requirement that homes be inspected for
sump pumps, so whether cities did so depended on the priorities of their city council members.
Angie asked if the group had agreed to a $10,000 reimbursement cap, or if 100% could mean
100% reimbursement for a larger amount at a city’s discretion. Emily said that question is up to
the task force, and that the amounts originally proposed were just examples based on the average
cost of the work. The legislation being considered on the public side doesn’t have a cap. Angie
wanted the cities to have the option of covering 100% of costs without a cap, because for residents
who really need the assistance, an extra few thousand dollars not covered would likely result in the
work not being done at all. She thought the process of the city reviewing bids for the work would
help avoid unreasonable costs for the work.
Chair Wulff asked what the cap should be if the group decided to impose one. Scott suggested it
could be based on the dataset from West St. Paul’s prior PPII work, adjusted for inflation. Kyle
noted that that data includes the lining work, not restoration or other work that might be covered.
206
11 Metropolitan Council Erik asked if there should be a minimum allocation, as well.
Patty asked if communities would be determining equity criteria independently and pointed out the
potential perception problem if this led to one homeowner receiving reimbursement for expensive
work while a neighbor couldn’t get reimbursed for less expensive work. She emphasized the
importance of criteria being defensible across the region and at the legislature, since the ability to
create this program was given by the legislature and could be taken away if it were perceived to be
unfair. Erik agreed and said that if there were a cap, it couldn’t be an arbitrary number, but should
rather be based on data. Angie thought more data would be helpful, and that communities could
provide their own. Chair Wulff asked if the task force agreed that the municipalities would submit
their information and that would be used to propose a cap number, and there were no objections.
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
Emily explained that over the next couple of months, she would draft a report for the group to
review. She thanked members for taking the survey prior to this meeting and discussed a survey
question about taking part in a continuing advisory group, reminding task force members to let her
know if they didn’t want to participate in that group, or if they had other questions.
Adjournment
Chair Wulff thanked the task force members for their input and adjourned the meeting at 3:29 p.m.
Meeting Facilitator and Contact:
Emily Steinweg, Principal Engineer
Emily.Steinweg@metc.state.mn.us
207
390 Robert Street North
St Paul, MN 55101-1805
651-602-1000
TTY 651-291-0904
public.info@metc.state.mn.us
metrocouncil.org
Follow us on:
twitter.com/MetCouncilNews
facebook.com/MetropolitanCouncil
208
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Construction Materials Testing Agreement for
Construction of the Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project
File No.PW176 Item No: D.10
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Reviewed By Charlie Howley
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution awarding a consulting agreement for construction
materials testing to Braun Intertec for the Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Asset Management
SUMMARY
The Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project requires a consultant for construction materials testing and
associated engineering services to provide the required quality assurance testing set forth in the project
documents and city specifications.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The Engineering Department solicited proposals from American Engineering Testing, Inc. and Braun
Intertec Corporation for the materials testing and associated engineering services required to facilitate
the construction of the project. Both firms submitted proposals.
209
The proposals were reviewed to compare the proposed work scopes, testing rates, and estimated costs.
This also included review of the level of effort and clarity of each firm's proposal in meeting the
specifications of the project. As needed, assumed quantity and/or testing rate amounts in the proposal
were adjusted to facilitate a comparison of equal amounts. The proposals were analyzed and the results
are as follows:
Braun Intertec - $112,710.00
American Engineering Testing - $121,220.00
Both firms have the required certified personnel, are capable of completing the required work, and have
successfully completed past work for the city. Based on the review of the proposals, staff recommends
that Braun Intertec be selected for the work.
Braun Intertec's proposal is on a unit-cost basis and billed per personnel hours and/or tests at set rates
provided in their proposal. Staff recommends an agreement amount of $124,000.00 be awarded to allow
for minor adjustments to the testing quantities without the need for processing a contract modification.
Braun will submit monthly invoices that staff will review before processing. Staff will review the
invoices for accuracy and conformance with the contract.
BUDGET
Funding for the Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project will be through the budgets established by the
City and County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to approve entering into the contract with Braun
Intertec for construction material testing services for $124,000.00 which includes a small contingency
for additional services that routinely arise during construction.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Braun Intertec Proposal
AET Proposal
210
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 12, 2024 RESOLUTION NO:2024-XX
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS TESTING ON THE GALPIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS,pursuant to a request for proposals for construction material testing for Galpin
Boulevard Improvements, City Project No. PW 176, two proposals were received and evaluated that
complied with the request for proposal:
Bidder Quote Amount
Braun Intertec $112,710.00
American Engineering and Testing $121,220.00
WHEREAS,it was evaluated by staff that Braun Intertec had the lowest responsible quote
and best met the scope of the request for proposals. A consultant contract amount of $124,000.00 is
recommended to be awarded to allow for minor revisions to unit price testing quantities during
construction to facilitate not needing to approve a contract revision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bythe Chanhassen City Council that the
Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a consulting agreement
with Braun Intertec in the name of the City of Chanhassen for the materials testing services for the
Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project according to the proposal and the plans and specifications
on file in the office of the City Engineer.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 12th day of February
2024.
ATTEST:
Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
211
1
201749v1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ________ day of ___________________, 2024, by and between
the CITY OF CHANHASSEN,a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and BRAUN
INTERTEC CORPORATION "Consultant").
IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Consultant for construction materials
testing and evaluation services.
2.CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the
"Contract Documents," all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the
parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein:
A.This Professional Services Agreement;
B.Request for Proposal for Construction Materials Testing for Galpin Boulevard
Improvements City Project No. PW 176B dated January 2, 2024;
C.Insurance Certificate;
D.Consultant’s January 19, 2024 proposal for Construction Materials Testing
Services (S.A.P. 194-115-0040) (“Proposal”).
In the event of conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are
listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts, with Contract Document “A” having the
first priority and Contract Document “D” having the last priority.
3.COMPENSATION. Consultant shall be paid by the City for the services described
in the Proposal a not to exceed fee of One Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Dollars ($124,000.00),
inclusive of expenses. Services performed directly by Consultant shall be paid at an hourly rate in
accordance with the Proposal, subject to the not to exceed fee. The not to exceed fees and expenses
shall not be adjusted if the estimated hours to perform a task, the number of required meetings, or
any other estimate or assumption is exceeded. Consultant shall bill the City as the work progresses.
Payment shall be made by the City within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of an invoice.
4.DOCUMENT OWNERSHIP. All reports, plans, models, diagrams, analyses, and
information generated in connection with performance of this Agreement shall be the property of
the City. The City may use the information for its purposes.
212
2
201749v1
5.CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders, regardless of amount, must be approved
in advance and in writing by the City. No payment will be due or made for work done in advance
of such approval.
6.COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services
hereunder, Consultant shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the
provisions of services to be provided.
7.STANDARD OF CARE. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill,
and diligence in the performance of the services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a
professional consultant under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the
accuracy of Consultant’s services.
8.INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action,
including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the
services provided for herein and further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or
proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising
hereunder.
9.INSURANCE. Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect
Consultant from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims
for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of services under
this Agreement. Such insurance shall be written for amounts not less than:
Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate
Automobile Liability $2,000,000 combined single limit
Professional Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability policy on a primary and non-
contributory basis. Before commencing work, the Consultant shall provide the City a certificate of
insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to City.
10.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains Consultant as an
independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant is not
an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Consultant shall
be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Consultant shall furnish
any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Consultant’s performance under this
Agreement. City and Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of
the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Consultant’s own
FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments,
213
3
201749v1
withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are
required to be paid by law or regulation.
11.SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services
provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall
comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425. Consultant must pay subcontractors for all undisputed
services provided by subcontractors within ten (10) days of Consultant’s receipt of payment from
City. Consultant must pay interest of one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) per month or any part of
a month to subcontractors on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractors. The
minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of One Hundred Dollars
($100.00) or more is Ten Dollars ($10.00).
12.CONTROLLING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the
exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Carver County
Minnesota.
13.MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Consultant must
comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it
applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created,
collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were
a government entity. In the event Consultant receives a request to release data, Consultant must
immediately notify City. City will give Consultant instructions concerning the release of the data to
the requesting party before the data is released. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from
Consultant’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or
subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall
survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
14.COPYRIGHT. Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement
of any copyright or software license by reason of the use or adoption of any software, designs,
drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage
resulting therefrom.
15.PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES. If the Contract
requires, or the Consultant desires, the use of any design, devise, material or process covered by
letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Consultant shall provide for such use by
suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed
with the City. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Consultant shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such
patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in
connection with the services agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and
214
4
201749v1
defend the City for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such
infringement.
16.RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records of hours
worked and expenses involved in the performance of services.
17.ASSIGNMENT. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising
herein, without the written consent of the other party.
18.WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this
Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
19.ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein.
This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the
parties, unless otherwise provided herein.
20.TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason
or for convenience upon written notice to the Consultant. In the event of termination, the City shall
be obligated to the Consultant for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for
services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination.
Dated: _______________, 2024.CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: _____________________________________________
Elise Ryan, Mayor
BY: _____________________________________________
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
Dated: _______________, 2024.BRAUN INTERTEC
BY: _____________________________________________
Its
215
AA/EOE
Braun Intertec Corporation
11001 Hampshire Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55438
Phone: 952.995.2000
Fax: 952.995.2020
Web: braunintertec.com
January 19, 2024 Proposal QTB190390
George Bender, PE
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Proposal for Construction Materials Testing Services
Chanhassen - Galpin Boulevard Improvements
S.A.P. 194-115-004, City Project No. PW 176
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Bender:
Braun Intertec Corporation is pleased to submit this proposal to provide construction materials testing
services for Galpin Boulevard Improvements in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
We have completed the geotechnical evaluation report for this project, so we have a unique
understanding of the site and construction challenges. We can aid the construction team by applying this
experience and transferring our knowledge developed during the design phase which will provide
professional continuity to the construction. Our work on the project to date gives us familiarity with the
project team and design development, which allows us to understand some of the considerations used
when developing the project’s design. We propose to use our same engineer Chad Lukkarila that wrote
the geotechnical report during the design phase of this project to be available to address any soil related
questions during construction. In addition to Chad, we have over 30 engineers in our Twin Cities offices
that can help support this project as needed.
Since our inception in 1957, we have grown into one of the largest employee-owned engineering firms in
the nation. With more than 1,000 employee owners, retaining our firm gives you access to a diverse
range of services and professionals you can consult with if the unforeseen occurs. The size of our
company also allows us to respond quickly when schedule constraints occur.
Our Understanding of Project
We understand this project will include the construction of pavement subgrade preparation, aggregate
base placement, new concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, median, and driveways along with a new
bituminous pavement. Improvements to the sanitary, storm, and water main utilities will also be part of
this project.
This project is a City of Chanhassen project with state-aid funding. Projects that are constructed with
state-aid funding are required to perform Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) testing in
accordance with the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) 2020 Standard Specifications
for Construction and MnDOT’s Schedule of Materials Control. This project is using MnDOT’s 2023 State
216
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 2
Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) Schedule of Materials Control. Personnel with MnDOT certifications
must complete the monitoring and testing. Braun Intertec will perform the QA field testing on the project
as listed in our scope of services and as shown on our attached cost estimate table. The contractor will be
responsible for performing all of the required QC testing and submitting all the documentation upon
completion of the project. An audit of the project could be conducted upon completion. The audit may
include reviewing tests and paperwork provided by your QC/QA representative.
Available Project Information
This proposal was prepared using the following documents and information.
Project plans prepared by WSB, dated August 14, 2023.
Project specifications prepared by WSB, dated August 10, 2023.
Project Addendum numbered 1 through 4, dated through August 24, 2023, September 12,
September 15, and September 18, 2023, respectively.
Request for Proposals prepared by the City of Chanhassen, dated January 2, 2024.
A geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Braun Intertec, Project Number B2208701 and
dated June 8, 2023.
Project Team
For this project we propose to use Tom Loosbrock as our lead senior technician and Jacob Collins as our
project manager. Tom and Jacob will be supported by account leader, Andrew Valerius, geotechnical
engineer Chad Lukkarila and principal engineer, Charles Cadenhead. The project team has provided
services on many City of Chanhassen projects in the past including: 2023 Mill and Overlay Project,
Orchard Lane Area Improvements, Minnewashta Manor Neighborhood Street Reconstruction, and the
2023, 2022, 2017, and 2016 Street Resurfacing and Rehabilitation Projects and state-aid projects Lake
Lucy Road Rehabilitation, Lake Drive Improvements, and Minnewashta Parkway Rehabilitation.
Tom Loosbrock is a senior engineering assistant with more than 20 years of experience in materials
testing and is responsible for field operation coordinating, general project management; soil density
testing using nuclear and sand cone methods; soil excavation observations; DCP testing, concrete testing
and bituminous testing. Tom has worked on many state-aid projects throughout his career and is familiar
with MnDOT specification, and the schedule of materials control.
Jacob Collins is a project manager and will be the main point of contact for this project. Jacob has more
than 16 years of experience with special inspections and testing. His extensive on-site testing and special
inspection experience related to concrete, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing, soils as well as with
MnDOT testing for transportation will help any project as project manager. Jacob also assists technicians
on-site with training to help ensure the tests and observations are done properly in accordance with the
project at hand.
217
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 3
Andrew Valerius is a senior project manager with more than 18 years experience who is responsible for
overseeing the quality control and day-to-day operations of engineering technicians involved in roadway
and bridge projects, especially for state-aid and federally-funded projects. He has extensive experience
working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Schedule of Materials Control and
MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction. Internally, he help leads the Braun Intertec
transportation construction materials testing group for the State of Minnesota. Andrew also helps
organize and presents at many educational sessions that focus on MnDOT’s specifications and
procedures. Andrew’s past experience providing field services, such as soil density testing, concrete
testing, bituminous and concrete batch plant observations, and testing services has allowed him to gain
the necessary knowledge of field testing practices and practical site experience to perform his senior
project manager role at a high level and deliver quality results safely.
As stated previously we propose to use Chad Lukkarila as our lead geotechnical engineer during
construction as soil recommendations are needed and to observe the soils are similar to those
encountered during the geotechnical evaluation. In addition to Chad we have a group of over
30 engineers to assist if needed for this project.
Charles Cadenhead has more than 27 years of experience in the transportation industry and more than
20 years of experience in delivering construction projects for owners (MnDOT and Anoka County) and other
clients. With every project, from design-bid-build to design-build Charles has been one of the primary
individuals entrusted with quality oversight from all aspects. While working for MnDOT his primary focus was
on the construction side of projects, however with his experience at Anoka County and as a consultant he has
been involved in both design and construction quality management. At Anoka County he was involved as early
as the right-of-way process and used his expertise in construction to help manage risks associated with the
design of projects. Projects have been various in size from simple span bridges and mill and overlays to large
design-build projects with over $200 million in construction. Charles brings years of contract administration
and change management experience to bear in order to arrive at a successfully completed project.
Resumes for Tom Loosbrock, Jacob Collins, Andrew Valerius, Chad Lukkarila and Charles Cadenhead are
attached to highlight their expertise and experience with projects similar to this one.
Braun Intertec Project Personnel
In addition to Tom Loosbrock as our lead technician, we will provide additional technicians that are
MnDOT certified in each specialized field. For the proposed scope of services, our staff will have the
following certifications:
Aggregate Production
Grading & Base Tester
Concrete Field Tester
Bituminous Street Inspector
Bituminous Plant Tester
MnDOT or ACI Strength Tester
218
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 4
Accredited Laboratory
In the 2023 MnDOT SALT Schedule of Materials Control requires laboratories performing acceptance
tests for payment to be accredited by the AASHTO Resource (formerly AASHTO Materials Reference
Laboratory [AMRL]) for all test procedures performed.
Braun Intertec is one of the few independent testing companies that is accredited in the Minneapolis and
St. Paul metro area. With the Braun Intertec Metro Material Laboratory typically operating 24 hours a
day, laboratory test results are delivered in a timely manner.
Scope of Services
Testing services will be performed on an on-call, as-needed basis as requested and scheduled by you or
your on-site project personnel. Based on our understanding of the project, we propose the following
services.
Soil Related Services
Perform nuclear gauge density tests on sub-grade, embankment, and utility backfill
materials.
Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests on aggregate base material.
Perform moisture content tests at time of compaction on utility backfill, embankment, and
aggregate base materials.
Perform gradation tests on select granular embankment, aggregate base, aggregate backfill,
fine filter aggregate, and aggregate bedding materials.
Perform laboratory standard Proctor tests on backfill and fill materials.
Observe and evaluate the soils exposed in the bottoms of excavations to determine if the
soils are similar to those encountered with the geotechnical evaluation and suitable for
support of pavements. Our engineer can provide consultation for conditions that appear to
differ from the geotechnical evaluation.
Prepare the preliminary and final grading and base report along with assembling the random
sampling locations reports for the aggregate base according to MnDOT Specifications.
Concrete Field Testing Related Services
Sample and test the plastic concrete for slump, air content, temperature prior to placement.
We assume that we will be able to appropriately dispose of excess concrete (and associated
wash water) on site at no additional cost to us.
Prepare 4-inch by 8-inch cylinders for compressive strength testing. A set of four cylinders
will be tested with 1 cylinder at 7 days and 3 cylinders at 28 days for each set cast. If field
cure cylinders are requested, each additional cylinder will be charged at the unit price listed
in our cost estimate.
219
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 5
Laboratory compressive strength testing of cylinders.
Bituminous Related Services
Collect verification samples per MnDOT’s 2360 specification and randomly select one sample
per day per mix to run quality assurance tests on. Perform quality assurance tests on the
verification samples which include the following tests: Rice specific gravity, asphalt content,
extracted aggregate gradation, gyratory density, coarse aggregate angularity, and fine
aggregate angularity. Compare agency test results with contractor’s test results for
compliance with MnDOT 2360 specification.
Randomly determine bituminous core locations by using MnDOT’s random core worksheet
and mark pavement core locations.
Collect companion cores and test for thickness and density of pavement cores. Compare
agency test results with contractor’s test results for compliance with MnDOT 2360
specification. Review incentive and disincentive sheets completed by contractor.
Reporting and Project Management
Test results will be issued weekly for the project as the various tasks are performed. If, at any time, there
are failing tests which do not appear to be in accordance with the plans and specifications or MnDOT’s
2023 SALT Schedule of Materials Control, we will notify the engineer’s representative and any others that
we are directed to notify.
Before the final project closeout, we will issue a final report. The report will include the following:
Braun Intertec technician roster for technicians that conducted testing on the project.
Completed MnDOT Materials Certification Exceptions Summary for items tested by
Braun Intertec.
Completed Preliminary and Final Grading and Base Report.
Moisture, Density, DCP, Proctor and Gradation tests.
Concrete compressive strength results.
Completed test reports for samples sent to the MnDOT Materials Lab.
Bituminous mix designs.
Bituminous verification test results.
Bituminous contractor’s summary sheets.
Random core log location worksheets.
220
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 6
Completed density incentive/disincentive worksheets.
Copies of concrete and bituminous plant certifications
Basis of Scope of Work
The costs associated with the proposed scope of services were estimated using the following
assumptions. If the construction schedule is modified or the contractor completes the various phases of
the project at different frequencies or durations than shown in this proposal, we may need to adjust the
overall cost accordingly. The scope of work and number of trips required to perform these services are as
shown in the attached table. Notable assumptions in developing our estimate include:
We understand, per the RFP, the soils and aggregate testing portion of the project is
estimated at 130 hours of technician time with 65 total trips. In the technician hours nuclear
density testing, material sampling, and DCP testing will be conducted.
We understand, per the RFP, laboratory testing of 40 gradation samples and 40 proctor
samples will be conducted as well as 5 samples for topsoil testing.
We understand, per the RFP, the concrete testing portion of the projects will involve
65 hours of technician time for testing and 25 hours for sample pick up with a total of
50 trips. We also understand that a total of 110 cylinders are estimated to be needed with
each set being four cylinders with an additional 20 field-cured cylinders to be cast as directed
by Engineer.
We understand, per the RFP, the bituminous testing portion of the projects will include a
total of 100 hours of technician time for sampling and/or receiving bulk samples, nuclear
density testing for roll patterns, and receiving bituminous cores for paving. We also
understand that 20 bulk samples of the bituminous mixes will be tested for MnDOT gyratory
mix properties with 25 bituminous cores tested for thickness and density.
We understand, per the RFP, that an additional $10,000 allowance of effort is potentially
needed for geotechnical and/or pavement evaluation and only be used if very poor soils or
unstable base is encountered during excavations or if questions regarding pavements arise.
We assume the project engineer of record will review and approve the contractor’s quality
control submittals and test results.
You, or others you may designate, will provide us with current and approved plans and
specifications for the project. Modification to these plans must also be sent to us so we can
review their incorporation into the work.
We will require a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for scheduling inspections for a specific time.
Shorter than 24 hours’ notice may impact our ability to perform the requested services, and
the associated impacts will be the responsibility of others.
221
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 7
If the work is completed at different rates than described above, this proposal should be revised.
Cost and Invoicing
We will furnish the services described herein for an estimated fee of $112,710. Our estimated costs are
based on industry averages for construction production. Depending on the contractor’s performance,
our costs may be significantly reduced or slightly higher than estimated. A tabulation showing our
estimated hourly and/or unit rates associated with our proposed scope of services is also attached. The
actual cost of our services will be based on the actual units or hours expended to meet the requirements
of the project documents.
This cost estimate was developed with the understanding that the scope of services defined herein will
be required and requested during our normal work hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Services that we are asked to provide to meet the project requirements or the contractor’s
construction schedule outside our normal business hours will be invoiced using an overtime rate factor.
The factor for services provided outside our normal work hours or on Saturday will be 1.25 times the
listed hourly rate for the service provided. The factor for services provided on Sunday or legal holidays
will be 1.5 times the listed hourly rate for the service provided. We have not included premiums for
overtime in our cost estimate; however, we recommend that allowances and contingencies be made for
overtime charges based on conversations with the contractor. You will be billed only for services
provided on a time and materials basis.
Because our services are directly controlled by the schedule and performance of others, the actual cost
may vary from our estimate. It is difficult to project all of the services and the quantity of services that
may be required for any project. If services are required that are not discussed above, we will provide
them at the rates shown in the attached table or, if not shown, at our current Schedule of Charges. We
will invoice you on a monthly basis.
General Remarks
We will be happy to meet with you to discuss our proposed scope of services further and clarify the
various scope components.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you. After reviewing this proposal, please sign
and return one copy to our office as notification of acceptance and authorization to proceed. If
anything in this proposal is not consistent with your requirements, please let us know immediately.
Braun Intertec will not release any written reports until we have received a signed agreement.
The proposed fee is based on the scope of services described and the assumption that our services will
be authorized within 30 days and that others will not delay us beyond our proposed schedule.
222
City of Chanhassen
Proposal QTB190390
January 19, 2024
Page 8
We understand if selected for this project a professional services agreement will executed with this
proposal as an attachment.
To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to these projects
further, please contact Jacob Collins at 612.418.8570 (jacollins@braunintertec.com) or Andrew Valerius
at 952.995.2242 (avalerius@braunintertec.com).
Sincerely,
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
Jacob D. Collins
Project Manager
Andrew M. Valerius
Account Leader, Senior Project Manager
Jeffrey A. Gebhard., PE
Vice President, Principal Engineer
Attachments:
Cost Estimate Table
City of Chanhassen Provided – Quantity Item Price List
Resumes:
Tom Loosbrock
Jacob Collins
Chad Lukkarila
Andrew Valerius
Charles Cadenhead
223
Client:Service Description:Work Site Address:
Galpin Boulevard
Between TH5 and Mayflower Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
City of Chanhassen
George Bender
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
Construction Materials Testing
SAP 194-115-004
City Project No. PW176
Description Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
Phase 1 Construction Materials Testing
Activity 1.1 Soils Testing $38,110.00
1308 Nuclear moisture-density meter charge, per hour 110.00 Each 26.00 $2,860.00
Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension
Soils 80.00 Hours 1.00 80.00
Granular 30.00 Hours 1.00 30.00
1861 CMT Trip Charge 65.00 Each 40.00 $2,600.00
207 Compaction Testing - Nuclear 110.00 Hour 90.00 $9,900.00
217 Compaction Testing - DCP 20.00 Hour 90.00 $1,800.00
1318 Moisture Density Relationship (Standard), per sample 40.00 Each 200.00 $8,000.00
1228 Topsoil Testing with nutrients, per sample 5.00 Each 390.00 $1,950.00
1162 Sieve Analysis with 200 wash, per sample 40.00 Each 150.00 $6,000.00
1230 Geotechnical Evaluation Allowance 1.00 Each 5,000.00 $5,000.00
Activity 1.2 Concrete Testing $25,310.00
1364 Compressive strength of concrete cylinders (ASTM C 39), each 460.00 Each 36.00 $16,560.00
Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension
Cylinders for Sets 110.00 Sets 4.00 440.00
Field Cure Cylinders 20.00 Cylinders 1.00 20.00
1861 CMT Trip Charge 50.00 Each 40.00 $2,000.00
261 Concrete Testing 50.00 Hour 90.00 $4,500.00
278 Concrete Cylinder Pick up 25.00 Hour 90.00 $2,250.00
Activity 1.3 Pavement Testing $33,090.00
2689 MnDOT Asphalt Verification, per sample 20.00 Each 740.00 $14,800.00
209 Sample pick-up 60.00 Hour 90.00 $5,400.00
Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension
Verification Samples 40.00 Hours 1.00 40.00
Core Samples 20.00 Hours 1.00 20.00
1861 CMT Trip Charge 45.00 Each 40.00 $1,800.00
Work Activity Detail Qty Units Hrs/Unit Extension
Verification Samples 20.00 Trips 1.00 20.00
Core Samples 5.00 Trips 1.00 5.00
Roll Pattern 20.00 Trips 1.00 20.00
207 Compaction Testing - Nuclear 40.00 Hour 90.00 $3,600.00
1308 Nuclear moisture-density meter charge, per hour 40.00 Each 26.00 $1,040.00
1542 Thickness and Density of Bituminous Core 25.00 Each 58.00 $1,450.00
1230 Pavement Evaluation Allowance 1.00 Each 5,000.00 $5,000.00
Activity 1.4 Project Management and Review $16,200.00
226 Project Manager 30.00 Hour 170.00 $5,100.00
138 Project Assistant 90.00 Hour 90.00 $8,100.00
Page 1 of 201/19/2024 10:34 AM
Project Proposal
QTB190390
Chanhassen - Galpin Boulevard Improvements SAP 194-115-004
224
Proposal Total:$112,710.00
228 Senior Project Manager Hour 200.00 $.00
1230 Evaluation, Reporting, & Analysis Documentation - Billed as Codes
138, 226, and 228
1.00 Each 3,000.00 $3,000.00
Phase 1 Total:$112,710.00
Page 2 of 201/19/2024 10:34 AM
Project Proposal
QTB190390
Chanhassen - Galpin Boulevard Improvements SAP 194-115-004
225
$4,640 Activity 1.3, code 207 (hours)
and 1308 (nuke gauge)
12A MnDOT Gyratory Bituminous Mix Properties Verification
Testing & Rice Testing EA 20
16 Geotechnical and Pavement Evaluation Allowance Allowance 1 $10,000 $10,000 Activities 1.1 and 1.3, will be
billed as Time & Materials
Activity 1.3, code 1861
Activity 1.4, billed as codes 138,
226, and 228
14C
$3,600 Activity 1.3, code 209
12C Bituminous Verification Sample Pickup Trip Charge
$740 $14,800 Activity 1.3, code 2689, Lab Test
Unit Charge Only
$40 $200
Bituminous Compaction and Maximum Density Testing
(Cores)EA 25 $58
Bituminous Compaction and Maximum Density Testing Trip
Charge EA 5
$800 Activity 1.3, code 1861
$800 Activity 1.3, code 1861
13A Roll Pattern Testing Hours HR 40
Activity 1.1, code 1162, Lab Test
Unit Charge Only
DCP Testing billed only per hour,
no unit cost
Activity 1.2, 4 cylinders per Set,
code 1364 per cylinder
Activity 1.2, code 1861
Activity 1.2, code 1364
Activity 1.2, code 261
Activity 1.2, code 278
Activity 1.3, code 1542, Lab Test
Unit Charge Only
Activity 1.3, code 209
COMMENTS
Activity 1.4, code 226
Activity 1.4, code 138
Billed per hour of Density Gauge
Usage, code 1308
Billed per hour of Density Gauge
Usage, code 1308
Activity 1.1, code 1861
Activity 1.1, codes 207, 217, and
209
Activity 1.1, code 1318, Lab Test
Unit Charge Only
Activity 1.1, code 1228, Lab Test
Unit Charge Only
40 $150 $6,000
14B Bituminous Compaction and Maximum Density Testing
(Hours)HR 20 $90 $1,800
8 Gradation Sample and Testing EA
$112,710 TOTAL
15 Evaluation, Reporting, & Analysis Documentation LS 1 $3,000 $3,000
$1,450 14A
$2,250
ITEM NO. ITEM UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
1B Project Administration HR 90 $90 $8,100
1A Project Management & Oversight HR 30 $170 $5,100
11B Cylinder Pick Up Hours HR 25 $90
EA 20 $40
13B Roll Pattern Testing Trip Charges EA 20 $40
12B Bituminous Verification Sample Pickup and Testing Hours HR 40 $90
$116
Proctor Sample & Testing (including Moisture Content) EA 40 $200
EA
$2,600
5 Soils & Granular Materials Testing Hours HR 130 $90
$8,000
$40
5 $390 $1,950 7 Topsoil Borrow Sample & Testing EA
2 Compaction Testing on Soils (Nuclear Density Test) EA 155 $13 $2,015
50 $40 $2,000
9 DCP Tests for Aggregate Base (Class 5) EA 60 $0 $0
10 Concrete Testing & Casting Cylinder Sets (Compressive
Strength, Curing, & Handling)EA 110 $144 $15,840
10A Concrete Testing and Cylinder Pickup Trip Charge
6
City Project No. PW 176 ‐ Galpin Boulevard Improvements ‐ SAP 194‐115‐004
$845
11A Concrete Testing Hours HR 50 $90 $4,500
3 Compaction Testing on Granular Materials (Nuclear Density
Test)EA 65 $13
$720 10B Concrete Testing & Casting Field‐Cured Cylinders
(Compressive Strength, Curing, & Handling)EA 20 $36
$11,700
4 Soils & Granular Materials Testing Trip Charge EA 65
226
.
THOMAS R. LOOSBROCK
Field Operations Coordinator
EDUCATION
B.S., Agricultural Systems Technology,
South Dakota State University
CERTIFICATIONS
International Code Council (ICC) Certified:
Reinforced Concrete Special Inspector
Structural Masonry Special Inspector
Prestressed Concrete Special Inspector
Soils Special Inspector
No. 1136593
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Concrete Field Testing Technician Grade I
No. 00936257
MnDOT Certified:
Aggregate Production
Grading & Base Level I & II
Bituminous Street Level I
Bituminous Plant Inspection Level I
Concrete Field Level I & II
Concrete Plant Inspection Level I
Bridge Construction Level I & II
No. 07515
CERTIFICATIONS
40-Hour HAZWOPER Certification and Annual
Refresher Training
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120
Hazmat Training
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132
Personal Protective Equipment Training
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134
Respiratory Protection Training
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146
Confined Space Entry Training
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Radiation Safety
Mr. Loosbrock is a Field Operations Coordinator responsible for field scheduling;
general project management; soil excavation observations; soil density testing;
reinforced concrete observations & testing; reinforced masonry observations &
testing and pre-stressed concrete inspections. Tom is familiar with MnDOT
Specifications, and MnDOT’s Schedule of Materials Control and has been the lead
technician on many state-aid and federal projects throughout his career.
Tom was responsible for managing, performing field observations and testing
on the following projects and has more than 20 years of experience:
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
2023 City of Chanhassen Mill & Overlay Projects, Chanhassen, MN (Summer
2023 to Fall 2023)
2023 City of Chanhassen Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Chanhassen, MN
(Summer 2023)
2023 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2023)
2022 Lake Lucy Road Rehab Project, Chanhassen, MN (Summer 2022)
2022 City of Chanhassen Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Chanhassen, MN
(Summer 2022)
2022 City of Chanhassen Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Summer 2022)
2022 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2022)
2021 City of Chanhassen Street Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Summer
2021)
2021 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2021)
2020 City of Chanhassen Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Summer 2020)
Creek Road Phase 1 & 2, Chaska, MN (Summer 2023 to Present)
2020 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2020)
2019 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction (Summer 2019)
City of Chanhassen Lake Drive Improvements, Chanhassen, MN (Summer 2019)
2018 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction (Summer 2018)
CSAH 83, Shakopee, MN (Summer 2016 to Fall 2017)
2016 City of Chanhassen Street Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Summer
2016)
TH 5 Reconstruction, Waconia, MN (Summer 2015 to Spring 2016)
2015 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2015 to Fall
2015)
Vicksburg Lane Reconstruction, Plymouth, MN (Summer 2015 to Fall 2015)
2014 City of Chaska Street Reconstruction, Chaska, MN (Summer 2014 to Fall
2014)
2014 Minnewashta Shores & Bandimere Heights Reconstruction, Chanhassen,
MN (Summer 2014 to Fall 2014)
Lyman Blvd. Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Summer 2014)
TH 101 Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN (Spring 2013-Summer 2014)
227
*While employed by another firm.
JACOB D. COLLINS
Project Manager
EDUCATION
University of Minnesota – Civil Engineering
CERTIFICATIONS
PTI Level 2 Unbonded PT Inspector
ICC Structural Steel 1 Framing and Bolting
ICC Structural Steel 2 Welding
ICC Steel Reinforced Concrete
ICC Fireproofing
ICC Soils
ACI Field Technician 1
MnDOT Aggregate Production
MnDOT Concrete Field Tester
MnDOT Bituminous Street Inspector
MnDOT Bituminous Plant Tester
MnDOT Grading & Base Tester
Mr. Collins recently joined Braun Intertec in early 2022 as a project manager. Jacob
has more than 16 years of experience with special inspections and testing. He now
acts as a project manager for commercial and transportation projects. His
extensive on-site testing and special inspection experience related to concrete,
masonry, structural steel, fireproofing, soils as well as with MnDOT testing for
transportation will help any project as project manager. Jacob also assists
technicians on-site with training to help ensure the tests and observations are done
properly in accordance with the project at hand.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Chanhassen – 2023 City Pavement Rehabilitation – CP 23-01 – Chanhassen, MN
Chanhassen – 2023 Mill and Overlay Project – CP 23-04 – Chanhassen, MN
Chanhassen – 2022 Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation – SAP 253-102-001 –
Chanhassen, MN
Chanhassen – 2022 City Pavement Rehabilitation – Chanhassen, MN
Cottage Grove – E Point Douglas and Jamaica Avenue – SAP 180-110-014,
Cottage Grove, MN (2023-Current)
City of Brooklyn Center – 2023 Street and Utility Improvements – CP 23-01, CP
23-02, and CP 23-03 – Brooklyn Center, MN (2023)
Cottage Grove 100th Street, 105th Street, & Ideal Avenue Improvements –
Cottage Grove, MN (2022-2023)
City of Maple Grove – Lakeview Knolls Site Pickleball – Maple Grove, MN (2023)
Cottage Grove – Low Zone Water Treatment Plant – Cottage Grove, MN (2023-
Current)
Farmington – 2022 Street and Utility Improvements – Farmington, MN (2022)
Robbinsdale Water System Improvements – Water Treatment Facility –
Robbinsdale, MN – (2020-2022) *
Northfield 2022 NW Area Mill and Overlay Project – Northfield, MN (2022)
Brooklyn Center – Woodbine Area Improvements / 53rd Avenue Mill & Overlay
– SAP 109-116-003, SAP 109113-002 – Brooklyn Center, MN (2022)
Edina Community Center 2022 Improvements – Edina, MN (2022)
City of Cottage Grove – Glacial Valley Park Improvements (2022-2023)
City of Carver – Ironwood Park Improvements – Carver, MN (2022-2023)
Carver Elementary 2022 Addition – Carver, MN (2022-2023)
St. Therese Senior Community – Corcoran, MN (2022-Current)
Cottage Grove – South District Street and Utility Improvements – Cottage
Grove, MN (2022-Current)
Preska Hall – Mankato State University – Mankato, MN (2011-2012) *
St. Cloud State University Integrated Science and Engineering Laboratory
Facility (ISELF) – St. Cloud, MN (2012-2013) *
Herb Brooks National Hockey Center – Entrance Expansion – St. Cloud, MN –
2012-2013) *
228
CHAD R. LUKKARILA, PE
Technical Leader, Senior Engineer
EDUCATION
M.S., Geological Engineering,
Michigan Technological University
B.S., Geological Engineering,
Michigan Technological University
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Professional Engineer:
CO No. 39627
HI No. 12626
IA No. 17520
ID No. 14385
LA No. 47648
MN No. 54438
MT No. 90197
NV No. 17539
OR No. 85341
TX No. 102998
WA No. 40848
WY No. 19938
CERTIFICATIONS
OSHA 40-hour Hazwoper
OSHA 8-hour Annual Refresher
Troxler Nuclear Gauge Safety Training
ERailSafe
UPRR/BNSF Contractor Safety Training
ACEC Washington Core Competencies for
Principals
ISEE Practical Blasting Fundamentals
Certification Programs, Levels 1 and 2
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE/GeoInstitute)
Minnesota Geotechnical Society (MGS)
Mr. Lukkarila has over 23 years of experience in geotechnical engineering. As a
senior engineer at Braun Intertec, Chad is responsible for developing and managing
subsurface exploration programs to develop geotechnical recommendations and
design parameters for municipal, transportation, water, energy, and commercial
projects.
Chad’s field experience includes coordination, supervision and performance of
subsurface exploration programs, in-situ testing, geologic mapping, construction
observation, and emergency response.
Chad has extensive engineering experience in the evaluation of shallow and deep
foundations, evaluation of soil slope stability and stabilization design, and
geotechnical project management.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Galpin Boulevard (MSAS 115) Improvements, City Project No. PW176B,
Chanhassen, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for a road widening and
improvements project including multiple modular block retaining walls,
roundabout, pedestrian trails, utilities, and numerous infiltration ponds.
CSAH26-63 Realignment, Dakota County, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for a
road widening and new road alignment including multiple retaining walls, box
culverts, and infiltration ponds.
TH169 Redefine – Elk River Project, Elk River, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for
the design and construction of TH169 through Elk River, MN including four
bridges, numerous retaining walls, and roadway section.
TH10/75 11th Street Underpass Project, Moorhead, MN – Geotechnical
evaluation for the design and construction of Th10/75, 11th Street which
includes two new bridges, multiple retaining walls, cut slopes, and roadway
section.
Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN – Geotechnical evaluation and construction
field review for a new road alignment including big block retaining walls and
soil cut slopes.
Jordan Interchange Project, Jordan, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for a road
reconstruction project including numerous bridge crossings and retaining walls.
Pillsbury Bridge Replacement, Minneapolis, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for
the Pillsbury Avenue bridge over the Midtown Greenway including soil borings,
evaluation of shallow and deep foundations, associated wingwalls, and a
geotechnical evaluation report.
CSAH70 Gull River Crossing, East Gull Lake, MN – Geotechnical evaluation for a
new road alignment including a bridge crossing Gull River.
City of Carver 3rd Street West Bridge Replacement, Carver, MN – Geotechnical
evaluation for a bridge replacement project over Spring Creek including shallow
and deep foundation analyses, wingwalls, and roadway section.
229
*Multiple projects can be furnished upon request.
ANDREW M. VALERIUS
Account Leader, Senior Project Manager
EDUCATION
B.S., Technology Assessment and Management
St. Cloud State University
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
MnDOT Certified
Aggregate Production Level I
No. 13631
MnDOT Certified
Concrete Field Level I & II
No. 13631
MnDOT Certified
Grading and Base Level I & II
No. 13631
MnDOT Certified
Concrete Plant Level I
No. 13631
MnDOT Certified
Bituminous Plant Level I
No. 13631
MnDOT Certified
Bituminous Street Level I
No. 13631
Radiation Safety
49 CFR Part 172
Mr. Valerius is a senior project manager responsible for overseeing the quality
control and day-to-day operations of engineering technicians involved in roadway
and bridge projects, especially for state-aid and federally-funded projects. Andrew
has more than 18 years of experience and more specifcally has extensive
experience working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT)
Schedule of Materials Control and MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for
Construction. As a result of past work, he has a working relationship with MnDOT
staff and is able to get timely responses to questions and resolve issues to keep
projects on schedule. Internally, he helps lead the Braun Intertec transportation
construction materials testing group for the State of Minnesota. Andrew also helps
organize and presents at many educational sessions that focus on MnDOT’s
specifications and procedures. Andrew’s past experience providing field services,
such as soil density testing, concrete testing, bituminous and concrete batch plant
observations, and testing services has allowed him to gain the necessary knowledge
of field testing practices and practical site experience to perform his senior project
manager role at a high level and deliver quality results safely.
MUNICIPAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Andrew has worked on numerous municipal projects including many MnDOT state-
aid and federally funded projects while with Braun Intertec. He has provided
material testing oversight and review for the following cities:
City of Chanhassen, Chanhassen, MN- Oversaw the Construction Material
Testing for a number of City of Chanhassen’s state aid/federal projects since
2008. *
City of Chaska, Chaska, MN Oversaw the Construction Material Testing for
the City of Chaska’s state aid/federal projects since 2009. *
City of Bloomington, Bloomington, MN Oversaw the Construction Material
Testing for the City of Bloomington’s projects during the 2019, 2017, 2016,
2015, 2014, and 2011 construction season. * Also provided oversight of the
Normandale Boulevard Reconstruction Project and the Old Cedar Avenue
Roadway and Trail Improvement Project during the 2017 and 2018
Construction Seasons for the City of Bloomington.
City of Lakeville, Lakeville, MN — Oversaw the Construction Material Testing for
the City of Lakeville’s projects since 2009. *
City of Apple Valley, Apple Valley, MN — Oversaw the Construction Material
Testing for the City of Apple Valley’s projects since 2010. *
City of Edina, Edina, MN Oversaw the Construction Material Testing for the
City of Edina’s state aid/federal projects since 2009. *
City of Plymouth, Plymouth, MN Oversaw the Construction Material Testing
for various City of Plymouth’s state aid/ federal projects since 2009. *
230
CHARLES M. CADENHEAD, PE
Vice President, Principal Engineer
Mr. Cadenhead has more than 27 years of experience in the transportation industry and
more than 20 years of experience in delivering construction projects for state, county,
cities, and private clients. With every project Charles has been one of the primary
individuals entrusted with quality oversight and problem solving for all aspects. While
working for Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) his primary focus was
on the construction of infrastructure projects, however with his experience at Anoka
County and as a consultant he has been involved in both design and construction quality
management. At Anoka County he was involved as early as the right-of-way process and
used his expertise in construction to help manage risks associated with the design of
projects. Projects have been various in size from simple span bridges, street
reconstruction, mill and overlays to large design-build projects with over $200 million in
construction.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Braun Intertec – Principal Engineer, Transportation — Charles is a principal engineer
and vice president responsible for overseeing the transportation market sector at
Braun Intertec and provides oversight review of projects and day to day operations
of senior engineers and project managers. Charles’ vast experience working with
the MnDOT Schedule of Materials Control and MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for
Construction, and his experience in working with varying sizes of organizations
allow him to solve issues as they arise and find quick solutions for owners.
MnDOT, I-94 Design-Build, Maple Grove, MN — The expansion of I94 between
Maple Grove and Rogers is being completed as a Design-Build project. Charles is the
Quality Manager for the project responsible for oversite of the design and
construction activities for the contractor. MnDOT has a high level of quality
requirements in order to deliver their design-build projects and Charles has been
entrusted to make sure the requirements are met and carried out throughout the
project. Charles is the Braun Intertec’s principal project manager for the quality on
this project that is slated to be completed in the fall of 2021.
MnDOT, I-35W/4th Street Design-Build, Minneapolis, MN — This MnDOT project
incorporated the realignment of an overpass bridge, additional lane construction,
retaining walls and contaminated material removal management. Charles performed
the duties of contract administrator and consultant project manager for the entirety
of the project. This busy urban project necessitated tight time controls on the traffic
impacts on the interstate system and design modifications from the initial proposed
layout. Charles was heavily involved in the weekly construction meetings and helping
staff new to the design-build project delivery method.
Washington County, CSAH Reconstruct, Cottage Grove, MN — The intersections of
CSAH 19/20/22 in Cottage Grove were realigned to incorporate the construction of
a new roundabout and accommodate the construction of an overflow drainage
system for the South Washington Watershed District. Charles was the consultant
project manager for the construction inspection services used by Washington
County to augment in house staff during the construction of this new
infrastructure.
EDUCATION
MS, Infrastructure Systems Engineering
University of Minnesota- 2004
BSCE
University of Minnesota - 1993
REGISTRATIONS
Professional Engineer: #40416 Minnesota
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 27
231
550 Cleveland Avenue North | Saint Paul, MN 55114
Phone (651) 659-9001 | (800) 972-6364 | Fax (651) 659-1379 | teamAET.com | AA/EEO
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.
January 23, 2024
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: George Bender, PE – Assistant City Engineer
gbender@chanhassenmn.gov
RE: Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements
City Proj. No. PW 176
Chanhassen, Minnesota
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Dear Mr. Bender:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a proposal to perform testing services on the referenced
project. This proposal has been prepared in response to Erik Henricksen’s request on January
2, 2024, and describes our understanding of the project, our anticipated scope of services, our
unit rates, and an estimated total fee to perform these services.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The City of Chanhassen (the City) will be performing a street and utility reconstruction project
during the 2024 construction season. Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring 2024 and be
substantially completed by November 2024. The project area will include Galpin Boulevard from
TH 5 to the north end of the Chanhassen/Shorewood border. The project will be funded with a
mix of state aid and municipal funds.
Plans and Specifications were prepared by WSB. We understand Construction Inspection and
Contract Management of the project will be performed by the City.
GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION
A geotechnical exploration and analysis was performed for this project by Braun Intertec. The
results were presented in their Geotechnical Evaluation Report, dated June 8, 2023 (Braun
Project No. B2208701). In the report, the site soil profile is generalized as fill underlain by glacial
till. Reference should be made to that report for more details regarding site conditions and
recommendations.
232
Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements, Chanhassen, MN
January 23, 2024
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Page 2 of 6
PROJECT APPROACH
During the construction improvements, AET will provide experienced MnDOT certified
Engineering Technicians to perform sampling and material testing services in accordance with
the City’s 2023 Street Construction Specifications, the 2023 State Aid for Local Transportation
Schedule of Materials Control (2023 SALT SMC) and/or project specific testing requirements
referenced in the project manual. For this project, Ryan Schaefer will be AET’s contact. He can
be reached at 651-603-6639 (office). AET requires a minimum of 24 hours’ notice of the need
for Services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on our review of the available plans and our experience with the City on similar projects
the scope of services requested in the RFP, our anticipated scope of services is outlined below.
These services will be provided on an on-call basis coordinated through authorized City field
personnel.
Soils Sampling and Testing
Our estimate of the sampling and testing to be performed on the grading and base items is based
on the cost breakdown attached in the RFP. AET will perform MnDOT Relative Density testing
(Proctor) as well as in-place density and moisture testing on the following materials:
• Utility Trench Backfill
• Embankment Fill
• Subgrade Preparation
The MnDOT Dynamic Cone Penetrometer will be used to test compaction on the Class 5
Aggregate Base sections of the project following the MnDOT Penetration Index procedures in
accordance with the 2023 SALT SMC.
AET will perform the sampling of the soils and Class 5 Aggregate Base materials and transport
the samples to our St. Paul, Minnesota laboratory. City personnel will update AET on the
schedule of material placement, material sources (including changes in source), and changes in
quantities.
233
Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements, Chanhassen, MN
January 23, 2024
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Page 3 of 6
Cast-in-Place Retaining Wall Soil Testing
During placement of fill behind the retaining wall, an Engineering Technician will visit the site on
an on-call basis to test the compaction of the fill. The technician will perform the following
services:
• In-place field density tests to evaluate the compaction of the fill soils using a nuclear
density gauge.
• Standard Proctor tests for each different type of fill encountered at the test locations.
• Obtain samples of sand fill and/or aggregate base materials for sieve analysis tests and
direct shear test (if requested).
Bituminous Testing and Observations
When placement of the bituminous base and wear layers begins, an experienced Engineering
Technician II will make site visits on an on-call basis (be at the site on a full-time basis) to observe
the placement and rolling of the bituminous layers and to perform testing of the bituminous. The
technician will perform the following services:
• Measure the temperature of the bituminous as it is placed and while it is being rolled.
• Help to establish a rolling pattern each day by observing the number of passes the roller
makes over the bituminous, and measuring the density of the bituminous during the rolling
to evaluate how many passes are needed to reach the maximum density.
• Obtain samples of the bituminous for laboratory testing.
The samples retrieved from the site will be tested in our laboratory for MnDOT Gyratory
properties, including:
• Gyratory density, Rice specific gravity, Asphalt Film Thickness (AFT), Coarse Aggregate
Angularity (CAA), and Fine Aggregate Angularity (FAA).
• Asphalt extraction and aggregate gradation.
AET assumes that City personnel will utilize the MnDOT program to determine random core
locations of bituminous based on information regarding tonnage (lot sizes) and pavement
placement patterns. We also assume City personnel will mark the core locations in the field. This
proposal does not incorporate the time and cost to mark the core locations or to determine
random core locations. These services will be provided at your request. The City will coordinate
the removal of both the contractor and companion cores with the contractor.
234
Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements, Chanhassen, MN
January 23, 2024
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Page 4 of 6
After the completion of the coring, AET will retrieve companion core samples from the project
contractor for laboratory testing. This testing will include the following:
• The thickness of each layer of the core sample
• The density of each layer of the core sample
Concrete Sampling and Testing
During the placement of concrete, AET will perform field testing consisting of slump, air content,
temperature of the plastic concrete, and casting of cylinders for compression testing. The 2023
SALT SMC requires field testing for slump, air content, and temperature per every 100 cubic
yards of each type of concrete placed each day. Compressive strength cylinders (1 set of 4
cylinders) are required once per every 100 cubic yards of each type of concrete placed each
day; the cylinders will be retrieved the following day for curing and testing in our laboratory. The
3 cylinders are to be tested at 28-days. We are proposing to cast sets of 4 cylinders, with
compressive strength testing as follows: 3 at 28 days, and the 4th cylinder will be held in reserve
for future testing if the 28-day strength requirement is not met.
During placement of the concrete pavement, AET will perform field testing of the plastic concrete
alongside the Contractor’s QC personnel consisting of slump, air content, and temperature. AET
will provide cylinder molds for the Contractor’s QC personnel to cast cylinders. AET will also
pick-up and deliver the cylinders to AET’s laboratory for final curing and compressive strength
testing at 28 days. Any control cylinders which are cast by the Contractor’s QC personnel will
also be tested at the requested age in AET’s laboratory.
We have assumed City personnel will be compiling the concrete batch tickets, certificates of
compliance, and AET’s field test results of the plastic concrete, which we will provide each day
we are on-site performing testing services.
REPORTING
AET staff will prepare reports for the City to review. These reports will include the results of our
field and laboratory testing as performed per the 2023 SALT SMC and testing frequencies
referenced in the project documents. AET will complete the Preliminary Grading and Base
Report and the Final Grading and Base Report, once provided with final project quantities. Daily
field reports will also be prepared and made available upon request. A final project report will be
prepared after project completion.
235
Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements, Chanhassen, MN
January 23, 2024
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Page 5 of 6
ESTIMATED FEES
Our services will be provided on a unit cost basis according to the unit rates provided in the
attached Materials Testing Estimate. Our invoices will be determined by multiplying the number
of personnel hours or tests by their respective unit rates. The rates are from the annual fee
schedule for 2024 projects.
Our services will be provided on a unit cost basis according to the unit rates provided in the
attached Fee Schedule tabulation. Our monthly invoices will be determined by multiplying the
number of personnel hours or tests by their respective unit rates. We have also estimated a total
cost which we anticipate will be required to complete the previously described observations and
testing services. This estimated total cost is based on the cost breakdown attached to the RFP.
Our estimated total cost is $121,220.00.
We caution that this is only an estimated cost. Often, variations in the overall cost of the services
occur due to reasons beyond our control, such as weather delays, changes in the contractor’s
schedule, unforeseen conditions, or retesting. These variations will affect the actual invoice
totals, either increasing or decreasing our total costs for the project from those estimated in this
proposal. If more time or tests are required, additional fees may be needed to complete the
project testing services. If less time or tests are needed, a cost savings will be realized. We will
not, however, exceed the estimated total cost for the project without first obtaining your
authorization.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Our services will be provided subject to a signed Professional Services Subconsultant
Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and American Engineering Testing, Inc.
ACCEPTANCE
AET requests written acceptance of this proposal in the Proposal Acceptance box below, but the
following actions shall constitute your acceptance of this proposal together with the Terms and
Conditions: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services described in this
proposal, 2) authorizing AET’s presence on site, or 3) written or electronic notification for AET
to proceed with any of the Services described in this proposal. Please indicate your acceptance
of this proposal by signing below and returning a copy to us. When you accept this proposal,
you represent that you are authorized to accept on behalf of the Client.
236
Quality Assurance Testing Proposal
Galpin Boulevard Improvements, Chanhassen, MN
January 23, 2024
AET Proposal No. P-0030067
Page 6 of 6
GENERAL REMARKS
AET appreciates the opportunity to provide this service for you and looks forward to working with
you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
American Engineering Testing
Ryan S. Schaefer Justin L. Staker, PE (MN)
Geologist I/Project Manager Senior Engineer
rschaefer@teamAET.com jstaker@teamAET.com
612-618-8066 651-523-1265
ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION: AET Proposal No. P-0030067
SIGNATURE:
PRINTED NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL:
DATE:
INVOICING INFORMATION (Provide Company AP Department Information, if present.)
AP CONTACT NAME:
BILLING/MAILING ADDRESS:
AP PHONE NUMBER AND INVOICE EMAIL:
P.O. NO./ PROJECT NO.:
Attachments: Materials Testing Estimate
237
dKd>
ϯ
ŽŵƉĂĐƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚŝŶŐŽŶ'ƌĂŶƵůĂƌDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ;EƵĐůĞĂƌ
ĞŶƐŝƚLJdĞƐƚͿ ϲϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϰ
ŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐŽŵƉĂĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚDĂdžŝŵƵŵĞŶƐŝƚLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐ
;ŽƌĞƐͿ Ϯϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϮ
DŶKd'LJƌĂƚŽƌLJŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐDŝdžWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐsĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
dĞƐƚŝŶŐΘZŝĐĞdĞƐƚŝŶŐ ϮϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϱ ^ŽŝůƐΘ'ƌĂŶƵůĂƌDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐdĞƐƚŝŶŐ,ŽƵƌƐ ,Z ϭϯϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϲ WƌŽĐƚŽƌ^ĂŵƉůĞΘdĞƐƚŝŶŐ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐDŽŝƐƚƵƌĞŽŶƚĞŶƚͿ ϰϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϳ dŽƉƐŽŝůŽƌƌŽǁ^ĂŵƉůĞΘdĞƐƚŝŶŐ ϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϰ ^ŽŝůƐΘ'ƌĂŶƵůĂƌDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐdĞƐƚŝŶŐdƌŝƉŚĂƌŐĞ ϲϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Ϯϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϬ
ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdĞƐƚŝŶŐΘĂƐƚŝŶŐLJůŝŶĚĞƌ^ĞƚƐ;ŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ͕ƵƌŝŶŐ͕Θ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐͿ ϭϭϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϭ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdĞƐƚŝŶŐ,ŽƵƌƐ ,Z ϱϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϭ LJůŝŶĚĞƌWŝĐŬhƉ,ŽƵƌƐ ,Z
Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϲ 'ĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĂŶĚWĂǀĞŵĞŶƚ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶůůŽǁĂŶĐĞ ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞ ϭ
ϴ 'ƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶ^ĂŵƉůĞĂŶĚdĞƐƚŝŶŐ ϰϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϮ
ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺϭϬ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdĞƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚLJůŝŶĚĞƌWŝĐŬƵƉdƌŝƉŚĂƌŐĞ ϱϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
,Z ϰϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϮ ŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐsĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ĂŵƉůĞWŝĐŬƵƉdƌŝƉŚĂƌŐĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚΘKǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ ,Z ϯϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
/d DEK͘ /d D hE/d^ YhEd/dz hE/dWZ/ dKd>WZ/
Ϯ ŽŵƉĂĐƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚŝŶŐŽŶ^ŽŝůƐ;EƵĐůĞĂƌĞŶƐŝƚLJdĞƐƚͿ ϭϱϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭ
ΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϭ WƌŽũĞĐƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ ,Z ϵϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϮϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϯ ZŽůůWĂƚƚĞƌŶdĞƐƚŝŶŐdƌŝƉŚĂƌŐĞ ϮϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϲϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϱ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ͕ΘŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ >^ ϭ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϵ WdĞƐƚƐĨŽƌŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĂƐĞ;ůĂƐƐϱͿ
Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϬ
ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdĞƐƚŝŶŐΘĂƐƚŝŶŐ&ŝĞůĚͲƵƌĞĚLJůŝŶĚĞƌƐ
;ŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ͕ƵƌŝŶŐ͕Θ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐͿ
ϭϯ ZŽůůWĂƚƚĞƌŶdĞƐƚŝŶŐ,ŽƵƌƐ ,Z ϰϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐsĞƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ĂŵƉůĞWŝĐŬƵƉĂŶĚdĞƐƚŝŶŐ,ŽƵƌƐ
ϭϰ
ŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐŽŵƉĂĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚDĂdžŝŵƵŵĞŶƐŝƚLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐ
dƌŝƉŚĂƌŐĞ ϱ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϮϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ϭϰ
ŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐŽŵƉĂĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚDĂdžŝŵƵŵĞŶƐŝƚLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐ
,ŽƵƌƐ ,Z ϮϬ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
190 5,700
85 7,650
42 6,510
42 2,730
60 3,900
115 14,950
184 7,360
341 1,705
135 5,400
63 3,780
168 18,480
100 5,000
42 840
115 5,750
NA
625 12,500
NA
60 1,200
115 4,600
60 1,200
56 1,400
NA
60 300
265 265
121,220
238
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Purchases for Annual Lift Station Maintenance
File No.Item No: D.11
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Alison Albrecht, Public Works Support Specialist
Reviewed By Charlie Burke
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution authorizing purchases for annual maintenance
work for sanitary sewer lift stations."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Asset Management
SUMMARY
The city annually rehabilitates public sanitary sewer lift stations to keep this critical infrastructure in
reliable and proper working order.
BACKGROUND
The city has a total of 32 public sanitary sewer lift stations. A city map showing all of the lift stations is
attached for reference. Lift stations collect and pump sewage from low points up to higher-elevation
gravity lines. All sewage eventually enters the Met Council Interceptors for conveyance and treatment.
DISCUSSION
N/A
BUDGET
239
The annual Lift Station maintenance is included in the 5-year CIP (Project #SS-017). The CIP budget is
$100,000 for 2024. The Utility Division of the Public Works Department solicited quotes for lift station
maintenance. The additional funding will come from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund line item for
Sewer Repair & Maintenance.
Item #1
Lift Station 24 - Pump Replacement
Contractor Quote
Minnesota Pump Works $64,735.00
Total $64,735.00
Item #2
Lift Station 28 - Panel and Pipe Upgrades
Contractor Quote
Minnesota Pump Works $6,779.48
This item also includes $10,000 of in-house work.
Total $16,779.48
Item #3
Lift Station 30 - Arc Flash Upgrade
Total $5,000.00
Item #4
Lift Station 9 - Arc Flash Upgrade
Total $5,000.00
Item #5
Lift Station 7 - Replacement Check Valve
Contractor Quote
Quality Flow $3,257.00
Total $3,257.00
Item #6
Lift Station 26 - Wet Well Wizard
Contractor Quote
Northwestern Power Equipment Co., Inc $12,909.00
Holton Electric $860.00
Hallock Company $239.99
240
Total $14,008.99
The total cost is $108,780.47
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approval of the identified lift station maintenance purchases.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Sanitary Lift Stations Map
CIP SS-017
Quotes
241
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 26, 2024 RESOLUTION NO:2024-XX
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASES FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
WORK FOR PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATIONS
WHEREAS, there are 32 public sanitary sewer lift stations in the City; and
WHEREAS,the lift stations need rehabilitation from time to time to keep them in proper
working order; and
WHEREAS,the City obtained competitive quotes for the applicable portions of the work;
and
WHEREAS,the annual lift station maintenance is identified in the 5-year CIP and the
quoted improvements are within the identified CIP project budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby
authorizes purchases for annual maintenance work for sanitary sewer lift stations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 26
th day of February
2024.
ATTEST:
Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
242
243
This requests information is generated from Final Adopted CIP 2024-2028 CIP 2024-2028 FINAL ADOPT, Adopted Version.
Sewer - Annual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation
Overview
Request Owner Charlie Howley, PW Director/City Engineer
Department Sanitary Sewer Gen Operations
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number SS-017
Description
The sanitary sewer lift station rehabilitation program is designed to minimize sewer backups and emergency calls due to failed lift
station equipment. The City currently owns and maintains 32 lift stations, with at least 4 more with ultimate build-out. Many of these lift
stations need frequent servicing due to their multiple components. The program will service or replace pumps, piping, valves, and
electrical components as needed.
Details
Type of Project Improvement
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Construction/Maintenance $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $550,000
Total $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $550,000
Capital Cost
FY2024 Budget
$100,000
Total Budget (all years)
$550K
Project Total
$550K
Capital Cost by Year (Adopted)
Construction/Maintenance
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$100,000.00
$105,000.00
$110,000.00
$115,000.00
$120,000.00
$0 $30K $60K $90K $120K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $550,000.00
Construction/Maintenance (100%)$550,000.00
244
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Utility Fund - Sewer $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $550,000
Total $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $550,000
Funding Sources
FY2024 Budget
$100,000
Total Budget (all years)
$550K
Project Total
$550K
Funding Sources by Year (Adopted)
Utility Fund - Sewer
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$100,000.00
$105,000.00
$110,000.00
$115,000.00
$120,000.00
$0 $30K $60K $90K $120K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $550,000.00
Utility Fund - Sewer (100%)$550,000.00
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Resolution 2024-XX: Authorizing 2024 Fleet Purchase
File No.CIP F-103 Item No: D.12
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By Alison Albrecht, Public Works Support Specialist
Reviewed By Charlie Howley
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution authorizing the purchase of a plow/dump truck
chassis."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Asset Management
SUMMARY
This approval request is to authorize a fleet replacement purchase for a Tandem Axle Dump/Plow
Truck Chassis (CIP# F-103). The equipment and plow were ordered separately and approved
previously.
BACKGROUND
Dump/plow truck 103 is a 2007 Sterling with 99,970 miles on it. The truck has reached it's
recommended useful life and is proposed to be replaced with a new Mack truck body. We're proposing
to add an underbody plow to better clear iced up mainline roads, which would be the first truck in the
fleet with this type of plow.
DISCUSSION
N/A
253
BUDGET
This purchase is included in the approved 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as Project F-103
for $352,000.
The overall dump/plow truck budget is $352,000, which includes both the truck chassis and accessories.
The truck chassis came in at $118,990. The accessories previously approved was quoted at $183,891,
bringing the total for the truck at $302,881.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends authorizing the plow/dump truck purchase.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
CIP F-103 Plow Truck
Quote
254
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 26, 2024 RESOLUTION NO: 2024-XX
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A PLOW TRUCK CHASSIS
WHEREAS,the City manages a fleet of vehicles and equipment; and
WHEREAS,the approved 2024 Capital Improvement Plan includes the replacement of
plow truck #103 as part of annual fleet asset management; and
WHEREAS,the City obtained a quote from the dealer who holds the State Contract Pricing
Bid; and
WHEREAS,the quote received is within the budgeted amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby
approves a resolution authorizing the purchase of a plow truck replacement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 26
th day of February2024.
ATTEST:
Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
255
Vehicle #103 - Streets Dump/Plow Truck
Overview
Request Owner Charlie Howley, PW Director/City Engineer
Department Public Works Operations
Type Capital Equipment
Project Number F-103
Description
This new plow truck will replace the existing 2007 Sterling Tandom Axle LT9500, which will be 17 years old in 2024. The replacement for
#103 is recommended to maintain a reliable truck eet. Costs include truck chassis, dump box, hydraulic system, wing and underbody
plow, tarp and sander. This type of vehicle is purchased using the State of MN cooperative bid system. Orders for truck chassis are
typically required to be placed up to one year in advance of delivery.
The plow trucks are also used to provide a variety of maintenance services throughout the community, beyond just plowing and hauling
snow. The typical life expectancy of these vehicles is 18 years. The truck and equipment come with a limited warranty. The existing truck
will either be sold at auction or credited as a trade-in, with proceeds coming back into the Capital Equipment Fund. The cost shown does
not include the offsets from trade-in or auction revenue.
Details
New Purchase or Replacement New
New or Used Vehicle New Vehicle
Useful Life 10 or more years
256
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024 Total
Vehicle Cost $352,000 $352,000
Total $352,000 $352,000
Capital Cost
FY2024 Budget
$352,000
Total Budget (all years)
$352K
Project Total
$352K
Capital Cost by Year
Vehicle Cost
2024 $352,000.00
$0 $100K $200K $300K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $352,000.00
Vehicle Cost (100%)$352,000.00
257
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024 Total
Fleet Capital - Fund 400 $352,000 $352,000
Total $352,000 $352,000
Funding Sources
FY2024 Budget
$352,000
Total Budget (all years)
$352K
Project Total
$352K
Funding Sources by Year
Fleet Capital - Fund 400
2024 $352,000.00
$0 $100K $200K $300K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $352,000.00
Fleet Capital - Fund 400 (100%)$352,000.00
258
Price quote for:TANDEM AXLE CAB/CHASSIS
Vendor Name:
Contact Person:
Street Address:
P.O. Box:
City, State, Zip
Phone #:
Toll Free #:
Fax #:
Email Address:
2013
Spec # Information Requested Answer
1.0 Make & Model 2025 MACK GRANITE 64FR (T) TA
C.A. & W.B. dimension 210" WB, 123" CA
Front Axle Location (Set Forward, Set Back) SET FORWARD
Frame, Steel PSI 120,000 PSI
Frame, Section Modulus 17.7 SM
Frame, Resistance to Bending Moment 2,120,000 RBM
Frame overhang length 62" AF
Type of fasteners used on frame members HUCK
Front bumper description Swept Back Steel
Front Axle Type & Size Mack FXL12, 12,000 lbs.
Front Spring length 55"
Front brake size 16.5" x 5" Meritor "S" Cam Type Q+
Front Brake chamber size 24"
U Joint Make, Model & Type (1/2 round, etc.)
Meritor 17 MXL Extended Life
Rear Axle Type & Size Mack S38R, 38,000 lbs.
Rear brake size Meritor"S" CAM 16.5"x7" Q+
Rear brake chamber size 30/30
Version of Excel used:
Exhibit D: Price Schedule
Nuss Truck and Equipment
Dan Chipman
2195 WEST COUNTY ROAD C2
ROSEVILLE, MN 55113
612-297-6496
800-704-0935
651-635-0928
dchipman@nussgrp.com
259
Parking Brake Type & Model #Haldex/Anchorlok
Front Tire Make & Size 11R22.5 14 Ply Bridgestone R268
Front Rim Size & Rating 22.5 x 8.25 7,400 lbs
Rear tire make & size 11R22.5 14 PLY Bridgestone M726 ELA
Rear rim size & rating 22.5 x 8.25 7,400 lbs
Air compressor type & size WABCO 37.4 CFM
Air dryer info WABCO System Saver 1200 Plus
Engine type, HP & torque Mack MP7-345M - 325HP @1600-1800 RPM
1350/LB/FT Max Torque
Type of engine fan drive Behr Fan And Electronic Modulating Viscous Fan
Drive
Exhaust description Cleartech one DPF/SCR right hand under cab
Starter motor Make & Model Delco 39MTHD
Right side steering assist (Auxiliary gear, hydraulic
ram or none)None
Transmission Make & Model, # of Speeds Eaton Fuller FRO-14210C
Clutch size and # of plates 15.5" Two Plate
Battery CCA, # of batteries, CCA of each battery
Three Mack 760/2280 CCA
Fuel tank size, shape and material 66 Gallon Alum Sleeved D-Shaped
Alternator Type & Size Delco 12V 160A (28SI Brush Type)
Radiator Sq in & Material Aluminum Core
Type and number of horns One Mack Rectangle Air
Cab ride (type of mounting)Air Ride Cab
Cab size door to door, floor to ceiling 78", 62"
Distance of cab floor to ground 47"
Description of seats supplied with base cab &
chassis
Driver: Mack-Air High Back (1 Chamber Air
Lumbar)
Passenger: Mack-Fixed, High Back
260
Windshield washer nozzle location Mounted on Wiper Arm
Interior package (Low, Med or Premium) Comfort Trim Package (Med)
Does unit include cruise control Yes
How is dome light activated Door & Cab Switch
Steering wheel adjustment (tilt, telescoping, etc.)Tilt & Telescoping
Cab grab handle locations RH & LH Behind Door
Storage pocket description Two Storage Compartment & Net Retainers with
Center Mounting for CB Provisions
Cab Gauges, List Air Pressure, Voltmeter, Engine Coolant
Temperature, Engine Oil Pressure, Speedometer,
Tachometer, Exhaust Pyrometer, and
Tranwmission Oil Temperature
Dimmer switch location Turn Signal
Paint description Mack White
Cab & chassis warranty (time & mileage)One Year or 100,000 Miles
Engine warranty (time & mileage) Two Years or 250,000 miles
Transmission warranty (time & mileage)Fuller - Three years or 350,000 Miles
Rear end warranty (time & mileage)Mack - Five Years or 500,000 Miles
Delivery of chassis starting point Roseville, MN 55113
Estimated weight on front axle of base unit 8,421
Estimated weight on rear axle of base unit 8,077
261
Print Date & Time 2/16/2024 10:22
VENDOR NAME
MAKE AND MODEL
This section for use when ordering
WB 214"
CA 126"(J-Craft verifed 11/30/23 w/54" Bogey) Grand Total 159,488.22$
AF 63"
Rear Ratio 4.80
Cab Color Mack White(P9188)
Wheel
Color White Steel
Notes
Code Spec #Description Qty 2025 Price Subtotal
002EO2 1.0 Price for Base Unit:1 118,990.00$ 118,990.00$
2.0 FRAME OPTIONS 1
AOXF3X 2.1 Front frame extension 1 1,210.00$ 1,210.00$
12XCNX 2.2 Custom hole punching in frame 100.00$ -$
4DXZ1X 2.3 Deduct for no front bumper (65.00)$ -$
4YAAX 2.4 Frame fastener option (bolt or huck spun)1 STD
2.5 Frame, R.B.M., S.M., PSI, CT
MC 2.6 2,120,000 17.7 120,000 87 - 112 CA (64.00)$ -$
MC 2.7 2,120,000 17.7 120,000 113 - 133 CA STD
MC 2.8 2,120,000 17.7 120,000 134 - 152 CA 107.00$ -$
MC 2.9 2,120,000 17.7 120,000 153 - 199 CA 406.00$ -$
MC 2.10 2,120,000 17.7 120,000 200 - 236 CA 482.00$ -$
MC 2.11 2,470,000 20.6 120,000 87 - 112 CA 176.00$ -$
MC 2.12 2,470,000 20.6 120,000 113 - 133 CA 240.00$ -$
MC 2.13 2,470,000 20.6 120,000 134 - 152 CA 347.00$ -$
MC 2.14 2,470,000 20.6 120,000 153 - 199 CA 646.00$ -$
MC 2.15 2,470,000 20.6 120,000 200 - 236 CA 722.00$ -$
MC 2.16 2.820,000 23.5 120,000 87 - 112 CA 521.00$ -$
MC 2.17 2.820,000 23.5 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1 585.00$ 585.00$
MC 2.18 2.820,000 23.5 120,000 134 - 152 CA 692.00$ -$
MC 2.19 2.820,000 23.5 120,000 153 - 199 CA 991.00$ -$
MC 2.20 2.820,000 23.5 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,067.00$ -$
MC 2.21 3,160,000 26.3 120,000 87 - 112 CA 744.00$ -$
MC 2.22 3,160,000 26.3 120,000 113 - 133 CA 808.00$ -$
MC 2.23 3,160,000 26.3 120,000 134 - 152 CA 915.00$ -$
MC 2.24 3,160,000 26.3 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,214.00$ -$
MC 2.25 3,160,000 26.3 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,290.00$ -$
2.26 DOUBLE FRAME - PARTIAL IC REINFORCEMENT
MC 2.27 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 87 - 112 CA 801.00$ -$
MC 2.28 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 113 - 133 CA 865.00$ -$
MC 2.29 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 134 - 152 CA 972.00$ -$
MC 2.30 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,214.00$ -$
MC 2.31 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,290.00$ -$
MC 2.32 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,041.00$ -$
MC 2.33 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,105.00$ -$
MC 2.34 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,212.00$ -$
MC 2.35 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,511.00$ -$
MC 2.36 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,587.00$ -$
MC 2.37 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,376.00$ -$
MC 2.38 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,450.00$ -$
TANDEM AXLE CAB/CHASSIS
Exhibit D: Price Schedule
NUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
2025 MACK GRANITE 64FR (T) TA
City of Chanhassen, Updated 2.13.24
262
MC 2.39 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,657.00$ -$
MC 2.40 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,856.00$ -$
MC 2.41 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,932.00$ -$
MC 2.42 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,832.00$ -$
MC 2.43 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,673.00$ -$
MC 2.44 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 134 - 152 CA 2,003.00$ -$
MC 2.45 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 154 - 199 CA 2,301.00$ -$
MC 2.46 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 200 - 236 CA 2,384.00$ -$
2.47 DOUBLE FRAME - FULL IC REINFORCEMENT
MC 2.48 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,001.00$ -$
MC 2.49 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,065.00$ -$
MC 2.50 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,172.00$ -$
MC 2.51 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,414.00$ -$
MC 2.52 3,230,000 26.9 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,490.00$ -$
MC 2.53 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,241.00$ -$
MC 2.54 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,305.00$ -$
MC 2.55 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,412.00$ -$
MC 2.56 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 153 - 199 CA 1,711.00$ -$
MC 2.57 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,787.00$ -$
MC 2.58 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,576.00$ -$
MC 2.59 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,650.00$ -$
MC 2.60 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,857.00$ -$
MC 2.61 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 153 - 199 CA 2,056.00$ -$
MC 2.62 3,580,000 29.8 120,000 200 - 236 CA 1,787.00$ -$
MC 2.63 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 87 - 112 CA 1,576.00$ -$
MC 2.64 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,650.00$ -$
MC 2.65 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 134 - 152 CA 1,857.00$ -$
MC 2.66 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 153 - 199 CA 2,056.00$ -$
MC 2.67 3,920,000 32.7 120,000 200 - 236 CA 2,132.00$ -$
MC 2.68 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 87 - 112 CA 2,032.00$ -$
MC 2.69 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 113 - 133 CA 1,873.00$ -$
MC 2.70 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 134 - 152 CA 2,203.00$ -$
MC 2.71 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 153 - 199 CA 2,501.00$ -$
MC 2.72 4,260,000 35.5 120,000 200 - 236 CA 2,584.00$ -$
2.73 TRIPLE FRAME - FULL IC REINFORCEMENT
MC 2.74 5,688,000 47.4 120,000 87 - 112 CA 4,960.00$ -$
MC 2.75 5,688,000 47.4 120,000 113 - 133 CA 5,024.00$ -$
MC 2.76 5,688,000 47.4 120,000 134 - 152 CA 5,131.00$ -$
MC 2.77 5,688,000 47.4 120,000 153 - 199 CA 5,430.00$ -$
MC 2.78 5,688,000 47.4 120,000 200 - 236 CA 5,506.00$ -$
4DXM2X 2.79 Flush bright finish channel steel 113.00$ -$
4DXM6X 2.80 Extended stylized-silver-bright finish steel w/stone guard 1,495.00$ -$
4DXN8X 2.81
Extended - swept back steel, bright finish with stone guard - includes
center tow pin 1,139.00$ -$
4DXR1X 2.82 Mill finish, flush mounted, unpainted aluminum 68.00$ -$
4DXN4X 2.83
Extended swept back channel steel (includes center tow pin) w/stone
guard 805.00$ -$
5DXN5X 2.84
Extended swept back channel steel with bright finish w/painted center
tow pin 620.00$ -$
4DXN6X 2.85 Extended swept back steel channel w/bright finish 258.00$ -$
4DXM9X 2.86 Extended swept back painted steel 1 STD
4DX16X 2.87 Flush painted steel (15.00)$ -$
4DXP1X 2.88 Flush stainless clad aluminum 143.00$ -$
5FXA1X 2.89 Plate type radiator guard 105.00$ -$
5FXA2X 2.90 Bright finish plate type radiator guard 258.00$ -$
B28018 2.91 Rust Protection Between Frame Rails & Liners 633.00$ -$
281AA4 2.92 BOC crossmember, steel HD back to back channel intermediate 129.00$ -$
281AA6 2.93 BOC & intermediate crossmember, HD I-Beam 211.00$ -$
2.99 1
263
3.0 FRONT AXLE/SUSPENSION/BRAKE/OPTION 1
MC 3.1 Set forward front axle option 1 STD
240AA6 3.2 12,000 front axle & matching suspension - Mack FXL12 STD
240AA7 3.3 14,600 front axle & matching suspension - Mack FXL14.6 771.00$ -$
240AA2 3.4 16,000 front axle and matching suspension 999.00$ -$
240AA3 3.5 18,000 front axle and matching suspension - Mack FXL18 1,361.00$ -$
240AA5 3.6 20,000 front axle and matching suspension - Mack FXL20 1 2,147.00$ 2,147.00$
1KAA1X 3.7 23,000 front axle and matching suspension - Mack FXL23 2,448.00$ -$
1KAA1X 3.8 Heavy duty front axle shocks 1 STD
N/A 3.9 Front stabilizer bar No Bid
N/A 3.10 Right hand air bag suspension per Spec 3.7, Driver controlled No Bid
N/A 3.11 Left air bag suspension per Spec 3.7, Driver controlled No Bid
N/A 3.12 Front axle lubrication cap with slotted venthole No Bid
245AB0 3.13 Front brake dust shields 1 22.00$ 22.00$
YHXB1X 3.14 Dual front auxiliary steering gear 1 661.00$ 661.00$
YHXA1X 3.15 RH spring build up for wing plow application 91.00$ -$
MOD01D 3.16 LH spring build up for wing plow application 91.00$ -$
PK7137 3.17 All wheel drive front axle 43,000.00$ -$
0KXB1X 3.18 Twin Steer Front Axle 18,500.00$ -$
U3XA5X 3.19 Aluminum front hubs 103.00$ -$
MC 3.20 Centerfuse outboard mounted brake drums 252.00$ -$
MC 3.21 Multileaf front spring ILO taperleaf (2 leaf spring)35.00$ -$
MC 3.22 HD mulitileaf front spring ILO taperleaf (2 leaf spring)65.00$ -$
2410L1 3.23 HD taperleaf (3 leaf spring) ILO of taperleaf (2 leaf spring)1 65.00$ 65.00$
U0AB1X 3.24 Meritor EX+ Air Disc Brakes requires Meritor rear brakes 653.00$ -$
U0AB8X 3.25 Meritor front slack adjustors - Need same slack on rear axle 1.00$ -$
U0AA1X 3.26 Meritor front slack with stainless steel pins 1 58.00$ 58.00$
U0AA8X 3.27 Haldex front slack adjustors - Need same slack adjustor on rear axle STD
MC 3.28 Haldex front slack with stainless steel pins 67.00$ -$
3.99 1
4.0 4.0 TANDEM REAR AXLE/SUSPENSION/BRAKE/OPTIONS 1
MC 4.1
46,000# rear axle & matching suspension
Make & Model - Mack S462R & SS46 Mack Camelback Suspension 2,300.00$ -$
MC 4.2 40,000# walking beam rear suspension and axle
Make & Model - Meritor MT-40-14X4D with Hendrickson HMX EX 400 1,286.00$ -$
MC 4.3 46,000# walking beam rear suspension and axle
Make & Model - Meritor MT-46-160 with Hendrickson HMX EX 460 2,956.00$ -$
MC 4.4 40,000# air suspension and axle
Make & Model - Meritor MT-40-14X4D with Mack AL-461 Air 1,105.00$ -$
MC 4.5 46,000# air suspension and axle
Make & Model - Meritor RT-46-160 with Mack AL-461 Air 2,679.00$ -$
MC 4.6 Dash mounted air dump system - With air ride suspension 14.00$ -$
MC 4.7 Driver activated differential lock on one rear axle
(front axle ____ rear axle ____, check one)562.00$ -$
254AB5 4.8 Driver activated differential lock on both front and rear axles 1,125.00$ -$
MC 4.9 Driver activated differential lock on both front and rear axles, and
lubrication pump and filter system 1,407.00$ -$
MC 4.10 Meritor MT-40-14X4D, both axles driver differential lock and pump,
HMX400 40,000 # walking beam suspension 2,693.00$ -$
MC 4.11 Meritor RT-46-160, both axles driver differential lock and pump,
HMX460 46,000 # walking beam suspension 4,363.00$ -$
76AB1X 4.12 ½ round universal joints 1 STD
195AB3 4.13 Spicer 1810 HD drive line with half round universal joints 1 140.00$ 140.00$
UEX 4.14 Rear Dust Shields 1 39.00$ 39.00$
254AB7 4.15 Driver activated differential lock on both front and rear axles with
individual switches 1,283.00$ -$
195AB0 4.16 Meritor 18 MXL extended lube 39.00$ -$
195AA9 4.17 Meritor 176 MXL extended lube 38.00$ -$
264
195AB5 4.18 Dana-spicer SPL170XL Lite extended lube series 361.00$ -$
195AB6 4.19 Dana-spicer SPL250XL Lite extended lube series 493.00$ -$
195AB7 4.20 Dana-spicer SPL250HDXL Lite extended lube series 502.00$ -$
1950K5 4.21 Dana-spicer SPL350XL Lite extended lube series 1,007.00$ -$
195025 4.22 Dana-spicer SPL350HDXL Lite extended lube series 1,262.00$ -$
268AB1 4.23 Mack S38R 38,000# Fabricated Steel Housing STD
268AA4 4.24 Mack S400R 40,000# Fabricated Steel Housing 435.00$ -$
268AB4 4.25 Mack S402 40,000 # Cast Ductile Iron Housing 473.00$ -$
268AA3 4.26 Mack S440 44,000# Fabricated Steel Housing 1,485.00$ -$
268AB6 4.27 Mack S460R 46,000# Fabricated Steel Housing 1,916.00$ -$
268AA9 4.28 Mack S462R 46,000# Cast Ductile Iron Housing 1 1,954.00$ 1,954.00$
268AB3 4.29 Mack S522R Cast Ductile Iron Housing 3,460.00$ -$
268AC9 4.30 Meritor 40,000# MT-40-14X4C Amboid (High Entry)55.00$ -$
268AD0 4.31 Meritor 40,000# MT-40-14X4D Hypoid (Low Entry)55.00$ -$
268AB7 4.32 Meritor 46,000# RT-46-160 1,629.00$ -$
268AC1 4.33 Meritor 46,000# RT-46-164EH 1,689.00$ -$
1860F6 4.34 Mack S38 38,000# multileaf camelback spring STD
1860G6 4.35 Mack S38 38,000# multileaf camelback spring - Heavy Duty 15.00$ -$
18603Y 4.36 Mack SS40 40,000# multileaf camelback spring 186.00$ -$
1860H6 4.37 Mack SS44 44,000# multileaf camelback spring 235.00$ -$
1860I6 4.38 Mack SS44 44,000# multileaf camelback spring - Heavy Duty 255.00$ -$
1860J6 4.39 Mack SS462 46,000# multileaf camelback spring 346.00$ -$
1860K6 4.40 Mack SS462 46,000# multileaf camelback spring - Heavy Duty 415.00$ -$
1860O6 4.41 Mack SS52 52,000# multileaf camelback spring - Heavy Duty 1,292.00$ -$
186AB6 4.42 Mack AL-461 46,000# air ride 1,050.00$ -$
186AC6 4.43 Mack M-Ride 40 parabolic 2-leaf, 40,000#648.00$ -$
186AG6 4.44 Mack M-Ride 40 parabolic 3-leaf, 40,000# - Heavy Duty 1,112.00$ -$
186AC7 4.45 Mack M-Ride 46 parabolic 3-leaf 46,000#909.00$ -$
186AD0 4.46 Mack M-Ride 52 parabolic 3-leaf, 52,000#1,685.00$ -$
186AD1 4.47 Mack M-Ride 52 parabolic 11-leaf, 52,000# - Heavy Duty 1,773.00$ -$
186AE5 4.48 HMX 400 Hendrickson Haulmax rubber suspension 40,000#1,231.00$ -$
186AE6 4.49 HMX 460 Hendrickson Haulmax rubber suspension 46,000#1 1,385.00$ 1,385.00$
186AF7 4.50 Chambers 46,000# High Stability W#29 CAN 3,736.00$ -$
186106 4.51 PAX 46 High Stability Hendrickson Primaxx Air Suspension 2,968.00$ -$
186146 4.52 PAX 522 High Stability Hendrickson Primaxx Air Suspension 3,023.00$ -$
186AF4 4.53 Neway ADZ-246 air ride suspension 2,968.00$ -$
186AF5 4.54 Neway ADZ-252 air ride suspension 3,786.00$ -$
3LAZ1X 4.55 Delete power divider lockout (153.00)$ -$
GWXACX 4.56 55" axle spacing 142.00$ -$
ZAXA5X 4.57 Dual leveling valve air suspension height control 174.00$ -$
018AA7 4.58 Mack CRDP1501/1511 with interwheel power divider - both axles 1 3,182.00$ 3,182.00$
U4XA5X 4.59 Outboard centrifuse rear brake drums 240.00$ -$
U1AA1X 4.60 Haldex automatic rear slack adjustor STD
U1AA8X 4.61 Haldex automatic rear slack adjustor with stainless steel pins 267.00$ -$
U1AB1X 4.62 Meritor automatic rear slack adjustor 1.00$ -$
U1AB8X 4.63 Meritor automatic rear slack adjustor with stainless steel pins 1 267.00$ 267.00$
0LX11X 4.64 Aluminum preset rear hubs with integrated spindle nut 42.00$ -$
253AB3 4.65 Air Disc Brake (17") H-Type - Require Air Disc Front Brakes 2,690.00$ -$
253AA4 4.66 Meritor rear brakes - 16.5"7" Q+1 STD
253023 4.67 Meritor rear brakes - 16.5" x 8 5/8+ Q+ - N/A with dust shields 291.00$ -$
253005 4.68 Meritor rear brakes - 16.5" x 8"+ Q+ - N/A with dust shields 213.00$ -$
MC
4.69 10,000 lb Hendrickson Composolite Steerable Pusher Axle - includes
tires and rims 11,326.00$ -$
MC
4.70 13,000 lb Hendrickson Composolite Steerable Pusher Axle - includes
tires and rims 9,791.00$ -$
MC
4.71 20,000 lb Hendrickson Steerable Pusher Axle - includes tires and rims 12,635.00$ -$
MC
4.72 20,000 lb Hendrickson Non-Steerable Pusher Axle - includes tires and
rims 11,950.00$ -$
265
MC
4.73 10,000 lb Hendrickson Composolite Steerable Tag Axle - includes tires
and rims 11,826.00$ -$
MC
4.74 13,000 lb Hendrickson Composolite Steerable Tag Axle - includes tires
and rims 11,255.00$ -$
MC
4.75 20,000 lb Hendrickson Steerable Tag Axle - includes tires and rims 14,901.00$ -$
9GAACX 4.76 6S/6M systems sensing both rear axle wheel end sensors 1 440.00$ 440.00$
6MAC1X 4.77 Furnish Meritor wide track axle option - Need for Super Singles 1,200.00$ -$
4.99 1
5.0 Fifth Wheel options 1
X6XA2X 5.1 Frame end tapered and open 12.00$ -$
X6XB2X 5.2 Frame end tapered and closed 30.00$ -$
330AB7 5.3 Fixed fifth wheel - Holland FW-35 684.00$ -$
330AE7 5.4 Mechanical slide fifth wheel - Holland FW35, Travel - 24" slide 562.00$ -$
330AH4 5.5 Air slide fifth wheel - Holland FW35, Travel - 24" slide 986.00$ -$
464AA5 5.6 Stainless 1/4 fenders, mounted front of tandems 127.00$ -$
464AA2 5.7 Plastic 1/4 fenders, mounted front of tandems 110.00$ -$
WHX01X 5.8 Tractor package hookup 297.00$ -$
7KXA3X 5.9 Behind cab deck plate 681.00$ -$
330AB8 5.10 Holland fixed with non-tilt 5th wheel 1,385.00$ -$
330AEF 5.11 Holland manual slide 5th wheel 537.00$ -$
69XD3X 5.12 Mud flaps with brackets 115.00$ -$
69XC3X 5.13 Betts B60 stainless steel angled mud flap brackets 161.00$ -$
51XD1X 5.14 Hose tender & towel bar assembly 58.00$ -$
5ZXB1X 5.15 Coiled trailer air hose 39.00$ -$
2UAB1X 5.16 Coiled trailer electrical hose 44.00$ -$
OBS04S 5.17 Air Weight AW5800 onboard scales 1,118.00$ -$
6HXBRX 5.18 Medium height 5th wheel ramp guide 228.00$ -$
322022 5.19 Trailer hook up light 74.00$ -$
5.99 1
6.0 TIRES/RIMS OPTIONS:1
MC 6.1 Nylon wafers or wheel guards on all wheels (10 ea.)51.00$ -$
MC 6.2
Heavier 7500 lb. 22.5 x 8.25 Steel rims in lieu of standard 7300# rims
(10 ea.) 1 STD
MC 6.3
Heavier 7500 lb. 22.5 x 8.25 Steel rims in lieu of standard 7300# rims (8
ea.) in rear only 16.00$ -$
900AS0 6.4 11R 22.5 H front tires 142.00$ -$
9000A0 6.5 12R 22.5 H front tires 376.00$ -$
N/A 6.6 9000 lb. 22.5 9” front steel rims, 315/80R 22.5 J front tires No Bid
900AC0 6.7 10,000 lb. 22.5 9” front steel rims, 315/80R 22.5 J front tires 569.00$ -$
900AX0 6.8 10,500 lb. 22.5 x 12.25 front steel rims, 385/65R 22.5 J front tires 1 609.00$ 609.00$
9001W0 6.9 10,500 lb. 22.5 x 12.25 front steel rims, 425/65R 22.5 J front tires 669.00$ -$
901AJ6 6.10 11R 22.5 H rear tires 656.00$ -$
531AF0 6.11 7,300 lb. 24.5” x 8.25” steel front rims 5.00$ -$
346AF5 6.12 7300 lb. 24.5” x 8.25” rear steel rims 44.00$ -$
531AF0 6.13 8,000 lb. 24.5” x 8.25" steel front rims 10.00$ -$
3460C6 6.14 8,000 lb. 24.5” x 8.25” steel rear rims 164.00$ -$
9002Q0 6.15 11R 24.5 G front tires 136.00$ -$
9002R0 6.16 11R 24.5 H front tires 166.00$ -$
901AK7 6.17 11R 24.5 G rear tires 164.00$ -$
901AK7 6.18 11R 24.5 H rear tires 501.00$ -$
NUS225 6.19 Steel spare rim, size 22.5 x 8.25 572.00$ -$
NUS245 6.20 Steel spare rim, size 24.5 x 8.25 660.00$ -$
NUS090 6.21 Steel spare rim, size 22.5 x 9.0 878.00$ -$
NUS225 6.22 Steel spare rim, size 22.5 x 12.25 720.00$ -$
900AB0 6.23 12R22.5 H front tires 618.00$ -$
901AK2 6.24 12R 22.5 H rear tires 2,137.00$ -$
7FXC1X 6.25 Wheel lug wrench - includes handle 48.00$ -$
5310C1 6.26 Aluminum front wheel - 22.5 x 8.25 246.00$ -$
266
531AI6 6.27 Aluminum front wheel - 24.5 x 8.25 342.00$ -$
5310N1 6.28 Aluminum front wheel - 22.5 x 9.0 475.00$ -$
531AJ0 6.29 Aluminum front wheel - 22.5 x 12.25 387.00$ -$
49AA1X 6.30 Polished aluminum front wheel 48.00$ -$
49AB1X 6.31 Dura-bright bright finish front wheels 248.00$ -$
346AI7 6.32 Aluminum rear wheels - 22.5 x 8.25 960.00$ -$
3460G6 6.33 Aluminum rear wheels - 24.5 x 8.25 1,120.00$ -$
235095 6.34 Polished aluminum rear wheel all eight (8) wheels 320.00$ -$
2350A5 6.35 Dura-bright bright finish on all eight (8) rear wheels 1,410.00$ -$
2350C5 6.36 Dura-bright bright finish on all four (4) outboard rear wheels 705.00$ -$
900AA6 6.37 11R22.5 G Michelin XZE2 front tires 378.00$ -$
900AX9 6.38 11R22.5 H Bridgestone M863 front tires 596.00$ -$
900166 6.39 315/80R22.5 L Michelin XZUS front tires 532.00$ -$
9007766 6.40 315/80R22.5 L Continental HAU3 WT front tires 415.00$ -$
900AW2 6.41 385/65R22.5 J Michelin XZY3 front tires 284.00$ -$
900AW4 6.42 425/65R22.5 L Michelin XZY3 front tires 366.00$ -$
9004X0 6.43 425/65R22.5 L Bridgestone M870 148.00$ -$
901601 6.44 11R22.5 G Bridgestone M713 Ecopia rear tires (320.00)$ -$
901090 6.45 11R22.5 G Bridgestone M760 Ecopia rear tires (480.00)$ -$
901BO9 6.46 11R22.5 G Michelin X Line Energy D rear tires 605.00$ -$
901AJ6 6.47 11R22.5 H Bridgestone M799 rear tires 220.00$ -$
90109K 6.48 11R22.5 H Bridgestone M771 rear tires 345.00$ -$
901BG0 6.49 11R22.5 H Michelin XDN2 rear tires 1,510.00$ -$
901BN1 6.50 11R22.5 H Michelin XDS2 rear tires 2,292.00$ -$
9016U1 6.51 11R22.5 H Michelin X Works D 2,165.00$ -$
9016N1 6.52 11R22.5 H Michelin Multi Energy D 818.00$ -$
6.99 1
7.0 BRAKE SYSTEM OPTIONS:1
VHXBVX 7.1 Wabco System Saver 1200 Plus heated air dryer STD
UWXB1X 7.2 Manual cable drain valves on air tanks 27.00$ -$
N/A 7.3 Heated air tank No Bid
UWXE3X 7.4 Auto drain valves on air tanks, heated 48.00$ -$
300AD0 7.5 MGM type TR-T rear brake chambers 48.00$ -$
N/A 7.6
S.S. pins on slack adjuster yoke (2 ea. per yoke)
For all air brake chambers No Bid
N5FAJX 7.7 Inverted rear brake chamber mounting in lieu of regular mounting -$ -$
MC 7.8 Relocate air dryer 272.00$ -$
VHXBNX 7.9 Bendix AD9 heated air dryer 1 105.00$ 105.00$
VHXBPX 7.10 Bendix AD-IP EP heated air dryer 320.00$ -$
1130E3 7.11 Wabco System Saver 1200 Twin heated air dryer 683.00$ -$
UWXC1X 7.12 Petcock Dreain Valves on brake system tanks 1 STD
UWXA1X 7.13 In Tank Auto heated drain valve 42.00$ -$
UWXB1X 7.14 Lanyard control on supply wet tank 16.00$ -$
MC 7.15 Lanyard control on all brake system tanks 36.00$ -$
U2XA1X 7.16 Aluminum air reservoirs 223.00$ -$
U2XA2X 7.17 Polished aluminum air reservoirs 292.00$ -$
VSXD1X 7.18 Increase air capacity for installation of extra axles 298.00$ -$
698AA7 7.19
MACK Road Stability Adv. Bendix ABS/ATC/RSA w/YAW control with
mud/snow switch 780.00$ -$
698AA5 7.20 Bendix ABS system with traction control 4S/4M 1 STD
H9CA1X 7.21 Furnish automatic traction control (ATC full disable switch)1 105.00$ 105.00$
300AA3 7.22 Haldex "Gold Seal Plus" brake chamber STD
300AA3 7.23 Haldex "Gold Seal Plus" brake chamber (3" Stroke)32.00$ -$
300AB1 7.24 Haldex "Life Seal Plus" brake chamber 1 53.00$ 53.00$
300AB1 7.25 Haldex "Life Seal Plus" brake chamber (3" Stroke)73.00$ -$
300AB3 7.26 MGM TR-T2 Brake Chambers (Tamper Resistant & Breather Tubes)40.00$ -$
300AB5 7.27
MGM TR-T2 Long Stroke Brake Chambers (Tamper Resistant &
Breather Tubes)40.00$ -$
267
300AB8 7.28 MGM TR3030LP3THD 46.00$ -$
3MBC1X 7.29 Electric horn sound when driver door open with park brake released 67.00$ -$
2ZBA1X 7.30 Schreader valve, secondary 47.00$ -$
ss 7.31 Relocate all air reservoir in frame 58.00$ -$
141OF1 7.32 Air reservoir in frame, one reservoir on the RH rail behind Cleartech 112.00$ -$
1
8.0 ENGINE/EXHAUST AND FUEL TANKS OPTIONS:1
1000T0 8.1
Mack MP7-345C 325HP@1500-1700 RPM (Peak) 1950 RPM (Gov)
1350 LB-FT Torque STD
1000U0 8.2
Mack MP7-355C 355HP@1600-1800 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1250 LB-FT Torque 296.00$ -$
1000Q0 8.3
Mack MP7-365C 365HP@1350-1700 RPM (Peak) 1950 RPM (Gov)
1450 LB-FT Torque 575.00$ -$
1000V0 8.4
Mack MP7-375C 375HP@1450-1900 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1350 LB-FT Torque 840.00$ -$
1000Z0 8.5
Mack MP7-395C 395HP@1450-1700 RPM (Peak) 1950 RPM (Gov)
1550 LB-FT Torque 1,302.00$ -$
1000W0 8.6
Mack MP7-425C 425HP@1500-1800 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1550 LB-FT Torque 2,060.00$ -$
100100 8.7
Mack MP8-415C 415HP@1400-1700 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1650 LB-FT Torque 1,960.00$ -$
100140 8.8
Mack MP8-425C 425HP@1500-1900 RPM (Peak) 21000 RPM (Gov)
1550 LB-FT Torque 1 2,230.00$ 2,230.00$
100450 8.9
Mack MP8-445C 455HP@1400-1700 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1850 LB-FT Torque 2,759.00$ -$
100490 8.10
Mack MP8-455C 455HP@1400-1700 RPM (Peak) 2100 RPM (Gov)
1750 LB-FT Torque 2,994.00$ -$
1004F0 8.11
Mack MP8-505C 505HP@1500-1700 RPM (Peak) 1950 RPM (Gov)
1850 LB-FT Torque 4,077.00$ -$
DPF08F 8.12 Cleartech RH Frame Rail relcoated for Twin Steer 3,545.00$ -$
DPF0106 8.13 Cleartech with DPF vertical RH side BOC, w/SCR vertical LH side BOC 3,848.00$ -$
130AB6 8.14
Single (R/S) Outboard Frame Mounted Vertical Straight Exhaust Stack
Turned Out STD
130AD7 8.15
No Muffler, Single (R/S) Vertical Exhaust Cab Mounted, Lower Ventura
Diffuser, Turned End 1 291.00$ 291.00$
130AC4 8.16
Dual Vertical Straight Exhaust Stack Turned Out End - N/A with Allison
Transmission 1,269.00$ -$
130AB4 8.17
Dual Vertical Straight Exhaust Stack w/Bullhorns - N/A with Allison
Transmission 2,755.00$ -$
130AA9 8.18 Underframe Right Side Inboard Mounted 110.00$ -$
Q0AC1X 8.19 Single, Bright finish heat shield & stack 1 75.00$ 75.00$
Q0AF1X 8.20 Dual, Bright finish heat shield & stack 150.00$ -$
Q0AC2X 8.21 Single, Bright finish heat shield, stack & elbow 189.00$ -$
Q0AF2X 8.22 Dual, Bright finish heat shield, stack & elbow 400.00$ -$
8NAB1X 8.23
Bright finish stainless steel heat shield for frame mounted Mack Cap
DPF 198.00$ -$
288AC2 8.24 50 Gallon LH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank (300.00)$ -$
288AB3 8.25 66 Gallon LH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank (248.00)$ -$
288AB4 8.26 72 Gallon LH aluminum 26" Dia fuel tank (180.00)$ -$
288AB6 8.27 88 Gallon LH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank (177.00)$ -$
288AB7 8.28 93 Gallon LH aluminum 26" Dia fuel tank (100.00)$ -$
288AB9 8.29 116 Gallon LH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank (86.00)$ -$
288AE3 8.30 50 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape (260.00)$ -$
288AD5 8.31 66 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape (208.00)$ -$
288AD8 8.32 88 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape (125.00)$ -$
268
288AE0 8.33 116 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape (15.00)$ -$
288AF2 8.34 66 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape with Integral DEF Tank STD
288AF3 8.35 72 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape 26" Dia. with Integral DEF Tank 17.00$ -$
288AF5 8.36 88 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape with Integral DEF Tank 1 184.00$ 184.00$
288AF6 8.37 93 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape 26" Dia. with Integral DEF Tank 260.00$ -$
288AF7 8.38 111 Gallon LH Aluminum D-Shape with Integral DEF Tank 450.00$ -$
2880E8 8.39
111 & 66 Gallon Aluminum D-Shape tanks, 66 Gallon isolated for Hyd
oil 839.00$ -$
290AC1 8.40 50 Gallon RH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank 288.00$ -$
290AB3 8.41 66 Gallon RH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank 357.00$ -$
290AB6 8.42 88 Gallon RH aluminum 22" Dia fuel tank 452.00$ -$
290AE1 8.43 50 Gallon RH Aluminum D-Shape 340.00$ -$
290AD4 8.44 72 Gallon RH Aluminmum D-Shape 449.00$ -$
290AD7 8.45 93 Gallon RH Aluminmum D-Shape 553.00$ -$
290AE1 8.46 50 Gallon RH Aluminum D-Shape 331.00$ -$
290AD3 8.47 66 Gallon RH Aluminum D-Shape 410.00$ -$
290AD6 8.48 88 Gallon RH Aluminum D-Shape 520.00$ -$
290AD8 8.49 116 Gallon RH Aluminum D-Shape 1,016.00$ -$
R0AA1X 8.50 Single polished aluminum fuel tank 206.00$ -$
ROAA2X 8.51 Dual polished aluminum fuel tank 412.00$ -$
17XAFX 8.52 Isolate RH fuel tank from fuel system for hyd oil 30.00$ -$
12AC1X 8.53 Dual draw & return fuel system 82.00$ -$
852082 8.54 Filter neck screen for fuel tank 81.00$ -$
KFXB1X 8.55 Lockable fuel tank cap 35.00$ -$
U6BC1X 8.56 Bright finish DEF tank cover 33.00$ -$
DF10O1 8.57 6.6 Gallon 22" Left Side Fuel Tank Mounted Def Tank 1 STD
DF10P1 8.58 8.7 Gallon 26" Left Side Fuel Tank Mounted Def Tank 22.00$ -$
DF10M1 8.59 11.8 Gallon 22" Left Side Frame Mounted Def Tank 48.00$ -$
223AA2 8.60 Bright Finish Aluminum steps & stainless steel bright finish straps 146.00$ -$
223AA3 8.61 Bright Finish Fuel Tank Straps - Single Tank 1 32.00$ 32.00$
HZXBAX 8.62 Flocs oil change system w/disconnecting fittings 133.00$ -$
8.99 1
9.0 ENGINE RELATED OPTIONS:1
MC 9.1 Oil fill and dipstick EZ access 1 STD
N/A 9.2 Delco 35 SI Brushless Alternator, 135 AMP No Bid
N/A 9.3 Delco 24 SI Alternator, 130 AMP No Bid
N/A 9.4 Delco 24 SI Alternator, 145 AMP No Bid
N/A 9.5 Leece-Neville Alternator, 145 AMP No Bid
125045 9.6 Dual element air cleaner STD
1VAADX 9.7
Donaldson Single Stage Air cleaner per spec 12.1 (Inside/Outside Air
Intake)1 329.00$ 329.00$
MC 9.8 Thumb screws for Donaldson. Single stage Air Cleaner 1 STD
2930D3 9.9 Fuel/water separator/heated/ Thermostatically controlled, Davco 522.00$ -$
2930A3 9.10 Davco 387 water separator, non heated 156.00$ -$
293AA2 9.11
Non-heated fuel/water separator, Mack w/manual drain valve (integral
w/primary fuel filter 1 STD
HWXD1X 9.12 Coolant spin on filter/conditioner 1 55.00$ 55.00$
183AA2 9.13 Front engine powered take off adapter and radiator cut out 119.00$ -$
N/A 9.14 Air applied fan drive, Kysor two speed K32 Duro speed fan No Bid
N/A 9.15 Air applied fan drive, ______(Brand)No Bid
118AA5 9.16 Viscous fan drive - Behr Electronically modulated 1 STD
124AB3 9.17 Radiator hose package (Silicone) per Spec 12.2 1 279.00$ 279.00$
130AB6 9.18 Curved exhaust pipe end 1 STD
MC 9.19 Fuel tank per specification 12.7
5NXA1X 9.20 Engine block heater 1 STD
E8XH5X 9.21 In line fuel heater 473.00$ -$
E8XH5X 9.22 In tank fuel heater 407.00$ -$
N/A 9.23 Fuel cooler No Bid
269
121AA5 9.24 Radiator bug screen 1 STD
110AA5 9.25 Engine brake system 1 STD
MC 9.26 Relocate air dryer 272.00$ -$
119AA6 9.27 Extended life anti-freeze 1 55.00$ 55.00$
9.28 Starter motor options
NCX15X 9.29 Delco 39MT-MXT Starter 1 STD
NCXD1X 9.30 Mitsubishi electric 105P planetary gear reduction starter 53.00$ -$
MC 9.31 Relocate fuel filter 297.00$ -$
124AA5 9.32 Silicone radiator & heater hose with gate valve on each heater hose 233.00$ -$
124014 9.33 Mack brand EPDM radiator & heater hoses with 1/4 turn ball valve 0 92.00$ -$
124AB2 9.34 Rubber Hose In & Out Fuel Heater, Silicone on all other lines 221.00$ -$
132AB9 9.35 Delco 160AMP Brush Type Alternator (28SI)1 STD
132AB6 9.36 Delco 165AMP Brushless Alternator (36SI)206.00$ -$
132AB8 9.37 Delco 165AMP Brushless Alternator (36SI) w/Remote Voltage Sensing 235.00$ -$
132AF2 9.38 Delco 240 AMP Brushless Alternator (40SI) w/Remote Voltage Sensing 516.00$ -$
132062 9.39 Delco 320 AMP Brushless Alternator (40SI) w/Remote Voltage Sensing 894.00$ -$
113AA5 9.40 Meritor/Wabco 636 (37.4 CFM) air compressor 1 STD
121AA8 9.41 Winterfront over radiator (-40F and up )113.00$ -$
121AA4 9.42 Extreme Winterfront over radiator (-40F to -60F )214.00$ -$
QHXC1X 9.43 Corrosion resistant oil pan - Recommended for snow plow trucks 1 147.00$ 147.00$
SSOILP 9.44 Stainless steel oil pan 2,435.00$ -$
293AA3 9.45 Davco 387 heated fuel-water separator 437.00$ -$
EFXASX 9.46
120V, 1000W block heater with 150W oil pan heater wired to same
receptacle 137.00$ -$
NDXA1X 9.47 Electric preheater 1 62.00$ 62.00$
36AD1X 9.48
Tether device -furnish cap retainer for oil fill, radiator overflow tank,
battery box & tool box when furnish 27.00$ -$
416AA2 9.49 Rear engine PTO (Repto): Flange SAE 1350/1410/ISO 7647 2,115.00$ -$
416AA2 9.50
Rear engine PTO (Repto): Splined Shaft Groove (Female) DIN 5462 for
isntall of hydraic pump 2,115.00$ -$
TYXC1X 9.51 Air operated PTO control - includes in cab control (RMPTO only)118.00$ -$
TYXE1X 9.52 PTO switch and light with wiring and piping 1 181.00$ 181.00$
TYXG3X 9.53 PTO switch and light with wiring and piping - M-Drive transmission 181.00$ -$
9.999 1
TRANSMISSION OPTIONS:1
N/A 10.1 2 plate 14" ceramic clutch option for manual transmission No Bid
133AD5 10.2 2 plate 15½" ceramic clutch option for manual transmission STD
RBXA1X 10.3 External grease fitting for throw out bearing STD
133AD6 10.4 Adjustment free option for 2 plate clutches 55.00$ -$
7RXAEX 10.5 Synthetic (TranSynd) lubrication for Automatic Transmission 1 351.00$ 351.00$
7RXB1X 10.6 Synthetic lubrication for manual transmission STD
136AX6 10.7 Allison 3000-RDS 5/6 speed push button, PTO 7,386.00$ -$
136055 10.8 Allison 3000-RDS 5/6 speed push button, PTO, w/output retarder 9,783.00$ -$
136B06 10.9 Allison 3000-EVS 6 speed push button, PTO 9,625.00$ -$
136AP6 10.10 Allison 4000-RDS 5 speed push button, PTO 13,751.00$ -$
136AQ6 10.11 Allison 4000-RDS 6 speed push button, PTO 13,751.00$ -$
13605G 10.12 Allison 4000-RDS 6 speed push button, PTO, w/output retarder 19,959.00$ -$
136AU6 10.13 Allison 4000-EVS 6 speed push button, PTO 14,972.00$ -$
136AS6 10.14 Allison 4500-RDS 6 speed push button, PTO 1 14,772.00$ 14,772.00$
13605I 10.15 Allison 4500-RDS-R 6 speed, with retarder, push button, PTO 21,226.00$ -$
136AW6 10.16 Allison 4500-EVS 6 speed push button, PTO 16,251.00$ -$
1360Y6 10.17 Mack TMD12AFD-HD automated 12 speed transmission (direct drive)3,718.00$ -$
270
1360Z6 10.18 Mack TMD12AFD-HD automated 12 speed transmission (over drive)3,718.00$ -$
136146 10.19
Mack TMD13AFD-HD automated 13 speed. Transmission,
creeper/multi-speed reverse (direct drive)7,438.00$ -$
136156 10.20
Mack TMD13AFD-HD automated 13 speed. Transmission,
creeper/multi-speed reverse (over drive)7,438.00$ -$
136176 10.21
Mack TMD13AFD-HD automated 14 speed. Transmission, ultra-low
creeper/multi-speed reverse (over drive)7,839.00$ -$
136AD5 10.22 Fuller FRO-14210C, 10 speed manual transmission, PTO STD
136AD6 10.23 Fuller RTO-14908LL, 10 speed manual transmission, PTO 855.00$ -$
136AD3 10.24 Fuller FRO-16210C, 10 speed manual transmission, PTO 1,298.00$ -$
136AEO 10.25 Fuller RTO-16908LL, 10 speed manual transmission, PTO 1,585.00$ -$
136AF8 10.26 Fuller FRO-18210C, 10 speed manual transmission, PTO 1,614.00$ -$
136AG2 10.27 Fuller RTO-14909ALL, 11 speed manual transmission, PTO 1,390.00$ -$
136AG1 10.28 Fuller RTO-16909ALL, 11 speed manual transmission, PTO 2,102.00$ -$
136AF9 10.29 Fuller RTLO-18913A, 13 speed manual transmission, PTO 2,848.00$ -$
136AG0 10.30 Fuller RTLO-18918B, 18 speed manual transmission, PTO 3,407.00$ -$
1UXC1X 10.31 Air assist clutch 387.00$ -$
1UXD1X 10.32 Mechanical clutch cable 160.00$ -$
2XAA1X 10.33 Open grated clutch pedal 16.00$ -$
139049 10.34 Transmission oil cooler 1 STD
83AA1X 10.35 Driveshaft guard for center bearing 32.00$ -$
492008 10.36 T-Handle shift lever for Allison - Floor mounted 327.00$ -$
MC 10.37 Allison shift to neutral when park brake engaged 1 STD
FSXWQX 10.38 3rd or 4th gear hold for Allison transmission 150.00$ -$
139019 10.39 Stainless steel transmission coolant pipes 1 175.00$ 175.00$
189AA2 10.40 PTO PTR-FL, Single RH (Inner)1,763.00$ -$
189AA3 10.41 PTO PTR-DM, Single RH, DIN 5462 (Inner)1,040.00$ -$
1890C9 10.42 PTRD-D3, Dual RH/LH, DIN 5462 Right & Left 1,764.00$ -$
1890E9 10.43 PTRD-D4, Dual RH/LH, SAE 1400 Flange Right & Left 1,821.00$ -$
8260F6 10.44 GP1-41 Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 505.00$ -$
8260G6 10.45 GP1-60 Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 637.00$ -$
8260H6 10.46 GP1-80 Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 684.00$ -$
826046 10.47 F1-61R Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 740.00$ -$
826036 10.48 F1-81R Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 825.00$ -$
826056 10.49 F1-101R Parker gear pump - requires M-Drive transmission and RMPO 997.00$ -$
10.999 1
11.0 ELECTRICAL OPTIONS:1
N/A 11.1 Resettable circuit breaker electrical protection No Bid
N/A 11.2 Automatic reset circuit breakers No Bid
N/A 11.3 Solid state circuit protection No Bid
N/A 11.4 Circuit box under hood or end of frame, each No Bid
318AA3 11.5 Battery disconnect switch off negative side 1 113.00$ 113.00$
LLXC1X 11.6 Remote jump start terminals 128.00$ -$
N/A 11.7 Back up alarm (Preco Factory Model)No Bid
LSXH1X 11.8 OEM daytime running lights 1 STD
316AA7 11.9 3000 CCA batteries in lieu of 1950CCA 66.00$ -$
316AA6 11.10 3 each 650/1950 CCA batteries in lieu of 2 each batteries 1 STD
393AB0 11.11 Battery box aft of cab 46.00$ -$
N/A 11.12 Grote 44710 flasher No Bid
MC 11.13 Signal Stat 935 turn signal per Spec 12.6 STD
MC 11.14 Auxiliary customer access circuits STD
271
NJXA3X 11.15
Switch for snowplow lights mounted on instrumental panel. Includes
wiring terminated near headlights, for customer mounted auxiliary
snowplow lights.1 80.00$ 80.00$
N/A 11.16
Power source terminal-2 stud type-mounted on firewall or inside cab
with ground to frame rail and to starter, with 6 gauge wire.No Bid
N/A 11.17
10-position switch panel mounted on instrument panel. Includes 10
lighted switches, ignition control; switches will control relays which will
feed stud type junction block mounted inside cab.No Bid
136SPD 11.18
Vehicle speed sensor with speed signal at fuse panel for sander ground
speed control system.1 20.00$ 20.00$
393AC4 11.19 Battery box left hand rail back of fuel tank 216.00$ -$
N/A 11.20 Battery terminal cable with tall battery terminal nuts No Bid
3XAA1X 11.21 Dash mounted indicator body/hoist up body builder lamp 71.00$ -$
O5AGAX 11.22 RH/LH led work light on both side of truck 132.00$ -$
L5XF1X 11.23 Polished aluminum battery box cover 60.00$ -$
L5XL1X 11.24 Molded plastic with splash guard 34.00$ -$
L5XH1X 11.25 Painted steel battery box No Bid
L5XJ1X 11.26 Lockable steel battery box 69.00$ -$
MOXAAX 11.27 Battery shock pad 4.00$ -$
B83083 11.28 Body Link w/cab floor pass thru hole/rubber boot STD
B83093 11.29 Body Link w/o cab floor pass thru hole/rubber boot 1 225.00$ 225.00$
EAXB1X 11.30 2 Extra dash mounted illuminated toggle switches 17.00$ -$
EAXA2X 11.31
One extra dash mounted rocker switch thru battery for local installed
items 10.00$ -$
EAXA1X 11.32
One extra dash mounted rocker switch thru ignition for local installed
items 10.00$ -$
EAXD4X 11.33
Six extra switches 2-15A ignition, 1-20A ignition, 1-10A ignition, 1- 5A
battery, & 1-20A battery 128.00$ -$
EAXAUX 11.34
Eight switches - front strobe, rear strobes, wing light, wing strobe,
sander light, tail gate lock, and vibrator 1 275.00$ 275.00$
5RXA3X 11.35
Back up alarm with intermittent feature (Ambient noise sensitive, 90 &
78 DB)114.00$ -$
5RXA6X 11.36 Ecco back-up alarm 575 constant sound level 1 85.00$ 85.00$
5RXA5X 11.37 Ecco back-up alarm SA917 ambient noise sensitive 114.00$ -$
5RXA7X 11.38 Pollak 41-722 constant audible (mounted on rear crossmember)94.00$ -$
NGXB1X 11.39 Fog lights 107.00$ -$
NGXP1X 11.40
Fog lights provisions - includes dash control & wiring for local
installation of fog lights 14.00$ -$
NEXD1X 11.41 Incandescent tail light STD
JMXC1X 11.42 Brake lighting on with engine brake 94.00$ -$
NEXD2X 11.43 LED type tail lights 1 230.00$ 230.00$
316AA9 11.44 Three Mack 925 CCA AGM Long Life Batteries 263.00$ -$
316AB2 11.45 Four Mack 1000/4000 CCA 188.00$ -$
N7XC1X 11.46
Switch in dash with wiring to cab roof, above LH & RH doors for local
installation of strobe lights 36.00$ -$
N7XB3X 11.47 (2) Roof Mounted Whelan Strobes with switch in dash 1,892.00$ -$
N4AA1X 11.48 LH roof mounted spot light 344.00$ -$
5FBB1X 11.49 Trucklite LED side marker light 1 119.00$ 119.00$
11.999 1
12.0 CAB EXTERIOR OPTIONS:1
LXXD1X 12.1 Dual electric horns STD
154AC3 12.2 Air horns, dual, round, with snow shields 1 109.00$ 109.00$
154AA3 12.3 Dual rectangular air horns 83.00$ -$
15H07H 12.4 Fender mirrors per Spec 12.4 1 153.00$ 153.00$
152AA4 12.5 Heated mirrors per Spec 12.5 -West Coast 1 119.00$ 119.00$
N/A 12.6 Remote control for R.H. mirror & heated No Bid
152AC4 12.7
Remote control for dual mirrors & heated - Bulldog stylized mirrors
illuminated with integral convex mirror 488.00$ -$
N/A 12.8 Upcharge for cab extension or larger cab No Bid
272
N/A 12.9 Severe duty aluminum cab option No Bid
944AGO 12.10 Dupont Highway orange paint or equal 31.00$ -$
924034 12.11 Premium paint color option 233.00$ -$
924014 12.12 Imron paint option 1 STD
996AA3 12.13 Imron and clear coat paint option 1 STD
950045 12.14 Top of hood painted flat black 706.00$ -$
MC 12.15 Cab Air Ride Suspension 1 STD
MC 12.16 Tilting hood per Spec 12.8 1 STD
26XA1X 12.17 Butterfly option on hood 413.00$ -$
N/A 12.18 Transverse hood opening w/setback axle No Bid
N/A 12.19 Front fender mounted turn signals No Bid
157027 12.20 Cab visor, external, painted to match cab color 1 212.00$ 212.00$
2KXA1X 12.21 Front fender extensions 105.00$ -$
2HXA1X 12.22 Front fender mud flaps 1 STD
148AA5 12.23 Arctic winter wiper blades 1 22.00$ 22.00$
JQXABX 12.24 Optional windshield washer tank 1 31.00$ 31.00$
MC 12.25 Per truck charge for all trucks, key identical 43.00$ -$
Q4XACX 12.26 RH observation prism window in door 1 32.00$ 32.00$
N4AA1X 12.27 Spotlight LH, RH, or roof mounted each 71.00$ -$
243043 12.28 Front tow hooks 1 STD
6PXZ1X 12.29 Rear tow hooks 25.00$ -$
MC 12.30 Per truck charge for all trucks, key identical - 4 keys 39.00$ -$
152AA7 12.31 Remote control for dual mirrors & heated - Aerodynamic 191.00$ -$
152AB6 12.32 Remote control for dual mirrors & heated - Aerodynamic body color 151.00$ -$
152AC0 12.33 Aerodynamic Moto-Mirror Package: LH/RH Motorized & Heated 581.00$ -$
148AA5 12.34 Heated electric wiper blades 157.00$ -$
145AA5 12.35 Heated windshield 1 425.00$ 425.00$
WSXAAX 12.36 One piece windshield 1 97.00$ 97.00$
OEAA1X 12.37 Bright finish hood intake 1 STD
400AA6 12.38 Bright finish bars with surround grille 1 86.00$ 86.00$
512AA6 12.39 Bullet type chrome marker & clearance lights 75.00$ -$
312AB5 12.40 Led type marker & clearance lights 1 75.00$ 75.00$
7HX10X 12.41 RH tool box mounted on frame rail 256.00$ -$
153AA3 12.42 Heated convex mirrors 1 39.00$ 39.00$
12AB1X 12.43 Electronic keyless entry 151.00$ -$
15H02H 12.44 Bright finish RH fender mirror 77.00$ -$
15H0GH 12.45 Bus style 1/4 round black finish fender mirrors 222.00$ -$
157037 12.46 Stainless steel exterior sun visor 288.00$ -$
4UAB1X 12.47 Bright Finish hood latches 89.00$ -$
15H0NH 12.48 10" round bright finish heated fender mirrors 272.00$ -$
43X40X 12.49 Rect convex mirror above RH driver door window 27.00$ -$
1
13.0 CAB INTERIOR OPTIONS:1
13.1 Medium grade interior trim package
004014 13.2 Comfort Trim Package, Steel Gray 292.00$ -$
004024 13.3 Comfort Trim Package, Sierra Tan 292.00$ -$
13.4 Premium grade interior trim package
004034 13.5 Preferred Trim Package, Steel Gray 1 762.00$ 762.00$
004044 13.6 Preferred Trim Package, Sierra Tan 762.00$ -$
N6XR2X 13.7 Round universal gauge package 1 STD
146AA4 13.8 Power window, passenger side 1 STD
146AA3 13.9 Power window/both passenger and driver window 1 STD
1740C4 13.10 O.E.M factory installed, AM/FM stereo, Weather Band, (28.00)$ -$
17400N 13.11
O.E.M factory installed, AM/FM Premium stereo, Weather Band,
Handsfree interface, Bluetooth 1 STD
174054 13.12
O.E.M factory installed, AM/FM Premium stereo, Weather Band,
Handsfree interface, Bluetooth, Sirius/Xm Satellite 181.00$ -$
174AA2 13.13
Radio accommodation package includes antenna, power supply and
two speakers (No radio)(127.00)$ -$
273
174094 13.14
Infotainment + Premium Stereo, Weather Band, Handsfree interface,
Bluetooth, Sirius/XM Satellite 1,036.00$ -$
MAS03S 13.15 Navigation, requires Infotainment 770.00$ -$
MAS04S 13.16 Prep-Kit for Backup Camera, requires Infotainment 146.00$ -$
MAS05S 13.17 Navigation & Prep-Kit for Backup Camera, requires Infotainment 919.00$ -$
173AA4 13.18 O.E.M factory installed, air conditioning 1 STD
MC 13.19 Cab mounted non-resettable hour meter 1 STD
PVXZ1X 13.20
Dash mounted air cleaner air restriction gauge - (Display in Co-Pilot
only)1 STD
N6XR2X 13.21 Transmission temp gauges 1 STD
3CAA1X 13.22 Windshield defroster fan w/switch dash mounted 101.00$ -$
IFXC1X 13.23 Between seats mounted console 359.00$ -$
MC 13.24 Transmission oil sensor (check & fill)1 STD
N/A 13.25 CB hot jacks dash mounted No Bid
N/A 13.26 Tilt & telescope steering wheel No Bid
XRXB1X 13.27 Tilt steering wheel 1 STD
NPXB1X 13.28 Self canceling turn signals 1 STD
196AAA 13.29 Mack - Air Drivers Seat, High Back, 1 Chamber Air Lumbar 1 STD
196196 13.30 Sears - Air Drivers Seat, Atlas 80, High Back, 4 Chamber Air Lumbar 1 496.00$ 496.00$
1961A6 13.31
Sears - Air Drivers Seat, Atlas 80, High Back, 4 Chamber Air Lumbar
w/Heat 486.00$ -$
196ABQ 13.32
Mack - Air Drivers Seat, high back, 4 Chaber Air Lumbar, Bolster,
Extension 436.00$ -$
196ACK 13.33
Mack - Air Drivers Seat, High Back w/Adjustable Air Shocks, 4 Chamber
Air Lumbar, Bolster, Extension w/Heat 509.00$ -$
1961B6 13.34
National-Air Drivers Seat, Wide Width/High Back, 3 Chamber Air
Lumbar 346.00$ -$
1961D6 13.35
National-Air Drivers Seat, Wide Width/High Back, 3 Chamber Air
Lumbar w/Heat 441.00$ -$
MAPA1X 13.36 Drivers Seat Covering, Black Mordura 250.00$ -$
MAP03P 13.37 Drivers Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Mordura 257.00$ -$
MAP04P 13.38 Drivers Seat Covering, Black Vinyl 171.00$ -$
MAP03P 13.39 Drivers Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Vinyl 0 45.00$ -$
MAPB1X 13.40 Drivers Seat Covering, Vinyl STD
MAPC1X 13.41 Drivers Seat Covering, Vinyl/Cloth Mix 194.00$ -$
MAPD1X 13.42 Drivers Seat Covering, Ultra Leather 635.00$ -$
MPA06P 13.43 Drivers Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Vinyl/Cloth Mix 1 211.00$ 211.00$
MAP07P 13.44 Drivers Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Ultra Leather 649.00$ -$
1970C7 13.45 Omit Riders Seat (70.00)$ -$
197AA1 13.46 Mack - Fixed Rider Seat, High Back 1 STD
197AA2 13.47 Mack - Fixed Rider Seat, High Back w/Storage Box 71.00$ -$
1971C7 13.48 Mack - Fixed Rider Wide Bench Seat, Mid Back w/Storage Box 381.00$ -$
1971J7 13.49 Mack - Fixed Rider Bench Seat, Mid Back w/Storage Box 231.00$ -$
197AAA 13.50 Mack - Air Riders Seat, High Back, 1 Chamber Air Lumbar 107.00$ -$
1971D7 13.51 Sears - Air Riders Seat, Atlas 80, High Back, 4 Chamber Air Lumbar 463.00$ -$
1971E7 13.52
Sears-Air Riders Seat, Atlas 80, High Back, 4 Chamber Air Lumbar
w/Heat 483.00$ -$
197ABQ 13.53
Mack - Air Riders Seat, high back, 4 Chaber Air Lumbar, Bolster,
Extension 624.00$ -$
197ACk 13.54
Mack - Air Riders Seat, High Back w/Adjustable Air Shocks, 4 Chamber
Air Lumbar, Bolster, Extension w/Heat 675.00$ -$
1971F7 13.55
National-Air Riders Seat, Wide Width/High Back, 3 Chamber Air
Lumbar 348.00$ -$
1971H7 13.56
National-Air Riders Seat, Wide Width/High Back, 3 Chamber Air
Lumbar w/Heat 437.00$ -$
MAQA1X 13.57 Riders Seat Covering, Black Mordura 250.00$ -$
MAQ04Q 13.58 Riders Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Mordura 257.00$ -$
MAQ05Q 13.59 Riders Seat Covering, Black Vinyl 171.00$ -$
274
MAQB1X 13.60 Riders Seat Covering, Vinyl STD
MAQC1X 13.61 Riders Seat Covering, Vinyl/Cloth Mix 194.00$ -$
MAQD1X 13.62 Riders Seat Covering, Ultra Leather 635.00$ -$
MAQ07Q 13.63 Riders Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Vinyl/Cloth Mix 211.00$ -$
MAQ07Q 13.64 Riders Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Vinyl/Cloth Mix 1 211.00$ 211.00$
MAQ08Q 13.65 Riders Seat Covering, Blended Black & Gray Ultra Leather 649.00$ -$
3PXA1X 13.66 Inboard mounted driver arm rest 21.00$ -$
3PXC1X 13.67 Inboard mounted driver & rider arm rest 1 40.00$ 40.00$
3PXZ1X 13.68 Without Drivers or Riders Armrest STD
0HAB1X 13.69 Driver seat dust cover 1 9.00$ 9.00$
0HAA1X 13.70 Passenger seat dust cover - Not Available with fix passenger seat 11.00$ -$
5920E2 13.71 Drive & Rider Seatbetl with Height Adjustable D-Ring, Orange in Color 88.00$ -$
5920I2 13.72 Orange driver & rider seat belt 76.00$ -$
2QAB1X 13.73 Push button type starter 14.00$ -$
C0J0022 13.74
Co-pilot driver display (enhanced 4.5" diagonal graphic LCD display w/4-
button stalk control - includes guard dog routine maintenance
monitoring 1 STD
PFXB1X 13.75
Roadwatch ambient air temp gauge for outside and road temps -
requires aero-dynamic mirrors 755.00$ -$
786046 13.76
5lb fire extinguisher between driver seat base and door with valve
aimed rearward 1 63.00$ 63.00$
784034 13.77 Reflector kit parallel to inside of rider base seat 1 27.00$ 27.00$
784044 13.78 Reflector kit mounted parallel & centered agaisnt BOC 32.00$ -$
173AA6 13.79 Blend air HVAC with ATC temp regulation & APADS 169.00$ -$
I6AA1X 13.80 Cab cleanout - includes in cab pneumatic line 53.00$ -$
3JAA1X 13.81 Cobra 29LTD Classc CB radio 343.00$ -$
3JAA3X 13.82 Cobra 19DX-IV Compact Cb Radio w/Dynamic Mic 153.00$ -$
73AC1X 13.83 48" Radio antenna right side mirror mounted 4.00$ -$
5BXB5X 13.84 48"CB Antenna left side mirror mounted 38.00$ -$
1WAC1X 13.85 CB Binding Posts in Overhead Console 17.00$ -$
5JXAKX 13.86 CB Mounting in Overhead Console 48.00$ -$
0LAA1X 13.87 Auto shutoff for radio when truck is in reverse 55.00$ -$
CCXZ1X 13.88 Without Secondary Gauge Pckage STD
CCXG1X 13.89
Exhaust pyrometer, transmission oil temperature, boost pressure and
brake application gauges 1 75.00$ 75.00$
CCXF1X 13.90
Exhaust pyrometer, transmission oil temperature, engine oil
temperature and brake application gauges 100.00$ -$
CCXD1X 13.91
Exhaust pyrometer, transmission oil temperature, boost pressure and
engine oil temperature gauges 75.00$ -$
CCXE1X 13.92
Exhaust pyrometer, transmission oil temperature, engine oil
temperature and air cleaner restriction gauges 100.00$ -$
E1AAAX 13.93 Rear Axle temperature gauge 91.00$ -$
I0XAJX 13.94 Red floor lighting w/switch plus (4) door lamps w/switches 1 103.00$ 103.00$
IFXC1X 13.95
Interior storage console mounted on floor between seats w/12 volt
power outlet 359.00$ -$
IFXD1X 13.96 Bodybuilder interior console mounted to floor between seats 243.00$ -$
13.999 1
14.0 MN/DOT OPTIONS:1
14.1 Additional warranty coverage per spec 12.9
M510Z1 14.2 Engine Plan 2 60 months 250,000 miles 2,910.00$ -$
M51131 14.3 Engine Plan 2 72 months 250,000 miles 4,690.00$ -$
M51141 14.4 Engine Plan 2 84 months 250,000 miles 6,270.00$ -$
M511B1 14.5 Engine Plan 2 60 months 250,000 miles - HP over 460 horses 4,308.00$ -$
M511F1 14.6 Engine Plan 2 72 months 250,000 miles - HP over 460 horses 6,961.00$ -$
511G1 14.7 Engine Plan 2 84 months 250,000 miles - HP over 460 horses 9,414.00$ -$
M53083 14.80 Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 60 months 250,000 miles 942.00$ -$
M530Y3 14.90 Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 72 months 250,000 miles 1,708.00$ -$
M531O3 14.10 Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 84 months 250,000 miles 2,274.00$ -$
M53083 14.11
Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 60 months 250,000 miles - HP
over 460 horses 1,566.00$ -$
275
M530Y3 14.12
Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 72 months 250,000 miles - HP
over 460 horses 2,087.00$ -$
M531O3 14.13
Engine after-treatment systems (EATS) 84 months 250,000 miles - HP
over 460 horses 2,408.00$ -$
M54174 14.14 M-Drive HD Transmission 48 months 500,000 miles 2,166.00$ -$
M54184 14.15 M-Drive HD Transmission 60 months 500,000 miles 3,216.00$ -$
N/A 14.15 Allison 60 month unlimited mileage Extended Warranty 1,312.00$ -$
M560A6 14.16 HVAC (Air Conditioning) 60 months 840.00$ -$
M59089 14.17 Starter 60 months 300,000 miles 282.00$ -$
M60080 14.18 Alternator 60 months 300,000 miles 324.00$ -$
M61071 14.19 Starter & Alternator 60 months 300,000 miles 438.00$ -$
14.20 Prebuild specification meeting (per person) to be held in St.
Paul/Minneapolis area. 1.00$ -$
14.21 Pilot inspection meeting (per person). 2,250.00$ -$
14.9 1
15.0 TRAILER TOW OPTIONS:1
WHXQ2X 15.1 Trailer tow package extended to rear of frame 1 417.00$ 417.00$
WHXG6X 15.2 Trailer package extend to rear of frame per Spec 12.12 534.00$ -$
321031 15.3 Single 7 pin SAE type, end of frame 1 117.00$ 117.00$
3210M1 15.4
Dual 7 pins standard SAE type, end of frame (1) for trailer with electric
brakes, (1) for trailer with air brakes 213.00$ -$
WGXA1X 15.5 Hand control valve for trailer brakes 1 48.00$ 48.00$
15.9 1
16.0 MANUALS / TRADE-IN INTEREST FEE:1
16.1
Percent interest per month (non-compounding) on unpaid cab & chassis
balance. Applies only to CPV Members. (Payable after trade-in is
delivered to vendor). Percentage/per month.
16.3 Manuals in print form, parts repair and service, per set No Bid
16.4 Premium Tech Tool 4,000.00$ -$
16.9 1
17.0 Delivery Charges:1
Price per loaded mile Starting Point 1
17.1 Roseville, MN 55113 2.50$ -$
17.9 1
18.0 Maintenance/ Body Shop Labor rates 1
18.1 Rate for Initial Inspection/Diagnostoce 195.00$ -$
18.2 Rate for Mechanical Work 195.00$ -$
18.3 Rate for Body Work 195.00$ -$
18.9 1
19.0 Quantity Discounts:1
1
20 Next Model Year Upcharges 1
Enter the following Production Model Year here >>>>>>>>>2026
20.1 Percentage Upcharge for the following Model Year Base Unit 1 2.00% 2,379.80$
20.2 Percentage Upcharge for the following Model Year Options 1 2.00% 747.42$
20.0
Total Cost:159,488.22$
276
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item
Resolution 2024-XX: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Advertisement for Bids for the 2024 City Pavement Rehabilitation Project No.
24-01
File No.ENG Project No. 24-01
CIP No. ST-012 Item No: D.13
Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA
Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Reviewed By Charlie Howley
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution approving the plans and specifications and
authorizing publication of an advertisement for bids for the 2024 City Pavement Rehabilitation
Project No. 24-01."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Asset Management
SUMMARY
Approve the construction documents and authorize an advertisement to bid the project.
BACKGROUND
As part of the overall Pavement Management Program (PMP), the city annually plans to rehabilitate a
section or sections of public streets across the city. The Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
identifies the near-term streets to be rehabilitated.
Key dates and items relative to the project:
277
On September 29, 2023, the Engineering Department released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
design and construction services for the 24-01 project.
On October 19, 2023, the Engineering Department released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
geotechnical services for the 24-01 project.
On October 30, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with
Kimley-Horn, Inc. for design and construction services for the project.
On November 13, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with
Braun Intertec for geotechnical exploration and engineering services in association with the 24-01
design contract.
On December 11, 2023, the City Council called for a Public Hearing regarding the improvements
to be held on January 8, 2024.
On January 4, 2024, the Engineering Department hosted an Open House meeting with the
impacted properties to discuss the project and respond to questions.
On January 8, 2024, the City Council accepted the feasibility study, conducted a public
improvement hearing, and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications.
Project information is available on the city's website at:
https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/government/projects/street-projects/2024-city-pavement-rehabilitation-
project. There are currently 3,233 email addresses subscribed to receive project updates. To subscribe,
residents and property owners should visit: https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe .
DISCUSSION
Staff utilized the City's Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine the project
limits as shown in the attached 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) map representing the years 2024
through 2028. Laredo Drive, Del Rio Drive, Santa Fe Drive, and Santa Fe Circle were added to the CIP
to be rehabilitated via mill and overlay due to the proximity to the Chan View neighborhood, which had
been previously identified to be reconstructed. The Chan View neighborhood (reconstruction area) and
the Stone Creek area have not received major rehabilitation since the original street construction. Only
minor maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, and sealcoating have been
performed in these areas.
The Chan View area is designed to be rehabilitated via a full reconstruction of the identified streets, and
the Stone Creek area is designed to be a full-depth reclamation. The section of Stone Creek Drive,
including two short cul-de-sacs (Creekview Court and Bluff View Court) identified with this project,
will complete the general Stone Creek area. The remainder of the public streets in this neighborhood
area were rehabilitated via full-depth reclamation in 2022. It should be noted that Andrew Court is a
private street, and as such, it is not maintained by the city. Del Rio and Santa Fe were reconstructed in
2004. Laredo was reconstructed in 2008.
Kimley-Horn was provided the city's asset management data for the neighborhood areas in the project
scope to incorporate with the subsequent design. Based on the existing maintenance and rating history,
on-site street observations, and the feasibility analysis, the neighborhood areas are expected to be
rehabilitated via the techniques previously detailed. Additional engineering efforts will verify these
278
selections. Each public city-owned street segment within Chanhassen is rated every third year by a
pavement management consultant. These ratings are based on a 0-100 scale known as the Overall
Condition Index (OCI). The ratings are stored in the city’s asset management software and utilized by
the Public Works Department to help select the proposed areas to be rehabilitated. In addition, the
ratings are used by the consultants to assist with providing recommendations regarding the
rehabilitation of the streets. A geotechnical assessment, including pavement evaluation, is being
conducted to aid in the analysis of proper roadway pavement rehabilitation designs for the project.
As with any street project, which includes rehabilitation using a full-depth reclamation or mill and
overlay technique, there will be spot repair of curb and gutter in addition to sidewalk and trail
maintenance which currently exist within the project areas. Sidewalk scoping will include diamond
grinding misaligned joints that have heaved primarily due to freeze-thaw and replacement of
significantly damaged sidewalk panels. Existing pedestrian ramps impacted by the project will be
brought into ADA compliance in accordance with the city's ADA transition plan. Pedestrian crosswalk
areas will also be checked for conformance with the City's Crosswalk Policy.
City Public Works staff performed a condition assessment on the existing utilities within the project
areas. The sanitary and storm sewer pipe networks were televised, and the structures were evaluated to
assess the need for improvements. All identified needs will be prioritized and incorporated into the
project as the budget allows. Major replacement of water main and sanitary sewer mains is not
necessary in the rehabilitation areas. The gate valves on the water main within the Stone Creek area are
planned to be rehabilitated by changing out the bolting on the existing valves. The age of the original
installation in the Stone Creek area indicates the bolting is likely to be mild steel. The bolts will be
replaced with stainless steel to protect them long-term from the corrosive soils found in Chanhassen.
This task won't be necessary in the Laredo and Del Rio areas due to the year when these streets were
last reconstructed. Minor repairs primarily related to reducing infiltration and inflow are recommended
for the sanitary sewer system in the rehabilitation areas. Within the Chan View reconstruction area, all
of the utilities will be reviewed for full replacement, as this would be the best and most opportune time
to perform major excavations.
Based on feedback received at the last open house and public hearing, the project is not planning to
incorporate the planned mill and overlay of Laredo Drive into the final project. This section of road,
however, does remain in the plan set (as an alternate) to obtain a data point for estimating the cost. The
Del Rio and Santa Fe areas are still in the project as a separate neighborhood area from an assessment
calculation perspective.
The project solicited feedback regarding a potential sidewalk connection along Chan View between
Laredo Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The feedback received was not in favor of the proposed
sidewalk on the south side of the street but there was a consistent thought for crosswalks to be added on
each end crossing Laredo Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The design moved the sidewalk to the
north side of Chan View between Laredo Dr and Iroquois to avoid placing the sidewalk in front of the
residential properties on the south side of the street in accordance with the feedback received. The
sidewalk is designed to remain on the south side of Chan View between Iroquois and Great Plains due
to right-of-way width and removal constraints on the north side of Chan View through this section. This
sidewalk is also being bid as an alternate to allow for it to be easily removed from the project based on
feedback received at the next open house.
The Engineering department continues to work with individual property owners on the development of
two innovations to be incorporated into this project:
279
The first is a rain garden program, in which residents can elect to have a rain garden installed on
the edge of their property adjacent to the street. A rain garden is a stormwater management Best
Management Practice (BMP) that collects, detains, and treats surface water runoff. Essentially,
it's a shallow depression that has appropriate plants and mulch and acts like any other landscaped
area residents commonly have on their property. These rain gardens help achieve the stormwater
management permitting regulations the project must adhere to. Rain gardens themselves are not
innovative, but the program associated with a neighborhood reconstruction project is not widely
utilized. The City of Maplewood had great success with its rain garden program for over 10
years.
The second is a new private property inflow and infiltration (I/I) grant program that the city
received funding for from the Met Council which was a result of last year's State Legislation
allowing grants for private infrastructure and not just public infrastructure. These grants are used
to investigate sanitary sewer service lines to look for sources of I/I, and if found, provide cost
assistance to make the repairs. Private property I/I is a major concern for the city and this new
program is kind of a test run to see how well it works. Due to its age, the Chan View
neighborhood is a prime target to address private property I/I. The City Attorney's office is
currently working on creating the grant sub-agreement template.
Schedule
Task Date
Bid Opening March 21, 2024
Call for Public (Assessment) Hearing April 8, 2024
Public Open House/Neighborhood Meeting #2 April 10, 2024
Conduct Public (Assessment) Hearing, Accept Bids, Adopt
Assessment Roll, and Award Construction Contract April 22, 2024
Begin Construction May 2024
Substantial Completion Early November 2024
Final Completion June 2025
BUDGET
This project is included in the 5-year CIP and the budget for 2024. Funding for the project is proposed
to come from the Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund, which includes special assessments to
benefiting properties as part of the revenue source. The special assessments will be managed per the
City’s Assessment Policy. The Utility Enterprise funds will be utilized to cover the rehabilitation needs
specific to each utility.
The overall project budget approved with the 2023-27 Capital Improvement Plan was $8,827,000. This
was shown in the prior staff report regarding this project. The updated CIP budgetary sheet for 2024 has
been attached with a total budgetary amount of $8,140,000. This revised budget amount was approved
by the City Council on December 11, 2023.
280
The feasibility study prepared by Kimley-Horn estimates the cost of the proposed improvements. The
table below indicates the estimated cost in comparison to the revised project budget.
Fund Project Budget Estimate
PMP (Street)$4,835,000 $3,448,800
Surface Water (Storm Sewer)$1,780,000 $1,339,600
Sanitary Sewer $670,000 $945,100
Watermain $855,000 $1,581,100
Total $8,140,000 $7,314,600
The estimated costs (including 10% contingency and soft costs) associated with the neighborhood areas
are shown in the table below:
Fund Chan View
Area
Del Rio/Santa Fe
Area
Stone Creek
Area Total
PMP (Street)$2,464,000 $210,500 $774,300 $3,448,800
Surface Water
(Storm Sewer)$1,152,200 $87,000 $100,400 $1,339,600
Sanitary Sewer $737,400 $178,900 $28,800 $945,100
Watermain $1,429,100 $66,000 $86,000 $1,581,100
Total $5,782,700 $542,400 $989,500 $7,314,600
Bid Alternate #1
(Sidewalk along Great
Plains)
$66,300 $66,300
Bid Alternate #2
(Sidewalk along Chan
View)
$191,400 $191,400
Bid Alternate #3
(Pond Clean-out in Stone
Creek Area) $64,500 $64,500
Bid Alternate #4
(Laredo M&O) - Not
Planned to be included in
the project
$387,300 $387,300
Grand Total $6,040,400 $929,700 $1,054,000 $8,024,100
While the overall project is estimated to be under budget, the Sanitary Sewer and the Watermain work
is expected to be over budget. These estimated costs currently include a 10% contingency across all of
the bid items included with the project. The amounts also include the actual soft (non-construction)
281
costs for the engineering (design and construction), geotechnical, and permitting. Scope reduction is still
under consideration by staff and may be incorporated as an addendum to the bidding documents.
Revisions to the preliminary assessment amounts will be calculated after the project has been bid and
incorporated into the next staff report associated with Calling the Assessment Hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends city council adopt a resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing
the advertisement to bid for City Project Number 24-01.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
24-01 CIP Sheet
Streets 5-Year CIP Map -- 2024-2028
City Assessment Policy and FAQ
282
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 26, 2024 RESOLUTION NO:2024-XX
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
2024 CITY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 24-01
WHEREAS,on January8, 2024, the City Council held a Public Hearing for the 2024 City
Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 24-01; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Resolution passed by the City Council on October 30, 2023;
Kimley-Horn in conjunction with the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the
2024 City Pavement Rehabilitation Project and has presented such plans and specifications to the
City Council for approval. The project area includes the following streets: the improvement of
Stone Creek Drive from Coulter Boulevard to Boulder Road, Creek View Court, and Bluff View
Court in the Stone Creek neighborhood area; Laredo Drive from Del Rio Drive to West 78th
Street, Del Rio Drive from Laredo Drive to Santa Fe Trail, and Santa Fe Trail from Del Rio
Drive to Great Plains Boulevard, including Santa Fe Circle in the Del Rio/Sante Fe
neighborhood area; Great Plains Boulevard from Santa Fe Trail to West 78th Street, West 77th
Street from Great Plains Boulevard to Frontier Trail, West 76th Street, Kiowa Avenue, Iroquois
Avenue, Huron Avenue, and Chan View from Laredo Drive to Great Plains Boulevard in the
Chan View neighborhood area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bythe Chanhassen City Council:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which can be reviewed at the office of theCity
Engineer, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official city newspaper and on
QuestCDN.com, an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such
approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published at least two times,
shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that bids will be received online until 1 p.m. on
March 21, 2024, at which time they will be publicly opened and read via conference call by the
City Engineer. Bids will be tabulated, and the responsibility of the bidders will be considered by
the Council at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 22, 2024, for the 2024 City Pavement Rehabilitation
Project No. 24-01, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is
questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council
on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless appropriately submitted online
and accompanied by a bid security payable to the clerk for 5% of the amount of such bid.
283
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 26th day of February
2024.
ATTEST:
Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
284
Streets - 2024 Street Improvements
Overview
Request Owner Charlie Howley, PW Director/City Engineer
Department Annual Pvmnt Mgmt Contracted
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number ST-012-2024
Description
The 5-year Capital Pavement Management Plan identi es the planned streets for the next ve years. The Plan is updated every fall to
review priorities and needs, but generally intends to keep the overall condition index (OCI) average across all streets at 70 or higher.
The City uses a Pavement Management System in Cartegraph to monitor the condition of City streets. While proper preventative
maintenance extends the life of the street and is cost effective, a street will eventually deteriorate to a point that major maintenance is
required. Rehabilitation projects exited the life of the street. In cases when utilities or poor subgrade needs to be replaced or where
streets have deteriorated to a point where rehabilitation will no longer be practical, reconstruction of the street is necessary. A feasibility
study is written to consider the merits of the project, scope of work, costs, and assessments.
The City has an Assessment Policy that identi es what and how much of the project is assessed to bene ting properties.
The 2024 project is a full reconstruction project.
Details
Type of Project Reconstruction
285
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024 Total
Engineering $800,000 $800,000
Construction/Maintenance $7,340,000 $7,340,000
Total $8,140,000 $8,140,000
Capital Cost
FY2024 Budget
$8,140,000
Total Budget (all years)
$8.14M
Project Total
$8.14M
Capital Cost by Year
Construction/Maintenance Engineering
2024 $8,140,000.00
$0 $2M $4M $6M $8M
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $8,140,000.00
Construction/Maintenance (90%)$7,340,000.0
Engineering (10%)$800,000.00
286
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024 Total
Streets - PMP Funds $2,900,000 $2,900,000
Streets - PMP Assessments $1,935,000 $1,935,000
Utility Fund - Water $855,000 $855,000
Utility Fund - Sewer $670,000 $670,000
Utility Fund - SW Mgmt $1,780,000 $1,780,000
Total $8,140,000 $8,140,000
Funding Sources
FY2024 Budget
$8,140,000
Total Budget (all years)
$8.14M
Project Total
$8.14M
Funding Sources by Year
Streets - PMP Assessments Streets - PMP Funds
Utility Fund - Sewer Utility Fund - SW Mgmt
Utility Fund - Water
2024 $8,140,000.00
$0 $2M $4M $6M $8M
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years
TOTAL $8,140,000.00
Streets - PMP Assessments (24%)$1,935,000.00
Streets - PMP Funds (36%)$2,900,000.00
Utility Fund - Sewer (8%)$670,000.00
Utility Fund - SW Mgmt (22%)$1,780,000.00
Utility Fund - Water (11%)$855,000.00
287
288
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ASSESSMENT POLICY
Last updated January 2022
The City of Chanhassen’s Assessment Policy is intended to provide general direction to City Staff and their
consultants in preparation of assessment rolls to ensure fair and consistent treatment of all properties within the
City that are subject to an assessment. This document will also be used to educate and explain to property owners
about the Policy. All assessments shall follow the process outlined in Minnesota State Statues, Chapter 429, which
gives the City the legal authority to assess property.
This Policy may not apply in all circumstances, at which time the City Council may direct staff to determine an
alternate assessment methodology. All benefiting properties that currently have access, or may have future access,
to the public street being reconstructed or rehabilitated shall be included in the assessment roll. This includes
property with a shared driveway or private street access to the public street, except where said private street meets
applicable criteria to allow for a reduced or no assessment. Applicable criteria includes whether the private street
has standard street width, section, and turn-around.
There are various ways to calculate assessments, typically done based on the number of parcels, an area, or linear
foot calculation. The City shall use the calculation method that creates a reasonable distribution of assessments
across the entire roll. When more than one “neighborhood” is contained within the same project, the assessment
shall be calculated per each neighborhood, rather than the total project. Public property, private associations, and
non-profits will be included in the calculations. Commercial, Medium, and High Density Residential property shall be
assessed based on a reasonable determination of vehicular traffic generated.
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 100% assessed to all benefitting properties. New construction is typically paid for by the
development itself and therefore not formally assessed. In some instances, the City will undertake proactive
installation of public utilities to unserved areas and then assess the benefiting properties for the added service.
In other instances properties may petition the City directly for the installation of the public improvement.
Assessable Costs Include:
• Construction of a new public street, trail and/or sidewalk.
• Installation of public water main, storm sewer and/or sanitary sewer system, including appurtenances
(structures, valves, hydrants, lift stations, etc.), where it did not previously exist.
• Indirect costs (design, legal, and administration fees).
Notes:
• Oversizing of streets and utilities beyond what is needed for the development itself, are paid for by the City
and are typically not assessed.
RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION: 40% assessed to all benefitting properties
Assessable Costs Include:
• Pavement associated with public streets, trails and/or sidewalks. This includes draintile, geotechnical (soil
corrections, etc.), and other improvements needed to support the function of the pavement structure.
• Curb and gutter, including curb impacted solely by utility improvements.
• Driveway pavement directly affected by the project work.
• Multi-Modal improvements such as ADA ramps and actuated pedestrian crossings such as Rectangular Rapid-
Flashing Beacons (RRFB’s).
289
Page 2 of 2
• Signing and stripping.
• Retaining walls required within the Right-of-Way.
• Tree removal and/or landscaping improvements directly affected by the project work.
• Applicable percentage of indirect costs (design, legal, and admin fees).
Notes:
• Rehabilitation is typically defined as mill and overlay and/or full depth reclamation activities.
• If a residential property benefits from a collector street, the assessment amount shall be based on an
equitable formula compared to a typical local roadway, including normalizing to a 31-foot wide street, street
section, and other applicable factors.
• Pavement projects on streets that provide direct access to Chanhassen property(s) that are being
implemented by an adjacent municipality shall not be assessed to the Chanhassen property(s) unless the
adjacent municipality is assessing the benefitting property in their jurisdiction as part of the project.
• Replacement or repair of existing public water main, storm sewer and/or sanitary sewer shall not be assessed.
The City will pay 100% of these improvement costs out of the associated enterprise fund.
REGULAR MAINTENANCE: Benefiting properties are not assessed
• Activities Include: Pavement patching, pothole filling, crack sealing, chip sealing, sealcoating, and re-stripping.
ASSESSMENT PAYMENT OPTIONS
• Assessments can be paid in full up front with no charge, or added to annual property taxes with interest.
• If elected to be added to annual property taxes, the balance can be paid off at any time during the term if later
requested by the property owner.
• Interest will be charged to property owners who choose to not pay their assessments in full by November 15th
in the year the special assessment is levied. The interest rate will be equal to the average interest cost of the
City’s most recent bond issue plus 2%. If the City has not issued bonds in the past year, the City will use the
current municipal bond index rate for AAA rated issuers at the time the special assessment is approved.
• Unless approved otherwise by the City Council, the maximum financing term for assessments shall be as
follows:
o $0-$500 1 year
o $501-$2,500 5 years
o $2,501-$5,000 8 years
o $5,001 and above 10 years
The City has developed a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document addressing the most common questions
concerning assessments. The FAQ document can be found on the City’s website.
290
G:\ENG\Assessments\Assessment FAQ 2022 Update - Clean.docx Page 1 of 2
What are assessments?
Assessments are charges to benefiting properties utilized to help finance an improvement
project. In Chanhassen and most metro area cities, assessments are used to help finance street
reconstruction and rehabilitation projects. These projects are programmed via the Pavement
Management Program (PMP). Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 429, allows the City the
authority to assess for projects.
Who is assessed for a street improvement project?
Owners of property that directly access a public street, or that have a private driveway that has
access to a public street, or that have potential future access within the project area are
assessed. These properties are determined to be “benefitting properties” and are assessed a
cost based on the City’s Assessment Policy.
Does the City have an Assessment Policy?
Yes. It can be found on the City’s website at this location:
https://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/432/Assessment-Policy
The City started assessing for street improvements in 1993. The Policy was last updated in
January 2022. For the construction of a new public streets or public utilities, 100% of the cost is
assessed to the benefitting properties. For an improvement project of an existing street, 40%
of the cost is assessed to the benefitting properties and the City pays 60% of the street
improvement cost. 100% of the public storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main costs
associated with the project are paid by the associated utility enterprise funds and are not
included in the cost assessed to the benefitting properties.
Why does the City assess for street improvement projects? Why doesn’t the City pay 100% of
the project cost?
Public streets are part of the City’s Multi-Modal transportation system to provide access to all
residents. The City acknowledges the system benefit of a street project by paying 60% of the
project cost. Benefitting properties use the roads to get to and from their property on a daily
basis, which is why they are assessed 40% of the street project cost. When someone buys a
new home in a new subdivision, the cost to construct the new infrastructure was incorporated
into the purchase price of the home and property by the Developer and thus was the initial
assessment to the property.
When is the assessment amount determined?
An estimate of the assessment is calculated with the Feasibility Study, which is typically
completed six months to a year before a project begins. The final assessment amount is based
on the lowest responsible bid amount and is set by City Council at the assessment hearing,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FAQs: ASSESSMENTS
291
G:\ENG\Assessments\Assessment FAQ 2022 Update - Clean.docx Page 2 of 2
which typically occurs in April or May of the construction year. Properties being assessed for
the project are notified of the assessment hearing formally by US mail, but the process is also
communicated by the City via its website, public open houses, the Chanhassen Connection,
social media, and at City Council meetings.
What are the payment options for assessments?
Please refer to the timeline below for payment options. The City does not accept partial
payments of the assessment.
Assessment Hearing &
final assessment
amount is determined
and the Assessment
Roll is adopted
Payments
received by
this date are
not charged
interest
Payments received by
this date are charged
the interest that has
accrued from the
date the Assessment
Roll is adopted
Annual payments to the
assessment are paid with your
property taxes. Interest is
collected each year based on
the outstanding principle owed
on the assessment
April or May
(typically)
90 days after
the Assessment
Roll is adopted
End of the year Term of the assessment*
*You can pay off an assessment after it has been certified to your property taxes. The City of Chanhassen Finance Department will calculate the
payoff amount, which will include the interest. The Term is based on a tiered amount found in the Policy.
Why does the City charge interest on assessments?
The City finances the entire project cost until all the assessments have been paid. The interest
charged on assessments is the rate the City pays for the bonding (as of the date of the
assessment) plus 2%. The interest charged is calculated as simple interest and not a compound
interest. Benefitting property owners are encouraged to consult private financial institutions
for other ways that can be used to pay off the assessment. This allows the property owner the
ability to negotiate the term and interest rates within the competitive market and may have
some tax advantages.
What does the Franchise Fees Pay for?
The Franchise Fees (passed in 2018) help pay for the City’s cost of the project. In lieu of
Franchise Fees, the annual property tax levy would have to be adjusted to fund the overall
Pavement Management Program (PMP).
How can I provide input on the project and the planned improvements?
A couple ways:
1. The City and their design consultants typically hold 2 public open houses during the
project implementation process. You can attend one or both of these and verbally
discuss the project or provide written comments on a comment card at those meetings.
2. Call the City’s Engineering Department at (952) 227-1160 and talk to one of the staff
working on the project.
3. E-mail the City’s Engineering Department at Engineering@ci.chanhassen.mn.us and
provide your comments or concerns.
292
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Year-End Law Enforcement Review
File No.Item No: G.1
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By Lance Pearce, Lieutenant, CCSO
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Operational Excellence
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
2023 Law Enforcement Review
293
NIBRS Activity Codes
Carver County Sheriff's Office City of Chanhassen Three-Year Review Presentation
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
3-YEAR REVIEW
2021 TO 2023
IN PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN FOR OVER 50 YEARS
328
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Mission Statement: Our mission is to serve everyone with respect and dignity,
and to do so with honor integrity and pride
Vision Statement: The vision of the carver County Sheriff’s Office is to advance
our professional relationships with community partners and government
agencies to provide effective services that address the needs of the citizens.
329
SHERIFF’S OFFICE INITIATIVES
2023-2026
•Community Outreach-Provide a critical link between communities and the
Carver County Sheriff’s Office.
•Succession Planning-Pro -active and future focused planning that will allow
management to assess, evaluate and develop a talent pool of individuals who
are willing and able to fill positions when needed.
•Community Safety-Create a place for the citizens of Carver County to live and
work free from crime and the fear of crime.
•Recruitment/ Retention-Utilize strategies that will help identify, attract, hire, and
retain top talent.
330
GROUP A CRIMES
•Statistically consistent from 2021-2023 Counterfeit/
forgery, Property Damage, embezzlement, Kidnapping,
Motor Vehicle Theft and Sex Offenses.
•Sex offenses typical suspects are known to the victims
•Significant increases in GREEN, decreases in GRAY. We
did see the same criminal patterns as previous years
related to metro crime sprees in 2023
Group A 2021 2022 2023
Arson 3 0 1
Agg Assault 7 8 3
Assault 51 51 37
Animal Cruelty 0 0 0
Bribary 0 0 0
Burglary 28 10 13
Counterfeiting/ Forgery 16 11 12
Drugs 59 110 33
Embezzlement 1 2 0
Extortion/ Blackmail 3 8 9
Fraud 145 108 99
Gambling 0 0 0
Homicide 1 0 1
Human Trafficking 0 0 0
Kidnapping 1 2 1
Pornography 2 5 6
Property Damage 44 47 40
Prostitution 0 0 0
Robbery 2 1 2
Sex Offenses-forcible 13 10 13
Sex Offenses-non forcible 0 0 0
Stolen Property 3 5 3
Theft/ Larceny 224 163 106
Motor Vehicle Theft 13 13 13
Weapons 2 1 4
TOTAL 618 555 396
331
GROUP B
•Increases in DUI across the 3
year period
•Decreases in Disorderly Conduct
and the catch all All other Offenses.
•Total crime decrease from 2021
equates to 32%
Group B 2021 2022 2023
Bad Checks 0 0 0
Curfew/ Loitering 0 1 1
Disorderly Conduct 24 25 10
Driving Under Influence 34 58 56
Drunkeness 0 0 0
Family Offense-non viol 1 3 2
Liquor Law Violation 11 10 7
Peeping Tom 0 0 0
Runaway 10 4 4
Trespassing 4 6 5
All other Offenses 53 78 35
Ordinances 9 3 10
TOTAL B 146 188 130
332
QUALITY OF LIFE CALLS
•Seeing increases in calls GREEN highlighted sections.
Reductions in Gray. Separate slide Blue
•Statistically consistent in Abuse/Neglect, Assist other
agency, Child Custody and Misc. Non-Criminal
•Increases in Boat/Water, Missing Person, Warrant
Service and Disturbance calls
•Decreases in Domestic, Open Door, Suspicion and
Unlock veh/bldg. calls
Non-Criminal 2021 2022 2023
Abuse/ Neglect info only 106 86 109
Alarm 541 497 452
Animal 373 332 283
Assist other agency 168 149 165
Boat and Water 20 84 71
Child Custody Dispute 21 30 22
Civil Process Assist 14 15 8
Domestic 74 44 55
Drug-info only 9 6 3
Fire Call 285 215 251
Gang related 0 0 0
House/ Business check 5 4 4
Medical 1027 895 1200
Mental Health 178 188 165
Misc non-criminal 918 882 922
Missing Person 16 11 21
Open door 61 83 38
Sex offender tracking 0 0 0
Snowmobile 4 1 1
Suspicious Activity 757 773 653
Transport 13 11 12
Unlock veh/ bldg 40 18 18
Warrant Service 21 27 32
ATV 4 2 2
Disturbance-info only 317 317 382
TOTAL NON-CRIMINAL 4972 4670 4870
333
MEDICAL AND FIRE CALLS
•2023 Response to Medicals-35.1%•2023 Response to Fire-42.6%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2021 2022 2023
Sheriff's Office Medical Response
Responded Total CFS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2021 2022 2023
Sheriff's Office Fire Response
Responded Total CFS
334
MENTAL HEALTH
Addressing needs through
coordinated response with
HHS-Co-Responder,
imbedded into dispatch
Current co-responder hired
in July 2023
Change in overall response
methodology and statute
More to come…..0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2020
2021
2022
2023
Mental Health Calls
335
TRAFFIC AND
IT’S IMPACT
•Recent trends statewide have seen
increases in crash statistics as a result
of poor driving behavior.
•2022 refocus deputy priorities in
traffic enforcement and criminal
interdiction.
•Resulted in additional traffic stops,
citations and arrests ( drug crimes
and DUI spec.) Also decreases in
other crimes based on visibility and
reputation. Burglary, property
damage and theft.
•Focus on Community safety
Traffic 2021 2022 2023
Accident-Fatality 0 3 2
Accident-Injury 38 39 48
Accident-PD 338 436 422
Accident-deer 35 37 38
Driving Complaint 241 256 269
Traffic-Misc 808 782 730
Traffic stops 2164 2746 3097
TOTAL 3624 4299 4606
Approx. 215 T/S out of county
336
DEPUTY ALLOCATION
ANALYSIS
2021 1 Person CFS 1+ Person CFS 2+ Person CFS
Type A Offense 422 29 167
Type B Offense 25 53 68
Non-Criminal 1863 2238 870
Traffic Offenses 1084 338 38
Total (%)3394 2658 1143
47%37%16%
2022 1 Person CFS 1+ Person CFS 2+ Person CFS
Type A Offense 338 24 192
Type B Offense 23 78 87
Non-Criminal 1696 1796 823
Traffic Offenses 1075 436 42
Total (%)3132 2334 1144
47%35%17%
2023 1 Person CFS 1+ Person CFS 2+ Person CFS
Type A Offense 265 27 106
Type B Offense 25 35 70
Non-Criminal 1615 1601 731
Traffic Offenses 1037 422 50
Total (%)2940 2085 957
49%35%16%
NOTES: W/O traffic stops and adjusted call response matrix for 2022 and 2023 for Fire/ Medical calls
1 Person CFS:
Type A crimes
Extortion/ BlackmailProperty Damage Pornography
Stolen Property Theft Fraud
Type B Crimes
Curfew/ Loitering Liquor violation Trespassing
Non-Criminal
Misc. Non-criminal Unlock vehicle/bldg Animal
Boat and Water Assist other agency Fire Call
Civil Process Child Custody
Traffic
Traffic-Misc.Pd Accident/ Deer Driving Complaint
1+ Person CFS:
Type A crimes
Counterfeiting/Forg Vehicle Theft Kidnapping
Homicide
Type B Crimes
Bad Checks Misc. Criminal
Non-Criminal
Abuse/Neglect Medical Warrant Service
Suspicious Activity Drug-info only Disturbance
Traffic
Pd Accident
2+Person CFS:
Type A crimes
Assault Agg. Assault Arson
Burglary Drug Violation Robbery
Sex Crime Weapons
Type B Crimes
Drug Violation Disorderly Conduct Traffic-Alcohol rel.
Runaway
Non-Criminal
Alarm Domestic Missing Person
Mental Health Open Door
Traffic
PI Accident Fatal Accident
337
OTHER ACTIVITY AND TOTAL ACTIVITY
OTHER INFO 2021 2022 2023
Arrests 113 144 142
Clr. By Report 1654 1515 1208
Investigations closed 311 343 185
Chan Investigator 124 110 70
Traffic citations 697 814 800
TOTAL Patrol Activity 9361 9716 10003
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Avg. Emergency calls inc. Medicals
338
Coffee with the
Cops
Rotary
Meetings
Chanhassen
Dinner
Theater
safety
City Park
Patrols
Senior
Expo
Kindercare
High
School
details
Crème
De la
Creme
July 2-4
Chapel
Hill
Academy
Goddard School Lake Place dedication
Night to Unite St Hubert School
DRE Program
339
THINGS TO WATCH FOR
•Emergency management partnering with “I Love You Guys” foundation for
school reunification training spring 2024
•2024 SO Open House
•Potential Citizen’s Academy in fall 2024
•New K-9 added this year-Deputy Jake Hendricks #871
340
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project Review
File No.ENG 24-09 Item No: G.2
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By Charlie Howley, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
The City Council is asked for informal feedback and general direction on preferred pedestrian
crossing safety improvement options.
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Operational Excellence
SUMMARY
Staff will give a presentation to the City Council concerning various pedestrian safety improvement
concepts, generally focused on pedestrian crossing locations.
BACKGROUND
N/A
DISCUSSION
On December 12, 2022, the City Council adopted the City of Chanhassen Crosswalk Policy,
establishing guidelines for enhanced crosswalk treatments, including signage, striping, and other
physical improvements. The policy is attached to this staff report. This policy also outlined a consistent
procedure for determining when enhancements to crosswalks are necessary.
341
During the summer of 2023, the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) recommended that the Engineering
Department proactively apply the policy to all city-controlled intersections with existing pedestrian
facilities and crossings. The goal was to assess where improvements were needed based on the newly-
adopted policy. A study was conducted by staff, evaluating approximately 215 crossing locations within
the city’s jurisdiction. The findings indicated that 64 locations required minor treatments (Treatments A
or B), such as crosswalk markings, stop bars, or in-road bollards. Additionally, 9 locations required
more substantial treatments (Treatments C, D, or E), such as curb bump-outs, Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), and High-Intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) systems.
The minor treatments identified are scheduled to be installed by City Public Works staff over three
years, beginning in 2024. Furthermore, three of the locations requiring substantial improvements were
integrated into the Galpin Boulevard Reconstruction Project. This leaves six locations requiring further
evaluation and implementation plans to comply with the adopted policy. These six locations are:
Audubon Road and Park Road
Audubon Road and Valley Ridge Trail (north intersection)
Kerber Boulevard and Bighorn Drive
Kerber Boulevard and Saddlebrook Curve
Kerber Boulevard and West Village Road
Galpin Boulevard and Coulter Boulevard
Added to this evaluation was the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road based on the
ongoing study of the impacts of the Highway 5 expansion project on Minnewashta Parkway, bringing
the total number of areas studied to seven.
The city engaged one of our consultants (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.) to develop concepts and
cost estimates for each of the seven locations. Each intersection has a “Low Impact” concept that meets
the minimum design requirements outlined in the policy, as well as medium/high impact concepts.
The Engineering Department is seeking feedback and general direction on preferred pedestrian crossing
improvements based on the concepts developed.
The technical memo, cost estimates, and policy can be found in the attachments of this report.
BUDGET
Depending on what improvements are selected, funding would come from the TIM Fund and/or Streets
Department of the General Fund.
Two CIP projects would be used as the basis of these improvements:
CIP ST-047 - ADA Transition Plan Improvements
CIP ST-057 - Traffic Safety Improvements
The TH5 expansion project potentially could be leveraged for the Kings Road/Minnewashta Parkway
work.
RECOMMENDATION
N/A
342
ATTACHMENTS
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Memo 02-26-2024
CIP ST-047
CIP ST-056
City of Chanhassen Crosswalk Policy
343
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MEMORANDUM
To: City of Chanhassen
From: Michael Kirsch, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: February 11, 2024
Subject: City Pedestrian Intersection Improvement Recommendations
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The City of Chanhassen and Kimley-Horn and Associates have partnered to evaluate the existing
safety conditions of pedestrian facilities and cross walks throughout the City. The City’s Traffic Safety
Committee has developed a Cross Walk Policy which establishes the City’s guidelines for design
treatments for cross walks. This report details crosswalk reviews at high priority intersection locations
in the City, shown in Figure A and listed below.
1. Kerber Blvd and West Village Road
2. Kerber Blvd and Saddlebrook Curve
3. Kerber Blvd and Bighorn Drive
4. Audubon Road and Park Road
5. Audubon Road and Valley Ridge Trail North
6. Galpin Blvd and Coulter Blvd
7. Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road
REVIEW FORMAT
Each intersection was evaluated using the City’s Cross Walk Policy and Federal Highway
Administration’s “Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing
Locations”.
Several concepts and cost estimates were developed for each intersection in this report. Each
intersection has a “Low Impact” option that meets the minimum design requirements outlined in the
adopted Crosswalk Policy (see appendix A), unless otherwise noted. All the intersections evaluated
in this report were uncontrolled intersections and utilized the “Uncontrolled Crosswalk Treatment
Flowchart” to evaluate if improvements were warranted, see Figure 1.
344
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
A flowchart was created to ensure consistent crossing recommendations across the City. Starting
with crash history, the flowchart considers pedestrian demand factors, traffic volumes, and
surrounding context that could influence crossing safety.
Figure 1
Using the flowchart and guidance from the FHWA (Tables 1 and 2 below) and the City’s Cross Walk
Decision guide (Table 1), shown in Appendix A, two or three proposed alternatives were provided.
The recommended design for each intersection is summarized in Figure B.
345
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Kerber Blvd and West Village Road
The pedestrian crosswalk at Kerber and West Village Road is used frequently by pedestrians coming
to and from the Elementary School and ballfields. This intersection has inadequate sight distance
along the curve of the Kerber Boulevard due to 8 large trees on the West side of the road. This
reduces the drivers view of both the intersection and pedestrians and users crossing the intersection
at West Village Road. The cost of removing the trees may be infeasible due to the number, size and
ownership of the trees. Costs for right-of-way impacts and adjacent property owner appraisals for
cutting down buffer trees would most likely outweigh the intersection improvements recommended
and provide a similar safety benefit. We recommend the Low Impact alternative for West Village
Road, including new streetlighting at either side of Kerber Boulevard. Both proposed alternatives
provide additional signage to the drivers and increase the sight distance.
2. Kerber Blvd and Saddlebrook Curve
Saddlebrook Curve has high traffic with both bikes and pedestrians crossing from Kerber Pond Park
into the adjacent neighborhoods. The intersection is centered on a curve with boulevard trees along
the stretch south of the intersection. These trees reduce the sight distance adequate to see the
pedestrians waiting at the crossing and stop safely for those pedestrians. We recommend adding in-
street bollards as a pedestrian refuge, tapered stripping improvements to reduce the shoulder widths
at the intersection and in-street pedestrian crossing signs. The tapered stripping should help reduce
vehicle speeds through this intersection. We recommend adding yellow curb on the approach legs of
the intersection to prohibit parking along the road at the intersection. Parking near the crossings can
provide a visual barrier for both traffic and pedestrians to see one another.
3. Kerber Blvd and Bighorn Drive
Bighorn Drive is located at a steep low point and in a curve along Kerber Boulevard. There are trees
reducing the sight distance on the inside of the curve. With a Meadow Green Park to the west that is
connected by a shared use path to the surrounding neighborhoods. The shoulders along Kerber are
10-feet wide on either side, creating a substantial crossing length for pedestrians to cross. We
recommend the Low Impact design with reflective bollards for bump out extensions to provide visual
obstacle to drivers. This paired with the in-street pedestrian crossing signs are proven safety
measures to address the safety issues at this intersection; sight distance, vehicle speeds and
crossing distances. The bollard option could be replaced with the High Impact curb extensions to
address the same safety countermeasures and be a year-round solution. The reflective bollards
would have to be removed during winter months for maintenance and snowplows. We recommend
adding yellow curb on the approach legs of the intersection to prohibit parking along the road at the
intersection.
4. Audubon Road and Park Road
This intersection is heavily used by trucks for entrance in and out the commercial district on Park.
Trucks have much wider turners that need to be accommodated at the intersection. For this reason,
we recommend the Low Impact approach by include delineated bump outs with reflective bollards
and shoulder tapers on the approach legs. The flexible bollards can be placed to allow the turning
movements for the trucks to negotiate the intersection while still providing vertical barriers to help
slow through traffic at the intersection and visually call out the pedestrian crossing location. The
346
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
FHWA recommends adding in-street pedestrian crossing signs where there are excessive vehicle
speeds. Audubon Road is very wide with a straight alignment in this area, which presumably sees
increase traffic speeds at this location.
5. Audubon Road and Valley Ridge Trail North
This intersection has both designated left and right turn lanes making the total width of the crossings
over 50 feet. This crossing length takes a typical pedestrian over 20 seconds to cross the street.
This makes it difficult for both drivers and pedestrians to judge if there is a conflict between each
other. The width of the roadway calls for a Type D crossing treatment under the City Cross Walk
Policy. This treatment type requires a traffic engineering study to analyze the best alternative
between Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
beacons, pedestrian traffic signals or a grade-separated crossing. If deemed appropriate, the low
impact upgrades would be to relocate the crossing across Audubon to the south side of the
intersection. We would recommend adding a pedestrian refuge and removing the designated left turn
lane into the neighborhood to the West to provide a safer crossing. The traffic study would help
support the feasibility for removing this left turn lane.
6. Galpin Blvd and Coulter Blvd
Galpin Boulevard is a County Road with a 45mph speed limit, and 5 lanes. These conditions call for
a Type D crossing treatment under the City Cross Walk Policy. The lane configuration and widths do
not allow for a pedestrian refuge; therefore this intersection gets bumped up to a Type E treatment.
This condition requires a traffic engineering study to analyze crashes, traffic counts, and evaluate the
best alternative between RRFB’s, HAWK beacons, pedestrian traffic signals or a grade-separated
crossing. We have provided a scope and opinion of probable cost for a HAWK system, if that were
deemed the correct countermeasure for through the traffic analysis.
7. Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road
There have been concerns from residents that drivers along this stretch drive at dangerous speeds
and that the intersection could probably use a stop sign. We recommend that this intersection
receives a mini-roundabout to address both excessive vehicle speeds and allow traffic flows to
continue along this collector during peak traffic hours. A mini-roundabout helps to address multiple
safety factors at this intersection. The excessive vehicle speeds will be reduced with the geometry of
the roundabout and approach legs. The roundabout geometry would aim to force most drivers to
operate the intersection at 10-15mph. This improves the visibility and recognition of the pedestrian
crossing as well. Without existing shoulders along Minnewashta, curb extensions are not feasible
with this intersection.
347
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
FIGURE A:
348
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
FIGURE B:
Recommended Intersection Improvements
349
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
APPENDIX A:
FHWA - “Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations”
350
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
APPENDIX B:
351
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND WEST
VILLAGE ROAD - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 5,400 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
**SCHOOL ZONE SPEED
LIMIT: 20 MPH
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm352
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND WEST
VILLAGE ROAD - LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 5,400 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
**SCHOOL ZONE SPEED
LIMIT: 20 MPH
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm353
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND
SADDLEBROOK CURVE - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 5,400 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm354
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND
SADDLEBROOK CURVE - LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 5,400 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm355
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND BIGHORN
DRIVE - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,500 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm356
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
KERBER BOULVARD AND BIGHORN
DRIVE - LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,500 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm357
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
AUDUBON ROAD AND PARK ROAD -
HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,200 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:55pm358
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
AUDUBON ROAD AND PARK ROAD -
MEDIUM IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,200 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm359
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
AUDUBON ROAD AND PARK ROAD -
LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,200 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE C
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm360
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
AUDUBON ROAD AND VALLEY RIDGE
TRAIL NORTH - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,200 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE D/E
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm361
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
AUDUBON ROAD AND VALLEY RIDGE
TRAIL NORTH - LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 3,200 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE D/E
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm362
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
GALPIN BOULVARD AND COULTER
BOULVARD - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: 4,850 VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE D/E
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm363
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND KINGS
ROAD - HIGH IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: XXXX VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE A
C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm364
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND KINGS
ROAD - MEDIUM IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: XXXX VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE A
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm365
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
TRUNCATED DOMES
CONCRETE MEDIAN
GRASSED MEDIAN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN/ PROPOSED MANHOLE
LEGEND
PROPOSED STORM PIPE
PROPOSED PAVEMENT/CURB MARKINGS
PROPOSED REFLECTIVE DELINEATORS
EXISTING LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 24-09
NORTH
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND KINGS
ROAD - LOW IMPACT
CURRENT ADT: XXXX VPD
*MINIMUM TREATMENT
REQUIRED: TYPE A
*SOURCE: "FHWA: GUIDE FOR IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT
UNCONTROLLED CROSSING LOCATIONS, JULY 2018"C:\Users\REED~1.HED\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_12684\Chan24-09-Ped-Ramp-Concepts.dwg February 21, 2024 - 12:56pm366
NOTES ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
B MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 7,500$ 1 1,500$ 1 1 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 1 5,000$
CLEARING TREE 250.00$ 8 2,000$ 9 2,250$ 13 3,250$ 13 3,250$ 6 1,500$ 6 1,500$
GRUBBING TREE 150.00$ 8 1,200$ 9 1,350$ 13 1,950$ 13 1,950$ 6 900$ 6 900$
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 1.00$
REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 1,000.00$ 2 2,000$ 0 0
SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 275.00$ 2 550$ 1 275$ 1 275$
SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3.00$ 350 1,050$ 150 450$ 200 600$
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 20.00$ 5 100$ 0 0
REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 5.00$ 275 1,375$ 50 250$ 175 875$
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 2.00$ 650 1,300$ 400 800$ 275 550$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 6.00$ 275 1,650$ 60 360$ 125 750$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 2.00$ 60 120$
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) CU YD 18.00$
EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 15.00$ 20 300$ 15 225$ 8 120$
STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 175.00$ 1 88$ 1 88$ 1 88$
AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD 45.00$ 20 900$ 15 675$ 8 360$
DRILL & GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPOXY COATED) EACH 30.00$ 22 660$ 20 600$ 18 540$
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 100.00$ 20 2,000$ 8 800$ 20 2,000$
TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 95.00$ 20 1,900$ 8 760$ 20 1,900$
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$ 0 0 0
15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$ 25 3,000$ 0 0 0
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1,200.00$ 2 2,400$ 0 0 0
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 400.00$
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 4,500.00$ 3 13,500$ 0 0 0 0
CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 1,000.00$ 3 3,000$ 0 0 0
D STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM
6" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 15.00$ 1000 15,000$ 650 9,750$ 750 11,250$
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 22.00$ 300 6,600$ 60 1,320$ 200 4,400$
TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 60.00$ 64 3,840$ 56 3,360$ 36 2,160$
A HAWK TRAFFIC SYSTEM EACH 150,000.00$
A RRFB ALLOWANCE EACH 35,000.00$
INSTALL LIGHTING UNIT AND FOUNDATION EACH 15,000.00$
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 400.00$ 3 1,200$ 3 1,200$ 2 800$ 2 800$ 2 800$ 2 800$
INSTALL DELINEATOR EACH 150.00$ 20 3,000$ 8 1,200$
SUBSOILING ACRE 250.00$ 0.04 10$ 0.01 3$ 0.03 8$
SEEDING ACRE 300.00$ 0.04 12$ 0.01 3$ 0.03 9$
SEED MIXTURE 25-121 (120 LBS/ACRE) POUNDS 7.00$ 5 34$ 1 8$ 4 25$
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 250.00$ 0.08 20$ 0.02 5$ 0.06 15$
24" SOLID LINE PAINT (YELLOW CURB) LIN FT 7.00$ 200 1,400$ 200 1,400$ 100 700$ 100 700$
4" SOLID LINE PAINT LIN FT 1.00$ 300 300$ 1100 1,100$ 600 600$
CROSSWALK MULTI COMP GR IN (WR) SQ FT 11.00$ 200 2,200$ 275 3,025$ 100 1,100$ 0
PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIAL SQ FT 100.00$
$685,000 $76,000 $10,000 $32,000 $15,000 $36,000 $9,000
C $137,000 $16,000 $2,000 $7,000 $3,000 $8,000 $2,000
$822,000 $92,000 $12,000 $39,000 $18,000 $44,000 $11,000
: FURTHER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS:
A. TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSIS NEEDED TO FURTHER CONFIRM DESIGN APPROACH. ENGINEERING COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE.
B. MOBILIZATION ESTIMATED AT 10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST.
C. CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY ASSUMES: TRAFFIC CONTROL, MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS, TOPSOIL AND EROSION CONTROL.
D. ASSUMES A STANDARD 5,000 CF BMP TREATMENT BASIN (NON-SPECIFIC TYPE).
HIGH IMPACT
KERBER BLVD & WEST VILLAGE ROAD
CP24-09
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%):
CONSTRUCTION COST (ENGINEER RECOMMENDED ALTS):
KERBER BLVD & BIGHORN DRIVE
HIGH IMPACT
CP24-09
LOW IMPACT
CP24-09
KERBER BLVD & BIGHORN DRIVE
LOW IMPACT
CP24-09
KERBER BLVD & WEST VILLAGE ROAD
LOW IMPACT
CP24-09
KERBER BLVD & SADDLEBROOK CURVE
CP24-09
KERBER BLVD & SADDLEBROOK CURVE
HIGH IMPACT
367
NOTES ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST
B MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM
CLEARING TREE 250.00$
GRUBBING TREE 150.00$
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 1.00$
REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 1,000.00$
SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 275.00$
SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3.00$
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 20.00$
REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 5.00$
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 2.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 6.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 2.00$
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) CU YD 18.00$
EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 15.00$
STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 175.00$
AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD 45.00$
DRILL & GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPOXY COATED) EACH 30.00$
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 100.00$
TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 95.00$
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$
15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1,200.00$
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 400.00$
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 4,500.00$
CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 1,000.00$
D STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM
6" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 15.00$
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 22.00$
TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 60.00$
A HAWK TRAFFIC SYSTEM EACH 150,000.00$
A RRFB ALLOWANCE EACH 35,000.00$
INSTALL LIGHTING UNIT AND FOUNDATION EACH 15,000.00$
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 400.00$
INSTALL DELINEATOR EACH 150.00$
SUBSOILING ACRE 250.00$
SEEDING ACRE 300.00$
SEED MIXTURE 25-121 (120 LBS/ACRE) POUNDS 7.00$
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 250.00$
24" SOLID LINE PAINT (YELLOW CURB) LIN FT 7.00$
4" SOLID LINE PAINT LIN FT 1.00$
CROSSWALK MULTI COMP GR IN (WR) SQ FT 11.00$
PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIAL SQ FT 100.00$
$685,000
C $137,000
$822,000
: FURTHER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS:
A. TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSIS NEEDED TO FURTHER CONFIRM DESIGN APPROACH. ENGINEERING COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE.
B. MOBILIZATION ESTIMATED AT 10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST.
C. CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY ASSUMES: TRAFFIC CONTROL, MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS, TOPSOIL AND EROSION CONTROL.
D. ASSUMES A STANDARD 5,000 CF BMP TREATMENT BASIN (NON-SPECIFIC TYPE).
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%):
CONSTRUCTION COST (ENGINEER RECOMMENDED ALTS):
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
1 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 1 10,000$ 1 15,000$
500 500$
1 1,000$ 0
2 550$ 0
250 750$ 250 750$
0 0 0
200 1,000$ 125 625$
100 200$ 400 800$
250 1,500$ 150 900$
200 400$
5 75$ 10 150$
1 88$ 1 88$
5 225$ 10 450$
12 360$ 24 720$
17 1,700$ 19 1,900$
17 1,615$ 19 1,805$
30 3,600$ 0
0
1 1,200$ 0
1 4,500$ 0
1 1,000$ 0
250 3,750$ 800 12,000$
250 5,500$ 150 3,300$
24 1,440$ 80 4,800$
2 300,000$
2 70,000$
2 800$ 2 800$ 2 800$ 2 800$ 2 800$
15 2,250$
0.05 13$ 0.01 3$
0.05 15$ 0.01 3$
6 42$ 1 8$
0.10 25$ 0.02 5$
0 800 5,600$ 800 5,600$
750 750$ 20000 20,000$ 800 800$ 1000 1,000$ 0
100 1,100$ 150 1,650$ 150 1,650$ 150 1,650$
20 2,000$
$39,000 $32,000 $15,000 $39,000 $83,000 $318,000
$8,000 $7,000 $3,000 $8,000 $17,000 $64,000
$47,000 $39,000 $18,000 $47,000 $100,000 $382,000
CP24-09
AUDOBON ROAD & PARK ROAD
CP24-09
AUDOBON ROAD & PARK ROAD
LOW IMPACT HIGH IMPACT
CP24-09
GALPIN BLVD & COULTER BLVD
HIGH IMPACT
CP24-09
AUDOBON ROAD & PARK ROAD
CP24-09
AUDOBON ROAD AND VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL N
HIGH IMPACT MEDIUM IMPACT LOW IMPACT
CP24-09
AUDOBON ROAD AND VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL N
368
NOTES ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST
B MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM
CLEARING TREE 250.00$
GRUBBING TREE 150.00$
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 1.00$
REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 1,000.00$
SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 275.00$
SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3.00$
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 20.00$
REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 5.00$
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 2.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 6.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 2.00$
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) CU YD 18.00$
EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 15.00$
STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 175.00$
AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD 45.00$
DRILL & GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPOXY COATED) EACH 30.00$
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 100.00$
TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 95.00$
12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$
15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 120.00$
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1,200.00$
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 400.00$
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 4,500.00$
CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 1,000.00$
D STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM
6" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 15.00$
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 22.00$
TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 60.00$
A HAWK TRAFFIC SYSTEM EACH 150,000.00$
A RRFB ALLOWANCE EACH 35,000.00$
INSTALL LIGHTING UNIT AND FOUNDATION EACH 15,000.00$
INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 400.00$
INSTALL DELINEATOR EACH 150.00$
SUBSOILING ACRE 250.00$
SEEDING ACRE 300.00$
SEED MIXTURE 25-121 (120 LBS/ACRE) POUNDS 7.00$
MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 250.00$
24" SOLID LINE PAINT (YELLOW CURB) LIN FT 7.00$
4" SOLID LINE PAINT LIN FT 1.00$
CROSSWALK MULTI COMP GR IN (WR) SQ FT 11.00$
PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIAL SQ FT 100.00$
$685,000
C $137,000
$822,000
: FURTHER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS:
A. TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ANALYSIS NEEDED TO FURTHER CONFIRM DESIGN APPROACH. ENGINEERING COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE.
B. MOBILIZATION ESTIMATED AT 10% OF CONSTRUCTION COST.
C. CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY ASSUMES: TRAFFIC CONTROL, MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS, TOPSOIL AND EROSION CONTROL.
D. ASSUMES A STANDARD 5,000 CF BMP TREATMENT BASIN (NON-SPECIFIC TYPE).
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%):
CONSTRUCTION COST (ENGINEER RECOMMENDED ALTS):
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY COST
1 30,000$ 1 5,000$ 1 5,000$
2 8,000$
2 8,000$
3 3,000$
2 550$
100 300$
50 1,000$
1600 8,000$
600 1,200$
2700 16,200$
5000 10,000$
2100 37,800$
2000 30,000$
1 175$
1600 72,000$
20 600$
500 50,000$
500 47,500$
150 18,000$
3 3,600$
9 3,600$
3 13,500$
3 3,000$
1 20,000$
5600 84,000$
2500 55,000$
64 3,840$
2 70,000$
6 2,400$ 4 1,600$ 4 1,600$
8 1,200$ 8 1,200$
0.21 53$
0.21 63$
25 176$
0.42 105$
400 2,800$
3000 3,000$ 360 360$ 360 360$
100 1,100$ 100 1,100$ 100 1,100$
$609,000 $10,000 $10,000
30% $183,000 $2,000 $2,000
$792,000 $12,000 $12,000
CP24-09
MINNEWASHTA PWKY & KINGS ROAD
HIGH IMPACT
CP24-09
MINNEWASHTA PWKY & KINGS ROAD
LOW IMPACT
CP24-09
MINNEWASHTA PWKY & KINGS ROAD
MEDIUM IMPACT
369
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225, Eden Prairie, MN 651 643 0481
APPENDIX C:
370
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 1
CITY OF CHANHASSENCrosswalk Policy SAFETY COMMITTEE
POLICY STATEMENT
The City of Chanhassen strives to provide a safe, sustainable, and efficient transportation network
which includes our local pedestrian facilities and crosswalks. Traffic control devices such as signage,
striping, and other physical improvements may provide enhancements to the overall safety of local
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, but as with all traffic control devices careful consideration and
review must be given. The evaluation of whether enhanced traffic control devices at crosswalks are
warranted must establish a consistent and effective methodology, align with the City’s goals, and must
adhere to accepted local and federal guidelines and engineering practices. This policy establishes the
City’s guidelines for the installation of enhanced crosswalk treatments and is intended to provide a
consistent procedure for determining if the installation of crossing treatments is warranted on a case-
by-case basis.
GENERAL GUIDANCE
Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists each as members of the traveling public have rights and responsibil-
ities when traveling along or across roadways. In other words, everyone plays a role in keeping our road-
ways safe.
Some responsibilities of the traveling public when crossing roadways or approaching crosswalks are:
»When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation, a driver must stop when a pedes-
trian is in a crosswalk. In this type of situation, a driver can proceed once the pedestrian has
completely crossed the lane in front of the stopped vehicle.
»When a vehicle is stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway at a marked crosswalk or
at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from
the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
»A pedestrian must not enter a crosswalk if a vehicle is approaching. There is no defined dis-
tance, but the pedestrian must use common safety sense. The law states: “No pedestrian shall
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which
is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”
»At crossings with traffic control signals, pedestrians shall be subject to obeying the traffic sig-
nals.
»On all local roadways, every pedestrian crossing at a point other than within a marked cross-
walk, or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles
on the roadway.
»Pedestrians, or a person in a wheelchair using the shoulder of the road, shall walk or move
along the left side of the roadway facing oncoming traffic. Where sidewalks are provided, and
accessible and usable, it shall be unlawful for a pedestrian or person in a wheelchair to use the
roadway.
It is important to recognize that all intersections are legal crosswalks and therefore drivers are required to
yield to pedestrians. However, pedestrians are urged to cross with caution in any street crossing, marked
or unmarked. Minnesota State Statute defines that crosswalks exist at intersections, whether marked or
unmarked, and provides for pedestrian and motorist responsibilities.
371
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 2
MN STATUTE 169.011 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 20. Crosswalk. “Crosswalk” means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the
prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway
distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
MN STATUTE 169.21 PEDESTRIAN.
Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in oper-
ation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain
stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so
close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions
as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
Marked crosswalks are typically viewed by most as “safety devices”. There is strong evidence that this
prompts many pedestrians to feel overly secure when using a marked crosswalk. As a result, pedestri-
ans will often place themselves in a hazardous position by believing that a motorist can and will stop
in all cases, even when it may be impossible to do so. In contrast, a pedestrian using an unmarked
crosswalk generally feels less secure and less certain that motorists will stop and will, therefore,
exercise more caution before crossing. Because of this, it is important that any request for enhanced
crosswalk treatments, such as markings, be consistently evaluated through accepted local and federal
guidelines along with sound engineering practices and judgment while maintaining the goals of the
City.
EVALUATION PROCESS
Chanhassen residents can have pedestrian and traffic related safety concerns evaluated by the Traffic Safe-
ty Committee (TSC) by contacting the City’s Engineering Department or by using the “See Click Fix” app (avail-
able in your smart device’s app store) and selecting the “Traffic Concerns” category. If the concern involves
a request for the installation of crosswalk improvements, the TSC will utilize the appropriate “Crosswalk
Treatment Flowchart” found attached to this Policy to determine if enhancements are warranted. When
warranted, the TSC will recommend to the Public Works Department that the treatments be installed. If the
treatment requires substantial improvements or impacts to the right-of-way, the TSC’s recommendation will
be presented to City Council for approval. Interested parties will be notified of this council meeting and may
attend.
With respect to all crosswalk evaluations, the City may consider vehicular speed reduction strategies, such
as driver speed feedback signs, in conjunction with crosswalk treatments. These are case-by-case situa-
tions subject to TSC review and City Engineer approval.
CONTROLLED VS. UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSWALKS
A controlled intersection is an intersection that has traffic signals, stop signs, or yield signs to regulate the
flow of traffic. A controlled crosswalk crosses the controlled leg of an intersection, for example, the leg in
which the stop sign is regulating traffic.
An uncontrolled intersection is an intersection that does not have any traffic signals, stop signs, or yield
signs to regulate the flow of traffic. This can occur at all legs of an intersection or, more typically, at only
two legs of an intersection. An uncontrolled crosswalk crosses the uncontrolled leg of an intersection, for
example, the leg in which no stop sign is regulating traffic.
372
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 3
Crosswalk concern
received or identified
Does the crosswalk currently
have the recommended
treatments per Table 1?
Does the crossing being
evaluated serve two or more
regular pedestrian traffic
generators?
Are there concerns from the
TSC about driver compliance
at crosswalk?
Consider neckdowns,
curb bump outs,
median refuge, or
additional signs and
treatments to increase
driver awareness of
pedestrians Is the crossing
connecting to a
collector or arterial
roadway?
Install marked
crosswalk with
stop bar
Install marked
crosswalk with
stop bar
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
RESIDENT & FILE
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
RESIDENT & FILE
Regular pedestrian traffic generators include public or private facilities such as schools, multifamily dwellings, commercial
areas, transit stops, parks and recreational facilities, trails, and places of worship.
Private streets serving less than or equal to four (4) properties will not require the installation of crosswalk treatments.
If in conjunction with a trail crossing, the Traffic Safety Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Engineer on
whether a trail stop sign is warranted.
Y N
1
2
3
CONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT FLOWCHART AT INTERSECTIONS
1
2
3
Y
Y
YN
N
N
3
373
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 4
UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT FLOWCHART AT INTERSECTIONS
Crosswalk concern
received or identified
Is there a crash history
involving any
pedestrians
at the crossing?
Does the crossing being
evaluated serve two or
more regular pedestrian
traffic generators?
Is there a marked
crossing less than
500 feet away?
Is the area planned for
future pedestrian connectivity
through the latest City
Comprehensive Plan or a planned
street project?
Is there adequate
sight and
stopping distance?
Can the obstruction
be removed?
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
CONCERN & FILE
PERFORM ENGINEERING
STUDY AND EVALUATE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER
”UNMARKED PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING FACILITY”
GO TO TABLE 1
Any additional unique
circumstances which
would require a study?
Y Y
Y
N
N
N
N Y
FEASIBLE NOT FEASIBLE
Regular pedestrian traffic generators include public or private facilities such as schools, multifamily dwelling, commercial
areas, transit stops, parks and recreational facilities, trails, and places of worship.
An “unmarked pedestrian crossing facility” is any treatment that improves a pedestrian’s ability to cross a street short of
the marked/signed and enhanced crossings detailed in Table 1. Installations of this type of pedestrian facility are subject to
TSC review and the City Engineer’s judgment and may include curb ramps and/or a raised median refuge. However, no effort
is made to attract pedestrians or recommend that pedestrians cross at this location. The treatments simply provide an
improvement for a low volume pedestrian crossing where pedestrians are already crossing and will like continue to cross.
Distance to the nearest marked or protected crossing may be reduced to 300 feet subject to TSC review and the City
Engineer’s judgment. For example, where crossing treatments and crossing activity would not create undue restrictions to
vehicular traffic operations.
Mid-block crossings are prohibited. Any potential improvements associated with existing mid-block crossings are reviewed on
a case-by-case basis and are ultimately subject to the City Engineer’s approval.
Y
Y
N
N
Y
3
1
2
1
2
3
*
*
374
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 5
Notes:
1. Painted medians can never be considered a refuge for a crossing pedestrian. Similarly, a 4 foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be considered a refuge for pedestrians if the left
turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour (meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing).
2. A multiple threat lane is defined as a through lane where it is possible for a pedestrian to step out from in front of a stopped vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (either through or turn lane).
3. Additional treatments may be considered if suitable gaps in traffic for safe crossing are not available.
Treatment Descriptions
A
B
C
D*
E*
Install marked crosswalk with road-side signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) with standard (W11-2) advance pedes-
trian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee.
Install marked crosswalk with road-side and in-roadway (bollard mounted) signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian”
(R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail
stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee.
Install marked crosswalk with signs and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: For 2-lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law
– Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School
Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Add curb extensions (concrete, paint, flexible delineators) or
median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists.
For 3+ lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway,
(W11-2 and W16-7P) mounted at the crossing location on the side of the roadway and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on
in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be
evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Add curb extensions or median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase
pedestrian visibility to motorists. Advance stop bars may be used in combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
Install marked crosswalk with advanced “Stop here for Pedestrians” signs, pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: Install raised median refuge island (unless it is a one-way street or one already exists) to shorten the pedestrian crossing
distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. [If a median refuge cannot be constructed on a two-way street, go to Treatment E]. Install
marked crosswalk with signs (W11-2 and W16-7P) WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway and on median mounted
signs AND advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway; use standard (W11-2) advance warning
pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Consider
adding curb extensions at the crossing if on-street parking exists on the roadway and storm drain considerations will allow. Advance stop bars may
be used in combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal,
or grade-separated crossing
Specific Guidance: Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal or grade-separated crossing; application of these treatments will consider
corridor signal progression, existing grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors.
*Will require an engineering study to be performed
2 Lanes (one way street) 2 1 A B C A B C
2 Lanes (two way street with no median) 2 0 A B C A B C
3 Lanes (w/raised median) 1 or 2 0 or 1 A B D A C D
3 Lanes (w/striped median) 3 0 or 1 C C D C C D
4 Lanes ( two way street w/no median) 4 2 A D D B D D
5 Lanes (w/raised median) 2 or 3 2 A B D B B C
5 Lanes (w/striped median) 5 2 D D D D D D
6 Lanes (two way street w/or w/out median) 3 to 6 4 E E E E E E
Roadway Configuration
# of
lanes
crossed
to
reach a
refuge(1)
# of
multiple
threat
lanes(2)
per
crossing
1,000-9,000vpd(3)
Roadway ADT and Posted Speed
≤30mph 35mph 35mph40mph 40mph≤30mph
9,000-12,000 vpd
Table 1. Decision Guide for Crossing Treatments
375
This requests information is generated from Final Adopted CIP 2024-2028 CIP 2024-2028 FINAL ADOPT, Adopted Version.
Streets - ADA Transition Plan Improvements
Overview
Request Owner Charlie Howley, PW Director/City Engineer
Department Street Maintenance
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number ST-047
Description
This program implements various improvements to bring our public transportation network into compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Improvements include reconstruction of pedestrian ramps, traf c signal controls, and
sidewalks/trails. These improvements are for areas not already part of other CIP construction projects, and do not include private
infrastructure. The City completed an ADA Transition Plan in August 2018 that outlines the needed improvements. This program will also
be used for lling the inspection gaps and for Transition Plan updates. There are various outside agencies that have competitive grant
opportunities that can be pursued as a way to supplement the funding.
The City is mandated to be in compliance with the ADA, but there is no timeframe in which to complete all of the needed improvements
as long as the City has developed a Transition Plan. The 2018 Transition Plan indicated the total need of about $3.2M, and the City set a
goal of 50% compliance within 20 years.
Details
Type of Project Refurbishment
376
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Construction/Maintenance $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000
Total $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000
Capital Cost
FY2024 Budget
$20,000
Total Budget (all years)
$100K
Project Total
$100K
Capital Cost by Year (Adopted)
Construction/Maintenance
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$0 $5K $10K $15K $20K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $100,000.00
Construction/Maintenance (100%)$100,000.00
377
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Streets - TIM Funds $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000
Total $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000
Funding Sources
FY2024 Budget
$20,000
Total Budget (all years)
$100K
Project Total
$100K
Funding Sources by Year (Adopted)
Streets - TIM Funds
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$0 $5K $10K $15K $20K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $100,000.00
Streets - TIM Funds (100%)$100,000.00
378
This requests information is generated from Final Adopted CIP 2024-2028 CIP 2024-2028 FINAL ADOPT, Adopted Version.
Traf c Safety Improvements
Overview
Request Owner Charlie Howley, PW Director/City Engineer
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number ST-056
Description
This program will be used to address needed traf c safety improvements around the city. The Traf c Safety Committee (TSC) meets
monthly to discuss cases that get reported to the Engineering Dept. and often times an improvement may be recommended for
implementation.
Details
Type of Project New Construction
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Construction/Maintenance $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $160,000
Total $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $160,000
Capital Cost
FY2024 Budget
$30,000
Total Budget (all years)
$160K
Project Total
$160K
Capital Cost by Year (Adopted)
Construction/Maintenance
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$30,000.00
$31,000.00
$32,000.00
$33,000.00
$34,000.00
$0 $10K $20K $30K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $160,000.00
Construction/Maintenance (100%)$160,000.00
379
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 Total
Streets - TIM Funds $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $160,000
Total $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $160,000
Funding Sources
FY2024 Budget
$30,000
Total Budget (all years)
$160K
Project Total
$160K
Funding Sources by Year (Adopted)
Streets - TIM Funds
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
$30,000.00
$31,000.00
$32,000.00
$33,000.00
$34,000.00
$0 $10K $20K $30K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Adopted)
TOTAL $160,000.00
Streets - TIM Funds (100%)$160,000.00
380
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 1
CITY OF CHANHASSENCrosswalk Policy SAFETY COMMITTEE
POLICY STATEMENT
The City of Chanhassen strives to provide a safe, sustainable, and efficient transportation network
which includes our local pedestrian facilities and crosswalks. Traffic control devices such as signage,
striping, and other physical improvements may provide enhancements to the overall safety of local
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, but as with all traffic control devices careful consideration and
review must be given. The evaluation of whether enhanced traffic control devices at crosswalks are
warranted must establish a consistent and effective methodology, align with the City’s goals, and must
adhere to accepted local and federal guidelines and engineering practices. This policy establishes the
City’s guidelines for the installation of enhanced crosswalk treatments and is intended to provide a
consistent procedure for determining if the installation of crossing treatments is warranted on a case-
by-case basis.
GENERAL GUIDANCE
Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists each as members of the traveling public have rights and responsibil-
ities when traveling along or across roadways. In other words, everyone plays a role in keeping our road-
ways safe.
Some responsibilities of the traveling public when crossing roadways or approaching crosswalks are:
»When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation, a driver must stop when a pedes-
trian is in a crosswalk. In this type of situation, a driver can proceed once the pedestrian has
completely crossed the lane in front of the stopped vehicle.
»When a vehicle is stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway at a marked crosswalk or
at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from
the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
»A pedestrian must not enter a crosswalk if a vehicle is approaching. There is no defined dis-
tance, but the pedestrian must use common safety sense. The law states: “No pedestrian shall
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which
is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”
»At crossings with traffic control signals, pedestrians shall be subject to obeying the traffic sig-
nals.
»On all local roadways, every pedestrian crossing at a point other than within a marked cross-
walk, or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles
on the roadway.
»Pedestrians, or a person in a wheelchair using the shoulder of the road, shall walk or move
along the left side of the roadway facing oncoming traffic. Where sidewalks are provided, and
accessible and usable, it shall be unlawful for a pedestrian or person in a wheelchair to use the
roadway.
It is important to recognize that all intersections are legal crosswalks and therefore drivers are required to
yield to pedestrians. However, pedestrians are urged to cross with caution in any street crossing, marked
or unmarked. Minnesota State Statute defines that crosswalks exist at intersections, whether marked or
unmarked, and provides for pedestrian and motorist responsibilities.
381
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 2
MN STATUTE 169.011 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 20. Crosswalk. “Crosswalk” means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the
prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway
distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
MN STATUTE 169.21 PEDESTRIAN.
Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in oper-
ation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain
stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so
close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions
as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
Marked crosswalks are typically viewed by most as “safety devices”. There is strong evidence that this
prompts many pedestrians to feel overly secure when using a marked crosswalk. As a result, pedestri-
ans will often place themselves in a hazardous position by believing that a motorist can and will stop
in all cases, even when it may be impossible to do so. In contrast, a pedestrian using an unmarked
crosswalk generally feels less secure and less certain that motorists will stop and will, therefore,
exercise more caution before crossing. Because of this, it is important that any request for enhanced
crosswalk treatments, such as markings, be consistently evaluated through accepted local and federal
guidelines along with sound engineering practices and judgment while maintaining the goals of the
City.
EVALUATION PROCESS
Chanhassen residents can have pedestrian and traffic related safety concerns evaluated by the Traffic Safe-
ty Committee (TSC) by contacting the City’s Engineering Department or by using the “See Click Fix” app (avail-
able in your smart device’s app store) and selecting the “Traffic Concerns” category. If the concern involves
a request for the installation of crosswalk improvements, the TSC will utilize the appropriate “Crosswalk
Treatment Flowchart” found attached to this Policy to determine if enhancements are warranted. When
warranted, the TSC will recommend to the Public Works Department that the treatments be installed. If the
treatment requires substantial improvements or impacts to the right-of-way, the TSC’s recommendation will
be presented to City Council for approval. Interested parties will be notified of this council meeting and may
attend.
With respect to all crosswalk evaluations, the City may consider vehicular speed reduction strategies, such
as driver speed feedback signs, in conjunction with crosswalk treatments. These are case-by-case situa-
tions subject to TSC review and City Engineer approval.
CONTROLLED VS. UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSWALKS
A controlled intersection is an intersection that has traffic signals, stop signs, or yield signs to regulate the
flow of traffic. A controlled crosswalk crosses the controlled leg of an intersection, for example, the leg in
which the stop sign is regulating traffic.
An uncontrolled intersection is an intersection that does not have any traffic signals, stop signs, or yield
signs to regulate the flow of traffic. This can occur at all legs of an intersection or, more typically, at only
two legs of an intersection. An uncontrolled crosswalk crosses the uncontrolled leg of an intersection, for
example, the leg in which no stop sign is regulating traffic.
382
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 3
Crosswalk concern
received or identified
Does the crosswalk currently
have the recommended
treatments per Table 1?
Does the crossing being
evaluated serve two or more
regular pedestrian traffic
generators?
Are there concerns from the
TSC about driver compliance
at crosswalk?
Consider neckdowns,
curb bump outs,
median refuge, or
additional signs and
treatments to increase
driver awareness of
pedestrians Is the crossing
connecting to a
collector or arterial
roadway?
Install marked
crosswalk with
stop bar
Install marked
crosswalk with
stop bar
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
RESIDENT & FILE
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
RESIDENT & FILE
Regular pedestrian traffic generators include public or private facilities such as schools, multifamily dwellings, commercial
areas, transit stops, parks and recreational facilities, trails, and places of worship.
Private streets serving less than or equal to four (4) properties will not require the installation of crosswalk treatments.
If in conjunction with a trail crossing, the Traffic Safety Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Engineer on
whether a trail stop sign is warranted.
Y N
1
2
3
CONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT FLOWCHART AT INTERSECTIONS
1
2
3
Y
Y
YN
N
N
3
383
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 4
UNCONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT FLOWCHART AT INTERSECTIONS
Crosswalk concern
received or identified
Is there a crash history
involving any
pedestrians
at the crossing?
Does the crossing being
evaluated serve two or
more regular pedestrian
traffic generators?
Is there a marked
crossing less than
500 feet away?
Is the area planned for
future pedestrian connectivity
through the latest City
Comprehensive Plan or a planned
street project?
Is there adequate
sight and
stopping distance?
Can the obstruction
be removed?
NO ACTION
RECOMMENDED;
RESPOND TO
CONCERN & FILE
PERFORM ENGINEERING
STUDY AND EVALUATE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER
”UNMARKED PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING FACILITY”
GO TO TABLE 1
Any additional unique
circumstances which
would require a study?
Y Y
Y
N
N
N
N Y
FEASIBLE NOT FEASIBLE
Regular pedestrian traffic generators include public or private facilities such as schools, multifamily dwelling, commercial
areas, transit stops, parks and recreational facilities, trails, and places of worship.
An “unmarked pedestrian crossing facility” is any treatment that improves a pedestrian’s ability to cross a street short of
the marked/signed and enhanced crossings detailed in Table 1. Installations of this type of pedestrian facility are subject to
TSC review and the City Engineer’s judgment and may include curb ramps and/or a raised median refuge. However, no effort
is made to attract pedestrians or recommend that pedestrians cross at this location. The treatments simply provide an
improvement for a low volume pedestrian crossing where pedestrians are already crossing and will like continue to cross.
Distance to the nearest marked or protected crossing may be reduced to 300 feet subject to TSC review and the City
Engineer’s judgment. For example, where crossing treatments and crossing activity would not create undue restrictions to
vehicular traffic operations.
Mid-block crossings are prohibited. Any potential improvements associated with existing mid-block crossings are reviewed on
a case-by-case basis and are ultimately subject to the City Engineer’s approval.
Y
Y
N
N
Y
3
1
2
1
2
3
*
*
384
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CROSSWALK POLICY 5
Notes:
1. Painted medians can never be considered a refuge for a crossing pedestrian. Similarly, a 4 foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be considered a refuge for pedestrians if the left
turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour (meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing).
2. A multiple threat lane is defined as a through lane where it is possible for a pedestrian to step out from in front of a stopped vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (either through or turn lane).
3. Additional treatments may be considered if suitable gaps in traffic for safe crossing are not available.
Treatment Descriptions
A
B
C
D*
E*
Install marked crosswalk with road-side signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) with standard (W11-2) advance pedes-
trian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee.
Install marked crosswalk with road-side and in-roadway (bollard mounted) signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian”
(R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail
stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee.
Install marked crosswalk with signs and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: For 2-lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law
– Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School
Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Add curb extensions (concrete, paint, flexible delineators) or
median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists.
For 3+ lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway,
(W11-2 and W16-7P) mounted at the crossing location on the side of the roadway and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on
in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be
evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Add curb extensions or median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase
pedestrian visibility to motorists. Advance stop bars may be used in combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
Install marked crosswalk with advanced “Stop here for Pedestrians” signs, pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: Install raised median refuge island (unless it is a one-way street or one already exists) to shorten the pedestrian crossing
distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. [If a median refuge cannot be constructed on a two-way street, go to Treatment E]. Install
marked crosswalk with signs (W11-2 and W16-7P) WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway and on median mounted
signs AND advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway; use standard (W11-2) advance warning
pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations; trail stop signs will be evaluated by the Traffic Safety Committee. Consider
adding curb extensions at the crossing if on-street parking exists on the roadway and storm drain considerations will allow. Advance stop bars may
be used in combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal,
or grade-separated crossing
Specific Guidance: Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal or grade-separated crossing; application of these treatments will consider
corridor signal progression, existing grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors.
*Will require an engineering study to be performed
2 Lanes (one way street) 2 1 A B C A B C
2 Lanes (two way street with no median) 2 0 A B C A B C
3 Lanes (w/raised median) 1 or 2 0 or 1 A B D A C D
3 Lanes (w/striped median) 3 0 or 1 C C D C C D
4 Lanes ( two way street w/no median) 4 2 A D D B D D
5 Lanes (w/raised median) 2 or 3 2 A B D B B C
5 Lanes (w/striped median) 5 2 D D D D D D
6 Lanes (two way street w/or w/out median) 3 to 6 4 E E E E E E
Roadway Configuration
# of
lanes
crossed
to
reach a
refuge(1)
# of
multiple
threat
lanes(2)
per
crossing
1,000-9,000vpd(3)
Roadway ADT and Posted Speed
≤30mph 35mph 35mph40mph 40mph≤30mph
9,000-12,000 vpd
Table 1. Decision Guide for Crossing Treatments
385
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Approval of a Three-Year Economic Development Plan
File No.Item No: I.1
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Sam DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager
Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the proposed Three-Year Economic Development Plan."
Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present
Strategic
Priority Development & Redevelopment
SUMMARY
The City Council is asked to approve the proposed Three-Year Economic Development Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, the city contracted with Raftelis, a consulting group that aids local governments in assessing
current conditions and planning for improvement for the future, to complete an operational study of all
departments across the organization. The goal of this assessment was to review the operations,
processes, procedures, and resource levels of the city’s departments, as well as identify what
opportunities exist to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and position the city
to meet anticipated growth.
Raftelis recommended that the city should develop a three-year Economic Development Plan to give
guidance to the Economic Development Manager, a new position created in 2022, and set a course for
success as this newly-created role develops.
386
The recommendation stated the primary duties of the Economic Development Manager should include
the following:
Business Outreach - creating a rotation schedule for when the Manager will meet with businesses
Developing a database of businesses and properties within Chanhassen (which has already
begun)
Local Networking - creating relationships with commercial real estate brokers
Working with utility organizations and departments to understand what’s available as far as
locations
Raftelis also recommended that this plan be communicated to the community and city staff and that it
should include the following sections:
A summary of current economic conditions in the city
A regional Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis
A strategic action and implementation plan, consistent with other city-wide plans
A performance evaluation framework
An Economic Resiliency Plan
The Economic Development Commission has worked with staff on the development of this plan and
recommended the adoption of the plan at their February 13, 2024 meeting.
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is asked to review and approve the proposed Three-Year Economic Development
Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
2024 Three Year Economic Development Plan
387
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 4
388
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 2
389
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………...………………………………………………...……….4
B. PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................... 5
C. CURRENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ................................................................. 6
1. Population .................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Employment ............................................................................................................................... 9
3. Educational………………………………………………………………………………………………13
4. Housing and Household Income………………………………………………………………………14
5. Cost of Living ........................................................................................................................... 16
D. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS ...................... 17
E. STRATEGIC ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................. 18
Goal 1. Healthy Local Economy ....................................................................................................... 18
Goal 2. Equity and Inclusion ............................................................................................................. 19
Goal 3. Sustainable Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 19
Goal 4. Thoughtful Growth ............................................................................................................... 20
Goal 5. Community Development ..................................................................................................... 21
F. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 22
G. ECONOMIC RESILIENCE PLAN .................................................................................................... 23
390
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 4
A. Executive Summary
Chanhassen has been nationally recognized as one of the best places in America to live. The city’s
natural amenities and quality of life are valued by residents and visitors alike. Although having
numerous positive attributes, there were weaknesses and threats identified in the SWOT Analysis,
completed by the Economic Development Commission (EDC), and in the current statistical data,
that if not addressed, could affect Chanhassen and its long-term growth.
Economic Development Statistical Information
1. Chanhassen’s senior population, especially those between the ages of 65 and 74, have
witnessed the fastest and most significant growth.
2. The average annual salary in Chanhassen is $72,592.
a. The second highest employment by industry type is Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities, at 17.6%, with average hourly earnings of $25.49 ($53,019 annually).
3. The median housing costs in Chanhassen are 11% higher than the average owner-
occupied housing costs in Carver County. Additionally, renter-occupied housing costs are
22% higher than the average renter-occupied housing costs in Carver County.
Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis
1. Perceived as resistant to change and not business-friendly (e.g., high city fees),
2. High cost of housing and limited workforce housing, and
3. Neighboring cities have more available land and areas for increased density.
Over the next three years, staff will work to ensure developers are bringing in a variety of housing
types and styles at various price points. Strategies will also be implemented to create and retain
affordable, life-cycle housing which is important as it will ensure that Chanhassen can maintain its
goal of being a “community for life”.
Chanhassen has a highly educated community with 63.9% of its population 25 years and older
having at least a bachelor’s degree in 2021. Staff will work to market vacant or underutilized
properties to employers recruiting staff with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The goal of increasing
graduate-level jobs is to allow residents to both live and work in Chanhassen.
This plan's development, as well as the implementation of the Economic Resiliency Plan, will
provide staff and the EDC with a clear vision towards economic success and continued guidance
when making decisions, creating policy, and implementing programs.
391
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 5
B. PURPOSE
In 2023, the city contracted with Raftelis, a consulting group that aids local governments in
assessing current conditions and planning for improvement for the future, to complete an
operational study of all departments across the organization. The goal of this assessment was
to review the operations, processes, procedures, and resource levels of city departments, as
well as identify what opportunities exist to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of service
delivery and position the city to meet anticipated growth.
The recommendation stated the primary duties of the Economic Development Manager should
include the following.
• Business Outreach - Creating a rotation schedule for when the Manager will meet with
businesses and develop a database of businesses and properties within Chanhassen ,
and;
• Local Networking - Create relationships with commercial real estate brokers, working
with the utility organizations and departments to understand what’s available as far as
locations and communicating this information to stakeholders.
Raftelis also recommended that the city should develop a three-year Economic Development
Plan to give guidance to the Economic Development Manager, whose position was newly
created in 2022, and set a course for success as this role continues to develop. This plan is to
be communicated to the community and city staff and should include the following sections.
• A summary of current economic conditions in the city,
• A regional Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis ,
• A strategic action and implementation plan, consistent with other city-wide plans,
• A performance evaluation framework, and
• An Economic Resiliency Plan.
392
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 6
C. CURRENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The following statistical information was provided to staff by Tim O’Neil, Twin Cities Metro Regional
Labor Market Analyst with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED), his email is timothy.oneill@state.mn.us.
1. POPULATION
Carver County is the 11th largest of the 87 counties in the state. Its population has increased over
the past decade, ranking Carver County as the fastest-growing county in the state of Minnesota
from 2010 to 2022 (Table 1).
Table 1. Population Change 2010-2022
Carver County's population is aging, especially as the “Baby Boom” generation moves through the
population pyramid (Figure 1).
Table 2. Population by Age Group, 2022 Figure 1. Population Pyramid, 2000-2022
393
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 7
The 5-year estimates compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS),
detailed that Chanhassen’s total population increased by approximately 11.2% (+2,574 people)
between the 2011 and 2021. Comparatively, Minnesota’s total population increased by
approximately 7.4% during that period. Chanhassen’s senior populations, especially those
between the ages of 65 and 74, witnessed the fastest and most significant growth (Table 3).
Table 3. Chanhassen Population by Age, 2011-2021
The Metropolitan Council (METC) updates its 30-year forecasts at least once per decade.
Forecasts indicate when, where, and how much population, household, and job growth the region
and its communities can expect. The METC recently shared their updated forecasts for
Chanhassen (Table 4) and Carver County (Table 5). Chanhassen is designated as Emerging
Suburban Edge, Emerging Suburban Edge.
Table 4. METC Chanhassen 2040 Forecast
Table 5. METC Carver County 2040 Forecast
394
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 8
The race demographics chart (Table 6) offers a visual snapshot of the diverse population that
defines the city’s collective identity. This chart not only illustrates the distribution of racial groups
but also serves as a valuable resource for recognizing the growth of cultural diversity in the
community.
Table 6. Chanhassen Population Demographics, 2000-2020
Carver County's population is also becoming more racially diverse. Since 2011, the county's white
population has increased, but at a slower rate than a number of other races (Table 7 and Figure 2).
Table 7. Carver County Population Demographics
Figure 2. Carver County Population by Race, 2021
395
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 9
2. Employment
Coming out of the pandemic, Carver County hasn’t fully recovered in the number of jobs (Figure 3),
but in 2022, it had the 11th largest economy of the 87 counties in the state. Carver County was the
5th fastest growing in the past year and had the 29th fastest growth since 2019.
Figure 3. Industry Employment Statistics, 2007-2022
Table 8. Carver County Industry Figure 4. Change in Jobs, 2021 -2022
Employment Statistics, 2022
396
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 10
Approximately 36% of Chanhassen residents (residents 16 years of age and older who were
working) worked within Chanhassen city limits. Meanwhile, 64% of Chanhassen residents worked
outside the city’s boundaries (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Residents 16+ Workplace Location
A smaller percentage of workers in Carver County worked in the same county in which they live
compared to the state as a whole. Carver County also had a longer average commute time than
the state average.
Figure 6. Time leaving home to go to
Table 9. Carver County Community Characteristics, 2021 work, 2021
397
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 11
According to the Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), the City of Chanhassen had 800 business
establishments (Figure 7), supplying 15,459 total jobs in 2022.
Figure 7. Chanhassen Employment Trends, 2000-2022
Total payroll for all jobs equaled $1.1 billion, with the average annual wage in Chanhassen is
$72,592 (Table 10). Manufacturing is the leading industry in Chanhassen with 29.5%. Coming in
second at 17.6% is Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, which is part of the “service-providing
industries group” and includes employment in wholesale, retail, transportation and warehousing,
and utilities. These industries have average hourly earnings of $25.49 (Source:
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag40.htm).
Table 10. Chanhassen Industry Statistics, Annual 2022
398
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 12
In 2023, the median hourly wage ($25.60) in Region 11 (Figure 8), was higher than the state
median hourly wage. Overall, Region 11 had the highest median hourly wage level of the 13
economic development regions in the state. Region 11 Includes the Counties of Caver, Scott,
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
Figure 7. MN Economic Development Regions
Wages were highest for management occupations ($60.18) and lowest for food preparation and
serving-related jobs ($15.29) (Table 11).
Table 10. Occupational Employment & Wage Statistics, 2023
399
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 13
Moving forward, DEED is predicting the following occupations will be highest in demand.
Table 11. Twin Cities Occupations in Demand, 2022
400
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 14
3. Educational Attainment
Chanhassen’s population is highly educated. According to ACS 5-year estimates, 98.5% of the
city’s population 25 years of age and older had a high school diploma or more in 2021. This is
compared to 93.9% of Hennepin County and 96.2% of Carver County.
63.9% of Chanhassen’s population who are 25 years and older had a bachelor’s degree or more in
2021. This is compared to 51.8% of Hennepin County and 49.7% of Carver County (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Chanhassen Education Attainment, Population 25 Years and Over, 2021
In Carver County, 95.1% of adults 18 years and over have at least a high school diploma. This is
higher than the State of Minnesota, at 92.8%. Carver County also has a high percentage of college
educated people with 75.8% compared to the state average of 68% (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Educational Attainment, 2021
401
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 15
4. Housing & Household Income
According to ACS 5-year estimates, Chanhassen had a median household income of $123,566 in
2021. The comparative median household incomes were $107,890 in Carver County and $85,438
in Hennepin County (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Household Income Distribution in Chanhassen, 2021
For occupied housing units, the median monthly housing cost in Chanhassen was higher than that
of Hennepin and Carver Counties (Figure 11 ).
Figure 11 . Median Monthly Housing Costs
402
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 16
Chanhassen residents also pay more for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing
(Figure 12). In total, median housing costs in Chanhassen are 11% higher than the average owner -
occupied home in Carver County. Additionally, renter-occupied housing costs in Chanhassen are
22% higher than the average renter-occupied housing in Carver County.
Figure 12. Owner Vs. Renter Housing Costs, 2021
Chanhassen had approximately 9,406 occupied housing units in 2021, with 8,262 (87.8%) being
owner-occupied and 1,144 (12.2%) being renter-occupied. Chanhassen had approximately 488
vacant housing units in 2021 (4.9%).
Source: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S2501?t=Housing&g=050XX00US27019,27053_160XX00US2710918
In comparison,
• Hennepin County had 523,528 occupied housing units (63.1% owner-occupied and 36.9%
renter-occupied) and approximately 26,726 vacant housing units in 2021 (4.9%).
• Carver County had 38,213 occupied housing units (82.7% owner-occupied and 17.3%
renter-occupied) and approximately 1,602 vacant housing units in 2021 (4.0%).
Carver County had a higher median housing value than the state, having the 1st highest value of
the 87 counties in 2021.
Table 13. Estimated Value of Owner-occupied Housing Units, 2021
.
403
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 17
5. Cost of Living
Carver County had a higher median household income than the state and a lower percentage of
households with incomes below $50,000. Overall, Carver County had the 2nd highest median
household income of the 87 counties in the state.
Figure 14. Carver County Income vs.
State of MN Income, 2017-2021 Figure 15. Household Incomes, 2021
The cost of living has increased over the past 2 years. Carver County had a higher cost of living
than the state, with a minimum hourly wage of $17.77 required for a single person living alone to
meet the basic needs and an hourly wage requirement of $20.94 for a typical family with 2 adults
and 1 child (see Table 14).
Table 14. Basic Needs Costs of Living Estimates, 2022
Figure 16 Household Income of Owner-Occupied vs. Rental Households in Carver County, 2017-2021
404
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 18
C. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES,
THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS
This SWOT Analysis was completed as a collaboration between the Community Development
Department and the Economic Development Commission (EDC).
CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN CHANHASSEN’S BORDERS:
Strengths: The strengths of a city are assessed by
looking at characteristics internal to a city, and that
impact how it might be viewed by potential businesses,
developers, or other economic agents.
Weakness: These are also focused on the internal
features of a city that have the potential to impact its
marketability to businesses, developers, or other
economic agents. Can be categorized as real,
perceived, or areas of uncertainty.
• Highly educated community with high-income
levels.
• Full-time Fire Department.
• Close proximately to the major highway system.
• Elevated quality of life with access to natural
amenities (parks, trails, lakes, etc.).
• A high number of major attractions (Paisley
Park, the Arboretum, and Chanhassen Dinner
Theatre) with approximately 350,000 annual
visitors.
• Strong support from the Chamber of Commerce,
Buy Chanhassen, Legion, and two Rotary
groups.
• Perceived as resistant to change and not
business-friendly (high city fees).
• Lack of attainable housing and rentals.
• No cohesive city center and lack of walkability,
bike-ability, and public transportation.
• High land and development costs.
• Lack of developable land and the remaining
parcels will be costly to develop/redevelop.
CAN COME FROM OUTSIDE OF CHANHASSEN:
Opportunities: A city's future opportunities are
approached broadly and strategically. Opportunities are
related to the physical elements of the city, market
conditions, and real or perceived advantages for the city.
Threats: These can be categorized as real, perceived,
or unknown. Understanding the underlying issues and
causes of a threat, as well as minimizing their impacts,
are methods by which their damage to a city can be
mitigated.
• Infill and underutilized properties could be
marketed to developers and other local investors
(i.e., Mixed-Use).
• Underutilized parking ramp downtown.
• Youth and adult education, and incumbent
worker training.
• Location and connectivity to MSP and the
MSP/St. Paul International airport.
• High cost of housing and limited workforce
housing.
• Development, land, and building costs are
high.
• Lack of available workforce, transportation,
and land.
• Increasing interest rates.
• Refinancing interest rates are high therefore
people stay in their homes longer.
• Neighboring cities have available land and
areas for densification.
405
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 19
D. Strategic Action and Implementation Plan
The City of Chanhassen’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the many reasons why people
choose to live and work in the city. These reasons included:
• A neighborly place with low crime rates,
• An attractive and walkable downtown,
• Many community amenities and special attractions,
• A wide housing stock to accommodate all budgets and stages of life, and
• A large commercial base so residents can live and work in the community.
As part of this three-year plan, it is important to build off these positive attributes as well as to
identify new areas where economic development initiatives can be implemented. The incorporation
of both aspects will allow the city to maintain its identity while continuing to grow.
Goal 1. Healthy Local Economy
Every business, job, and institution within the city relies on each other for success. Workers and
jobs create ripple effects as people spend money on homes, local goods, and services.
Businesses support the local economy through jobs and the potential for spin-off businesses. The
city will continue to support businesses with the intention that their economic success will aid in the
success of the overall city.
STRATEGY:
1. Create a business-friendly environment where current and future businesses are aware of
staff, programs, and tools available to assist them through the various stages of business,
from entrepreneurship to succession planning.
2. Attract employers who require employees to have a bachelor’s degree or higher to utilize
the available highly educated local workforce (Figure 4).
OBJECTIVE:
1. Continue the Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E) Program and Survey.
2. Educate the business community on the resources available to them.
3. Market incentives to attract high-wage/front-of-the-house jobs requiring at least a bachelor’s
degree or higher.
TACTIC:
1. Schedule monthly one-on-one meetings with local business owners and/or operators.
2. Businesses will be encouraged to complete the BR&E Survey and their responses will be
compiled in SourceLink Pro.
3. The “Businesses” section on the website will be built out to include tools and resources for
local businesses.
406
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 20
Goal 2. Equity and Inclusion
The motto for the City of Chanhassen is “A community for life”, therefore the city must work to
ensure the availability of a variety of housing opportunities for residents of all races/ethnicities,
income levels, and stages of life. By growing and maintaining a variety of housing types and styles,
more residents will be able to live and work in Chanhassen.
STRATEGY:
1. Retain Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) for homeowners and renters.
NOAH refers to residential properties that are typically older housing stock which are less
desirable and therefore more affordable for renting or purchasing.
2. Encourage zoning for a diversity of housing types and styles. Diverse housing types such as
apartments, townhouses, and twin homes require less energy to build, heat, and cool, have
a lower impact on the environment, and are generally more affordable.
OBJECTIVE:
1. Maintain the quality of existing naturally occurring affordable housing by providing funding to
property owners to complete updates to their property while keeping it affordable to the
community.
2. Promote density through planning initiatives such as mixed-use developments and/or
increased density for development projects that contain a certain level of affordable units.
TACTIC:
1. Utilize $300,000 in Metropolitan Council (METC) funds to create a program that will aid local
NOAH homeowners and/or rental property owners to utilize funds to complete updates to
the property.
2. Staff will continue to share vacant or underutilized properties and their future zoning
classifications with developers.
Goal 3. Sustainable Infrastructure
The purpose of sustainable infrastructure (roads, water, sewers, fiber, etc.) is to support the city’s
current residents, but it will also benefit future generations. The city must be mindful as we
maintain and develop infrastructure to ensure that the current and future needs of the community
are met. A common development/developer dilemma is the high development fees associated with
extending public water and sewer infrastructure.
STRATEGY:
1. Inform businesses and developers on the history of the city’s sewer and water infrastructure
as well as on the current Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) and the Water Availability Charge
(WAC) fee structure.
407
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 21
OBJECTIVE:
1. Educate property owners, developers, leasing agents, and business owners on the purpose
of the SAC/WAC fee and how this could affect them as their business grows or as their
property changes use in a way that creates more demand on the sewer and wastewater
systems.
TACTIC:
1. Create a webpage and/or market current webpage(s) that provides information on the
development fees for new and expanding businesses in Chanhassen.
2. Work with relevant departments to develop a policy related to the SAC/WAC fee so it’s clear
to the business community and property owners how the units are used, recorded, and/or
reused.
3. Staff will market resources to property owners that can help mitigate the burden of these
fees as their parcels change use or get significantly redeveloped.
Goal 4. Thoughtful Growth
By promoting thoughtful growth, the city can tailor new and infill projects to meet the long-term
goals of the community. Building for the future of Chanhassen will prevent costly redevelopments
in the future and lead to higher levels of resident satisfaction. Priority should be placed on
identifying ways to increase density and local connections without compromising quality. A
walkable city, with purposeful development choices, will accommodate the growing population and
attract a younger generation of residents.
STRATEGY:
1. Increase knowledge of available infill sites throughout the city.
2. Promote redevelopment of underutilized or under-performing parcels.
3. Convenience draws people to places, and having neighborhood businesses just a short
walk or a bike ride away is a draw for current and new residents.
OBJECTIVE:
1. Staff will identify and connect with commercial property owners to discuss the possibility of
infill and/or redevelopment.
2. Staff will work to educate property owners on the location of utilities and how that could
affect future development.
3. Increase pedestrian connections and focus on keeping amenities within a walkable
distance.
408
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 22
TACTIC:
1. All commercial/industrial infill lots will be identified, and staff will contact the current owners
of these parcels to discuss their plans for the site.
2. Staff will request that developers add or expand sidewalks and trails with the land use
development or improvements.
Goal 5. Community Development
The League of Minnesota Cities states the following about Community Development:
“Cities must constantly respond to a changing environment. To create vibrant places for residents to
live, work and play, cities regulate the use of land within their boundaries, use tools to assist in ensuring
housing stock for residents, and to attract and support business for economic growth.”
When community development is effective, there is less crime, less disparity between citizens,
better jobs available, a more talented workforce, and fewer overall issues that impact residents.
Community development doesn’t necessarily solve problems in a city; but it will reduce problems
and increase growth opportunities. Without community development, both economic and business
development suffer greatly.
STRATEGY:
1. Increase the sense of community by celebrating local businesses.
OBJECTIVE:
1. Local businesses will work together to build an ecosystem where they feel supported by
each other and the community.
2. Encourage residents to shop locally and support locally owned businesses.
TACTIC:
1. The city will aid in the promotion of a yearly Small Business Saturday event through
business outreach and creating public-facing resources and branded materials.
2. Consider adding additional local business events such as Manufacturing or Restaurant
Week or other programs that increase a positive business-friendly ecosystem.
3. The city will facilitate introductions between business owners and will add quarterly
business meetings/tours.
409
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 23
E. Performance Evaluation Framework
A. Healthy Local Economy Timeline Tracking/Reporting
1. Schedule monthly one-on-one meetings with local business
owners and/or operators.
On-Going Annual Report
2. Businesses will be encouraged to complete the BR&E Survey
and their responses will be compiled in SourceLink Pro.
On-Going Annual Report
3. The “Businesses” section on the website will be built out to
include tools and resources for local businesses.
09/2024 This will be presented
to the EDC on or
before October 2024
B. Equity and Inclusion Timeline Tracking/Reporting
1. Utilize $300,000 in Metropolitan Council (METC) funds to
create a program that will aid local NOAH homeowners and/or
rental property owners to utilize funds to complete updates to the
property.
06/2024 This will be presented
to the EDC on or
before June 2024
2. Staff will continue to share vacant or underutilized properties
and their future zoning classifications with developers.
On-Going Annual Report
C. Sustainable Infrastructure Timeline Tracking/Reporting
1. Create a webpage and/or market current webpage(s) that
provides information on the development fees for new and
expanding businesses in Chanhassen.
06/2025 This will be presented
to the EDC on or
before July 2025
2. Work with relevant departments to develop a policy related to
the SAC/WAC fee so it’s clear to the business community and
property owners how the units are used, recorded, and/or
reused.
05/2024 This will be presented
to the EDC and CC on
or before
July 2024
3. Staff will market resources to property owners that can help
mitigate the burden of these fees as their parcels change use or
get significantly redeveloped.
12/2024 This will be presented
to the EDC on or
before January 2025
D. Thoughtful Growth Timeline Tracking/Reporting
1. All commercial/industrial infill lots will be identified, and staff
will connect with the current owners of these parcels to discuss
their plans for the site and potential development.
12/2026 Annual Report
2. Staff will request that developers add or expand sidewalks and
trails with the land use development or improvements.
On-Going Annual Report
E. Community Development Timeline Tracking/Reporting
1. The city will aid in the promotion of a yearly Small Business
Saturday event through business outreach and creating public-
facing resources and branded materials.
On-Going Annual Report
2. Consider adding additional local business events such as
Manufacturing or Restaurant Week or other programs that
increase a positive business-friendly ecosystem.
On-Going Annual Report
3. The city will work to introduce business owners to each other
and will add quarterly business meetings/tours.
On-Going Annual Report
410
Chanhassen Economic Development Strategic Plan
Page | 24
F. Economic Resilience Plan
Resilience is an overarching theme that ties an economic development plan together. The
resilience of a community or an economy is defined as “the capability to anticipate risk, limit
impact, and bounce back rapidly through survival, adaptability, evolution, and growth in the face of
turbulent change” (NADO Research Foundation) and the Federal Economic Development
Administration (EDA) also defines economic resiliency as “the ability of an area to prevent,
withstand, and quickly recover from major disturbances to its underlying economic base.”
Staff has identified the following strategies to aid the business community and residents with a
higher level of resiliency:
1. Promote public and private investments in the community to promote and sustain the
creation and retention of local businesses.
2. Create more opportunities for entrepreneurs to start new businesses.
3. Partner with the planning department to develop and implement areas within the 2050
Comprehensive Plan to promote balanced development including affordable housing and
ownership options for young families and seniors to create intergenerational housing
options.
4. Redevelop underutilized buildings, particularly targeting the Central Business District to
create a true downtown.
5. Increase and modernize parking spaces downtown and utilize the existing parking provided
by Southwest Transit.
6. Partner with the planning department to design and install wayfinding street signs that are
more visible for drivers and easy to read that will inform about local tourist attractions and
destinations.
7. Encouraging diversification of industries and sectors to reduce oversaturation of industries
or businesses. This helps spread risks and enhances overall resilience.
8. Promoting innovation and the adoption of new technologies to drive economic growth and
competitiveness.
9. Building partnerships with businesses, communities, and other stakeholders to create a
collaborative and coordinated approach to economic resilience.
411
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
File No.Item No: I.2
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
Acknowledge Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority Financial Sustainability
SUMMARY
The City of Chanhassen was recently awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting through the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for
the annual comprehensive financial report for the 2022 fiscal year.
The report has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program, which
includes demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial
story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the report.
The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental
accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a
government and its management.
BACKGROUND
412
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Announcement of Award
413
2/9/2024
Laurie Hokkanen
Manager
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Laurie:
We are pleased to notify you that your annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022 qualifies for GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting
and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and
its management.
When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting
Achievement (AFRA) is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated by the government
as primarily responsible for its having earned the Certificate. This award has been sent to the submitter as
designated on the application.
We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial
Reporting Achievement, and give appropriate publicity to this notable achievement. A sample news
release is included to assist with this effort.
We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and
maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting.
Sincerely,
Michele Mark Levine
Director, Technical Services
414
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Letter of Support for the State Highway 5 Mobility Project dated January 16,
2024
File No.Item No: J.1
Agenda Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
415
Letter of Support SWCTC 2024
416
CITY OT CHANIIASSII'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and planning for Tomonow
February 15, 2024
RE: Funding support for the State Highway 5 Mobility Project
To Whom it May Concern:
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, we extend support for continued pursuit of funds for the Highway 5
Mobility Project that will address the remaining two-lane gap segment plagued with congestion and
safety issues between the Cities of victoria and Chanhassen.
Currently, Highway 5 serves 27,000 vehicles per day -including 800 heavy commercial vehicles per day,
serving a demand 50% above the threshold of a two-lane highway section. This is resulting in a crash
rate 2.5 times the state average. The proposed project will expand HiBhway 5 to a four-lane roadway
and reduce vehicle delay up to 80%, result in a projected 51% crash reduction, provide multimodal
facilities, and improve safety for all users. A major environmental benefit of the project includes a bridge
over a portion of the corridor near the Arboretum that will reconnect severed wetland complexes
supporting the habitat and water quality of Lake Minnewashta.
The City of Chanhassen recognizes and understands the value of the proposed improvements on
Highway 5. The extreme congestion and high crash rates along the corridor currently create challenges
for local residents to access jobs and services in the Twin Cities metro. The University of Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum is investing over 5100M in redevelopment that will serve their approximately
700,000 annual visitors. Chanhassen recently completed a 56M rehabilitation project for Minnewashta
Pkwy and is currently constructing a S15M reconstruction project of Galpin Blvd, both of which are
direct collector road feeders to Highway 5. The City is also reinvesting in our downtown core, which is
also accessed directly from Highway 5. A S5.5M reconstruction of Market Blvd and a 535M
redevelopment of our Civic Campus is under design. Additionally, a 4-Acre redevelopment projed
bringing an additional 310 residential rental units is in the formal approval phase.
ln summary, the City of Chanhassen, along with the project partners, support the continued pursuit of
funding for the Highway 5 Mobility Project. We are united to bring forth this project that has been
developed by the community through strong engagement and partnerships.
Sincerely,e*T-u/rr'
Elise Ryan
Mayor
Charles J. Howley, PE, LEED AP
Public Works Director/City Engineer
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
I/OO I4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BO)( I47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 553]7 417
City Council Item
February 26, 2024
Item Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources dated February 20,
2024 - Final Approval of Chanhassen's Shoreland Ordinance Amendment
File No.Item No: J.2
Agenda Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk
Reviewed By
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
Motion Type N/A
Strategic
Priority N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
418
MN DNR Letter Approving Shoreland Ordinance Amendment
419
Revised 04/29/2021
1801 South Oak Street
Lake City, MN 55041
February 20, 2024
Eric Maass
Chanhassen Planning Director
EMaass@chanhassenmn.gov
Re: Final Approval of Chanhassen’s Shoreland Ordinance Amendment
Dear Eric:
Thank you for submitting the shoreland ordinance amendment adopted by the city on January 22, 2024.
We have reviewed the adopted ordinance amendment and find that it addresses the conditions and
terms of implementation flexibility listed in my letter to you dated December 14, 2023. We are pleased
to inform you that the adopted ordinance amendment is substantially compliant with the Statewide
Rules (MR 6120.2500 – 6120.3900). It is approved for use.
Please remember to send all future proposed amendments to your shoreland ordinance to the DNR at
least 30 days prior to a public hearing to allow enough time for us to review and prepare comments in
time for the public hearing. Additional information on how to submit future amendments can be found
at the DNR’s website for “adoption and amendment shoreland ordinances.”
Contact Taylor Huinker, DNR Area Hydrologist for your area, for questions about amending and
administering your shoreland ordinance and with other water related plans and projects.
Sincerely,
Megan Moore
DNR EWR South District Manager
Attachments:
Adopted Ordinance
c: Taylor Huinker, DNR Area Hydrologist – taylor.huinker@state.mn.us
Ordinance.review.dnr@state.mn.us
420