Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/02/2012 Work Session
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Mayor Gmy L.Peterson C ounctlmembers Robert A.Williams 590 40"'Avenue NE,Columbia Heights,MN 55421-3878 (763)706-3600 TDD(763)706-3692 Bruce Nawmck Tanm¢era Diehm Visit our website at:www.ci.columbia-hei hts.mn.us Donna Schmitt City Manager Walter R.Fehst ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING to be held in the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Meeting of: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Date of Meeting: APRIL 2, 2012 Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M. Location of Meeting: CONFERENCE ROOM 1 Purpose of Meeting: WORK SESSION 1. Liquor financial report 2. Liquor Store 3 update 3. Funding downtown parking maintenance 4. Argonne Lift Station—engineering report 5. Green Step Cities 6. Council Corner The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services,programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk at 763-706-3611 to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) CITY COUNCIL LETTER WORK SESSION: APRIL 2,2012 AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER FINANCE APPROVAL ITEMS: BY: JOSEPH KLOIBER BY: -LIQUOR FINANCIAL REPORT -UPDATE ON LIQUOR STORE 3 DATE: MARCH 28,2012 Liquor Financial Report Attached are copies of the unaudited draft 2011 financial statements for the liquor fund. These statements follow the format required under state statute for the CAFR. A condensed version of these statements was published in the most recent edition of the Sun Focus newspaper, as required by state statute. At the work session, the Finance Director will provide analysis of key elements from these statements. Update on Liquor Store 3 At the work session, the Liquor Operations Manager and the Finance Director will provide an update on financial and building-condition issues specific to store 3 (Heights Liquor) at 5225 University Ave NE. JPK CouncilLetter_WorkSession_040212_Liquor.Doc Attachments CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND UNAUDITED DRAFT SUBCOMBINING SCHEDULE OF NET ASSETS December 31,2011 With Comparative Totals For December 31,2010 Debt Operating Service Totals Account Account 2011 2010 Assets Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 11,468 $ 266,316 $ 277,783 $ 7,000 Cash and cash equivalents with fiscal agent - 399,254 399,254 399,254 Receivables: Accounts(net of allowance for uncollectables) 269 - 269 416 Interest - 200 200 300 Due from other governmental units 1,228 - 1,228 - Interfund receivable - - - 1,691 Prepayments 17,425 79,931 97,356 87,529 Inventory-at cost 2,356,582 2,356,582 2,320,615 Total current assets 2,386,972 745,701 3,132,673 2,816,805 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Land 2,006,714 - 2,006,714 2,006,714 Buildings 3,915,062 - 3,915,062 3,915,062 Equipment 386,314 - 386,314 375,215 Total capital assets 6,308,090 - 6,308,090 6,296,991 Less: Accumulated depreciation (673,314) - (673,314) (524,640) Net capital assets 5,634,776 - 5,634,776 5,772,351 Total noncurrent assets 5,634,776 - 5,634,776 5,772,351 Total assets 8,021,748 745,701 8,767,449 8,589,156 Liabilities Current liabilities: Accounts payable 238,904 - 238,904 117,706 Accrued salaries and withholdings payable 20,127 - 20,127 18,490 Contract payable-retained percentage - - - - Due to other governmental units 95,098 - 95,098 87,608 Interfund payable - - - 102,815 Accrued interest payable - 103,747 103,747 106,828 Compensated absences payable-current 9,698 - 9,698 8,698 Bonds payable-current - 155,000 155,000 150,000 Total current liabilities 363,827 258,747 622,574 592,145 Noncurrent liabilities: Compensated absences payable-noncurrent 73,463 - 73,463 57,345 Bonds payable-noncurrent - 4,595,000 4,595,000 4,750,000 Total noncurrent liabilities 73,463 4,595,000 4,668,463 4,807,345 Total liabilities 437,290 4,853,747 5,291,037 5,399,490 Net Assets Invested in capital assets,net of related debt 5,634,776 (4,270,815) 1,363,961 1,359,130 Restricted for debt service - 162,769 162,769 150,822 Unrestricted 1,949,682 - 1,949,682 1,679,714 Total net assets $ 7,584,458 $ (4,108,046) $ 3,476,412 $ 3,189,666 _ _ e...., ,,^. 10 M N cr l0 M k N h 10 N N 00 10 10 N N V N tr) — M 00 00 N O N 10 O N o0 00 10 vi M N .--, N v'1 M oo sO ,n ' V1 O ' \D m N V0 Gi 0 c�i �O vi m oo O oo (` ,-. en oo O N` N 0 W ~O 01 N V Q1 u1 N d' d' d' Cr C1 M 0o N Cr,,, v1 <Y --■ N N .-. V1 N N N .-. 0 N M �-- o6 �O ,- M M Q A N 00 W 0 0 Q H 0 M V) V1 M 0 V1 M 00 V1 O N� N� 00 N 'C \O N 0\ 0 .•- v1 10 0 N <Y O 'ct cy, v1 - v0 .�- In VC en d, 01 O 01 ' m v', ' '0 ,e ' 0 N^ ' 7 Q N N O O oo M N� vi vi 00 'C C '� 00 �0 �}' O N N M M o0 C\ oo 00 N X O~ ^ '/) N k M M 00 '0 N N M N ,-, `:d N en m .-• CO s — N v ri m 00 00 ', 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 i ' ' ' O 0 •,* O O Q, O •E v M 0 . 00 00 O s N N� O M O> ,.0 i 1 1 / 1 1111 I O� ' ,' 0 ' M O •o N v1 v1 O tt N o0 N M m M D I 'C 0 0 ai ° N N M N 00 Q 4— .- 00 00 O M V1 vl M 0 0 kr) m oo Vl V1 N M Vl 00 01 0 r. v1 C0 0 0 NC V r' v1 01 5 v1 0 v1 ‘0 M <t O1 0 01 VO VO M M D1 M O N N O V O oo M oo N N d• 0 N C 00 10 V 0 C 'C ' <t N N N oo M v1 00 O ,--� V1 N V1 m M •--, 00 '0 'C v ,--- CY v1 jy U m M 00 'C N N N O Q 00 00 — (--- N N N co O ' M 00 00 C N f) o00 V 001 000 O 00 01 01 00 00 00 — \O Z b0 �° N in 10 En M M 00 M O "2i" V' v N D x 00 69 v W 0 0 M 'C ,--- N D, 01 N ■D 10 0 O �+ 00 0o D\ o0 1D N oo 0 00 0o O <r N 10 vi ■C [4 N ° h O N op N <t '! v:) NN Z M rci W cu 64 69 a _o W E O F' Q vi 0 0 C1 00 00 N N N '0 N_ N� W 0 01 N N M CT 000 7 za c0 00 'Cl '0 7f N7 v1 N V� 00 0.4 Z 7 0 In O - N 000 ' Vmi N a) W •-• •--• M N M C W 0. v) (A N ° 69 00 F W E >-' OW ,-. W (n M ,.0 0) C 16741 �l z n b F . m C < o °m' 0 0 W W ° Cl o :: 0) w° Ca ° o0 oA aa)i .c 10 o0 o E- i o ° R ai ¢ C •C7 b o o o 0 o > x a ° C 00 04 > 0 ° CO cn O 0 CO N 0 ,. C C 0 Q Q W > a ai cn a o c Ts 0) 0C o 0 0 U N 1-. O O.0 0 00 0 0' C 0 b 0 A N Gr p, 0� W o Cl ° y ° y a� a y a� _ o C-Q E 0 0 o i 0 0 Sao. •5 o E , o i ^ o o , -, �' y t O Z U o0 0, - .c E- ° F o a ? ti F 8 ° Qx o y 0, G030 00 Cl ))Q o `= a I4' CY UWvpUw � OU OU0 �1 Z Z Z HH U Z z CITY COUNCIL LETTER WORK SESSION: APRIL 2,2012 AGENDA SECTION:WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER FINANCE APPROVAL ITEM: FUNDING MAINTENANCE OF BY: JOSEPH KLOIBER BY: DOWNTOWN PARKING FACILITIES DATE: MARCH 28,2012 Background The Council will soon need to make decisions regarding the funding of the maintenance costs of the City- owned parking ramp associated with Fairview Clinic at 40th Avenue NE just west of Central Avenue, and the City-owned surface parking lot across from parking ramp on the south side of 40th Ave NE for which a site map is attached. The City has had a contract with the clinic for many years, whereby the City pays approximately 20% of the ramp maintenance costs and the ramp is kept available for public parking. 2012 is the last year of the current contract. The City's share of the annual maintenance costs has been roughly$15,000 but varies depending on actual costs incurred. With the heavy snowfall in the winter of 2010-2011, the City's annual payment was $22,000 under the contract. Historically, the City has funded this annual contract payment from a reserve that remains from the assessments levied to establish City-owned downtown parking. The current balance of this reserve is $113,000. Under new GASB accounting standards effective for 2011,this reserve no longer qualified to be reported in its own stand- alone fund. It was therefore moved into the general fund in 2010,but remains committed for the purpose of downtown parking maintenance. The restriction on the reserve (resolution 2010-138) allows for it to be used for the surface lot as well as the ramp, although it has not been used for the surface lot in recent history. The public works director reports that the surface lot now needs significant repair at an estimated cost of$70,000 to $85,000. Unlike the ramp, the ordinary annual maintenance costs of the lot have been paid entirely by the City. Past practice has been to work the plowing and sweeping of this lot into the plowing and sweeping of City streets budgeted in the general fund's street department. However, as state aid has dwindled and budgets have become tighter over the years, even these basic maintenance costs have been difficult to absorb into the street budget without impacting the maintenance of actual streets. The primary users of the parking ramp are Fairview Clinic customers and the primary users of the surface lot are customers of the Anoka County License Center. However,users of both the ramp and the lot can and do walk to many other downtown businesses. Analysis Presumably for the ramp to remain open to the public, the City will need to enter into a new agreement this year with the Clinic and commit to payments for an extended period of time, probably well beyond the life of the remaining reserve. The surface lot will only become more hazardous and costly to repair the longer the current condition remains unrepaired. Both of these parking facilities have on-going maintenance needs, but there is no on-going funding source planned for them. Accordingly, staff has assembled the following possible alternatives for the Council to consider when addressing these issues: 1. Temporary solution The Council could choose to fund the significant repair of the surface lot from the existing reserve,but that would only leave enough in fund to cover the 2012 and 2013 payments for ramp maintenance, assuming that a new ramp agreement retained approximately the current terms and there were no significant unforeseen circumstances. A possible variation of this alternative would be to levy a one- time special assessment to the benefiting properties for the significant repair of the surface lot. This would extend of the life of the existing reserve to approximately 2016. 2. Annual special assessment for parking maintenance levied from 39th Avenue to 41st Avenue In one view,there has been unequal treatment of the businesses adjacent to these two parking facilities. Fairview and any tenants of the clinic pay approximately 80%the annual ramp maintenance costs plus taxes. Whereas businesses adjacent to the surface lot pay only taxes, except for Anoka County which doesn't pay anything because it is tax exempt property. An annual on-going special assessment for parking maintenance would"level the playing field"between these businesses. In addition,this removes the financial burden from the City taxpayers generally and places it upon those property owners that derive sales from the parking. Under this alternative, the relative amount levied upon properties in this district would be supported by a parking use study. We do note that although it can be difficult to prove in some cases that routine maintenance costs meet the benefit test required by the state statutes that allow special assessments to be levied, staff judges that the benefit to retail/commercial property from maintaining off-street parking downtown can be established. 3. Annual special assessment for parking maintenance levied from 37th Avenue to 43st Avenue Similar to alternative 2 above, except that the district would extend over a larger area; with the charge to properties in the district declining the further they are from 40th Ave NE. The theory underlying this alternative is that the ability to park at the ramp and the surface lot supports the existence of a downtown business node, and the existence of this business node draws significant customers to businesses even at the far ends of the node,regardless of whether their customers use the ramp or municipal lot on any particular trip to their business. Revenue from broader district could be also be used to maintain the streetscaping features installed in this same area in 2002. 4. Negotiate ramp to the Clinic The City could attempt to give the ramp to the Fairview in a way that binds them to both paying all the maintenance costs and to keeping a portion of it open to the public. This would be similar to what will be done with the City-owned parking ramp associated with the office building east of Central Avenue. One or more of the other three alternatives above would then be used to address the cost of maintaining the surface lot. Requested Direction: Staff seeks direction from the Council at this work session on how they wish to proceed with this matter, so that staff may draft the appropriate proposed motions or resolutions for the Council to act upon at a future regular meeting or meetings. JPK CouncilLetter_W orkSession_040212_P arkingMaint.doc Attachment 40TH AVE — P, F c v j � • y t .I t - t 1 R I _ z Y Q a ct CC Jik Z,4. : .,_ . , . a r —I° 1 ` Z ■ Y 4 CC a 0 T. 10) £ J • Y :Clj t; o ffr Z ..O ;r ',! ' la t RK• r C "..- ‘ %IN ~ O La 900 % ILL Cr) CD vi Y m t<i Z Z 00 t >- 0 r W 1r cV W r Y D Qa0 Qpj Z ` N or . titti ..,.. •(t� 'is lt: '- !"ice.. , . 1 p- ' ,. r II li, t �"� +1Ra• IF`1 f ••, - 11• / . - fie • ~ R 4 . / ,b,A. . ,, ,-0; . '- , : 1 1,--- - - .� '�" i r yr.of = • W• ' , ...ail.: " l K CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 4/02/12 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE ARGONNE BY: K.Hansen BY: SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION,MUNICIPAL DATE: 3/28/12 DATE: PROJECT#1114 Background: On October 10, 2011 the Council approved the proposal from Bolton &Menk for consulting engineer services to provide an engineering report, provide project design through bidding, and provide construction administration services for the sanitary sewer lift station replacement serving the Argonne area. Analysis/Conclusions: Attached is the Engineering Report that evaluated the replacement of the Lift Station with recommendations. The report looked at the service area and original design criteria of the existing lift station—and is not recommending any changes for the new design. The original station was constructed in 1960 and currently serves less than 60 residential properties. The existing station structurally is aging, and the pumps and controls have had repeated failures. Bolton &Menk evaluated three types of lift stations—wet well/dry well; submersible; and suction lift(existing station type), detailed on page 4-1 with example diagrams. Cost estimates of each type of station are as follows: 1. Rehab existing structure with new pumps and controls: $161,000 2. Submersible with Valve Vault and generator: $243,000 Rehabilitating the existing structure, and replacing the pumps and controls is the most cost effective method as opposed to constructing a new lift station. I would concur with Bolton &Menk's recommendation to rehab the existing structure in place. Recommended Motion: Move to accept the Engineering Report for the Argonne Lift Station, City Project #1114, and order preparation of Final Plans and Specifications. COUNCIL ACTION: L C>N1 ►. rsol r** J , I N 1 Consulting Engineers & Surveyors City of Columbia Heights Engineering Report Argonne Lift Station Improvements March 2012 Bolton & Menk, Inc. Project No. M21.104158 ENGINEERING REPORT FOR ARGONNE LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA March 2012 BMI Project No. M21.104158 I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature: At, or Printed Name: Seth A.Peterson Date March 30,2012 Reg.No. 26468 BOLTON&MENK,INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 A. PURPOSE 1-1 B. AUTHORIZATION 1-1 C. REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-1 SECTION 2 PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA 2-1 A. SERVICE AREA 2-1 B. DESIGN CRITERIA 2-1 SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING LIFT STATION 3-1 A. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LIFT STATION 3-1 B. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING LIFT STATION 3-1 SECTION 4 IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 A. TYPES OF LIFT STATIONS 4-1 B. LOCATION 4-2 C. REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STATION 4-3 D. CONTROLS 4-3 E. RECOMMENDATION 4-4 SECTION 5 CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND IMPLEMANTATION SCHEDULE 5-1 A. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5-1 B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 5-3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Photos of Interior of Lift Station Appendix B Soil Investigation Boring Log Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page TOC-i Argonne Lift Station Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Follows Page 1 Typical Submersible Lift Station Plan and Section 4-1 2 Typical Submersible Lift Station with Valve Vault Plan and Section 4-1 3 Proposed List Station Layout Without a Valve Vault 4-2 4 Proposed Lift Station Layout With a Valve Vault 4-2 5 Landscape Rendering of Rehabilitated Lift Station Site 4-2 6 Landscape Rendering of New Submersible Lift Station Site 4-2 LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page 1 Argonne Lift Station Design Criteria 2-1 2 Argonne Lift Station Rehabilitation Project Cost Estimate 5-1 3 Argonne Lift Station Replacement Project Cost Estimate 5-2 Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page TOC-ii Argonne Lift Station Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Men/c Inc. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the City of Columbia Heights with the necessary information regarding the Argonne Sanitary Sewer Lift Station so that the required improvements can be implemented. A summary of the major items evaluated in this feasibility study are as follows: current and future Wastewater flows for the service area; deficiencies of the existing lift station; possible site locations for the lift station; current lift station design technology and construction methods; and estimated construction costs. B. AUTHORIZATION The City of Columbia Heights authorized the preparation of this report in accordance with a October 2011 Engineering Agreement between Bolton & Menk, Inc. and the City of Columbia Heights. C. REPORT ORGANIZATION To adequately address the major areas that were evaluated, this report is organized into five sections. Section 1 presents general information regarding this report. Section 2 presents the planning design criteria for the lift station. Section 3 discusses the deficiencies of the lift station. Section 4 presents the lift station improvements design analysis and recommendations. A summary of the estimated costs and implementation schedule are presented in Section 5. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 1-1 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. SECTION 2 PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA A. SERVICE AREA The service area for the Argonne Lift Station is completely developed with no future connections expected. Discussions with city personnel confirmed that current flows will be adequate for design purposes. The lift station serves 52 homes, with an approximate population of 130 persons. B. DESIGN CRITERIA The capacity of each of the two existing lift station pumps is rated at 100 gpm with both pumps having 5 hp motors. Past pumping records indicated an average daily flow of 9,500 gallons over the past seven years. No data is available to determine the peak hourly wet weather flow; therefore it was estimated using a peaking factor of 4.0. Table 1 Argonne Lift Station Design Criteria Parameter Quantity (gallons per day/gallons per minute) Average Daily Flow 9,500/7 Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow 38,000/28 As shown in Table 1, the peak hourly wet weather flow of 28 gpm is significantly less than the rated capacity of the existing pumps (100 gpm). However, the higher flow rate delivered by the existing pumps is required to maintain scouring velocities in the force main. Therefore, we recommend that the design flow rate of the proposed lift station pumps remain at 100 gpm. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 2-1 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING LIFT STATION A. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LIFT STATION The Argonne Lift Station was originally installed in 1960 as a suction lift station with replacement pumps being installed in 1984. The existing lift station consists of two suction lift pumps. Each pump is a 5 hp pump with a 4-inch discharge. The pumps are located above grade directly above the wet well. The lift station includes a fiberglass hood which covers the above grade pumps, valves, and control panel. The pumps are controlled by float switches that start and stop the pumps as required by the wastewater flow conditions. B. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING LIFT STATION A summary of the major deficiencies is as follows: 1. The existing Argonne Lift Station was constructed in 1960 and has been in service for approximately 52 years, with the current pumps being roughly 30 years old. The typical design life of lift stations of this type is estimated to be 20- 40 years. The lift station is showing signs of wear and replacement parts for the station are becoming difficult to find. 2. The wet well portion of the lift station has an adequate amount of storage; however, due to the age of the pumps and controls, failures have occurred with various portions of the existing system. For this reason, new pumps and controls are needed in this lift station. 3. Based on our site investigation of the lift station, the existing wet well shows signs of corrosion. There is exposed steel and some reinforcing steel that is severely corroded. The concrete in the structure appears to be in relatively good condition. In order to reuse the structure, repairs are required in the structure. Several pictures of the interior of the lift station are included in Appendix A. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 3-1 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. SECTION 4 IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. TYPES OF LIFT STATIONS Generally, lift stations located within a collection system can be categorized into three types: wet well/dry well, submersible, and suction lift. In a wet well/dry well lift station, the wastewater flows into the wet well and is connected to the pumps by the suction piping. The pumps and valves are located in the dry well where they are accessible to the operators. In this type of lift station,the wastewater only comes in contact with the internal parts of the pumps. Damage to the pump motors can occur if the dry well fills with water. In contrast, a submersible lift station is constructed using only a wet well. The pumps in this type of lift station are installed in the wet well. The pumps and motors are constructed as one unit and can be totally submerged without damage to the motors. The pumps are removed from the station for maintenance without the operator entering the structure. Submersible stations may include a valve vault to house the check and gate valves. If no valve vault is provided,the check valves will typically be located in the wet well while the gate valves will be buried and operated with a tee wrench. Unlike the other two types of stations, the submersible station has minimal aesthetic impacts as only the control panel is located above grade. Typical plan and section views for submersible lift stations, with and without a valve vault, are shown in Figures 1 and 2. A third type of lift station is a suction lift station,which is the type currently installed. This application includes a wet well with the pumps and valves located above grade and directly above the wet well. The pumps and valves are located in a heated enclosure which can be accessed for maintenance. Although suction lift stations offer easy access for repairs and maintenance, they also have limited applications as the maximum lift capable is approximately 20 feet. Therefore, suction lift stations cannot be used for deep lift stations. This may be an issue if the city wishes to standardize all of its lift stations. Suction lift stations also have a greater aesthetic impact as they require an above grade enclosure in addition to the above grade control panel. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 4-1 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk, Inc. KJIa3n (YOU z Q 0 ` O O F O 0 ce > d O z N O a = o Z <z o Zz }n o 0 0 LT z 0 cn z o 0 O0 //1 a W R t vii > ~ E N '� 0 J O J �� o Q = tea'1 i 1 - e \ a 0 z CO 3a a . l _ w ° w 0 Imo, > 2 U ___LLL `` N �n v) o }a O O Z Z z 1, p ,_o U 0 0 < V)) a a 0 z d o o J z o Z r _ 0 < c~n m o m er ii J z — o w 0 L g o z m ° a a a . a D p o d Y N 3 i a 4110 a o o z . .. . 0 , z , W >>>g g36 CC J C O d Li L C i ? . 7J C i 11� W �W8 ZC 0 l _ g I' 8 g 1 J i ir E Z Z m� o e2\ UN Z a 7 �L O Z4; a�' a J % La Q D W 0 jr. z CL `► it 7 a l■l►II II�� ;_ill*1� N NIdw30a0A II o lti` a %II►III ��`,► n:,:; 0 NIW 30803 i L o Z 0 W J F— > I— 0 V ° U) °z )2 Z2 OH w O a 0v)) H O o J z z WO £f:6 ZL/6L/L 6x,p.Z-L0Jn6Uuo!3o3S141\BS LbOL L COI\s146!aHo!qunlo0\:p pan,asaa s1,46!21 IIV'Z LOZ 'oul 5Juopi V uo}log p W W J > z >O o D o CO Q -< V)¢ 0 W v) Uw 0_ d UN UH ? <_J LJJ of W< d J d �I- o< > QS m> Z D I- 0_11 Q 0 0 >LIJ Q J > / eV >. i _ \ s_< � z ��i / , Lj►•jj ∎1111►,. o - z Z 5 z 1N3f113 I ;�i�• -—ice-' i�, i �j� Q Mk g ©.� '.� I411r i�lil►rlil�►wHII� I �II�� M z z A t o v v O� CO H w 3 a \ \ / NQ N a ....-- El U o „0 ,5 d J z o zI m t_ A.ILI2A o�3u - U zl W ? o W WI > i g s ° , c, o Z J w Y W> W z J C W 0!Q > a> I w L o J C N s Q W D 01 U 0 o E �'' J � Q N m D CO a� H 0 m o Z a 0 /w � o W -0 C a 0 w Q o ? , I , ,z 0 QI o Z 1= Q O I- 1 0 Z0 > J O t,.J I I , / ) N( Q 2 J o U o U W } W _a= oW o - z? Z O o ° ° w J z 0 ° o ND o I- = N z W U tn ° ° V V31- I M M M V) <V m D D Q. aW a d a w a 3 >a o (L Q o o D- U) D 0 4Ito d V) g J J o Z J ,1312,13A a33U wo ms zL/6l/) 6Mp'Z-Lom63uopo4S141\89t1,01 2W\s346ieHo)gwnloo\:p ia pansaa s)g6)8 IN' ZIOZ 'out 'Muaw og uo}Iog The capital costs for submersible or suction lift stations are generally less than installations that utilize both a wet well and dry well. In most cases, the space required for construction of a submersible lift station is less than that of a wet well/dry well installation, which also decreases construction costs. There is not a significant difference in cost between submersible and suction lift stations as both systems require the same relative footprint for the lift station. Both systems also have similar requirements for piping, valves, and pump size. Therefore, choosing between a suction lift and submersible station is more a matter of the depth of the lift station and operator preference than a matter of cost. Currently the City of Columbia Heights has three wet well/dry well and one suction lift stations throughout the collection system. The proposed improvements for the Argonne Lift Station would be similar to the existing lift stations already in service. The proposed improvements will be designed to accommodate similar pumping equipment. B. LOCATION If rehabilitation is the preferred option for the Argonne Lift Station, the location of the lift station would not change. In the event that a new lift station is constructed, the existing site has adequate space for construction of a new lift station. The new lift station would be located within the current Argonne Drive right-of-way,just to the west of the existing lift station. Constructing the new lift station next to the existing lift station will allow the existing station to operate during most of construction, minimizing bypass pumping costs. Proposed locations for a submersible lift station are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Figure 3 provides a layout with buried gate valves while Figure 4 provides a layout that includes a separate valve vault. Landscape renderings of the finished lift station site for both lift station rehabilitation and replacement with a submersible lift station are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. A soil investigation for this site has been completed and a copy of the geotechnical evaluation report is included in Appendix B. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 4-2 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. Q . I (• -,T,?, i I /'0 N N —' ' �9 • / — — — — — __ r� Z. ..r, n0U __ iJc•7tc?C)UC•c»UtU•HjCC� ROCS) / a I I LANDSCAPING ( // /— 978 / GARDEN �ENGHMARK— _——__————TOG NUT HYDRANT - Y — 1 --------. 978--------- I N STM MH 9 R=977.28 =966.16 (E) N -971.58 (8) CONCRETE SURFACE 1=969.10 (SW-TOP OF CAPPED 8), ARGONNE DRIVE NE ,:e NN , ,-_, , , , , ,- , , , , , , r, < < N SAN MP 8" PVC SAN / v R=977.47 / 1 1=968.26 (W) / 1=968.29 (6) a / /1=968-16 (5) I¢ / 4" CIP SAN FM n. � / -. < < < < ( < < < 11.111 �\ / ' \ " / I / / � MHL ��� � \A R=977.25 9'1'1 (( )I 1=968.27 (TOP 8") ' \Mir ' `,.,_i ———T"'----- II_e_)_.i. or .iz,/c 5-7,i&.l 1=970.84 (TOP 6") ✓/ �ii I=967.31 (BASE) ' LANDSCAPING u oI I Jc' .iS c- / ------------- I, u ,. lir EXISTING 4'iiit. 'iii- LI Fi _ ___ ----- ��I� STATION / / D` ' PROPOSE — - o / UFT — , STATION 0 y6sT W/ANTENNA, ELEC. BOX -—--—- —-- --— & LICH"C f S i - -- —980--- LANDSCAPING `-1 (ROCKS) V — _ __ 981---__ 5 -- _-------982 B L O C K K 1 0 7 I _ J--- 5 IIII ©Bolton&Menk, Inc. 2012,All Rights Reserved ,6\ColumbiaHeights\M21104158\LitStotionLocationFigure3-4.dwg 1/19/12 9:32 am T Z ' uN av, 1 O { g Z. h 3 R J 70 N N / �9 4 9 0 ------------ 300000a.. 3 000000000000000° —— LANDSCAPING (ROCKS)// 978--- _� I- . / GARDEN —_——--TO NUT HYDRANT — -------- 978------- —— 1 SRI 9 MH R=977.28 1=966.16 (E) 1=971.58 (W) CONCRETE SURFACE 1=969.10 (SW-TOP OF CAPPED e-',),.,■ ■ ARGONNE DRIVE NE e s , , , , , , , , SAN MH 8" PVC SAN R=977.47 =968.26 (W) 1=968.29 (E) a I 1=968.16 (5) N z 4"CIP SAN FM ?de- / < , , < < '--- ‘- t- , < , < ,—,\ IA MHL /�/ // U N / \ R=96787.27 (TOP 8" -11 c ' 1=970.84 (TOP 6") / u O ,../,/ 1=967.31 (BASE) ' --_-978 -----. LANDSCAPIN--———---� JF� r.a c -----,___----_ • e► i �« l o _---978__`` rlwNirj__,, t.∎.001∎41'i'l�i , \. tg---1 EXISTING t Ilr.�___ Go LIFT ---- -- �wlmo ar∎p1wpm-. ielow STATION PROPOSED PROPOSED U CONC VALVE VAULT LIFT (� —J ` STATION O e ,P6ST W/ANTENNA, ELEC. Box -- 979 /! \---.� 0 LANDSCAPING `-I (ROCKS) 7 ____-987---__ —982-- B L O C K 1 0 L 5 ©Bolton& Monk, Inc.2012,All Rights Reserved J:\ColumbiaHeights\M2110415B\LitStationLocationsgure3-4.dwg 1/19/12 9:30 am in ci ti 4, ., ` • F o S. �t ,`fir N j ;� wG'. Illott 4 } *a t '' vt'''‘ p� , ,a fix. . {{/j) mow t1 ;.g ."rig h,' m a 9 J.+ gg„ u X.ki. 9 J j ti C ",& tt C. i.. • Xr +: Wpm 3 n r.'4 ,:.":".s..'• I ‘. ,,,,,, \ Y k a `W w 1 Gi RS q gi" • bA r.''r' s y ,# • O q. ? "-le, - 0 ,y , .; .„ .., At"', :. ''''T,'• - .. w` I * - N' aE4 z bo:',44.,-µ o U .._,,.. LZfi b Li o4 r L ti bq 'y ,, O i MMQ "V in X01 ma r f `r 4 j t .... .._...., ._. _.._.. �i� —may. -4., s g y ' c , e . I = ' 0 .Y ' '4' t,. i 11:i r ) �,�,y ' V , - g ` :7 t411111417 1 C CI a x w i. Ii• v + 1 w O,, A ,I.ti ° Z U 7 C. REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STATION If the existing station is to be reused as a new suction lift station, there is a need for repair inside the structure. As noted in Section 3 and shown in Appendix A, there is corrosion in the structure, mainly to the exposed steel which is severely corroded. Bypass pumping will be required to properly repair the interior. Bypassing would allow the interior of the structure to be dry to allow for repair of the corroding steel. Sand blasting all surfaces will allow for proper cleaning and opening any pores. After this, the entire structure, including all exposed steel and piping, would be coated with an epoxy coating. Once the coating was properly cured, the bypass piping could be terminated and wastewater could flow back into the rehabilitated structure. There are two existing manholes, located in the middle of Argonne Drive that require some repair and it would make sense to do that work at the same time as the lift station work. The work would consist of replacing the rings in each of the manholes and some miscellaneous piping improvements. This work will require removal of a portion of the concrete street to repair the two manholes. D. CONTROLS The proposed lift station will utilize a submersible level transducer and pump controller to start and stop the pumps. A float system will also be used to monitor alarm conditions at the lift station and is a backup to the submersible level transducer. The pump controller will be used to change the set points for the level transducer and control the operation of the pumps. Each pump will be equipped with run-time monitoring to allow the operators to keep track of each pump's operation. The run-time data can then be used along with pump discharge rates to calculate lift station flow rates. The SCADA system will be included as part of the bid package and incorporated into the lift station control panel. The contract documents will contain an alternative to include the installation of a standby generator for the lift station. The unit would be either natural gas or diesel and provide the lift station with power in the event of a power outage. The generator would include an automatic transfer switch, which would automatically start the generator if power to the lift station was interrupted. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 4-3 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk, Inc. E. RECOMMENDATION Bolton& Menk, Inc.recommends that the City of Columbia Heights rehabilitate the existing concrete structure and replace the current pumps, valves, piping and controls. The existing suction lift station will continue to perform adequately if the aged equipment is replaced. Rehabilitation of the existing lift station is also much more cost effective than constructing a new lift station. The proposed lift station would utilize two (2), 5 hp suction lift pumps located above the wet well. Each pump will have the pumping capacity of 100 gallons per minute at 41 feet Total Dynamic Head. The submersible level transducer will be located inside the wet well will control the lift station pumps. Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 4-4 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. SECTION 5 CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND IMPLEMANTATION SCHEDULE A. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS In order to prepare the preliminary construction cost estimates presented herein, various material and equipment manufacturers and suppliers were contacted. Published and unpublished data on costs for similar kinds of construction were also utilized. The estimated costs are for January 2012. Increases in construction costs due to inflation are not taken into account. The project cost estimates for rehabilitation of the Argonne Lift station are shown in Table 2, while the cost estimates for constructing a new submersible lift station are shown in Table 3. Table 2 Project Cost Estimate Argonne Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation of Existing Structure—Suction Lift Station Option Columbia Heights,Minnesota Item Option 1 Option 2 (With Generator) 1. Mobilization, bonds, taxes $5,000 $5,000 2. Lift station structure rehabilitation $18,000 $18,000 3. Pumps $15,000 $15,000 4. Piping and valves $13,000 $13,000 5. Control panel $30,000 $30,000 6. Bypass Pumping $10,000 $10,000 7. SCADA/Communications $15,000 $15,000 8. Generator - $30,000 9. Repair MH rings/misc. piping $10,000 $10,000 9. Contingency (10%) $12,000 $15,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs $128,000 $161,000 Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 5-1 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. Table 3 Project Cost Estimate Argonne Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Submersible Lift Station Option Columbia Heights,Minnesota With Valve With Valve Item Basic Station Vault Vault and Generator 1. Mobilization, bonds, taxes $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 2. Demolish existing lift station $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 3. Lift station structure $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 4. Valve vault _ $20,000 $20,000 5. Pumps $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 6. Piping and valves $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 7. Site work/road restoration $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 8. Site piping $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 9. Control panel $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 10. SCADA/Communications $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 11. Generator _ _ $30,000 12. Repair MH rings/misc. piping $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 13. Contingency (10%) $17,000 $19,000 $22,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs $196,000 $219,000 $253,000 Based on the cost information provide above, the option to rehabilitate the existing station is considerably less than installing a new structure and lift station. The rehabilitation option also will allow the City to bid the installation of a permanent generator at the site. The permanent generator will allow the station to remain operational even during power outages. Our recommendation is to proceed with the rehabilitation of the existing structure and the installation of new suction lift pumps, valves,piping and controls. Columbia Heights, MN-M21.104158 Page 5-2 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Following is a proposed schedule indicating a time frame in which the City could expect to complete construction of the proposed improvements. PHASE COMPLETION DATE 1. Design Phase • Completion of Plans and Specification May 2012 • Approval of Plans and Specifications and May/June 2012 advertise for bids • Bid Award July 2012 2. Construction and Start-up Phase • Initiate construction July 2012 • Lift station start-up Sept./Oct. 2012 • Complete construction(landscaping and October 2012 surface restoration) Columbia Heights, MN—M21.104158 Page 5-3 Argonne Lift Stations Improvements Prepared by Bolton&Menk,Inc. APPENDIX A PHOTOS OF INTERIOR OF LIFT STATION : . .:- rw.•� f �.. „�. -" -�.. ' ® 4 - 'is elPAI ' . . 411* o- °I/P ' ' ' 777 h F. Pfi ii-" 1 , 4 '‘' r . r-K 'i • '''. ' ' 4 a;.d f ¢jJ yy SL. 1• r ! $',5,-40+' dCt.. � YY� $t4*'fi * ` a M, a .•' •, .::..1 11,11,, , ,,,tt i , ,, X L f , °'.�. , a.: fyp t fps '''''. Nk ' 1 .s s • w a x ..a„i '-'.'.: *le A rte_ s i. Ef 1 •, >„ A -4 e. . i rai a 71' ■ i ■ 1. ■ • v. _ Br.. gas* "° x a fir* )' qr _.. e.r. , .1*,...;,,„47., . ifie lik.,.,,,„,,,,ig. ,. .. ,.:.7..„......., , 41 ... , , , , ,' ? 4 . ' - P • ✓ . F'' 1**11411401 ' ''''' '''' x „ , ' * ,feel \ .1... ''* ,It. - 'Ns. +*' IIUx y �4, F :}F ,'f, f i ` ti 7 3y �'k tl 41 TF q3'' fpj -� `i4 ,a+ly APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Report Argonne Lift Station Improvements Argonne and Stinson Columbia Heights, Minnesota Prepared for City of Columbia Heights Professional Certification: I hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �` grit J1rfi .. V I UCUSEO • �p Gregory J. Bauer., PE PAC"ESS`,� Associate J Senior Engineer Et t,tr"a License Number:44610 ' '. 446"0 •°+ February 6, 2012 �� # s4 &g a`,�°` Project BL-12-00061 Braun Intertec Corporation Braun Intertec Corporation ? February 6, 2012 Project BL-12-00061 Mr. Kevin Hansen City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Argonne Lift Station Improvements Argonne and Stinson Columbia Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hansen: We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the proposed lift station replacement. A summary of our results is presented below. More detailed information and recommendations then follow. Summary of Results The results of the boring indicate suitable soil conditions for the installation of the proposed lift station. The soils consisted of poorly graded sand with silt to the termination depth of the boring. Groundwater was not encountered in the boring to the 26-foot termination depth. Summary of Recommendations It is our opinion the soils are suitable for open cut procedures for removing the existing lift station and installing the new one. It is also our opinion the soils should be classified as type B according to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.650. Remarks Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report,or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please call Greg Bauer at 612.221.3618 or Ron Shaffer at 952.995.2234. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Gregory J. Bauer, PE Associate/Senior Engineer Ronald A.Shaffer, PE Associate/Senior Engineer GeoRpt-Argonne Lift Station.docx Tot.iC1771,T <'t2 y77'_f'i'ring and t2nut"ro11m riot Sit Ctium:,Stticz 1057 Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction 1 A.1. Project Description 1 A.2. Purpose 1 A.3. Scope of Services 1 B. Results 2 B.1. Exploration Log 2 B.1.a. Log of Boring Sheet 2 B.1.b. Geologic Origins 2 B.2. Geologic Profile 2 B.2.a. Geologic Materials 2 B.2.b. Groundwater 2 C. Basis for Recommendations 3 C.1. Design Details 3 C.2. Anticipated Grade Changes 3 C.3. Precautions Regarding Changed Information 3 D. Recommendations 3 D.1. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure 3 D.2. Settlement 4 D.3. Excavation Support 4 D.4. Excavation Dewatering 4 D.5. Selecting Excavation Backfill 4 D.6. Placement and Compaction of Backfill 4 D.7. Below Grade Wall Design 5 D.8. Interior Slabs 5 D.9. Pavements 5 D.9.a. Subgrade Proof-Roll 5 D.9.b. Design Sections 5 E. Construction Quality Control 6 E.1. Excavation Observations 6 E.2. Materials Testing 6 E.3. Pavement Subgrade Proof-Roll 6 E.4. Cold Weather Precautions 6 F. Procedures 7 F.1. Penetration Test Boring 7 F.2. Material Classification and Testing 7 F.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification 7 F.3. Groundwater Measurements 7 Table of Contents (continued) Description Page G. Qualifications 7 G.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions 7 G.1.a. Material Strata 7 G.1.b. Groundwater Levels 8 G.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility 8 G.2.a. Plan Review 8 G.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing 8 G.3. Use of Report 8 G.4. Standard of Care 8 Appendix Log of Boring Sheet ST-1 Descriptive Terminology BRAUN I NTE RTEC A. Introduction A.1. Project Description We understand an existing lift station will be replaced. The new lift station will be a 5-foot diameter precast structure with an approximate top and bottom-of-structure elevations of 978.00 and 961.60, respectively. Preliminary design will also include a 5-foot diameter, 10-foot deep valve vault. The existing station is located in a landscaped area. A.2. Purpose The purpose of the evaluation was to provide foundation support, lateral loads, and backfill compaction recommendations for the installation of a replacement lift station. A.3. Scope of Services Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal to Seth A. Peterson, PE, with Bolton & Menk, Inc. We received authorization to proceed on January 19, 2012.Tasks performed in accordance with our authorized scope of services included: • Staking and clearing exploration locations of public underground utilities. • Performing 1 penetration test boring to a depth of 241/2 feet. • Performing laboratory tests on selected penetration test samples. • Preparing this report containing a CAD sketch,exploration log, a summary of the geologic materials encountered, results of laboratory tests,and recommendations for structure subgrade preparation and the design of the lift station. The exploration location was staked by Bolton&Menk and the surface elevation at the boring location was estimated from the topographic map provided by Bolton & Menk. Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our June 15, 2006, General Conditions. City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6,2012 Page 2 B. Results B.1. Exploration Log B.1.a. Log of Boring Sheet A Log of Boring sheet for our penetration test boring is included in the Appendix.The log identifies and describes the geologic materials that were penetrated, and present the results of penetration resistance, and groundwater measurements. Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because sampling was not performed continuously,the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring location, and the boundaries themselves may also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. B.1.b. Geologic Origins Geologic origins assigned to the materials shown on the log and referenced within this report were based on: (1)a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2)visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3)penetration resistance, and (4) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. B.2. Geologic Profile B.2.a. Geologic Materials The general geologic profile at the site consists(proceeding down from the ground surface)of a shallow topsoil layer overlying poorly graded sand with silt. A layer of silty sand was encountered about the 7 1/2-foot depth. Penetration resistance values recorded in the outwash sands were 8 and 39 blows per foot(BPF), indicating loose to dense soil conditions. B.2.b. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed in our boring as it was advanced. It appears that groundwater was below the depth explored at the time of our evaluation. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater, however, should be anticipated. BRAUN INTERTEC City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6,2012 Page 3 C. Basis for Recommendations C.1. Design Details The size of the proposed lift station had not been determined at the time of this report. We anticipate the vertical foundation load to be light. C.2. Anticipated Grade Changes Existing ground surface elevations are within approximately one foot of the proposed grade. C.3. Precautions Regarding Changed Information We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was reported to us by others.Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details,we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. D. Recommendations The geotechnical issues influencing design of the lift station appear to be limited. The geologic materials present at anticipated structure subgrade elevations generally appear suitable for foundation and slab support. D.1. Net Allowable Bearing Pressure It is our opinion the soils are suitable for a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot(psf).This value includes a safety factor of at least 3.0 with regard to bearing capacity failure. The net allowable bearing pressure can be increased by one-third its value for occasional transient loads, but not for repetitive loads due to traffic,or for other live loads from snow or occupancy. BRAUN I NTE RTES: City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6, 2012 Page 4 D.2. Settlement We estimate that total settlement of the structure will amount to less than 3/4 inch under the assumed loads. D.3. Excavation Support It is our opinion the soil is a Type C Soil under OSHA guidelines. In the event there is insufficient room to slope excavations,or if the excavations are exposed to surcharges and need to be shored,we recommend designing the shoring based on the estimated parameters presented in the table below. The parameters shown have not been reduced by safety factors. Parameters for Shoring Design Wet Friction Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Unit Weight Angle Cohesion Active At Rest Passive Geologic Material (pcf) (deg) (psf) KA K0 Kp Sand with Silt- Outwash 115 32 0 .30 .45 3.3 D.4. Excavation Dewatering Based on the boring results, we do not anticipate the need to dewater the excavation. Should perched water be encountered, it should be removed with sumps and pumps. D.S. Selecting Excavation Backfill On-site soils free of organic soil and debris can be considered for reuse as backfill. The layer of silt, however, being fine-grained,will be more difficult to compact if wet or allowed to become wet. Because there appears to be a limited amount of silty sand, it could be blended with the granular soils to make it easier to reuse. D.6. Placement and Compaction of Backfill Considering the depth of backfill, some surface settlement must be expected. (This inevitable settlement will impact a pavement or structure resting upon the fill). Most of this fill consolidation should occur within 3 months of fill placement. To help minimize the fill settlement,we recommend spreading backfill BRAUN INTERTEC City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6, 2012 Page 5 in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches and compacting to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum standard Proctor density below incoming pipe elevation. Above the utility elevations,compaction could be reduced to 95 percent. However,we recommend the top 3 feet just below the pavement be compacted to 100 percent of the standard Proctor density. D.7. Below Grade Wall Design Recommended equivalent fluid pressures for wall design based on active and at-rest earth pressure conditions are presented below. Assumed wet unit backfill weights,and internal friction angles are also provided.The recommended equivalent fluid pressures assume a level backfill with no surcharge—they would need to be revised for sloping backfill or other dead or live loads that are placed within a horizontal distance behind the walls that is equal to the height of the walls. Our design values also assume that the walls are drained so that water cannot accumulate behind the walls. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters Equivalent Fluid Equivalent Fluid Wet Unit Weight Friction Angle Pressure,Active Case Pressure,At-Rest Case Backfill (pcf) (deg) (pc) (pcf) Sand 120 32 35 55 D.B. Interior Slabs We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k,of 200 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci)to design the slabs if the slab will be resting on the poorly graded sand with silt. D.9. Pavements D.9.a. Subgrade Proof-Roll Prior to placing aggregate base material,we recommend proof-rolling pavement subgrades to determine if the subgrade materials are loose,soft or weak,and in need of further stabilization,compaction or subexcavation and recompaction or replacement. A second proof-roll should be performed after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous or concrete pavement. D.9.b. Design Sections Laboratory tests to determine an R-value for pavement design were not included in the scope of this project. Based on our experience with similar projects in the area, however, it is our opinion that an R-value of 30 for a silty sand subgrade can be assumed for design purposes. BRAUN NT RTEC City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6,2012 Page 6 E. Construction Quality Control El. Excavation Observations We recommend having a geotechnical engineer observe all excavations related to subgrade preparation and spread footing, slab-on-grade and pavement construction.The purpose of the observations is to evaluate the competence of the geologic materials exposed in the excavations,and the adequacy of required excavation oversizing. E.2. Materials Testing We recommend density tests be taken in excavation backfill, beside foundation walls and below pavements. We also recommend slump,air content and strength tests of Portland cement concrete. E.3. Pavement Subgrade Proof-Roll We recommend that proof-rolling of the pavement subgrades be observed by a geotechnical engineer to determine if the results of the procedure meet project specifications,or delineate the extent of additional pavement subgrade preparation work. E.4. Cold Weather Precautions If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather,all snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on frozen subgrades. No frozen soils should be used as fill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94.Concrete should not be placed on frozen subgrades.Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings. BRAUN € T I R IT C City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6, 2012 Page 7 F. Procedures F.1. Penetration Test Boring The penetration test boring was drilled with a truck-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow- stem auger.The borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Penetration test samples were taken at 2 1/2-or 5-foot intervals.Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths are shown on the boring logs. F.2. Material Classification and Testing F.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488.A chart explaining the classification system is attached.Samples were placed in jars or bags and returned to our facility for review and storage. F.3. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test boring was advanced,and again after auger withdrawal. The borehole was then backfilled or allowed to remain open for an extended period of observation as noted on the boring log. G. Qualifications G.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions G.1.a. Material Strata Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from an exploration location continuously with depth,and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be inferred to some extent.Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions,and can be expected to vary in depth,elevation and thickness away from the exploration location. Variations in subsurface conditions present away from an exploration location may not be revealed until additional exploration work is completed,or construction commences. If any such variations are revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them. BRAUN 6 T RTEC City of Columbia Heights Project BL-12-00061 February 6, 2012 Page 8 G.1.b. Groundwater Levels Groundwater measurements were made under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration log, and interpreted in the text of this report. It should be noted that the observation period was relatively short, and groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall,flooding, irrigation,seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. G.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility G.2.a. Plan Review This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected the validity of our recommendations,and if our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications. G.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction.This will allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered by the borings,and provide continuity of professional responsibility. G.3. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written approval,we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation,analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. G.4. Standard of Care In performing its services,Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty,express or implied, is made. BRAUN INT RTEC Appendix BRAUN INTERTEC BRAUN" LOG OF BORING INTERTEC Braun Project BL42-00062 BORING: ST-1 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Argonne Lift Station LOCATION: See Attached Sketch o Argonne and Stinson Iti 2 Columbia Heights, MN Ja DRILLER: M.Takada METHOD: 3 1/4"HSA,Autohammer DATE: 1/30/12 SCALE: 1"=4` o • feet Depth Description of Materials BPF WL '� (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487,Rock-USAGE EM1110-1-2908 Tests or Notes 03 978.0 0.0 Symbol > a__977.5 t)5 SC- %:I. SILTY CLAYEY SAND,with Roots,dark brown,moist. Benchmark: Boring location a_ 11 SM T\ (Topsoil) was staked in the field by o SP- POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT,fine-to Bolton&Menk. Surface lb"— SM medium-grained,with a trace of Gravel, brown,moist, elevations were estimated loose to medium dense. � from a topographic map Q— (Glacial Outwash) I 8 provided by Bolton&Menk. 0 o— c `f 9 U N °— A layer of Silty Sand encountered at 7 1/2 feet. tl 16 • 1 I 15 116 _ I 17 N 961.0 17.0 0 SP- POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT,fine-to F2 _ SM coarse-grained,with Gravel, brown,moist,medium `{ 26 The solid bar symbol in the u dense to dense. I WL column indicates the D — (Glacial Outwash) observed dry cave-in depth after withdrawal of auger. Z F, 26 D a — A m d a ° 4h 39 g _ N O r ---"'III 2 a F_ 952.0 26.0 i, 35 2 END OF BORING. u• — _ oWater not observed while drilling. a _ Water not observed to cave-in depth of 18 feet. 3 — _ z Boring immediately backfilled. a 0 m a - 0 2 BL-12-00061 Braun intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 1 General Conditions BRAUN 1 .. .____ INTERTEC Our agreement("Agreement")with you consists employees are authorized by you to refuse to of these General Conditions and the work under conditions that may be unsafe. 2.6 Monitoring wells are your property, accompanying written proposal or authorization. and you are responsible for their permitting, 1.7 Estimates of our fees or other project maintenance,and abandonment unless we accept Section 1: Our Responsibilities costs will be based on information available to us that duty in writing. and on our experience and knowledge.Such 1.1 We will provide the services estimates are an exercise of our professional 2.7 You agree to make disclosures specifically described in our Agreement with judgment and are not guaranteed or warranted. pe y gr required by law.In the event you do not own the ■ you.You agree that we are not responsible for Actual costs may vary.You should allow a site,you acknowledge that it is your duty to services that are not fairly included in our contingency in addition to estimated costs. inform the owner of the discovery or release of specific undertaking.Unless otherwise agreed in contaminants at the site.You agree to hold us writing,our findings,opinions,and Section 2: Your Responsibilities harmless and indemnify us from claims related recommendations will be provided to you in to disclosures made by us that are required by writing.You agree not to rely on oral findings, 2.1 You will provide us with prior law and from claims related to the informing or opinions,or recommendations without our geotechnical and other reports,specifications, failure to inform the site owner of the discovery written approval. plans,and information to which you have access of contaminants. about the site.You agree to provide us with all 1.2 In performing our professional plans,changes in plans,and new information as Section 3: Reports and Records services,we will use that degree of care and skill to site conditions until we have completed our ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances work. 3.1 We will furnish reports to you in by reputable members of our profession duplicate.We will retain analytical data for practicing in the same locality.If you direct us to 2.2 You will provide access to the site.In seven years and financial data for three years. deviate from our recommended procedures,you the course of our work some site damage is agree to hold us harmless from claims,damages, normal even when due care is exercised.We will 3.2 Our reports,notes,calculations,and and expenses arising out of your direction. use reasonable care to minimize damage to the other documents and our computer software and site.We have not included the cost of restoration data are instruments of our service to you,and 13 We will reference our field of normal damage in the estimated charges. they remain our property but are subject to a observations and sampling to available reference license to you for your use in the related project points,but we will not survey,set,or check the 23 You agree to provide us,in a timely for the purposes disclosed to us.You may not accuracy of those points unless we accept that manner,with information that you have regarding transfer our reports to others or use them for a duty in writing.Locations of field observations or buried objects at the site.We will not be purpose for which they were not prepared sampling described in our report or shown on our responsible for locating buried objects at the site without our written approval,which will not be sketches are based on information provided by unless we accept that duty in writing.You agree unreasonably withheld.You agree to indemnify others or estimates made by our personnel.You to hold us harmless from claims,damages,losses, and hold us harmless from claims,damages, agree that such dimensions,depths,or elevations and related expenses involving buried objects of losses,and expenses,including attorney fees, are approximations unless specifically stated which you had knowledge but did not timely call arising out of such a transfer or use.At your otherwise in the report.You accept the inherent to our attention or correctly show on the plans request,we will provide endorsements of our risk that samples or observations may not be you or others on your behalf furnished to us. reports or letters of reliance,but only if the representative of things not sampled or seen and, recipients agree to be bound by the terms of our further,that site conditions may change over 2.4 You will notify us of any knowledge or agreement with you and only if we are paid the time. suspicion of the presence of hazardous or administrative fee stated in our then current dangerous materials in a sample provided to us. Schedule of Charges. 1.4 Our duties do not include supervising You agree to provide us with information in your your contractors or commenting on,overseeing, possession or control relating to contamination at 3.3 Because electronic documents may be or providing the means and methods of their the work site.If we observe or suspect the modified intentionally or inadvertently,you work,unless we accept such duties in writing.We presence of contaminants not anticipated in our agree that we will not be liable for damages will not be responsible for the failure of your Agreement,we may terminate our work without resulting from change in an electronic document contractors to perform in accordance with their liability to you or to others,and we will be paid occurring after we transmit it to you.In case of undertakings,and the providing of our services for the services we have provided. any difference or ambiguity between an will not relieve others of their responsibilities to electronic and a paper document,the paper you or to others. 2.5 Neither this Agreement nor the document shall govern. providing of services will operate to make us an 1.5 We will provide a health and safety owner,operator,generator,transporter,treater, 3.4 If you do not pay for our services in program for our employees,but we will not be storer,or a disposal facility within the meaning full as agreed,we may retain work not yet responsible for contractor,job,or site health or of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,as delivered to you and you agree to return to us all safety unless we accept that duty in writing. amended,or within the meaning of any other law of our work that is in your possession or under governing the handling,treatment,storage,or your control.You agree not to use or rely upon 1.6 You will provide,at no cost to us, disposal of hazardous materials.You agree to our work for any purpose whatsoever until it is appropriate site safety measures as to work areas hold us harmless and indemnify us from any paid for in full. to be observed or inspected by us.Our such claim or loss. Page 1 of 2 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 33 Samples remaining after tests are Section 5: Disputes,Damage,and Section 6: General Indemnification conducted and field and laboratory equipment Risk Allocation that cannot be adequately cleansed of 6.1 We will indemnify and hold you contaminants are and continue to be your 5.1 Each of us will exercise good faith harmless from and against demands,damages, property.They will be discarded or returned to efforts to resolve disputes without litigation. and expenses to the comparative extent they are you,at our discretion,unless within 15 days of Such efforts will include,but not be limited to,a caused by our negligent acts or omissions or the report date you give us written direction to meeting(s)attended by each party's those negligent acts or omissions of persons for store or transfer the materials at your expense. representative(s)empowered to resolve the whom we are legally responsible.You will dispute.Before either of us commences an action indemnify and hold us harmless from and Section 4:Compensation against the other,disputes(except collections) against demands,damages,and expenses to the will be submitted to mediation. comparative extent they are caused by your 4.1 You will pay for services as agreed negligent acts or omissions or those negligent upon or according to our then current Schedule of 5.2 Neither of us will be liable for special, acts or omissions of persons for whom you are Charges if there is no other written agreement as incidental,consequential,or punitive damages, legally responsible. to price.An estimated cost is not a firm figure. including but not limited to those arising from You agree to pay all sales taxes and other taxes delay,loss of use,loss of profits or revenue,loss 6.2 To the extent it may be necessary to based on your payment of our compensation.Our of financing commitments or fees,or the cost of indemnify either of us under Section 6.1,you performance is subject to credit approval and capital. and we expressly waive,in favor of the other payment of any specified retainer. only,any immunity or exemption from liability 5.3 We will not be liable for damages that exists under any worker compensation law. 4.2 You will notify us of billing disputes unless suit is commenced within two years of the within 15 days.You will pay undisputed date of injury or loss or within two years of the 6.3 You agree to indemnify us against portions of invoices on receipt.You agree to pay date of the completion of our services, losses and costs arising out of claims of patentor interest on unpaid balances beginning 30 days whichever is earlier.We will not be liable unless copyright infringement as to any process or after invoice dates at the rate of 1.5%per month, you have notified us of the discovery of the system that is specified or selected by you or by or at the maximum rate allowed by law. claimed breach of contract,negligent act,or others on your behalf. omission within 30 days of the date of discovery 43 If you direct us to invoice another,we and unless you have given us an opportunity to Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions will do so,but you agree to be responsible for our investigate and to recommend ways of compensation unless you provide us with that mitigating damages. 7.1 We will provide a certificate of person's written acceptance of all terms of our insurance to you upon request.Any claim as an Agreement and we agree to extend credit to that 5.4 For you to obtain the benefit of a fee Additional Insured shall be limited to losses person and to release you. which includes a reasonable allowance for risks, caused by our sole negligence. you agree that our aggregate liability will not 4.4 You agree to compensate us in exceed the fee paid for our services or$50,000, 7.2 This Agreement is our entire accordance with our fee schedule if we are asked whichever is greater,and you agree to indemnify agreement.It supersedes prior agreements.It or required to respond to legal process arising us from all liability to others in excess of that may be modified only in a writing,making out of a proceeding related to the project and as amount.If you are unwilling to accept this specific reference to the provision modified. to which we are not a party. allocation of risk,we will increase our aggregate liability to$100,000 provided that,within 10 7.3 Neither of us will assign or transfer 4.5 If we are delayed by factors beyond days of the date of our Agreement,you provide any interest,any claim,any cause of action,or our control,or if project conditions or the scope payment in an amount that will increase our fees P j Pe any right against the other.Neither of us will or amount of work change,or if changed labor by 10%,but not less than$500,to compensate assign or otherwise transfer or encumber any union conditions result in increased costs, us for the greater risk undertaken.This increased fee is not the purchase of insurance. proceeds or expected proceeds or compensation decreased efficiency,or delays,or if the from the project or project claims to any third standards or methods change,we will give you person,whether directly or as collateral or timely notice and we will receive an equitable 5.5 If you do not pay us within 60 days of otherwise. adjustment of our compensation.If you and we invoice date,or if you make a claim against us do not reach agreement on such compensation that is resolved in our favor,you agree to within 30 days of our written application,we reimburse our expenses,including but not limited 7.4 Our Agreement may be terminated may terminate without liability to you or others. to attorney fees,staff time,expert witness fees, early only in writing.We will receive an and other costs of collection or litigation equitable adjustment of our compensation in the event of early termination. 4.6 If you fail to pay us within 60 days following invoice date,we may consider the 5.6 The law of the state in which our default a total breach of our Agreement and,at servicing office is located will govern all Revised 6-15-06 our option,terminate our duties without liability disputes.Each of us waives trial by jury.No to you or to others. employee acting within the scope of employment shall have individual liability for his or her acts 4.7 In consideration of our providing or omissions,and you agree not make a claim insurance to cover claims made by you,you against individual employees. hereby waive any right of offset as to fees otherwise due us. Page 2 of 2 GC Minnesota • 1 Y•, GreenStep Cities : : ; , ,_ . . .. _. What is Benchmarking? As the saying goes, "You can't manage what you don't measure." Benchmarking is a highly practical way to measure energy use in your buildings and is the first step in managing` your energy costs. Benchmarking helps cities decide which buildings would benefit most from operational changes. It also allows you to monitor progress as you invest in your community's infrastructure. Buildings, Benchmarking and Beyond, more commonly known as 83, is a free software created for local governments to benchmark their public buildings. Jsing B3 involves entering the last year or more of energy use for city-owned buildings, followed by minimal monthly updates as you receive new energy bills. Why Benchmark? • Benchmarking with B3 is a required action for Minnesota GreenStep Cities. It is crucial to understand your energy use in order to be able to target the buildings that offer cost effective solutions with significant return on investment. • Additionally, building benchmarking is often a requirement for many energy related funding opportunities available to your community such as: • Public Buildings Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) • Not only is benchmarking necessary for GreenStep Cities, it has also been written into State Minn. Stat. § 16B.32 et seq. and Executive Order 11-12. We're Here to Help! Local governments may feel overwhelmed by the benchmarking process with limited staff resources available to collect past utility bills and enter -" the data into B3. CEPTs GreenCorps member, Sarah Steinman, is available to assist cities through August 2012. ® Contact her at.sarah @eleanenergyresourceteams.org or 612-625-3759 '- Not a Minnesota GreenStep City yet? . Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a free and voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help 4, cities achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices.These actions are r tailored to all Minnesota cities,focus on cost savings and energy use reduction,and encourage innovation. To become a Minnesota GreenStep City, visit mngreenstep.org ;,?m;ra-io`c',= Minnesota Pollution Control Agency t ir Notable Accomplishments by Selected GreenStep Cities June 2011 Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices. Each best practice can be implemented by completing one or more specific actions from a list of four to eight actions. These actions are tailored to all Minnesota cities, focus on cost savings and energy use reduction, and encourage innovation. > Visit www.MnGreenStep.orq to learn more about this program, to see city-reported action detail on past and present accomplishments, and to learn how your city can become a GreenStep City. In total, 355 GreenStep actions have been recorded by the 26 GreenStep Cities in the first year of the program. 7 cities have completed and have recorded a sufficient number of actions to be recognized by the League of Minnesota Cities as a Step Two GreenStep City. ST. CLOUD ✓ Completed the St. Cloud Area Sustainability Plan. ✓ Put in service the nation's first public bus powered by recycled vegetable oil, sourced from St. Cloud State University's on-campus dining hall, cutting fuel costs by an estimated $2.30 per gallon. EAGAN ✓ Built the nation's first Green Globes-certified fire station. ST.ANTHONY ✓ Installed Minnesota's only multi-source water system to reuse filter backwash water from a wastewater treatment plant and from stormwater drains, reducing ground water draws by nearly 7 million gallons annually that were being used to irrigate a 20-acre site that includes a municipal park and City Hall. NORTHFIELD ✓ Home to Minnesota's first Transition Town effort to create greater community resiliency, addressing climate change and the transition to renewable energy. MAN KATO ✓ Using between 1.5 and 2 million gallons of treated wastewater for cooling at the Mankato Energy Center, saving the city nearly 700 million gallons of water annually. ✓ Annual reports on 34 goals and 6 key performance areas from the Greater !P Mankato Envision 2020 plan. 4/1 ROCHESTER ✓ Identified an urban growth boundary. ✓ Measures vehicle miles traveled per capita; mode choice of commuters; transit ridership; acres per household; parking acres per employee. . OAKDALE ' ✓ Reduces building permit fees for LEED-certified buildings. MILAN ✓ Purchasing of only EnergyStar-certified equipment in this city of 326. PINE RIVER ✓ Home to the Rural Renewable Energy Alliance that installed a solar-powered furnace at the nearby solid waste transfer station. LA PRAIRIE ✓ Installed a large French Drain in the city park to infiltrate stormwater and protect Mississippi River water quality. FALCON HEIGHTS ✓ Retrofitted lighting in city hall, the public works garage and the fire department: return on investment is under 2 years. MAHTOMEDI ✓ Held 2 half-day Natural Step workshops to raise awareness of sustainability issues and to discuss integrating principles of sustainability into its Comprehensive Plan. HOPKINS ✓ Located 2 electric car recharging stations in the public downtown parking ramp. ✓ Won the Blue Star Award for superior stormwater management. ✓ Home to a certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary golf course. . KASSON ✓ Has been a Tree City USA for 32 years. HOFFMAN ✓ The local Lions Club gave every city resident a tree to plant. cro MAPLEWOOD r� ✓ Vehicle sharing allowed the city to downsize their fleet by 4 vehicles. ✓ Installed over 680 home and public rain gardens. ✓ Based commercial renovation regulations upon the International Green Construction Code. ✓ Communicates sustainability news quarterly to residents. ELK RIVER ✓ Retrofit of lighting/heating at the city ice arena will pay for itself in under 5 years. ✓ LEED Gold-certified library uses half the energy of a normal library. ✓ Over 300 residents in Project Conserve saving up to $500/year. Minnesota GreenStep Cities grew out of a report to the 2009 Legislature.The program is led by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and governed by a public-private partnership including the MN Division of Energy Resources,the League of MN Cities, A crcgro,l o*t'ie Minnesota Pollution Control Agency _`-* GreenStep Cities is an assistance program for all Minnesota cities that supports and recognizes implementation of 28 sustainable development best practices. The best practices focus on cost savings and energy use reductions that lead cities beyond compliance and encourage a culture of innovation. Cities that implement a minimum number of best practices, organized into five categories below, will be recognized as a GreenStep City. Each best practice can be implemented by completing one or more specific actions from a list of four to eight actions. A city's accomplishments are recognized on the GreenStep website. Implementation of additional best practices will garner additional recognition. ➢ Visit www.MnGreenStep.orq to learn more about this program, to see what cities have accomplished, and to understand how your city can become involved. GreenStep's 28 Best Practices Buildings and Lighting 1. Efficient Existing Public Buildings:Assess and finance energy and sustainability improvements of " " existing structures. 2. Efficient Existing Private Buildings:Assess and finance energy and sustainability improvements of =j existing structures. 3. New Green Buildings: Construct new buildings to meet or qualify for a green building standard. 4. Efficient Building&Street Lighting and Signals: Improve the efficiency of public and private lighting and signals. 5. Building Reuse: Create economic and regulatory incentives for redeveloping and repurposing existing buildings before building new. Land Use 6. Comprehensive Plan and Implementation:Adopt a Comprehensive Plan and tie regulatory ordinances to it. 7. Efficient City Growth: Promote financial and environmental sustainability by enabling and higher density housing and commercial land use. 8. Mixed Uses: Develop efficient and healthy land patterns. 9. Efficient Highway-Oriented Development:Adopt commercial development and design standards for highway road corridors. 10. Conservation Design:Adopt development ordinances or processes that protect natural systems. Transportation 11.Complete Green Streets:Create a network of multimodal green streets. OHO 12. Mobility Options: Promote active living and alternatives to single-occupancy car travel. 13. Efficient City Fleets: Implement a city fleet investment, operations and maintenance plan. 14. Demand-Side Travel Planning: Use Travel Demand Management and Transit-Oriented Design. Environmental Management 15. Purchasing:Adopt an environmentally preferable purchasing policy. 16. Urban Forests: Increase city tree and plant cover. 17. Efficient Stormwater Management: Minimize the volume of and pollutants in rainwater runoff. 18. Parks and Trails: Enhance the city's green infrastructure. 19. Surface Water Quality: Improve local water bodies. 20. Efficient Water and Wastewater Facilities:Assess and improve drinking water and sewer facilities. 21. Septic Systems: Implement an effective management program for decentralized wastewater treatment systems. 22. Solid Waste Reduction: Increase waste reduction, reuse and recycling. 23. Local Air Quality: Prevent generation of local air contaminants. Economic and Community Development 24. Benchmarks&Community Engagement:Adopt outcome measures for GreenStep and other city sustainability efforts, and engage community members in ongoing education, discussion, and campaigns. 25.Green Business Development:Support the expansion of the green business sector in your city. 26. Renewable Energy: Remove barriers to and encourage installation of renewable energy generation capacity. 27. Local Food:Strengthen local food and fiber production and access. 28. Business Synergies: Network/cluster businesses to achieve better energy, economic and environmental outcomes. Minnesota GreenStep Cities grew out of a report to the 2009 Legislature. The program is governed by a public-private partnership of state agencies and non-governmental organizations and is led by the MPCA. 0,1011101 biv w !r (/r r 4. division of ro4w =? I ti n.1 l: I r �s �� m,.M O w•wm or Commerce vim (+inneseta CITIES O vRCE iw www.MnGreenStep.org RETAP Assistance to GreenStep Cities MPCA is offering the services of three retired environmental professionals from the MPCA's Minnesota Retiree Environmental Technical Assistance Minnesota Program - RETAP. They would work up to GreenStep CIt1eS approximately 40 hours per registered GreenStep M city (including cities in the process of submitting a resolution to their city council). If your city could use this assistance, please www.MnGreenStep.org contact Philipp Muessig, GreenStep Coordinator, to discuss further: 651/757-2594 or philipp.muessig @state.mn.us Assistance would focus on one or more of the following tasks. An inventory of past city accomplishments and planned actions: • Interviews with city staff and others • Documentation of which GreenStep best practice actions have been completed and which are in the planning/implementation stage • Either entry of this information onto the GreenStep web site or preparation for another person to do this Recommendations for completing a few high-impact best practice actions. • Either begin to help the city plan, and/or help the city bring in expert help Recommendations on sustainability indicators. • Explore what metrics are gathered currently and what a suite of sustainability indicators might look like Rick Person was Program Administrator for Waste Management and Recycling, and Right-of-Way Management for the St. Paul Department of Public Works for 29 years. He coordinated the city's Environmental/Economic Partnership Project and Urban CO2 Reduction Plan as a member of the Sustainable Saint Paul Working Group. He is currently serving on the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission. Rick has worked on RETAP projects for the cities of Woodbury, Stillwater, Maplewood, and Shorewood, as well as the Como Zoo and Conservatory, Metro Transit, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Dodge County. Michael Orange served Minneapolis as a city planner and environmental manager (1976-2007) and wrote the first draft of the Minneapolis Sustainability Plan. Since leaving the city, he has prepared a zoning analysis for the city of St. Paul, a recycling study for the city of Farmington, and carbon baseline assessments for 5 metro cities and Washington County. The sustainability assessment he prepared for the city of West St. Paul formed the basis for subsequent work to integrate sustainability into that city's zoning ordinance. He teaches a graduate-level course, Sustainable City Planning, at MSU-Mankato. Don Graves has 26 years of experience teaching biology and environmental science in the Minnesota community college system and was a 2007 recipient of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities' Board of Trustees Award for Teaching Excellence. As Sustainability Coordinator at Hibbing Community College, Don initiated and oversees the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment initiative and works at promoting sustainability across the five colleges of the Northeast Higher Education District. A recent addition to RETAP's Community Sustainability Assistance program, Don works with communities and governments to undertake actions that promote sustainability. Minnesota GreenStep Cities Page 1 of 2 Search Home I The 28 best practices I How to become a GreenStep City 1 Model Ordinances I City log-in I Contact/Feedback Stay Connected El& What is GreenStep Cities? --_ Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge,assistance and recognition program to help cities What are the achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices.Each best practice can be benefits implemented by completing one or more specific actions from a list of four to eight actions.These actions are to being a tailored to all Minnesota cities,focus on cost savings and energy use reduction,and encourage innovation. i • - GreenStep city? [Read more] Be a GreenStep City IS YOUR CITY A GREENSTEP CITY? Learn about the benefits and what's required,and then.,. LATEST CITIES TO JOIN THE GREENSTEP O Build some interest(anyone can do this);have • PROGRAM(and date joined) someone visit your city Willmar (3/5/12) al Have your city council approve a resolution to I • Bemidji (2/6/12) TO work toward Greenstep recognition(use a sample resolution) Richfield (1/10/12) 0 Victoria (1/9/12) CA Post some info about your city and what you've 0 Hanover (1/3/12) Rosemount (12/20/11) already done(easy) 4 Rogers (12/13/11) White Bear Lake(12/13/11) O Work on GreenStep best practices(the hard and Warren (9/13/11) rewarding part) 5 s Austin (7/18/11) /!j Get recognized for your work each June and a Shorewood (6/27/11)igt VAT share knowledge on this web site with other cities 0 it Delano (6/21/11) (easy) Eden Prairie (6/14/11) 0 al Apple Valley (6/9/11) [Read more:Steps j • 5 Farmington (5/2/11)illif a a Map data©2012 Google• [See all 40 cities] Male News NextStep Calendar • Yearly Action Report Assessment--GreenStep Who can help? "Show all Cities staff will begin looking over web entries 3/26 in Talk to best practice advisors. See which cities have implemented anticipation of city recognition 6/21 in Duluth. which best practices. • GreenCorps:Apply by April 19th--Host at no city cost an 11-month member to work on complete streets,energy,food,waste,stormwater,trees: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/mngreencorps GreenStep's Best Practices [Read more:See all 28 Best Practices] 11] • a•ir ' .• 41 , A Buildings and Lighting Land Use Transportation Environmental Management Economic and Community Complete Green Development • Efficient Existing Public • Comprehensive Plan and p • Purchasing Buildings Implementation Streets • Benchmarks&Community • Urban Forests • Efficient City Growth • Mobility Options Engagement Minnesota GreenStep Cities Page 2 of 2 • Efficient Existing Private • Mixed Uses • Efficient City Fleets • Efficient Stormwater • Green Business Buildings Management Development • Efficient Highway-Oriented • Demand-Side Travel • New Green Buildings Development Planning • Parks and Trails • Renewable Energy • Efficient Building&Street • Conservation Design • Surface Water Quality • Local Food Lighting and Signals • Efficient Water and • Business Synergies • Building Reuse Wastewater Facilities • Septic Systems • Solid Waste Reduction • Local Air Quality Minnesota GreenStep Cities grew out of a report to the 2009 Legislature.Governed by a public-private partnership of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and several partner organizations,the program is led by the MPCA. [Read more) r??-11„71 Urban L Land LEAGUE Of � ti C s .n. 4 L1 division of MINNESOTA so p� l; r; <<:<, ii Inslitute CITIES VRCE Zf` II r Minnesota ��r e•• � a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I Contact I Web site policy Minnesota GreenStep Cities Page 1 of 2 Search Home I The 28 best practices I How to become a GreenStep City I Model Ordinances 1 City log-in I Contact/Feedback Stay Connected Et Steps to becoming recognized as a GreenStep city Of Minnesota's 855 cities,approximately 500 are under 1,000 in population,83%are under 5,000 in population,and 35 have a population over 25,000.With such a diversity of cities,no one set of process steps will fit all cities in organizing work to become a GreenStep City.Depending on your city,work may start mostly at the city staff,citizen commission or city council level and fit well into existing plans and efforts,moving later to incorporate and leverage work efforts by civic organizations.Or the impetus for implementing GreenStep best practices may start with a civic group and be mostly done by community members and community organizations,with the city council in a supportive and active role as needed. Thus the abbreviated list of organizing steps below must be seen as a rough guide,to be adapted by each city.For more details under each step, download the full Organizing Steps Guide. 0 Build community knowledge and interest. i • Anyone can start this. What are the • Determine into which category your city fits. benefits • to being a • Become familiar with GreenStep best practices. GreenStep city? • Talk with key people and organizations in your city. • Invite,as needed,a GreenStep program representative to your city. • Conduct an inventory of completed,planned and desired best practices. •.r - What • Discuss with an official city body. b category is tt ' , my city in? Approve a city council resolution to work toward GreenStep Cities I: recognition. I • Use the sample resolution. ...r.0-•• What's • Introduce a resolution to the city council. required to be • Specify a GreenStep coordinator and a few best practices to implement. a Greenstep • E-mail your city resolution and GreenStep contact information to the MPCA. City? Congratulations!You are now recognized as a Step One GreenStep City!Use Step One recognition artwork/materials on your city log-in page to let others know of your accomplishment. w - 1111=1111112 Post initial information on the GreenStep Cities web site via your log- 1. "` in page • Enter simple information about your city. • • Provide brief detail on best practices previously implemented. FA Get organized to begin work on implementing best practices. V ►. • As needed,educate city staff and officials about sustainability. • Convene a small working group. • Specify implementation action(s)and a few lead people. • Prepare a simple work plan for implementing selected best practices. • Present the best practice plans to a city body or to the city council as appropriate. Implement best practices. • Keep everyone moving and celebrate success. • Clarify,as needed,what constitutes completing an action with the MPCA GreenStep program coordinator. • Briefly describe implemented best practices on the GreenStep web site. Minnesota GreenStep Cities Page 2 of 2 Congratulations!When you have implemented 4,6 or 8 best practices(depending on your city category)you are now recognized as a Step Two GreenStep City! Keep working on best practices. PA • Implementing a particular best practice action may take months or one to two years. • Be alert to opportunities to complete multiple best practice actions at once. • Check back with the city council as needed. • Report yearly to community members. • As your work proceeds,give us feedback on the program. Congratulations!When you have implemented 8,12 or 16 best practices(depending on your city category)you are now recognized as a Step Three GreenStep City! GreenStep Cities Step Four a).•:z • GreenStep Cities Step Four program requirements will be developed during 2012,as we learn from cities during 2010 and 2011,that challenge recognized GreenStep Cities to implement more actions and thus be recognized for these accomplishments.We think GreenStep best practices will result in multiple benefits for your city and that you'll want to continuously work on best practices that make your city more sustainable. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I Contact I Web site policy L .� 0 T ..-. -• ea a; V 0 ci, rte-+ >� C � ,...S. v, s_ C ti /� •Q1 -O L Q iii Y F+ L c - N T3 C C a/ _ >ate" .` _ �. 4-, as {�`j 0 gi 3 9 .ire t/5 _ V W R itpl. *2)1S ,.. ,,. ° CI) C 31.1 "2 -,0 ' .5;, cu c C c au us 1 V O �� 1,":1.� w �fy v 2 CC H 11. i,.,,, • d vi 3 ti 900Z-SSVSS elosauu!W's!!odeauu!W 050 a1!nS'3s halls)1e0 00Z aawaj Xemale0 eiosauu!w Jo Ak!saan!un Jalua)!uwn!y eJeweN)w dVIUV o/3 • Wei6oJd a)uels!ssy le)!uy)al leluawuoa!nu3 aaJp.ad elosauu!w a _• a) ; CD a v' o V 4 , N VI. •-, - >, o U >. , w O 0 N o 0 .� .v o o u Q e A C vi E y L +, IQ `■ C Ili •C �., c' o c CD o Y •L. H '7, a' a o C o O 0 s Q •L W v 3 iv a' >. -0 C) N 3 > E s ro c Til di a i m � � N n o U C - - 0) r l/1 �. c - 0 � ,' `o o N � 4.• a) N Q i! C C to iJ vi C cu "CI C O •� 3 '" `co Lel E 0 N t C V1 Ql _ C v -0 R v V1 i O a ,► LJ1 = A Q Lu 0 •0 ra o C-a, ac' 4-, 01-0 0. �o , a ro — "' v C L t �, v+ ° a v t,= a, a� FO- v x .V1 4. v c _ tWi C 0 C O •Q Q •. +- X i V II a. i+ v> > i C O o- ate+ •C Q 41 4J a1 29 2 > 01 .�L .V Q H = "J N C E C .0 cE O 'i■ Y.. C t C t .0 ra O L v 2 M C C ' Q- V N N 0 'f O. •Q O = v W _C +- 'a "a rcv r_co > v W C -a •`—' •'^ •r 61 0 v o I-° d II H OC o 3 E g c ro a Q1 IC • o. _ v v ti O E c a N o — 30 2 CC 70 +-+ : 3 rn O f6 v " o ►• y +-, a U a C ra �' 0. ) v c L.. v0i V) ., N I- N fi v CL) c ;°LLJ 'o 0 0 a U o v W >,c 3 ii .E M c v T v a v c i (1) .4.-_, c a u d o c co a) = m2 "' S° Ew ° . ow E v o VI a) = w 4-+ V- Q! = ,_ °V cu RI N N 7 a! > N O T O O Y O QJ - .c - "O d Q1 0_ ±' C V O V V +• — C 4., 6O a-+ N CO F N a) O O y o E E in Cl.) v o > = `n cc aa) v E ? L o ro r a E o° « > m .� °v 2a° Ca �a 7 C 0 O C 1' 5 'O 'a v rcs N L C 4- N N C ¢ _� rl u4 >. O cu `^ V o ° .N u C a c L '� 0 I� ro 0 0000 L y N >,'0 YO 4-, r6 ,_ O co co C & >. a > O f° 01 c v, C A O _ a 'Q > c O ' C c ro O 2 C O a) cu ro 0 V C .> to N O O Nu a (D > r6 2 ._ aJ a v, y) L 4--+ w ° a d 4.'. >, 4-. 3 -c 4-' u0 C c v 0 OC _ ro = 0 °V co 'v, '� ° p 1- v T v V E Q u c a v vi 'Q s N E ° n. v m a c 3 o s v ' r a°1, �' C o c °u > co v a� a . L co a)c o ° .O N o n e .0 0 R v .� c C co Lc) O tz a a c ° c, N ,' C c'10 as L., � c � E a = a o ¢•L o P .Y o¢ 0 v .= o E � ° ,m i v H E � o o � � 3 a E °'— a O a v E in ° .3 0 o O` O v o -a 5 " c a v .Q c •— W ,_a) _0 c a Q 3 4 >, n 4s oc' v ¢ n o 1,73' cc cc v v L v∎ c E = C ° a v LC) c C ° ° ° vL c ` f9 E ° E >_ r `O Ec E + -Pt, *E c t � E •E V/ v •� >• 'O y •� VI a _O r>. V) C r0 in O v C C ro a � . ro ? a c E av, w > G a `*- O C v 3 '�' 0,`"° -o c_ '>3 -O Fa- > t Q .N E E o L c a I < a >▪ °.._ a > con°. 3o1 � Ercocc � °a, ° wLO ° o0C V Lu V r, o of L rti o O c V C o ,n V ,.o a >• a 15 c Zs C c v C -p y ;Y a.a) Q C a, V a) ,r° :° v, •C w E \\ Im" ' (0 0 CU _ C 0.)C C °V W N @ _� N T �_ O E a c a Q a • +o CO •, H 3 c -, n C '' is O. k 7 b;}�: CC a f6 C L V Y 4� � .! . E /�� 0 E 4J a, E ro > O ° y ai E .. IINNO I- •j c N 'aa m c aa) o c O. a� ON C O C m a' a ° Q a, +- v a m !Z v E itr' i 4> > E A) o • a, '^ in c 4- o U 9 N. co ° L -a 'o �� Y/ C 0 ruo v7, - a vii E a >. -, LI a i co F vl CC O O C i C t0 O a C _ a �, c C C 2N E *= oa E co cc acE •, c 0 • U r°v c E▪ E V a U a) Q. `) ca ,n ", +, _3 �Cr L '^ V (Q m Y m D O a) 3 L N N v'i Q t•