Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-09-24 - Council Agenda Packet
Agenda Corcoran City Council September 24, 2015 - 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of September 10, 2015 Council Meeting* b. Student Commissioner Application – Karin Beck* 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)* b. All Other Financial Claims* 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Planning Update* b. Code Compliance Report* c. Public Safety Report – Trail Haven Road* 9. Planning Business / Landform 10. Unfinished Business a. Downtown Lift Station Location and Trunk Costs* b. Assessment Public Hearing - Downtown Street and Utility Project* c. Paving Gravel Collector Roads* 11. New Business a. Hanover Volunteer Fire Department – Fire Protection Contract* b. Consideration of NWHHSC Membership* c. Corcoran Insert – 2016 Proposed Levies and Taxes Notice* d. City Council Compensation* 12. Unscheduled Items 13. 2015 Council Schedule* 14. Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 09/03/15 10/01/15 11/05/15 12/03/15 Keefe Thomas Guenthner Guenthner Parks and Trails Commission 09/15/15 10/20/15 11/17/15 12/15/15 Hank Thomas Guenthner LaFave 15. Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date _ oX'fii11 \5 3 k�x x tir ta"tl�i" \ °° -?'tv M t ',vr 5` l� im i �kj v1 `9i�a� ���i�� even R� 61Z- 963 l lt\ Ta-i3- r S ✓ 3 �? rc r ��n X�� 'Koe, Page 1 of 1 City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 - 7:00 PM The Corcoran City Council met on September 10, 2015, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Hank, Councilor Keefe, Councilor LaFave, and Councilor Thomas. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Engineer Torve, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, and City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Guenthner invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Agenda Approval MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Thomas to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 4. Open Forum Joe Munn, 19715 Stieg Road, addressed the Council on a code compliance issue related to a drainage issue and exterior storage. Mr. Munn asked City Administrator Martens to assist in the explanation of the issue and the Council permitted this. City Administrator Martens noted because of the significant drainage issue that exterior storage space is limited. The storage requested is seasonal, three recreational vehicles, City Administrator Martens noted our City Code does not differentiate between seasonal and permanent exterior storage. Per Council consensus, Mr. Munn’s issue was referred to staff to review and report on the issue at an upcoming meeting. Donald Loukusa, 10650 Hidden Valley Drive, addressed the Council on item 11c. that staff was recommending denial of and asked that the Council consider approving the building right request. Mr. Loukusa noted he would be available for questions when the item was discussed. 5. Presentations Susan Blood, Executive Director of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council was unable to attend. City Administrator Martens noted there has been funding changes which resulted in the organization looking at its operations. City Administrator Martens mentioned that he will be recommending leaving the organization due to the uncertainty of the organization moving forward and a review of what the City is gaining from the membership. 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of the August 27, 2015 Council Work Session b. Draft Minutes of the August 27, 2015 Council Meeting Mayor Guenthner asked that items a. and b. be withdrawn from the consent agenda for discussion. Mayor Guenther noted in regards to item a. that the consensus in minutes is typically for council direction and asked that staff make a change to state there was council support for the budget. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve consent agenda items a. as amended. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Mayor Guenthner requested that if councilors know that they will be voting against an item that they note the reason so it can be entered as the record of opposition. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Hank to approve consent agenda item b. as presented. 6a. City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 - 7:00 PM Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 7. Claims as Presented * a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to approve the escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) b. All Financial Claims MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Keefe to approve all other financial claims as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Performance Report City Administrator Martens presented the report, noting that there was a change is the short fall of $20,000 less due to building permit revenue and small tweaks. Staff will be looking for ways to resolve the shortfall. b. Stop Sign Installation Report Mayor Guenthner discussed this item as he and staff met to the review stop sign installation per Council direction at the August 27th meeting. After a review of the sight lines, the gravel conditions and the traffic speeds the stop sign installation was not recommended. Director of Public Safety Gottschalk discussed the speed observations and the number of citations, two; he’d provide a more detailed speed observation report. Council asked that staff investigate permanent speed signs. Discussion continued on paving gravel roads. Staff noted they will be compiling additional information for the September 24th meeting where this is scheduled to be discussed. Councilor Hank thanked Public Works for the good job they’ve done maintaining Trail Haven Road. 9. Planning Business / Landform No planning business was presented. 10. Unfinished Business a. Public Works Facility Update Report presented by City Administrator Martens noting that the project is on hold as the information on costs was not received until yesterday and that staff felt additional review of options was needed. b. Downtown Lift Station Location and Trunk Costs City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining two preferred options for the downtown lift station. Council discussed the options. Some Councilors noted concern with cost and the original intent of the project. Per Consensus, Council directed staff to look into an additional option not boring under County Roads 50 and 10 but providing additional service area than option b. 11. New Business a. 2016 Preliminary Levy City Administrator Martens presented the report. Council discussed including a request for additional information on City Council email addresses and continuing to review the budget numbers. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Resolution 2015-49 adopting the preliminary proposed tax levy collectible in 2016. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 - 7:00 PM b. Resolution Supporting the City of Dayton’s Application to the 2015 Minnesota Transportation Economic Development (TED) Program Report presented by City Administrator Martens. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve Resolution 2015-48. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) c. Building right request - Donald Loukusa City Administrator Martens presented the report noting staff recommendation for denial. Council discussed specifically speaking about what is the value of a building right. Per Council consensus there was not enough support for this item to move forward. d. Gambling Ordinance Discussion Report presented by City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise noting there were six policy areas staff was seeking direction on. Council discussed the options, providing support for a 10% city fund, 50% of expenditures to be expended in the trade area, outlining the processes for approval or denial of an application and the penalties, a $100 investigation fee, and process for the exempt license approval. Per consensus Council directed staff to work with the City Attorney to draft a gambling ordinance. 12. Unscheduled Items No unscheduled items were presented. 13. 2015 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the upcoming schedule. 14. Council Liaison Calendar Mayor Guenthner asked to take the November Planning Commission Liaison date and Councilor Thomas agreed to act as the Council Liaison for the October Planning Commission Meeting. 15. Adjournment MOTION: made by Hank, seconded by Thomas to adjourn. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Student Commissioner Application – Karin Beck Action Required: Approval Summary: At the September 15th meeting of the Parks and Trails Commission, members reviewed a student commissioner application from Karin Beck. Karin was at the meeting and took the opportunity to introduce herself and participate in the meeting. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend the City Council approve her as s student member. According to the Ordinance governing the Parks and Trails Commission, Student Members shall be appointed at the pleasure of the City Council for one -year calendar terms and shall not participated in votes. It is the expectation o f the Commission however that Student Members fully participate in discussion. Attached to this report is Karin’s application. You will see that she has a strong track record of volunteerism and would be a good member of the Parks and Trails Commission. Financial/Budget: Parks and Trails Commission members serve without compensation. Minimal costs would be incurred to create an additional packet. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Council Action: Approve Karin Beck as a Student Member of the Parks and Trails Commission. Attachments: 1) Application – Karin Beck Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 MEMORANDUM 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net DATE September 15, 2015 TO Brad Martens CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1. “Strehler Estates” Preliminary Plat and Ordinance Amendment (PID 17-119-23-32-0004) (city file no. 15-017). The applicant submitted a request for approval of a preliminary plat to create 4 lots and an ordinance amendment to allow a private drive for property at 22900 Strehler Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council will review the request on October 8th. 2. “Fehn Meadows” Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 20909 County Road Number 117 (PID # 03- 119-23-12-0002 and PID 03-119-23-13-0001) (city file no. 15-018). The applicant is requesting approval of a plat to readjust the lot lines between two parcels to create one lot and one outlot. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council will review the request on October 8th. 3. Tom Spanier request for Conditional Use Permit for an accessory building at 10520 Cain Road (PID 02-119-23-23-0004) (City file no. 15-019). The item is incomplete pending additional information from the applicant, but is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the October 1st Planning Commission meeting and City Council action on October 22nd. 4. “Ravinia” Easement Vacation (City file no. 15-020). Lennar is requesting vacation of two drainage and utility easements. These are clean up issues and the old easements are no longer needed as the platting process is providing the required easements along lot lines and over waterbodies. The item is scheduled for a public hearing at the October 8th City Council meeting. 5. Design Guidelines Update for Southeast District/Downtown (city file 15-021). The City received funding from Hennepin County for this project. The Project Management Team (PMT) includes the city administrator, city planner and Hennepin County staff. The PMT will hold a kickoff meeting on September 21st to approve a project schedule. A significant portion of the funding must be spent by October 31, 2015, so we will be meeting quickly with the Citizen Advisory Team (CAT) that was appointed by the Council. The work will be completed by January 2016. The City could then hold a public hearing for adoption in March of 2016. Also, there are a number of projects that have been approved, but are still not filed and closed out: 1. Corcoran Business Park (City file 06-005). The City Council granted a one year extension to the final plat approval, which expired on April 12, 2011. Staff has spoken to the applicant and is still working to close out this project. Staff has spoken to the applicant and will schedule a meeting when more information is available on the Loretto sewer project. 2. Hope Ministries Conditional Use Permit for Cemetery and Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement at 19951 Oswald Farm Road (City file 12-002). Hope Ministries submitted a request for a Agenda Item 8a. MEMORANDUM 2 conditional use permit to allow a cemetery west of the existing church. The application was approved by the City Council on March 22nd and site work had begun. The letter of credit for site improvements has been released but we are holding the escrow pending completion of the approved landscaping. The applicant has indicated that they are considering a site plan amendment application to modify the approved plans. Staff met again with Pastor Brian Lother in December to try to finalize this issue and address some other questions or concerns from him. We hope to be able to wrap this up in the near future. 3. Lano Equipment at 23580 Highway 55 Site Plan Modifications for Cold Storage Building. (31- 119-23-34-0007) (13-006). This item was approved by the City Council on July 11th. All required improvements have been made. Staff has reduced the letter of credit and is keeping a very small letter of credit in place to ensure the landscaping survives one year as required by the City Code. 4. Ess Brothers Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an accessory building at 9350 County Road (PID # 07-119-23-43-0004) (City File No. 13-031) The applicant requested approval of a 5,500 square feet detached, accessory building with 20-foot sidewalls. The City Council approved this item on January 23rd. The applicant must comply with all conditions of approval (which require landscaping improvements) and then staff will inspect before refunding any remaining escrow. The landowner recently contacted staff and is working to address the outstanding landscape requirements. 5. Fox Ridge 2nd Addition Final Plat at 9495 Trail Haven Road (PID 09-119-23-41-0011) (City File 14- 006). This final plat application for a final plat of Outlot A, Baumeister 3rd Addition was approved by the City Council on May 22nd. The applicant will prepare mylars for signature and filing. After the documents are filed, the remaining escrow can be released. 6. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for on Schendel property at 20400 County Road 10 (City file 14-027). The City Council approved the request on December 11, 2014 and granted the applicant 2 years to apply for the final plat and final PUD development plan. Peachtree Partners did not buy the property, but a different developer could still proceed with the approved plan. The next step would be for a developer to submit a final PUD plan and plat prior to expiration of the approvals on December 11, 2016. 7. Corcoran Public Works Site Plan Amendment and Variance (city file 15-006). The site plan amendment and variance are to grant after-the-fact approvals for changes to the approved site plan that were made in the field and generally authorized by the subcommittee. The gravel drive and storage area that was added on the south area of the fenced yard requires a variance. The item was reviewed at a public hearing at the April 2nd Planning Commission meeting and Council approved the request at the April 23rd meeting. Final landscaping and close out issues will occur this summer. 8. Ravinia 3rd Addition Final Plat and Final PUD Plan (City file 15-007) The Planning Commission reviewed the final PUD plan at their June 4th meeting and recommended approval. The City Council approved the final plat and final PUD plan for the 3rd phase at their June 25th meeting. The plat has been recorded. 9. Commercial Door Addition at 7670 Commerce Street (City file 15-010) The City received an application for approval of a building addition, which required a conditional use permit, interim use permit, variance and site plan approval. The project was reviewed at a public hearing at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting and was approved by the City Council on June 25th. The applicant is working to address the approval conditions. 10. Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a new Verizon Monopole at 23605 Co Rd 50 (PID30- 119-23-21-0001) (City File 15-016). Verizon has requested a conditional use permit and site plan for a new telecommunications tower on the Gleason property located at the southwest corner of County Roads 19 & 50. The public hearing was held at the Planning Commission on July 7th and they voted unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council approved this item on July 23rd. The applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will apply for a building permit. MEMORANDUM 3 Finally, there are a few projects that have not yet been started but have been identified as action items or future projects. The City Council did not identify these items as 2015 priority projects: 1. City-Initiated Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 14-007). Staff was directed to bring back other potential amendments for consideration in 2015, including revisions to clarify whether or not existing homes are subject to park dedication when part of a plat, how to ensure that land dedication in the rural areas is fairly required and a review of our park dedication requirements. STAFF REPORT / Code Compliance Agenda Item: 8 b. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Mike Pritchard Topic: CODE COMPLIANCE REPORT – August 2015 Action Required: Information Only Code Enforcement Issues: Complaint 15-010 (11/13/2014): Exterior Storage, Junk/Debris at 8XXX Garrison Lane. The City has been working with the property owner for some time to resolve exterior storage and junk issues but progress ceased and multiple deadlines were missed, including a request for a plan of action. The matter has been referred to the City Attorney for review. Complaint 12-031 (6-11-2012): Hazardous Building at 20XXX County Road 10. The building remains secure. No Update. Complaints Concerns Total Nuisiance Junk/Junk Vehicles Grass & Weed Control Animal Violations Home Occupations Signs Referred to Public Works, Metro West, or City Engineer Misc. Compaints Concerns Cases Referred to City Attorney Building Permits - Zoning review Building Permits Grading or Driveway Permits Misc. Permits Overweight /Ag Vehicle Permits 5 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 31 4 5 0 Complaints and Concerns Permits and Zoning STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8c. Council Meeting: September 24th, 2015 Prepared By: Lieutenant Ryan Burns Topic: Public Safety Report – Trail Haven Road Action Required: None - Informational Summary: Officers have spent time on Trail Haven to assess the traffic speeds and conduct. Most of the efforts have been focused around morning and evening commute times. The attached chart shows the specific data. The dates and lengths of time recorded are not at exactly the same intervals so the data does not present a true average speed; however, it does provide an accurate percentage of vehicles in each category over the same time period. This data suggests that the majority of vehicles during the observation period are traveling 31-40 miles per hour. Of the 228 vehicles observed, 7% (17 vehicles) were observed to be traveling 46-50 mph and only 0.9% (2 vehicles) were observed to be traveling over 50 mph. The data presented represents information gathered 08/28/15- 09/09/15. Staff is in the process of gathering specifications, pricing and options on pole mounted radar speed display signs. This information will be brought to forward to the City Council in the future for consideration. Financial/Budget: Officers spent a total of 13 hours 14 minutes of logged directed speed enforcement while working their regular shifts on Trial Haven Road. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public fund s is essential for citizen confidence in government. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: N/A Recommendation: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: 1) Speed Observation Chart – Trail Haven Road Speed Observation Chart – Trail Haven Road 13 Hrs. 14 Min. of Patrol Time Dedicated to Trail Haven Traffic Survey Date Time 08/28/15 0754-0854 08/28/15 1608-1732 08/29/15 0815-0901 08/29/15 1600-1630 08/31/15 0518-0535 08/31/15 0722-0756 08/31/15 1701-1726 09/01/15 0624-0816 09/02/15 0802-0835 09/02/15 1600-1630 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (<30) 1 22 Vehicles All < 45mph (<30) 0 10 Vehicles All <45mph (<30) 1 (<30) 1 (<30) 2 (<30) 3 3 Vehicles All <45 mph 15 Vehicles All <45 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (31-35) 3 (31-35) 3 (31-35) 2 (31-35) 3 (31-35) 5 (31-35) 4 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (36-40) 4 (36-40) 1 (36-40) 2 (36-40) 1 (36-40) 4 (36-40) 9 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (41-45) 3 (41-45) 0 (41-45) 0 (41-45) 3 (41-45) 4 (41-45) 6 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (46-50) 3 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 1 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 2 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 1 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 1- M/C Cited 57 in 45 Speed Observation Chart – Trail Haven Road 13 Hrs. 14 Min. of Patrol Time Dedicated to Trail Haven Traffic Survey Totals: 228 Vehicles Surveyed 17 Vehicles (7%) traveling 46-50 mph 2 Vehicles (0.9%) traveling 50+ mph When specific speeds were recorded (145 Vehicles): 18 (12%) < 30mph 28 (19%) @ 31-35mph 39 (27%) @ 36-40mph 41 (28%) @ 41-45mph 17 (12%) @ 46-50mph 2 (1%)> 51mph Date Time 09/03/15 1621-1656 1731-1809 09/04/15 0705-0743 09/04/15 0843-0916 09/04/15 1848-1854 09/05/15 0741-0803 09/08/15 1606-1631 09/09/15 0905-0937 09/09/15 1451-1527 09/09/15 1659-1758 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (<30) 0 (<30) 1 (<30) 5 (<30) 1 (<30) 0 (<30) 0 (<30) 3 8 Vehicles All <45 mph 25 @ <45 mph Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (31-35) 2 (31-35) 1 (31-35) 1 (31-35) 1 (31-35) 2 (31-35) 1 (31-35) 0 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (36-40) 7 (36-40) 2 (36-40) 1 (36-40) 1 (36-40) 0 (36-40) 5 (36-40) 2 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (41-45) 11 (41-45) 3 (41-45) 6 (41-45) 2 (41-45) 0 (41-45) 2 (41-45) 1 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (46-50) 7 (46-50) 1 (46-50) 1 (46-50) 1 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 0 (46-50) 1 Speed in MPH # of Vehicles (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 1 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 (+50) 0 1-Veh Stop 54 mph V/W STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Downtown Lift Station Location and Trunk Costs Action Required: Direction Summary: At the September 10th City Council meeting, staff presented two preferred options to locate a lift station to serve the downtown area for the proposed utility and street improvement project. Council discussed the options and requested staff look into other options including locating the lift station in a location to serve the property immediately west of the downtown area. Attached to this report is an updated memo from the City Engineer showing a possible third location which would serve the additional area and be $135,000 - $165,000 less expensive than option A as shown in Table 1 in the Engineer’s memo. Staff is now proposing three preferred locations for the location of the lift station: Option A: City property across CR 10 o Provides 43% coverage o Cost: $880,000 (originally estimated at $1,050,000 in 9/10/2015 memo) Option B: Commerce Street location o Provides 4% coverage o Cost: $485,000 Option C: Total Control Solutions o Provides 43% coverage o Cost: $715,000 - $745,000 Staff also looked into true final costs related to each location if additional development occurs which would require the facilities to be moved. Each option has a different amount of costs that are temporary in nature and not be helpful to the ultimate system. See table below: Option Initial Costs Temporary Costs Net Gain to System % Permanent Investment Option A $880,000 $485,000 $520,000 59% Option B $485,000 $365,000 $120,000 25% Option C $715,000- $745,000 $455,000- $545,000 $170,000-290,000 24-39% The table shows that although Option C is less expensive than Option A and covers the same area, the long term benefit of Option A is significantly beneficial over Option C. The table also shows that Option B has a relatively small long-term benefit to the system. Page 2 Financial/Budget: The most recent feasibility study presented to the Council on this project showed trunk costs at $650,000. Option A if selected would increase those costs by $230,000, Option B if selected would decrease those costs by $165,000. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: 1) Direct staff to complete the feasibility study using Option A as the lift station location. 2) Direct staff to complete the feasibility study using Option B as the lift station location. 3) Direct staff to complete the feasibility study using Option C as the lift station location. Recommendation: Staff recommendation changes depending on the policy direction preferred by the Council. If the Council wants to complete the downtown project and increase the developable area served by municipal water and sewer service and take some financial risk to promote development, Option A is recommended. If the Council wants to complete the downtown project alone in the most affordable manner, Option B is recommended. Council Action: Consider directing staff to complete the feasibility study with the preferred lift station location. Attachments: 1) Updated Engineer’s Memo Engineer’s Memo Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com - To: Brad Martens, City Administrator From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Date: September 3, 2015 September 15th, 2015 Subject: Downtown Lift Station Location and Trunk Costs Background The Downtown area was planned to flow by gravity to the Sawgrass Lift Station, which is not proceeding at this time. Therefore staff has analyzed two three locations with different amount of area covered and cost implications for discussion by Council. Pipe costs on Table 1 were separated into estimated forcemain and easement costs. A map of the Trunk System for the SE District is included as Attachment A. Council Request Staff requests guidance on the location of the Lift Station, since the costs for trunk infrastructure are significant and affect the utility fund financial plan over the long term. Option A—North of CR 10 This option places the lift station north of CR 10 on City property. The trunk requirements include boring under CR 50, boring under CR 10, and reconstruction of Meister Field. It can be expected that the field would be unusable for a summer. This infrastructure is consistent with the Master Sewer Plan, so it will be installed “someday” to bring gravity sewer across 10 and 50. Pros Installs ultimate gravity crossing under CR 10, through park area and under CR 50. Allows parcels west of downtown closer access to the gravity line No additional parcel acquisition for lift station Pumps and generator may be able to “move” to Sawgrass location Location provides 43% coverage of the area draining to the “City Hall” Lift station o 1,127 acres o For comparison, the Sawgrass location provided approximately 70% coverage. Provides the most “Net Investment” (59%) into the Trunk System at $520K Cons Additional trunk cost of $400,000, for total of $1.05M o Reduced the trunk cost to $230K by shortening the amount of trunk sewer installed Loss of Meister Field for the 2016 season Need short access driveway and County permit More complicated permitting, design and construction Highest cost at $950K Brad Martens City Administrator City of Corcoran 2 C:\Users\TorKC0063\Documents\Corcoran Offsite\Downtown Lift Station Location Updated.docx Option B—Downtown Site This option places the lift station along Commerce Street on a Treptau property. The property was seen as undevelopable due to linear shape and therefore was not on the preliminary assessment role. Sewer and water easement will be purchased for the lateral lines to serve houses and businesses along CR50/10, and the lift station would need additional area purchase along same easement near Commerce Street. This infrastructure would create a “local” lift station to serve the Downtown area only, which could be connected to trunk system when parcels to the west develop. Pros Lowest cost option at Less complicated design, permitting and construction Cons Serves only the Downtown area o Serves 4% of the area draining to the “City Hall” Lift station o 57 acres No salvaging of pumps for the Sawgrass location Requires some additional easement purchase Need to cross CR 10/CR 50 and park area in future Has low “Net Investment” (25%) into the trunk system at $120K. Option C—CR 50 Site This option places the lift station along CR50/10, and the lift station would need additional easement area purchased but would eliminate large trunk sewer under CR 50 and CR 10. This is similar to Option A, with less trunk sewer but more force main Pros Serves same area as Option A (1,127 acres). Eliminates immediate need for trunk sewer under CR 50 and CR 10 Eliminates Meister Field impacts, field is playable in 2016 Cons Longer forcemain Total cost is $715K to $745K (higher than the original FS at $650K) Increased “Temporary Cost” which wouldn’t be used under the ultimate system as planned Only 24% to 39% is “Net Investment” in trunk system ($170K to $290K) Trunk Water The trunk water along CR 116 will be rerouted through the downtown which requires an upgrade from 8 inch to 12 inch. This eliminates the need for easement along the east side of CR 116. This provides a savings of approximately $100K. Wenck is looking at routes to avoid CR 10, which has multiple private utilities within the ROW, tight corridor, and poses several construction challenges. Cost for all options is set at $120K. Option C 1 Option C 2 Downtown FMNorth FM RouteRoute Coverage of District (flow)43%43% Acres Served 1,1271,127 Lift Station$250K$150K$250K$250K West Trunk Sewer$430K $230K000 Force Main $250K $220K$150K $115K$200K$315K Easement$60K$100K$145K$60K Sewer Trunk $930K $760K$300K $365K$595K$625K Water Trunk$120K$120K$120K$120K Total Trunk $880K$485K$715K$745K Temporary Infrastructure Costs Lift Station$200K Note 1.$150K$200K Note 1.$200K Note 1. Force Main $120K$115K$200K$215K Easement$40K$100K$145K$40K $360K$365K$545K$455K Net Trunk "Investment"$520K$120K$170K$290K 59%25%24%39% Note 1.Salvage $50K of pumps, controls, etc. Downtown Trunk Cost Summary-- Updated Table 1. Option A 43% 1,127 4% 57 Option C Option B LEGEND LEGEND Fugure Connection ToElm Crreek Interceptor SE-AJSE-AI SE-Y SE-O SE-AK SE-D SE-T SE-AT NE-V SE-AB SE-AO SE-J SE-U SE-AG SE-AH SE-H SE-AE NE-W SE-M SE-L SE-AV SE-AM SE-X SE-AU SE-AA SE-AD SE-AR SE-Q SE-C SE-F SE-Z SE-P SW-L SE-E SE-V SE-AF SE-AP SE-AQ SE-AS SE-B SE-W SE-N SE-AC SE-K SE-A SE-R SE-S SE-I SE-G SE-A SE-A 18" 12" 10" 2 1 " 8 " 6 " 2 4 " 1 5 " 10" 1 5 " 18" 8" 12" 12" 18"10" 8" 15" 18" 2 1 " 21" 8" 8" 12" 2 4 " 12" 18" 8" 10" 2 1 " 18" 1 2 " 8" 15" SE-1 SE-2 SE-4SE-3 SE-5 SE-7 SE-6 SE-8SE-9 SW-11 SE-27 SE-32 SE-31 SE-30 SE-29 SE-28 SE-25 SE-23 SE-24 SE-26 SE-22 SE-19 SE-21 SE-20 SE-15 SE-16 SE-18 SE-17 SE-14 SE-10 SE-12 SE-11 SE-13 0 2000 Feet 2030 Comprehensive Plan April 2009 Trunk Sanitary Sewer i:\504\50408143\gis\se sanitary map.mxd Figure 26 SE Area Sewer Node Forcemain Gravity Sewer MCES Interceptor Sewer Subdistricts City Limit Parcel Base Map STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Assessment Public Hearing - Downtown Street and Utility Project Action Required: Call for a Public Hearing Summary: Per state statute 429, the special assessment process requires two public hearings be held. At the June 25th meeting Council called for an Improvement Public Hearing for the Downtown Street and Utility Project. The Improvement Public Hearing was held on July 23rd. The next step in the process is to call the Assessment Public Hearing. The Public Hearing would be scheduled for the October 22nd meeting. Financial/Budget: The cost to host the Assessment Public Hearing is minimal with the costs for the required posting in the Crow River News and mailing the notice to the affected properties. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Options: 1. Call for an Assessment Public Hearing for the October 22nd City Council meeting. 2. Decline to call an Assessment Public Hearing. Recommendation: Call for an Assessment Public Hearing for the October 22nd City Council meeting. Council Action: Consider a motion to call for an Assessment Public Hearing for the October 22nd City Council meeting. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10c. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens, Matt Gottschalk, Pat Meister, Kent Torve Topic: Paving Gravel Collector Roads Action Required: Direction Summary: The discussion of paving gravel roads in Corcoran has been ongoing for many years. Most recently the staff and Council have been discussing a plan to focus on paving gravel collector roads. This began in 2014 and has continued into 2015 with a new Council after the 2014 election. Paving gravel collector roads was chosen as one of seven strategic goals of the Council adopted earlier this year. Beginning in July, staff began updating information and putting a draft plan in place. The item was brought before the City Council at the August 13th meeting in which staff was directed to bring a comprehensive package of information to a future meeting. Staff originally planned for this to take place at the October 22nd meeting. At the August 27th meeting staff was asked to present information at the September 24th meeting. The truncated schedule has resulted in some of the information not available by the time this report was submitted. Additional information will be available in time for the meeting. After considering several ways to convey the years of data and information on the topic, staff decided to list and answer as many questions as we could come up with, as well as questions that were asked by Councilmembers and residents that have attended meetings. This question and answer format is below. Following the Question and answer format, staff is requesting answers to specific questions so it is understood what the next steps are in the process. 1. How many miles of gravel roads are in the City? a. There are 102 miles of roads in the City of Corcoran i. County Roads: 39 miles ii. City Roads: 63 miles 1. City paved roads: 25 miles (not including Ravinia) 2. City gravel roads: 38 miles a. Collector: 27 miles b. Neighborhood: 11 miles 2. What maintenance do we complete on roads: a. Gravel roads: i. Grade (approximately five to seven times per year), add gravel as needed, plow, coordinate dust control b. Paved roads: i. Patch as needed, plow; seal coat, crackfill, overlay per schedule or as can afford ii. Significantly less staff time is needed to maintain a paved road Page 2 3. Is maintaining a paved road less expensive than maintaining a gravel road? a. It depends on what you include and the specific road (example, the analysis could vary from roads with smaller frontage lots to large frontage lots on ag parcels). In past presentations, the City Engineer supplied the City Council with information on average costs to maintain 300 linear feet of road over 35 years: i. Gravel roads (300 linear feet) 1. Total cost of $483 per year over 35 years a. City: $360 (2011 estimate) b. Resident: $123 (dust control cost from 2015) ii. Paved roads: (300 linear feet) 1. Total cost of $358 per year a. City: 358 per year (2011 estimate) i. All City costs to complete three seal coatings and one overlay b. Resident: $0 per year b. The above scenario shows it is less expensive to maintain paved roads however it does not include the initial investment. If the initial investment is included the following cost scenario exists: i. Gravel roads (300 linear feet) 1. Total cost of $483 per year over 35 years a. City: $360 (2011 estimate) b. Resident: $123 (dust control cost from 2015) ii. Paved roads: (300 linear feet) 1. Total cost of $1,073 per year a. City: 787 per year i. Investment: $429 (could be paid by MSA) ii. Maintenance: $358 b. Resident: $286 i. Investment: $286 ($10,000 assessment over 35 years) ii. Maintenance: $0 (current City policy does not charge for crack sealing/seal coat or overlays) c. As mentioned above, the initial investment of the City could be paid for with MSA funds if the road is MSA eligible. This would reduce the City’s annual cost to maintenance only, $358. The resident costs would increase from the annual dust control payment, $123, to the annual cost of the $10,000 assessment ($286 per year over 35 years). d. The above information does not factor in the change in staff time. As mentioned in the answer to question #2, significantly less staff time is used to maintain paved roads. This staff time could be used in other areas such as addressing the backlog of ditch work and tree trimming around the City. Other indirect value would be in the addition of building rights which is discussed in the answer to question #24. e. Slides from a 2011 presentation are attached showing the above costs. Note that the dust control amount from the slides is $180. Page 3 4. Can Public Works do the work in-house rather than hiring a contractor? a. Public Works can complete some of the work in-house, depending on the requirements of the project: i. MSA Roads: 1. Culverts and ditching only. This is due to the additional requirements that go along with MSA roads. ii. Non-MSA roads: 1. All work necessary to prepare for pavement to be applied. 5. Should we pave MSA eligible roads to MSA standards? a. Staff recommends yes. If the City is going to invest in upgrading the road from gravel to bituminous, it should be done to high standards the first time. Also, if we do not, MSA funds are not available. 6. Will paving the road require the speed limit to be increased? a. Staff is not aware of any requirements to notify the State of Minnesota of road improvements relative to roadway speed limits; however, if the State initiated an investigation into roadway speeds, they may unilaterally change the speed limit. The speed limits outlined in statute are 10 mph in alleys, 30 mph in urban district, 35 mph in rural residential, 65 mph on non-interstate expressways, 70 mph on interstate highways, and 55 mph on all other roadways. Originally, a rural residential district statutorily could only apply to townships. In the latest MNDOT study and report on speed limits proposed changing the definition to include “…any street or highway that is built up with visible dwelling houses on one or both sides of the road with their primary access points at intervals averaging 300 feet or less for a distance of one-quarter mile or more.” That standard was adopted; however, Trail Haven Road does not meet the standard for a rural residential district. Generally, deviations from the speed limit statute are granted as an increase from the roadway speed category. b. If the State initiated a speed limit study, one of the numerous factors they would consider is the actual speed of traffic traveling on the roadway. The standard recommendation based on the speed survey would be the 85th percentile of actual vehicle speeds. Based on the Police Department speed survey, this would most likely be 45 mph. This would be one of the many factors considered. The report below indicates that the most “effective speed reduction occurred through engineering (lane narrowing, etc.).” For more details please read the MNDOT Speed Limit Study and Report located at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/pdf/speedlimitaskforcereport.pdf, Minnesota State Statue 169.14, the MNDOT Speed Limits brochure, and the previously released Kansas State Gravel Road Study. 7. Can a speed limit waiver be obtained? a. In order to get a speed limit changed the local road authority can pass a resolution requesting an investigation by MNDOT. Based upon the results, MNDOT may then authorize the local road authority to post new speed limits. Local jurisdictions can post advisory speeds (yellow signs), but they carry no penalty or enforcement action. For a comprehensive review of Page 4 MNDOT speed limit resources please visit: www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/index.html 8. Will paving the roads lead to people driving faster on the road? a. As mentioned in the previous reports, the higher the quality of the road tends to increase speeds. If paved, the quality would improve and likely lead to higher speeds. 9. What does it cost to pave a gravel road? a. The cost can vary significantly based upon the current condition of the road, desired quality of the paved road, or by geographical features such as hills, soil quality, etc. For big picture cost estimates a figure of $1 million per mile is often used. Example: Corcoran’s 38 miles of gravel roads would likely cost around $38 million to pave. 10. What are the ways that paving gravel roads can be paid for? a. General property tax dollars levied over the City b. Municipal State Aid funds of which the City receives approximately $250,000 annually for improvements i. The City may also choose to borrow up to five years ahead on MSA funds c. Assessments to benefiting properties d. Establishment of franchise fees on gas and electric utilities e. Combination of some or all of the above f. An engineering report is attached from September 8, 2014 outlines several options for paving 9.3 miles on four collector roads 11. What roads are MSA eligible? a. See the third attachment 12. Why don’t we make all of our roads MSA eligible? a. Our MSA total mileage is limited to 20% of our total city road mileage. County Roads are not included in the total city road mileage. As we build new streets with new development, our total available MSA mileage increases at that same 20% rate. MSA cities can determine which roads are designated as MSA. Each MSA road needs to start and terminate at another MSA road, County road, or State road. This is typically the reason that MSA designation is used on collector type roads. 13. Why do we only receive $250,000 in MSA funds? a. Our allotment from the state is based partially on our city population and partially on our total mileage. As our population grows and our mileage increases, we will get a higher allotment. However, the total amount is also limited by the total amount available on the state level. The state and counties take the vast majority of the gas tax money used to fund the program. A small percentage is passed to MSA cities. 14. What can MSA improvement funds be spent on other than paving roads? a. Anything associated with the MSA road improvement including right-of- way acquisition, clearing, drainage/storm sewer, earthwork, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, lighting, signage, etc. The cost has to be associated with the improvement of that roadway. The improvement must also be completed to MSA standards. Page 5 15. Is it a good idea to pave a road in which farm traffic needs to drive on? a. Paving a road generally implies that the base (subgrade and gravel) will also be improved to MSA standards. Also, as a general statement, the width and sight lines are also improved. In that sense, a paved road is structurally more capable of handling farm equipment than an unimproved gravel road. Road improvements can also include a wider gravel shoulder (such as parts of Rolling Hills Road) which can be helpful for some farm implements. Also, most farm traffic is rubber-tired. The actual equipment will not negatively impact the road surface. However, farm traffic is generally slow and wide. Roads are generally paved because of higher average daily traffic. As stated above, paving typically includes width, sight-line, and safety improvements which can lead to higher average speeds (real or perceived). This traffic can conflict with slow farm traffic. This can be argued as more of an urban development impact vs. current ag practices. Farm traffic can also track dirt and debris onto the road surface. This can be a nuisance requiring maintenance. Bottom line is farm traffic should not have a negative impact on the pavement. 16. Will paving the road increase cut-through traffic? a. The level of average daily traffic indicates that the road either has a high number of residents using it as an access or there is a benefit for motorists from a more reginal trip perspective. Motorists generally enjoy a paved road more than a gravel road. It is smoother, less dusty, and arguably safer. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the traffic volume could increase. It is not a certainly, cut-through implies it would become a new, preferred route over another existing route. The amount of traffic on the existing route that would now favor the new paved road obviously varies from situation to situation. The final answer is yes, it is reasonable to assume that the traffic would increase some amount. The City would need to complete additional traffic counts after a project to determine if cut-through traffic would increase. In the specific Trail Haven Road example, traffic would likely increase from Grove nursery who currently are required to go north rather than south. 17. Why is the section of Trail Haven Road from County Road 30 to County Road 10 recommended as the first road to be paved? a. Traffic counts: The third attachment shows traffic counts from 2010 and 2014. This area has the highest traffic counts. b. Safety: This area has short sight-lines in certain areas due to hills. 18. Why don’t we also pave Treeline Drive and Foxline Drive if we’re going to pave Trail Haven road? a. The City certainly could include additional local streets in the project. There would be some savings as the contractor would be mobilized already in the area. However, additional costs would be incurred that are not MSA eligible, either the residents or the City as a whole would need to fund the gap. 19. Will paving the road increase the safety of the road for residents and drivers? a. Paving to MSA standards would require geographical changes to ensure sight-lines and slope meet minimum standards. This would likely improve driver and resident safety. Page 6 20. Why don’t we wait for future development to pay for the road improvements? a. Most of the gravel roads are outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area where most development is expected to occur. The City could most certainly wait until development takes place which could be 50 or more years away in many areas of the City. 21. How many residents along Trail Haven Road want the road to be paved? a. We don’t know. The Council could choose to survey the property owners. It is recommended that a specific financial scenario would be developed prior to any survey being completed. 22. How were previous collector roads paid for when they were improved from gravel to bituminous? a. Staff continues to look into this question and will have information available by the time of the meeting. i. Larkin Road, Pioneer Trail, Hackamore Road 23. Will paving the road increase property values? a. A benefit letter from September 2, 2014 showed that if Foxline Drive and Treeline Drive were paved, the average benefit for a buildable/existing lost with frontage on Foxline Drive and Treeline Drive could be around $14,000 - $17,000 per property. 24. What other effects will result from paving gravel roads? a. Development rights will increase: i. Staff reviewed the effects of paving 9.3 miles of gravel collector roads. Paving would result in 87 additional building rights. The above 24 questions and answers were completed in an attempt to help educate the City Council as well as the public on the comprehensive background for the project. If Councilmembers have additional questions it is requested that they send them to staff as soon as possible to have the answers ready for the meeting. In order to move forward on the topic of paving gravel roads the Council must provide staff direction on the below questions. A list of possible answers is also included. 1. Does the City Council want to pave gravel roads? a. Yes, having paved roads is a priority for the City to obtain the quality of life we want for the future. We should begin by paving the highest traffic roads and also the roads that would have the most increase in building rights. b. Yes, as long as the City portion of the paving is paid by MSA funds which would then result in no additional cost to maintain the roads over time. The $360 per 300 linear feet spent on maintaining the gravel roads will be placed into a fund to cover the future costs of seal coating and overlays. c. Yes, as long as the City portion of the paving is paid for by MSA funds and a majority of the residents on the road are in favor of the paving. d. No, gravel roads are preferred as they are less expensive over time when incorporating initial costs. e. No, the City should use MSA funds towards other improvements. f. Combination or other. 2. If yes, to question 1, should residents be assessed? a. Yes, direct benefitting properties should be assessed to the maximum amount shown by a letter of benefit obtained by the City. Page 7 b. Yes, direct benefitting properties should be assessed but only to an amount of $_______. c. Yes, at a 60/40 split, 70/30 split, etc. d. Yes, benefitting properties and adjacent properties (example Foxline Drive, Treeline Drive, private driveway access) should be assessed to the maximum amount shown by a letter of benefit obtained by the City. e. No, MSA funds should pay the entire portion with no assessment. f. Other. 3. If yes to question 1, which roads are priorities to be paved? a. Collector roads with the most traffic. b. Collector roads which have the highest level of resident support. c. Local roads if petitioned to the Council d. Other In order for a project to be completed in 2016, the Council needs to act relatively quickly. If a project is not supported in 2016 no further work will be completed on this topic. Financial/Budget: Paving gravel roads will impact the finances of the City differently depending on the action decided upon. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. TREATING THE CITIZEN AS OUR CUSTOMER We believe that citizens are our customers and should be treated with courtesy, respect, and deserve the best services we can provide. Options: 1) Review information presented, direct staff to develop a plan to pave a gravel road in 2016 with answers to above questions. 2) Review information, direct staff to take no action on developing a plan to pave a gravel road in 2016. 3) Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation: Paving gravel roads is a policy decision that must be made by the City Council. Page 8 Council Action: Review the information presented and direct staff on how to proceed. Attachments: 1) Slides from 2011 Presentation 2) MN State Statute 169.14 3) Speed Limit Brochure 4) Figure 1: City of Corcoran Gravel Collector Roads 5) Engineer’s Memo: September 8, 2014 6) Development Rights Map unmatched service strategic advice technical excellence Existing Gravel Maintenance Costs (Annualized) Resident $180/YR for 35 years 0 7 14 20 35 27 City $360/YR for 35 years 0 14 20 35 27 7 unmatched service strategic advice technical excellence Pavement Costs (Annualized) Resident $1,675 $1,675 $1,675 $7,500 Balance of Investment ~$15k 0 7 14 20 27 35 Another Investment? Reclaim and Overlay Invest $10k 0 7 14 20 27 35 City Another Investment? $285.71/YR = 10k/35 years $357.86/YR Seal Coat Seal Coat Seal Coat Overlay 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 169.14 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR. Subdivision 1. Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Subd. 1a. License revocation for extreme speed. The driver's license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174. Subd. 2. Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful: (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district; (2) 65 miles per hour on noninterstate expressways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 18b, and noninterstate freeways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 19; (3) 55 miles per hour in locations other than those specified in this section; (4) 70 miles per hour on interstate highways outside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (5) 65 miles per hour on interstate highways inside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (6) ten miles per hour in alleys; (7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and (8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district. (b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies. (c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established in this subdivision, or a speed limit designated on an appropriate sign under sub- division 4, 5, 5b, 5c, or 5e, by driving 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit, 169.14 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 2 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 2a. Increased speed limit when passing. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, the speed limit is increased by ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit when the driver: (1) is on a two-lane highway having one lane for each direction of travel; (2) is on a highway with a posted speed limit that is equal to or higher than 55 miles per hour; (3) is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction of travel; and (4) meets the requirements in section 169.18. Subd. 3. Reduced speed required. (a) The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on any street or highway, when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. (b) A person who fails to reduce speed appropriately when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on a street or highway shall be assessed an ad- ditional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 4. Establishment of zones by commissioner. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed set forth in this section is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist on any trunk highway or upon any part thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. On determining upon that basis that a part of the trunk highway system outside a municipality should be a zone of maximum speed limit, the commissioner may establish that part as such a zone by erecting appropriate signs showing the beginning and end of the zone, designating a reasonable and safe speed therefor, which may be different than the speed set forth in this section, and that it is a zone of maximum speed limit. The speed so designated by the commissioner within any such zone shall be a maximum speed limit, and speed in excess of such limit shall be unlawful. The commissioner may in the same manner from time to time alter the boundary of such a zone and the speed limit therein or eliminate such zone. Subd. 4a. [Repealed, 1997 c 143 s 20] Subd. 5. Zoning within local area. When local authorities believe that the existing speed limit upon any street or highway, or part thereof, within their respective jurisdictions and not a part of the trunk highway system is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under existing conditions, they may request the com- missioner to authorize, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe, and the commissioner may authorize the erection of appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of these speed limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any mu- 3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 169.14 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. nicipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. Alteration of speed limits on streets and highways shall be made only upon authority of the commissioner except as provided in subdivision 5a. Subd. 5a. Speed zoning in school zone; surcharge. (a) Local authorities may establish a school speed limit within a school zone of a public or nonpublic school upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation as prescribed by the commissioner of transportation. The establishment of a school speed limit on any trunk highway shall be with the consent of the commissioner of transportation. Such school speed limits shall be in effect when children are present, going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours or during school recess periods. The school speed limit shall not be lower than 15 miles per hour and shall not be more than 30 miles per hour below the established speed limit on an affected street or highway. (b) The school speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of such posted school speed limit is unlawful. All such signs shall be erected by the local authorities on those streets and highways under their respective jurisdictions and by the commissioner of transportation on trunk highways. (c) For the purpose of this subdivision, "school zone" means that section of a street or highway which abuts the grounds of a school where children have access to the street or highway from the school property or where an established school crossing is located provided the school advance sign prescribed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted by the commissioner of transportation pursuant to section 169.06 is in place. All signs erected by local authorities to designate speed limits in school zones shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established under this subdivision is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 5b. Segment in urban district. When any segment of at least a quarter-mile in distance of any city street, municipal state-aid street, or town road on which a speed limit in excess of 30 miles per hour has been established pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation by the commissioner meets the definition of "urban district" as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 90, the governing body of the city or town may by resolution declare the segment to be an urban district and may establish on the segment the speed limit for urban districts prescribed in subdivision 2. The speed limit so established shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the segment on which the speed limit is established, and any speed in excess of such posted limits shall be unlawful. A copy of the resolution shall be transmitted to the commissioner at least ten days prior to the erection of the signs. Subd. 5c. Speed zoning in alleyway. Local authorities may regulate speed limits for alleyways as defined in section 169.011 based on their own engineering and traffic investigations. Alleyway speed limits established at other than ten miles per hour shall be effective when proper signs are posted. Subd. 5d. Speed limit in work zone when workers present. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision 2 and subject to subdivision 3, the speed limit on a road having an established speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater is adjusted to 45 miles per hour in a work zone when (1) at least one lane or portion of a lane of traffic is closed in either direction, and (2) workers are present. A speed in excess of the adjusted speed limit is unlawful. (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a segment of road in which: 169.14 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 4 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. (1) positive barriers are placed between workers and the traveled portion of the highway; (2) the work zone is in place for less than 24 hours; (3) a different speed limit for the work zone is determined by the road authority following an engineering and traffic investigation and based on accepted engineering practice; or (4) a different speed limit for the work zone is established by the road authority under paragraph (c). (c) The commissioner, on trunk highways and temporary trunk highways, and local authorities, on streets and highways under their jurisdiction, may authorize the use of reduced maximum speed limits in work zones when workers are present, without an engineering and traffic investigation required. The work zone speed limit must not reduce the speed limit on the affected street or highway by more than: (1) 20 miles per hour on a street or highway having an established speed limit of 55 miles per hour or greater; and (2) 15 miles per hour on a street or highway having an established speed limit of 50 miles per hour or less. (d) A work zone speed limit under paragraph (c) is effective on erection of appropriate regulatory speed limit signs. The signs must be removed or covered when they are not required. A speed in excess of the posted work zone speed limit is unlawful. (e) For any speed limit under this subdivision, a road authority shall erect signs identifying the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the speed limit zone. Subd. 5e. Speed limit on park road. The political subdivision with authority over a park may establish a speed limit on a road located within the park. A speed limit established under this subdivision on a trunk highway is effective only with the commissioner's approval. A speed limit established under this subdivision must be based on an engineering and traffic investigation prescribed by the commissioner of transportation and must not be lower than 20 miles per hour, and no speed limit established under this subdivision may reduce existing speed limits by more than 15 miles per hour. A speed limit established under this subdivision is effective on the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of the posted speed is unlawful. Subd. 5f. Speed limits on certain rural residential districts. (a) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, continues to qualify as a rural residential district. (b) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, is subject to the speed limit signed before August 1, 2009. [See Note.] Subd. 6. [Repealed, Ex1971 c 27 s 49] Subd. 6a. Work zone speed limit violations. A person convicted of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a speed limit in a work zone, or any other provision of this section while in a work zone, shall be required to pay a fine of $300. This fine is in addition to the surcharge under section 357.021, subdivision 6. Subd. 7. Burden of proof. The provisions of this chapter declaring speed limitation shall not be construed to relieve the plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant as the proximate cause of an accident. 5 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 169.14 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Subd. 8. Minimum speeds. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed at least as great as, or in excess of, a specified and determined minimum is necessary to the reasonable and safe use of any trunk highway or portion thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs specifying the minimum speed on such highway or portion thereof. The minimum speed shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds less than the posted minimum speeds shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful. Subd. 9. Standards of evidence. In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle as indicated on the speedometer thereof shall be admissible on a showing that a vehicle is regularly used in traffic law enforcement and that the speedometer thereon is regularly and routinely tested for accuracy and a record of the results of said tests kept on file by the agency having control of said vehicle. Evidence as to the speed indicated on said speedometer shall be prima facie evidence that the said vehicle was, at the time said reading was observed, traveling at the rate of speed so indicated; subject to correction by the amount of error, if any, shown to exist by the test made closest in time to the time of said reading. Records of speedometer tests kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency shall be admissible without further foundation, as to the results of said tests. Such records shall be available to the defendant upon demand. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude or interfere with the cross examination or impeachment of evidence of rate of speed as indicated by speedometer readings, pursuant to the Rules of Evidence. Subd. 10. Radar; speed-measuring device; standards of evidence. (a) In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed as indicated on radar or other speed- measuring device is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions: (1) the officer operating the device has sufficient training to properly operate the equipment; (2) the officer testifies as to the manner in which the device was set up and operated; (3) the device was operated with minimal distortion or interference from outside sources; and (4) the device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism, method, or system at the time it was set up. (b) Records of tests made of such devices and kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency are admissible in evidence without further foundation as to the results of the tests. The records shall be available to a defendant upon demand. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to preclude or interfere with cross examination or impeachment of evidence of the rate of speed as indicated on the radar or speed-measuring device. Subd. 11. Handheld traffic radar. (a) Law enforcement agencies that use handheld radar units shall establish operating procedures to reduce the operator's exposure to microwave radiation. (b) The procedures, at a minimum, must require: (1) that the operator turn the unit off when it is not in use; (2) if the unit has a standby mode, that the operator use this mode except when measuring a vehicle's speed; 169.14 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 6 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. (3) that the operator not allow the antenna to rest against the operator's body while it is in operation; and (4) that the operator always point the antenna unit away from the operator and any other person in very close proximity to the unit. Subd. 12. Radar jammer. For purposes of this section, "radar jammer" means any instrument, device, or equipment designed or intended for use with a vehicle or otherwise to jam or interfere in any manner with a speed-measuring device operated by a peace officer. No person shall sell, offer for sale, use, or possess any radar jammer in this state. History: (2720-178) 1937 c 464 s 28; 1939 c 430 s 6; 1947 c 428 s 12,13; 1955 c 802 s 1,2; 1957 c 580 s 1; 1963 c 843 s 1-4; 1969 c 623 s 1; 1975 c 53 s 1; 1975 c 363 s 1,2; 1976 c 166 s 7; 1979 c 60 s 1; 1980 c 498 s 4; 1984 c 417 s 24,25; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 319 s 1; 1991 c 298 art 4 s 9; 1993 c 26 s 1; 1993 c 61 s 1; 1994 c 635 art 1 s 12; 1994 c 640 s 1; 1994 c 645 s 1; 1995 c 118 s 1; 1995 c 265 art 2 s 18; 1996 c 455 art 1 s 5,6; 1997 c 143 s 9-11; 1997 c 159 art 2 s 20,21; 1999 c 44 s 1; 2001 c 213 s 9; 1Sp2003 c 19 art 2 s 27; 1Sp2005 c 6 art 3 s 41,42; 2008 c 287 art 1 s 45; 2009 c 56 s 4,5; 2009 c 165 s 1; 2010 c 356 s 1; 2014 c 312 art 11 s 7,8 NOTE: Subdivision 5f, paragraph (b), as added by Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, expires when the speed limit signs erected before August 1, 2009, are replaced. Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, the effective date. Who do I contact?If you believe that there is a safety concern or an inappropriate speed limit posted, the person to contact depends on the type of road. Interstates, federal and state highwaysFor regulatory and advisory speed limits on the trunk highway system, contact the district traffic engineer at your MnDOT district office. The trunk highway system includes: Interstate Highways U.S. Highways and Minnesota State Highways Local streets and highwaysFor these roadways, you may contact your local road authority (county, city, or township).If you are unable to find the right phone number, call the MnDOT Information center: Greater Minnesota: 1-800-657-3774Twin Cities Metro: 651-296-3000 MnDOT Office of Traffic Safety and Technology For more information, visit: www.mndot.gov/speed/ Q&A Will lowering the speed limit reduce speeds?No. Studies show there is little change in the speed pattern after the posting of a speed limit. The driver is much more influenced by the roadway conditions. Will lowering the speed limit reduce crash frequency?No. Although lowering the speed limit is often seen as a cure-all in preventing crashes, this is not the case. Crashes are most often the result of driver inattention and driver error. However, if a posted speed limit is unrealistically low, it creates a greater speed variance (i.e. some drivers follow the speed limit while most drive the reasonable speed). This speed variance can contribute to crashes. Why do we even have speed limits?A uniform speed of vehicles in a traffic flow results in the safest operation. The posted speed limits can keep the traffic flowing smoothly provided the majority of drivers find the speed limits reasonable. To best do this, the limits must be consistent throughout the state. The speed limits also give the motorist an idea of a reasonable speed to drive in an unfamiliar location. The speed limits are used by police officials to identify excessive speeds and curb unreasonable behavior. What are the legal speed limits?How does MnDOT determine the speed limit? What are the types of speed limits? State law says every road should have a speed limit, whether posted or not. Speed limits are set according to Minnesota State Statute 169.14. The Minnesota Department of Transportation carries out state laws through the development and enforcement of regulations.Speed limits are set to improve traffic flow and reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities and the costs associated with them. Speed limits are also intended to supplement motorists’ judgment in determining speeds. To effectively enforce a law, motorists must believe that the law is reasonable. Minnesota’s speed regulations are based on the same basic speed law that is used in all 50 states: “No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.”Speed limits are based on the concept that highways can operate safely at set maximum speeds under ideal conditions. In poor weather conditions, at curves or hills and when there are potential hazards such as pedestrians, drivers are required to reduce speeds below the speed limits, whether they are posted or not. Drivers must also reduce speed when approaching or passing emergency vehicles with emergency lights flashing. These factors are considered: ◉ Road type and condition ◉ Location and type of access points (intersections, entrances, etc.) ◉ Sufficient length of roadway (1/4 mile minimum) ◉ Existing traffic control devices (signs, signals, etc.) ◉ Crash history ◉ Traffic volume ◉ Sight distances (curve, hill, etc.) ◉ Test drive results ◉ Speed study REGULATORY SPEED LIMIT SIGN This black and white sign shows the maximum speed that motorist may travel under ideal conditions. It can be a value based on state statute or it must be authorized by the commissioner of transportation. ADVISORY SPEED SIGN This black and yellow speed sign is used to advise motorists of a comfortable speed to navigate certain situations. It is used with a warning sign. For example, when traveling on a winding road, the curve warning sign would be used with an advisory speed sign. This sign may be posted by the local road authority on local roads. SPEED LIMITS IN SCHOOL ZONES Local authorities may establish school speed limits on local streets, within a school zone, based on the engineering and traffic investigation as directed by the commissioner of transportation. This speed limit is in effect whenever children are present, such as before and after school or during recess. The school sign is black and yellow and the other signs are black and white. Optional fluorescent yellow green may be used for the school sign. SPEED LIMIT SCHOOL WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT The most common speeds regulated by state law are: ◉ 10 mph in alleys ◉ 30 mph on streets in urban districts ◉ 70 mph on rural interstate highways ◉ 65 mph on urban interstate highways ◉ 65 mph on expressways ◉ 55 mph on other roadsWhen these speed limits are not the correct value for a specific highway, speed limits may be changed. The speed study is the most important part of the traffic investigation. Drivers take many roadway environment factors into consideration when choosing a speed. The speed that the majority of people consider reasonable is an important value. Data is collected by performing radar checks at selected locations on the roadway under ideal driving conditions.An analysis is done on the results to determine the 85th percentile, which is the value indicating the speed at which most (85%) drivers are traveling. The posted speed limit near the 85th percentile is the maximum safe and reasonable speed. Studies show that traveling faster or slower than this value can increase the chances of being in a crash.Engineering judgment is the most important tool. The traffic investigator must use knowledge of nationally accepted principles combined with experience to assign the safe speed. Interstates are high design multi-lane divided highways that have controlled access interchanges such as cloverleaf or diamond shaped interchanges. Through traffic on the interstate never has to stop or yield. Examples: I-94 or I-35 Expressways are multi-lane divided highways but they have entries and intersections, sometimes controlled by traffic signals. Some interchanges may exist but they are not the rule. Examples: Highways 10 or Highway 52 GR A V E L C O L L E C T O R R O A D - M S A GR A V E L C O L L E C T O R R O A D - N O N M S A 20 1 0 T R A F F I C C O U N T S 20 1 4 / 2 0 1 5 R A W D A T A (N O T A D J U S T E D B Y M N D O T ) Fi g u r e 1 Ci t y o f C o r c o r a n Gr a v e l C o l l e c t o r R o a d s 23 5 23 5 250 48 5 15 5 405 380 190 580 230 160 24 0 265 407 417 81 2 45 2 247 512 174 600 288 278 36 0 435 250 350 230 145 230 275 125 20 0 12 5 20 0 BECHTOLD RD TRAIL HAVEN RD CAIN RD KALK RD WILLOW DR OLD S E T T L E R S R D STRE H L E R R D ST R E H L E R R D HO M E S T E A D T R HO R S E S H O E T R ME I S T E R R D SC H U T T E R D 93 R D A V E 1 ENGINEER’S MEMO TO: Brad Martens, City Administrator FROM: Kent Torve, P.E. and Heather Libby, P.E. DATE: September 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Collector Road Paving Options for Discussion Background City Council has directed staff to bring back analysis of a few different options for paving high traffic gravel roads in Corcoran. For the purposes of this analysis these are called “collectors” although the Comprehensive Plan nomenclature may differ. Staff considers this a “work in progress” and can refine selected options as needed. Council Action Council has the following options with regard to paving collector roads: 1. Table the discussion 2. Eliminate options and direct staff to provide more information on selected options 3. Direct staff to bring back a project schedule for a selected option Options 1 and 2. State Aid Only Option 1 uses only State Aid funding, and as one project is completed the City waits until sufficient funds are available for the next project. On a more detailed level, the State Aid roads will need to be reviewed and revised to accommodate this plan. State Aid funding is projected to rise minimally each year. Option 2 State Aid funding as well but uses Public Works for installing culverts, shaping gravel, ditch work, tree removal, and restoration. Contracted work is for final shaping, bituminous and subgrade drainage (tiling) and estimated to be 60% of the total project cost. Table 1 shows that with our starting balance of $883K, the City could pave roads at typically a four year interval completing pavement projects in 2055. Table 2 shows that with effort from Public Works the City could pave the roads at three to four year intervals completing pavement projects in 2050. Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Fax (763) 479-4242 E-mail: wenckmp@wenck.com 2 Option 3 and 4. Public Works Involvement and Assessments These options use Public Works for installing culverts, shaping gravel, ditch work, tree removal, and restoration. Contracted work is for final shaping, bituminous and subgrade drainage (tiling) and estimated to be 60% of the total project cost. The assessment method selected is typical 70/30 for only the Contracted portion. The Public Works cost in the table are equal to the total project minus contracted portion, and then reduced 15% to take out the theoretical profit of a general contractor. Additional work would need to be performed on hours, wages, gravel amounts, culverts etc. on a specific basis to refine the City contribution through staff, equipment and materials. Assessments are calculated by Contracted cost divided by parcels and Option 3 and by Lot Equivalents in Option 4. Assessments by parcel shows some parcels with large assessments, which under a Lot Equivalent analysis would be reduced significantly. Table 3 shows that collectors are paved over a 15 year period using MSA funds and assessments as revenues. Assessment total is $4.0M and MSA funds are $4.9M. Table 4 changes the assessment to a Lot Equivalent method, which charges more for large parcels that have the potential to subdivide. Option 5, 6, and 7 Flat Fee per Parcel This option uses MSA funds, however sets the “assessment” at a flat fee per parcel. This equalizes the cost of a parcel on a City wide basis, and therefore a road with less parcels is not penalized by having higher assessment. The analysis in Table 5 shows that the timeline for paving roads is stretched to 28 years, income through assessments is lower at $2.5M and MSA funds are $8.3M. Table 6 shows a contribution of effort from Public works the timeline for this option is 25 years with MSA funds of $7.5M. Table 7 uses a combination of the above options to complete paving projects within 13 years. Revenue comes from flat fee assessments, MSA funds ($4.3M) as well as an annual city contribution that starts at $25,000 and increases by $25,000 per year for a total of $2.3M at paving completion. Ta b l e 1 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 1 - S T A T E A I D F U N D I N G $8 8 3 , 6 5 0 . 1 8 ES T Y E A R O F IM P R O V R O A D L E N G T H ( F T ) $ / L F O F S T R E E T ES T I M A T E D T O T A L PR O J E C T C O S T MS A A N N U A L AL L O T M E N T F U N D B A L A N C E 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 3 , 6 5 0 20 1 6 $2 4 1 , 2 0 0 $4 4 4 , 8 5 0 20 1 7 $2 4 2 , 4 0 0 $6 8 7 , 2 5 0 20 1 8 $2 4 3 , 6 0 0 $9 3 0 , 8 5 0 20 1 9 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 7 9 $1 , 0 4 8 , 3 2 0 $2 4 4 , 8 0 0 $1 2 7 , 3 3 0 20 2 0 $2 4 6 , 0 0 0 $3 7 3 , 3 3 0 20 2 1 $2 4 7 , 2 0 0 $6 2 0 , 5 3 0 20 2 2 $2 4 8 , 4 0 0 $8 6 8 , 9 3 0 20 2 3 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 9 8 $5 3 5 , 6 8 0 $2 4 9 , 6 0 0 $5 8 2 , 8 5 0 20 2 4 $2 5 0 , 8 0 0 $8 3 3 , 6 5 0 20 2 5 $2 5 2 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 8 5 , 6 5 0 20 2 6 $2 5 3 , 2 0 0 $1 , 3 3 8 , 8 5 0 20 2 7 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $2 1 8 $1 , 1 7 5 , 0 4 0 $2 5 4 , 4 0 0 $4 1 8 , 2 1 0 20 2 8 $2 5 5 , 6 0 0 $6 7 3 , 8 1 0 20 2 9 $2 5 6 , 8 0 0 $9 3 0 , 6 1 0 20 3 0 $2 5 8 , 0 0 0 $1 , 1 8 8 , 6 1 0 20 3 1 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $2 3 7 $1 , 2 7 8 , 7 2 0 $2 5 9 , 2 0 0 $1 6 9 , 0 9 0 20 3 2 $2 6 0 , 4 0 0 $4 2 9 , 4 9 0 20 3 3 $2 6 1 , 6 0 0 $6 9 1 , 0 9 0 20 3 4 $2 6 2 , 8 0 0 $9 5 3 , 8 9 0 20 3 5 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $2 5 6 $1 , 2 8 0 , 0 0 0 $2 6 4 , 0 0 0 ($ 6 2 , 1 1 0 ) 20 3 6 $2 6 5 , 2 0 0 $2 0 3 , 0 9 0 20 3 7 $2 6 6 , 4 0 0 $4 6 9 , 4 9 0 20 3 8 $2 6 7 , 6 0 0 $7 3 7 , 0 9 0 20 3 9 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 7 5 $8 2 5 , 6 0 0 $2 6 8 , 8 0 0 $1 8 0 , 2 9 0 20 4 0 $2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $4 5 0 , 2 9 0 20 4 1 $2 7 1 , 2 0 0 $7 2 1 , 4 9 0 20 4 2 $2 7 2 , 4 0 0 $9 9 3 , 8 9 0 20 4 3 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 9 4 $1 , 2 6 5 , 9 2 0 $2 7 3 , 6 0 0 $1 , 5 7 0 20 4 4 $2 7 4 , 8 0 0 $2 7 6 , 3 7 0 20 4 5 $2 7 6 , 0 0 0 $5 5 2 , 3 7 0 20 4 6 $2 7 7 , 2 0 0 $8 2 9 , 5 7 0 20 4 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $3 1 4 $1 , 1 6 0 , 3 2 0 $2 7 8 , 4 0 0 ($ 5 2 , 3 5 0 ) 20 4 8 $2 7 9 , 6 0 0 $2 2 7 , 2 5 0 20 4 9 $2 8 0 , 8 0 0 $5 0 8 , 0 5 0 20 5 0 $2 8 2 , 0 0 0 $7 9 0 , 0 5 0 20 5 1 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $3 3 3 $1 , 4 6 4 , 3 2 0 $2 8 3 , 2 0 0 ($ 3 9 1 , 0 7 0 ) 20 5 2 $2 8 4 , 4 0 0 ($ 1 0 6 , 6 7 0 ) 20 5 3 $2 8 5 , 6 0 0 $1 7 8 , 9 3 0 20 5 4 $2 8 6 , 8 0 0 $4 6 5 , 7 3 0 20 5 5 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $3 5 2 $1 , 2 6 7 , 2 0 0 $2 8 8 , 0 0 0 ($ 5 1 3 , 4 7 0 ) *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $1 2 , 2 2 1 , 1 2 0 $1 1 , 7 0 7 , 6 5 0 Ta b l e 2 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 2 - P U B L I C W O R K S A N D S T A T E A I D F U N D I N G $8 8 3 , 6 5 0 . 1 8 ES T Y E A R O F IM P R O V R O A D L E N G T H ( F T ) $ / L F O F S T R E E T ES T I M A T E D T O T A L PR O J E C T C O S T PU B L I C W O R K S EF F O R T * ( 4 0 % ) CO N T R A C T O R CO S T ( 6 0 % ) MS A A N N U A L AL L O T M E N T MSA FUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 2 , 8 0 0 $5 5 2 , 0 0 0 $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $258,850 20 1 6 $2 4 1 , 2 0 0 $500,050 20 1 7 $2 4 2 , 4 0 0 $742,450 20 1 8 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 7 4 $1 , 0 2 0 , 2 4 0 $3 4 6 , 8 8 2 $6 1 2 , 1 4 4 $2 4 3 , 6 0 0 $27,025 20 1 9 $2 4 4 , 8 0 0 $271,825 20 2 0 $2 4 6 , 0 0 0 $517,825 20 2 1 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 8 9 $5 0 9 , 7 6 0 $1 7 3 , 3 1 8 $3 0 5 , 8 5 6 $2 4 7 , 2 0 0 $285,850 20 2 2 $2 4 8 , 4 0 0 $534,250 20 2 3 $2 4 9 , 6 0 0 $783,850 20 2 4 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $2 0 3 $1 , 0 9 7 , 2 8 0 $3 7 3 , 0 7 5 $6 5 8 , 3 6 8 $2 5 0 , 8 0 0 $3,207 20 2 5 $2 5 2 , 0 0 0 $255,207 20 2 6 $2 5 3 , 2 0 0 $508,407 20 2 7 $2 5 4 , 4 0 0 $762,807 20 2 8 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $2 2 2 $1 , 2 0 0 , 9 6 0 $4 0 8 , 3 2 6 $7 2 0 , 5 7 6 $2 5 5 , 6 0 0 ($110,495) 20 2 9 $2 5 6 , 8 0 0 $146,305 20 3 0 $2 5 8 , 0 0 0 $404,305 20 3 1 $2 5 9 , 2 0 0 $663,505 20 3 2 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $2 4 2 $1 , 2 0 8 , 0 0 0 $4 1 0 , 7 2 0 $7 2 4 , 8 0 0 $2 6 0 , 4 0 0 ($211,615) 20 3 3 $2 6 1 , 6 0 0 $49,985 20 3 4 $2 6 2 , 8 0 0 $312,785 20 3 3 $2 6 1 , 6 0 0 $574,385 20 3 4 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 5 1 $7 5 3 , 6 0 0 $2 5 6 , 2 2 4 $4 5 2 , 1 6 0 $2 6 2 , 8 0 0 $128,801 20 3 5 $2 6 4 , 0 0 0 $392,801 20 3 6 $2 6 5 , 2 0 0 $658,001 20 3 7 $2 6 6 , 4 0 0 $924,401 20 3 8 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 7 0 $1 , 1 6 2 , 7 2 0 $3 9 5 , 3 2 5 $6 9 7 , 6 3 2 $2 6 7 , 6 0 0 $99,044 20 3 9 $2 6 8 , 8 0 0 $367,844 20 4 0 $2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $637,844 20 4 1 $2 7 1 , 2 0 0 $909,044 20 4 2 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 9 0 $1 , 0 7 1 , 5 2 0 $3 6 4 , 3 1 7 $6 4 2 , 9 1 2 $2 7 2 , 4 0 0 $174,215 20 4 3 $2 7 3 , 6 0 0 $447,815 20 4 4 $2 7 4 , 8 0 0 $722,615 20 4 5 $2 7 6 , 0 0 0 $998,615 20 4 6 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $3 0 9 $1 , 3 5 8 , 7 2 0 $4 6 1 , 9 6 5 $8 1 5 , 2 3 2 $2 7 7 , 2 0 0 ($1,382) 20 4 7 $2 7 8 , 4 0 0 $277,018 20 4 8 $2 7 9 , 6 0 0 $556,618 20 4 9 $2 8 0 , 8 0 0 $837,418 20 5 0 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $3 2 8 $1 , 1 8 0 , 8 0 0 $4 0 1 , 4 7 2 $7 0 8 , 4 8 0 $2 8 2 , 0 0 0 $9,466 *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $1 1 , 4 8 3 , 6 0 0 $3 , 9 0 4 , 4 2 4 $6 , 8 9 0 , 1 6 0 $1 0 , 8 0 4 , 0 5 0 Ta b l e 3 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 3 - P u b l i c W o r k s C o m b i n a t i o n w i t h A s s e s s m e n t s p e r P a r c e l $883,650.18 ES T Y E A R OF IM P R O V R O A D LE N G T H (F T ) $/ L F O F ST R E E T TO T A L PR O J E C T CO S T T O T A L L A B O R ( 2 5 % ) MA T E R I A L S (7 5 % ) CO N T R A C T O R CO S T ( 6 0 % ) BE N E F I T T I N G PR O P E R T I E S AS S E S S M E N T 7 0 % O F CO N T R A C T O R C O S T ~A S S E S S M E N T / P ROPERTYMSA ANNUAL ALLOTMENTFUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 2 , 8 0 0 $7 8 , 2 0 0 $2 3 4 , 6 0 0 $5 5 2 , 0 0 0 17 $3 8 6 , 4 0 0 $22,729$240,000$645,250 20 1 6 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 3 6 , 0 0 0 $3 1 8 , 2 4 0 $7 9 , 5 6 0 $2 3 8 , 6 8 0 $5 6 1 , 6 0 0 25 $3 9 3 , 1 2 0 $15,725$241,200$399,730 20 1 7 $242,400$642,130 20 1 8 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 7 4 $4 7 0 , 8 8 0 $1 6 0 , 0 9 9 $4 0 , 0 2 5 $1 2 0 , 0 7 4 $2 8 2 , 5 2 8 16 $1 9 7 , 7 7 0 $12,361$243,600$640,873 20 1 9 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $1 7 9 $9 6 7 , 6 8 0 $3 2 9 , 0 1 1 $8 2 , 2 5 3 $2 4 6 , 7 5 8 $5 8 0 , 6 0 8 20 $4 0 6 , 4 2 6 $20,321$244,800$382,479 20 2 0 $246,000$628,479 20 2 1 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $1 8 9 $1 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 0 $3 4 6 , 6 3 7 $8 6 , 6 5 9 $2 5 9 , 9 7 8 $6 1 1 , 7 1 2 18 $4 2 8 , 1 9 8 $23,789$247,200$345,529 20 2 2 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $1 9 4 $9 6 8 , 0 0 0 $3 2 9 , 1 2 0 $8 2 , 2 8 0 $2 4 6 , 8 4 0 $5 8 0 , 8 0 0 23 $4 0 6 , 5 6 0 $17,677$248,400$90,569 20 2 3 $249,600$340,169 20 2 4 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 0 3 $6 0 9 , 6 0 0 $2 0 7 , 2 6 4 $5 1 , 8 1 6 $1 5 5 , 4 4 8 $3 6 5 , 7 6 0 11 $2 5 6 , 0 3 2 $23,276$250,800$273,977 20 2 5 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 0 8 $8 9 4 , 4 0 0 $3 0 4 , 0 9 6 $7 6 , 0 2 4 $2 2 8 , 0 7 2 $5 3 6 , 6 4 0 10 $3 7 5 , 6 4 8 $37,565$252,000$60,889 20 2 6 $253,200$314,089 20 2 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 1 8 $8 0 5 , 1 2 0 $2 7 3 , 7 4 1 $6 8 , 4 3 5 $2 0 5 , 3 0 6 $4 8 3 , 0 7 2 8 $3 3 8 , 1 5 0 $42,269$254,400$149,826 20 2 8 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $2 2 2 $9 7 8 , 5 6 0 $3 3 2 , 7 1 0 $8 3 , 1 7 8 $2 4 9 , 5 3 3 $5 8 7 , 1 3 6 24 $4 1 0 , 9 9 5 $17,125$255,600($103,425) 20 2 9 $256,800$153,375 20 3 0 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $2 3 2 $8 3 5 , 2 0 0 $2 8 3 , 9 6 8 $7 0 , 9 9 2 $2 1 2 , 9 7 6 $5 0 1 , 1 2 0 16 $3 5 0 , 7 8 4 $21,924$258,000($22,929) *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $9 , 4 0 4 , 9 6 0 $3 , 1 9 7 , 6 8 6 $7 9 9 , 4 2 2 $2 , 3 9 8 , 2 6 5 $5 , 6 4 2 , 9 7 6 18 8 . 0 $3 , 9 5 0 , 0 8 3 $4,867,650 *A s s u m e d a 1 5 % c o s t r e d u c t i o n b y P u b l i c W o r k s p e r f o rm i n g w o r k . PU B L I C W O R K S E F F O R T * ( 4 0 % ) T: \ 2 2 9 4 - C o r c o r a n \ 0 1 - G e n e r a l \ P h a s e 7 0 0 - M u n i c i p a l S t a te A i d \ 7 0 0 - 0 5 P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t \ P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e nt \ 0 9 1 1 1 4 c o u n c i l m e e t i n g \ p a v e m e n t o p t i n o s Ta b l e 4 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 4 - P u b l i c W o r k s C o m b i n a t i o n w i t h A s s e s s m e n t s p e r L o t E q u i v i l e n t $883,650.18 ES T Y E A R OF IM P R O V R O A D LE N G T H (F T ) $/ L F O F ST R E E T TO T A L PR O J E C T CO S T T O T A L L A B O R ( 2 5 % ) MA T E R I A L S (7 5 % ) CO N T R A C T O R CO S T ( 6 0 % ) LO T EQ U I V I L E N T S AS S E S S M E N T 7 0 % O F CO N T R A C T O R C O S T AS S E S S M E N T / LEMSA ANNUAL ALLOTMENTFUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 2 , 8 0 0 $7 8 , 2 0 0 $2 3 4 , 6 0 0 $5 5 2 , 0 0 0 40 $3 8 6 , 4 0 0 $9,660$240,000$332,450 20 1 6 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 3 6 , 0 0 0 $3 1 8 , 2 4 0 $7 9 , 5 6 0 $2 3 8 , 6 8 0 $5 6 1 , 6 0 0 32 $3 9 3 , 1 2 0 $12,285$241,200($231,310) 20 1 7 $242,400$11,090 20 1 8 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 7 4 $4 7 0 , 8 8 0 $1 6 0 , 0 9 9 $4 0 , 0 2 5 $1 2 0 , 0 7 4 $2 8 2 , 5 2 8 11 $1 9 7 , 7 7 0 $17,979$243,600($150,267) 20 1 9 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $1 7 9 $9 6 7 , 6 8 0 $3 2 9 , 0 1 1 $8 2 , 2 5 3 $2 4 6 , 7 5 8 $5 8 0 , 6 0 8 24 $4 0 6 , 4 2 6 $16,934$244,800($737,671) 20 2 0 $246,000($491,671) 20 2 1 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $1 8 9 $1 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 0 $3 4 6 , 6 3 7 $8 6 , 6 5 9 $2 5 9 , 9 7 8 $6 1 1 , 7 1 2 38 $4 2 8 , 1 9 8 $11,268$247,200($1,121,259) 20 2 2 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $1 9 4 $9 6 8 , 0 0 0 $3 2 9 , 1 2 0 $8 2 , 2 8 0 $2 4 6 , 8 4 0 $5 8 0 , 8 0 0 24 $4 0 6 , 5 6 0 $16,940$248,400($1,705,339) 20 2 3 $249,600($1,455,739) 20 2 4 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 0 3 $6 0 9 , 6 0 0 $2 0 7 , 2 6 4 $5 1 , 8 1 6 $1 5 5 , 4 4 8 $3 6 5 , 7 6 0 14 $2 5 6 , 0 3 2 $18,288$250,800($1,729,195) 20 2 5 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 0 8 $8 9 4 , 4 0 0 $3 0 4 , 0 9 6 $7 6 , 0 2 4 $2 2 8 , 0 7 2 $5 3 6 , 6 4 0 15 . 5 $3 7 5 , 6 4 8 $24,235$252,000($2,246,379) 20 2 6 $253,200($1,993,179) 20 2 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 1 8 $8 0 5 , 1 2 0 $2 7 3 , 7 4 1 $6 8 , 4 3 5 $2 0 5 , 3 0 6 $4 8 3 , 0 7 2 27 $3 3 8 , 1 5 0 $12,524$254,400($2,431,182) 20 2 8 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $2 2 2 $9 7 8 , 5 6 0 $3 3 2 , 7 1 0 $8 3 , 1 7 8 $2 4 9 , 5 3 3 $5 8 7 , 1 3 6 29 $4 1 0 , 9 9 5 $14,172$255,600($3,017,143) 20 2 9 $256,800($2,760,343) 20 3 0 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $2 3 2 $8 3 5 , 2 0 0 $2 8 3 , 9 6 8 $7 0 , 9 9 2 $2 1 2 , 9 7 6 $5 0 1 , 1 2 0 18 . 5 $3 5 0 , 7 8 4 $18,961$258,000($3,220,615) *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $9 , 4 0 4 , 9 6 0 $3 , 1 9 7 , 6 8 6 $7 9 9 , 4 2 2 $2 , 3 9 8 , 2 6 5 $5 , 6 4 2 , 9 7 6 27 3 . 0 $3 , 9 5 0 , 0 8 3 $4,867,650 *A s s u m e d a 1 5 % c o s t r e d u c t i o n b y P u b l i c W o r k s p e r f o rm i n g w o r k . PU B L I C W O R K S E F F O R T * ( 4 0 % ) T: \ 2 2 9 4 - C o r c o r a n \ 0 1 - G e n e r a l \ P h a s e 7 0 0 - M u n i c i p a l S t a te A i d \ 7 0 0 - 0 5 P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t \ P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e nt \ 0 9 1 1 1 4 c o u n c i l m e e t i n g \ p a v e m e n t o p t i n o s Ta b l e 5 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 5 - " F l a t F e e " p e r p a r c e l b a s i s $8 8 3 , 6 5 0 . 1 8 ES T Y E A R OF IM P R O V R O A D LE N G T H (F T ) $/ L F O F ST R E E T PR O J E C T CO S T BE N F I T T I N G PR O P E R T I E S $1 2 , 0 0 0 / PA R C E L MS A A N N U A L AL L O T M E N T FUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 17 $2 0 4 , 0 0 0 $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $407,650 20 1 6 $2 4 1 , 2 0 0 $648,850 20 1 7 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 3 6 , 0 0 0 25 $3 0 6 , 0 0 0 $2 4 2 , 4 0 0 $261,250 20 1 8 $2 4 3 , 6 0 0 $504,850 20 1 9 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 7 9 $4 8 3 , 8 4 0 16 $1 9 9 , 6 8 0 $2 4 4 , 8 0 0 $465,490 20 2 0 $2 4 6 , 0 0 0 $711,490 20 2 1 $2 4 7 , 2 0 0 $958,690 20 2 2 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $1 9 4 $1 , 0 4 5 , 4 4 0 20 $2 5 6 , 8 0 0 $2 4 8 , 4 0 0 $418,450 20 2 3 $2 4 9 , 6 0 0 $668,050 20 2 4 $2 5 0 , 8 0 0 $918,850 20 2 5 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $2 0 8 $1 , 1 2 3 , 2 0 0 18 $2 3 7 , 6 0 0 $2 5 2 , 0 0 0 $285,250 20 2 6 $2 5 3 , 2 0 0 $538,450 20 2 7 $2 5 4 , 4 0 0 $792,850 20 2 8 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $2 2 2 $1 , 1 1 2 , 0 0 0 23 $3 1 1 , 8 8 0 $2 5 5 , 6 0 0 $248,330 20 2 9 $2 5 6 , 8 0 0 $505,130 20 3 0 $2 5 8 , 0 0 0 $763,130 20 3 1 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 3 7 $7 1 0 , 4 0 0 11 $1 5 3 , 1 2 0 $2 5 9 , 2 0 0 $465,050 20 3 2 $2 6 0 , 4 0 0 $725,450 20 3 3 $2 6 1 , 6 0 0 $987,050 20 3 4 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 5 1 $1 , 0 8 0 , 1 6 0 10 $1 4 2 , 8 0 0 $2 6 2 , 8 0 0 $312,490 20 3 5 $2 6 4 , 0 0 0 $576,490 20 3 6 $2 6 5 , 2 0 0 $841,690 20 3 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 6 6 $9 8 2 , 7 2 0 8 $1 1 7 , 1 2 0 $2 6 6 , 4 0 0 $242,490 20 3 8 $2 6 7 , 6 0 0 $510,090 20 3 9 $2 6 8 , 8 0 0 $778,890 20 4 0 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $2 8 0 $1 , 2 3 2 , 0 0 0 24 $3 6 0 , 0 0 0 $2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $176,890 20 4 1 $2 7 1 , 2 0 0 $448,090 20 4 2 $2 7 2 , 4 0 0 $720,490 20 4 3 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $2 9 4 $1 , 0 5 9 , 8 4 0 16 $2 4 5 , 7 6 0 $2 7 3 , 6 0 0 $180,010 *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $1 0 , 6 8 5 , 6 0 0 17 1 . 0 $2 , 5 3 4 , 7 6 0 $8 , 3 3 0 , 8 5 0 T: \ 2 2 9 4 - C o r c o r a n \ 0 1 - G e n e r a l \ P h a s e 7 0 0 - M u n i c i p a l S t a te A i d \ 7 0 0 - 0 5 P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t \ P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e nt \ 0 9 1 1 1 4 c o u n c i l m e e t i n g \ p a v e m e n t o p t i n o s Ta b l e 6 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 6 - P U B L I C W O R K S a n d " F l a t F e e " p e r p a r c e l b a si s $883,650.18 ES T Y E A R OF IM P R O V R O A D LE N G T H (F T ) $/ L F O F ST R E E T PR O J E C T CO S T T O T A L L A B O R ( 2 5 % ) MA T E R I A L S (7 5 % ) CO N T R A C T O R CO S T ( 6 0 % ) BE N F I T T I N G PR O P E R T I E S $1 2 , 0 0 0 / PA R C E L MSA ANNUAL ALLOTMENTFUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 2 , 8 0 0 $7 8 , 2 0 0 $2 3 4 , 6 0 0 $5 5 2 , 0 0 0 17 $1 7 0 , 0 0 0 $240,000$428,850 20 1 6 $241,200$670,050 20 1 7 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 3 6 , 0 0 0 $3 1 8 , 2 4 0 $7 9 , 5 6 0 $2 3 8 , 6 8 0 $5 6 1 , 6 0 0 25 $3 0 6 , 0 0 0 $242,400$338,610 20 1 8 $243,600$582,210 20 1 9 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 7 9 $4 8 3 , 8 4 0 $1 6 4 , 5 0 6 $4 1 , 1 2 6 $1 2 3 , 3 7 9 $2 9 0 , 3 0 4 16 $1 9 9 , 6 8 0 $244,800$571,881 20 2 0 $246,000$817,881 20 2 1 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $1 8 9 $1 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 0 $3 4 6 , 6 3 7 $8 6 , 6 5 9 $2 5 9 , 9 7 8 $6 1 1 , 7 1 2 20 $2 5 4 , 4 0 0 $247,200$361,132 20 2 2 $248,400$609,532 20 2 3 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $1 9 8 $1 , 0 7 1 , 3 6 0 $3 6 4 , 2 6 2 $9 1 , 0 6 6 $2 7 3 , 1 9 7 $6 4 2 , 8 1 6 18 $2 3 3 , 2 8 0 $249,600$85,333 20 2 4 $250,800$336,133 20 2 5 $252,000$588,133 20 2 6 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $2 1 3 $1 , 0 6 4 , 0 0 0 $3 6 1 , 7 6 0 $9 0 , 4 4 0 $2 7 1 , 3 2 0 $6 3 8 , 4 0 0 23 $3 0 6 , 3 6 0 $253,200$147,533 20 2 7 $254,400$401,933 20 2 8 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $2 2 2 $6 6 7 , 2 0 0 $2 2 6 , 8 4 8 $5 6 , 7 1 2 $1 7 0 , 1 3 6 $4 0 0 , 3 2 0 11 $1 4 9 , 1 6 0 $255,600$179,525 20 2 9 $256,800$436,325 20 3 0 $258,000$694,325 20 3 1 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 3 7 $1 , 0 1 8 , 2 4 0 $3 4 6 , 2 0 2 $8 6 , 5 5 0 $2 5 9 , 6 5 1 $6 1 0 , 9 4 4 10 $1 3 9 , 2 0 0 $259,200$135,580 20 3 2 $260,400$395,980 20 3 3 $261,600$657,580 20 3 4 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 5 1 $9 2 9 , 4 4 0 $3 1 6 , 0 1 0 $7 9 , 0 0 2 $2 3 7 , 0 0 7 $5 5 7 , 6 6 4 8 $1 1 4 , 2 4 0 $262,800$160,946 20 3 5 $264,000$424,946 20 3 6 $265,200$690,146 20 3 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $2 6 6 $1 , 1 6 8 , 6 4 0 $3 9 7 , 3 3 8 $9 9 , 3 3 4 $2 9 8 , 0 0 3 $7 0 1 , 1 8 4 24 $3 5 1 , 3 6 0 $266,400$209,385 20 3 8 $267,600$476,985 20 3 9 $268,800$745,785 20 4 0 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $2 8 0 $1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 $3 4 2 , 7 2 0 $8 5 , 6 8 0 $2 5 7 , 0 4 0 $6 0 4 , 8 0 0 16 $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $270,000$308,265 *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s $1 0 , 2 8 6 , 2 4 0 $3 , 4 9 7 , 3 2 2 $8 7 4 , 3 3 0 $2 , 6 2 2 , 9 9 1 $6 , 1 7 1 , 7 4 4 18 8 . 0 $2 , 4 6 3 , 6 8 0 $7,513,650 *A s s u m e d a 1 5 % c o s t r e d u c t i o n b y P u b l i c W o r k s p e r f o rm i n g w o r k . PU B L I C W O R K S E F F O R T * ( 4 0 % ) T: \ 2 2 9 4 - C o r c o r a n \ 0 1 - G e n e r a l \ P h a s e 7 0 0 - M u n i c i p a l S t a te A i d \ 7 0 0 - 0 5 P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t \ P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e nt \ 0 9 1 1 1 4 c o u n c i l m e e t i n g \ p a v e m e n t o p t i n o s Ta b l e 7 FU N D I N G C O S T O P T I O N S - G R A V E L C O L L E C T O R S T R E E T S OP T I O N 7 - P U B L I C W O R K S , S T A T E A I D F U N D I N G , F L A T F E E A N D C I T Y C O N T R I B U T I O N $883,650.18 ES T Y E A R OF IM P R O V R O A D LE N G T H (F T ) $/ L F O F ST R E E T ES T I M A T E D TO T A L PR O J E C T C O S T T O T A L LA B O R (2 5 % ) MA T E R I A L S (7 5 % ) CO N T R A C T O R CO S T ( 6 0 % ) BE N F I T T I N G PR O P E R T I E S TR U N K F E E $1 2 , 0 0 0 / PA R C E L CI T Y CO N T R I B U T I O N MSA ANNUAL ALLOTMENTFUND BALANCE 20 1 5 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 5 0 t o C R 1 0 ) 57 5 0 $1 6 0 $9 2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 2 , 8 0 0 $7 8 , 2 0 0 $2 3 4 , 6 0 0 $5 5 2 , 0 0 0 17 $2 0 4 , 0 0 0 $240,000$462,850 20 1 6 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 58 5 0 $1 6 5 $9 6 4 , 0 8 0 $3 2 7 , 7 8 7 $8 1 , 9 4 7 $2 4 5 , 8 4 0 $5 7 8 , 4 4 8 25 $3 0 3 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $241,200$125,815 20 1 7 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 27 0 0 $1 7 0 $4 5 7 , 9 2 0 $1 5 5 , 6 9 3 $3 8 , 9 2 3 $1 1 6 , 7 7 0 $2 7 4 , 7 5 2 16 $1 9 5 , 8 4 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $1,212,000$1,153,210 20 1 8 Tr a i l H a v e n R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 54 0 0 $1 7 4 $9 4 1 , 7 6 0 $3 2 0 , 1 9 8 $8 0 , 0 5 0 $2 4 0 , 1 4 9 $5 6 5 , 0 5 6 20 $2 4 7 , 2 0 0 $7 5 , 0 0 0 $590,156 20 1 9 ` $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $690,156 20 2 0 La r k i n R o a d ( W i l l o w t o O l d S e t t l e r s ) 54 0 0 $1 8 4 $9 9 3 , 6 0 0 $3 3 7 , 8 2 4 $8 4 , 4 5 6 $2 5 3 , 3 6 8 $5 9 6 , 1 6 0 18 $2 2 6 , 8 0 0 $1 2 5 , 0 0 0 $107,972 20 2 1 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $257,972 20 2 2 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( L a r k i n t o H o r s e s h o e ) 50 0 0 $1 9 4 $9 6 8 , 0 0 0 $3 2 9 , 1 2 0 $8 2 , 2 8 0 $2 4 6 , 8 4 0 $5 8 0 , 8 0 0 23 $2 9 5 , 3 2 0 $1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $248,400$66,772 20 2 3 Wi l l o w D r i v e ( H o r s e s h o e t o S o u t h ) 30 0 0 $1 9 8 $5 9 5 , 2 0 0 $2 0 2 , 3 6 8 $5 0 , 5 9 2 $1 5 1 , 7 7 6 $3 5 7 , 1 2 0 11 $1 4 2 , 5 6 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1,242,000$1,091,844 20 2 4 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( S t r e h l e r t o C R 1 0 ) 43 0 0 $2 0 3 $8 7 3 , 7 6 0 $2 9 7 , 0 7 8 $7 4 , 2 7 0 $2 2 2 , 8 0 9 $5 2 4 , 2 5 6 10 $1 3 0 , 8 0 0 $2 2 5 , 0 0 0 $626,309 20 2 5 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 1 0 t o C R 3 0 ) 37 0 0 $2 0 8 $7 6 9 , 6 0 0 $2 6 1 , 6 6 4 $6 5 , 4 1 6 $1 9 6 , 2 4 8 $4 6 1 , 7 6 0 8 $1 0 5 , 6 0 0 $2 5 0 , 0 0 0 $258,485 20 2 6 $2 7 5 , 0 0 0 $533,485 20 2 7 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( C R 3 0 t o O a k d a l e ) 44 0 0 $2 1 8 $9 5 7 , 4 4 0 $3 2 5 , 5 3 0 $8 1 , 3 8 2 $2 4 4 , 1 4 7 $5 7 4 , 4 6 4 24 $3 2 2 , 5 6 0 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $256,052 20 2 8 Be c h t o l d R o a d ( O a k d a l e t o C R 1 1 7 ) 36 0 0 $2 2 2 $8 0 0 , 6 4 0 $2 7 2 , 2 1 8 $6 8 , 0 5 4 $2 0 4 , 1 6 3 $4 8 0 , 3 8 4 16 $2 1 6 , 9 6 0 $3 2 5 , 0 0 0 $255,600$301,010 *L i s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 0 6 t r a f f i c c o u n t s 49 1 0 0 $9 , 2 4 2 , 0 0 0 $3 , 1 4 2 , 2 8 0 $7 8 5 , 5 7 0 $2 , 3 5 6 , 7 1 0 $5 , 5 4 5 , 2 0 0 18 8 $2 , 3 9 0 , 6 4 0 $2 , 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 $4,322,850 *A s s u m e d a 1 5 % c o s t r e d u c t i o n b y P u b l i c W o r k s p e r f o rm i n g w o r k . PU B L I C W O R K S E F F O R T * ( 4 0 % ) Hanover Volunteer Fire Department Fire Protection Contract THIS AGREEMENT, effective January 1, 2016, by and between the City of Hanover, with its registered office at Hanover, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “the Department”); and the cities of Corcoran, Greenfield, and Rockford Township, Minnesota municipal corporations in the Counties of Hennepin and Wright and the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to individually as “a City” and collectively as “the Cities”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Cities desire to contract with the Department for fire protection and emergency medical response services (hereinafter referred to as “the Contracted Services”) within each City’s Fire Service Area described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of hereof (hereinafter referred to as “Fire Service Area”); and WHEREAS, the Department has the necessary equipment, trained manpower and facilities to provide Contracted Services and is willing and able to provide such services to the City on the terms and conditions contained herein; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed upon pricing of Contracted Services to the Cities by formula, based upon (a) the Contracting City’s Market Value for the Sections serviced, (b) the Total Market Value of all areas serviced, (c) the Contracting City’s Market Value Percentage of area serviced, (d) the Contracting City’s Call Hours for the Sections serviced, (e) the Total Call Hours of all areas serviced, (f) the Contracting City’s Call Hours Percentage of the area serviced and (g) the budget as seen in Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms in this section shall have the following meanings: 1.1. “Contracting City” means any city which is a party to this Agreement for purposes of apportioning costs of Contracted Services. At the effective date hereof the Contracting Cities are Corcoran, Greenfield, Hanover and Rockford Township. 1.2. “Contract term” means the three (3) year term of this Agreement which Contracted Services will be rendered to the Cities by the Department, commencing January 1, 2016, and expiring December 31, 2018. 1.3. “Budget” means the Department’s annual expense budget contained in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Budget shall be amended and restated annually in substantially the same form for each subsequent calendar year during the term hereof, or any extended or renewal term, and costs reapportioned accordingly, as provided herein. An amended and restated Budget for the following calendar year shall be submitted annually to the Contracting Cities not later than August 15 during the Contract Term and any extended or renewal term. 11a. 1.4. “Capital Outlay” means the Department’s long range capital expenditure and may be amended and restated from time to time during the term hereof in substantially the same form. The Budget contains a line item expense entry entitled “Capital Outlay” that represents the estimated annual capital expenditures planned for the current year, based upon the Department’s long range capital expenditure plan. 1.5. “Contracted Services” means firefighting, fire suppression and fire prevention, emergency incident management, rescue, emergency medical services, and hazardous materials response. 1.6. “Event of Default” occurs when a party hereto fails to observe or perform any term, condition, obligation or covenant in this Agreement. 2. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE. During the term hereof, and during any extended or renewal term, the Department agrees to maintain equipment and manpower capacity and capability at not less than current levels and to provide fire protection and emergency medical response services to the Cities on the terms and conditions contained herein. 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE. 3.1. The Department shall employ its best efforts to protect and save life and property from destruction by fire or medical emergency in the Fire Service Area. Such efforts will include fire inspection and prevention services. 3.2. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the Department agrees to purchase, own or lease, and, in all events, maintain in good order and repair such firefighting apparatus and related equipment as may be necessary and suitable for delivery of Contracted Services in the Fire Service Area as the Department may deem appropriate to its mission and contracted responsibilities, making reasonable good faith efforts to provide Contracted Services when notified or dispatched; PROVIDED, however, calls for Contracted Services in the Fire Service Area shall have no less priority than calls elsewhere within the jurisdiction of the Department. 3.3. All decisions concerning call priority shall be made in the sole discretion of the Fire Chief or other Department officer who may be in charge in the absence of the Fire Chief, and such decisions shall be final when exercised in good faith and upon a reasonable basis. FURTHER PROVIDED, nothing herein shall be construed to require the Department to respond to a call when all available equipment and personnel are responding to a previously reported call or when weather and road conditions are such that, in the discretion of the Fire Chief or other Department officer in charge, the call cannot be made with reasonable safety to officers, fire firefighters, and equipment. 3.4. The Department shall provide mutual aid service to a call in any portion of a Contracting City that is not within the City’s Fire Service Area if service is requested by a fire department having primary responsibility in that portion of the City; PROVIDED that such service shall be furnished as soon as reasonably possible without jeopardizing the Department’s ability to respond to a call for service in any Contracting City’s Fire Service Area. 4. COST OF SERVICE. The cost of Contracted Services to the Cities shall be determined by formula each calendar year during the term of this Agreement, using the Data described in Exhibit C. 4.1. The Department’s Budget payable by the Contracting Cities allocable as in accordance with the Data contained in Exhibit C. 4.2. The allocated costs of Contracted Services to the City shall be payable twice yearly or, upon mutual agreement of the Department and the Contracting City, in quarterly installments. 4.3. The estimated market value for the Fire Service Area of each Contracting City is based upon the estimated market value of all properties within the Fire Service Area for the budget year. The source of estimated market value shall be amounts compiled by the offices of the Hennepin County Assessor and the Wright County Assessor. 4.4. In the event that the Department incurs an unbudgeted expenditure to rent or lease specialized equipment or contracts with personnel to provide fire protection or emergency response services in a specific instance, the Contract City where the services are provided shall bear all costs incidental thereto, less any amounts reimbursed or otherwise recovered by the Department from the property owner or the property owner’s insurer. 4.5. In the event of a third false alarm within a 12 month span (January through December), the contracted City where the false alarm occurred will agree to pay the fee stated on the current fee schedule. Subsequent false alarms during the same 12 months will be charged at an additional fee. 4.6. In the event that the Contract City has unpaid fire charges, Minnesota State law provides the City the “power under sections Minn. Stat. § 366.011 and 366.012 relating to charges for emergency services.” Under this power, the City has the ability to certify for collection with taxes the unpaid fire charges on property located outside the City limits that is anywhere within the State. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY 5.1. Contracted Services rendered to the Contracting Cities pursuant to this Agreement shall be under the sole direction of the Department, and the Department shall have exclusive and complete control over the delivery and performance of Contracted Services. 5.2. The level of services rendered, standards of performance, hiring and discipline of personnel assigned, and all matters related to Department policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be consistent with historic levels of service provided by the Department and shall remain solely within the control of the Department. 5.3. Personnel assigned to provide Contracted Services hereunder shall be volunteer officer and firefighter members of the Department, which shall assume all obligations with respect to workers’ compensation, Firefighter Relief Association payment and benefits, withholding tax, and insurance for each Department member or volunteer firefighter. The Department and its members, employee, and agents shall be independent contractors and not employees of any Contracting City, and the Department shall be responsible for timely payments of all taxes, workers’ compensation benefits, and compensation for injuries to its members, employees and agents while performing their duties. No Contracting City shall be required to provide any of the foregoing compensation or non-wage benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any employee or other person assigned to duty by the Department within the Contracting City. 5.4. Dispute resolution. Any disputes between parties to this Agreement concerning functions and services to be rendered hereunder or the level or manner of delivery and performance of such services shall be resolved by the Fire Chief of the Department and a duly authorized representative of any Contracting City that is involved in the dispute. 5.5. Annual report. The Department shall provide an annual report to each Contracting City to reflect the most recent five (5) year history of fire and emergency medical response calls in the Fire Service Area, the most recent three (3) year summary of Department revenues and expenses, a current list of fixed assets and capital equipment, and any other information that the Contracting City may reasonably request. 6. TERM. 6.1. The term of this Agreement shall be three (3) years, commencing January 1, 2016, and terminating December 31, 2018, and shall be renewed automatically thereafter for successive three-year terms unless terminated prior thereto pursuant to the following: a. For any reason at least one (1) year prior to termination date; or b. In an Event of Default at least ninety (90) days prior to date of termination 6.2. Any notice of termination shall be given in writing in the manner provided in Section 10.1 of this Agreement. 7. FIRE ADVISORY BOARD. A Fire Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Advisory Board”) will be comprised of city administrators and police chiefs or other designee from each of the Contracting Cities. The Advisory Board will meet not less frequently than twice yearly to review Department policies and standard operating procedures, operating and capital budgets, future fire service needs, capital improvement plans, and pension funding requirement. 8. FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION. Annual retirement costs paid to the Fire Department Relief Association shall be included as a line item expense in the Budget. 9. MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by certified mail, facsimile or electronic mail, hand delivery, or by overnight courier and shall be deemed to have been received (a) if given by certified mail, return receipt requested, three (3) days after date of deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid; (b) if given by facsimile, electronic mail, or hand delivery, when such notice is received by the party to whom it is addressed; or (c) if given by overnight courier, when delivered. Notice shall be sent to the parties at the address set forth below; PROVIDED, that any party having a change of address shall provide such change of address within five (5) business days to the other parties: If to the Department: Hanover Volunteer Fire Department Attention: Dave Malewicki, Fire Chief 11250 5th Street NE Hanover, MN 55341 Telephone: 763-497-3777 Facsimile: 763-497-1873 E-mail: With copy to: Jay Squires Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger 527 Marquette Ave. S., Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 If to Cities: City of Corcoran City of Greenfield Attention: Jeanie Heinecke, Attention: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Administrator-Clerk 8200 County Road 116 7738 Commerce Circle Corcoran, MN 55340 Greenfield, MN 55373 Telephone: 763-400-7032 Telephone: 763-477-6464 Facsimile: 763-420-6056 Facsimile: 763-477-6472 E-mail: jheinecke@ci.corcoran.mn.us E-mail: britter@ci.greenfield.mn.us City of Hanover Rockford Township Attention: Brian Hagen, Attention: Sharon Leintz, City Administrator Deputy Clerk 11250 5th Street NE 3039 Dague Avenue SE Hanover, MN 55341 Buffalo, MN 55313 Telephone: 763-497-3777 Telephone: 763-682-3499 Facsimile: 763-497-1873 Facsimile: 763-682-6256 E-mail: brianh@ci.hanover.mn.us E-mail: rockfordtownship@yahoo.com 9.2. Captions. Captions and paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only, are not a part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in interpreting this Agreement. All capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Agreement. 9.3. Entire agreement. This Agreement, together with exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements regarding the subject matter hereof, and may not amended or changed, nor any provision waived, except in writing by the parties. 9.4. Benefit and succession. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, but may not be assigned without the written consent of the party or parties to be charged. 9.5. Severability. If any provisions of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws, such provisions shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision had never comprised a part of this Agreement, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the parties continue to realize the principal benefits of the transaction or rendering of services contemplated hereby. 9.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, but each copy shall be deemed an original. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall be binding as if they were an original signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the effective date hereinabove stated. HANOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF CORCORAN By: By: Dave Malewicki, Fire Chief Mayor Ken Guenthner and and By: By: Assistant Fire Chief CITY OF GREENFIELD CITY OF HANOVER By: By: Mayor Brad Johnson Mayor Chris Kauffman and and By: By: ROCKFORD TOWNSHIP By: Supervisor and By: �-o a L U W Po 6 .'G3 sR 33 R�6 IgR :wyR €d$ '� .161j, 93¢ '3" . " ' - .. - - .. J 1 5'm43Mzi itil 1,10 w gC.s84o¢:IS gaegeaq38aaaaagaa88aasx; 3aiaa7aaa3q£aSaa3 629ID49SY77R7fsi022S S2a238�aa EEy,° -5S YoB� nofWS4 GYf6f fd6S2gG6G -° x'6RS Gi 1.3 :R 3 <�mRRF 4 R E Ro 'tl233pm S mg_lm`�`d�uuR RR mm fiYff3�i WN(r55''gG53:3 gx4R4 5 °'"4 3 35 JL3$@g%G FF�g 3- 33g ggQ� Gw sS ER �z ygyg;; 3 Rgygy <6 R �y ;M @ y��{j ii 'i�'E6,- 33f,� mY Tt §.G.:FSF.::� -3 tlGe 3K.4iF:�YpiGff S'GRg3R356 S. z$.1��.OYC9R�k�i..r43ii Gw_wk�� S�x%'� axis 53��Y�t g�.63z. $Q�$$�HU sEN I a g SR° I ayy r�.YJ9 un 13 � j33' xi wim Po 8 1 m:m fWb, ___ 4• a n�i � i- d�NOLII S {i � tlb btlrb ab _YN 111Ui \ � � N X 1HLL � 3 y�( . NG "c \ \L $ mx0 A31T/AIAA V Ns MOTVA 3y j - An, FfpEC1YCH`V' \ m°° H 6 4J °Y a ap,xosx ��. ■ V I�j� 1 E � % uTM m 3\)� M :NMdNR ppyHWV. ,_ ' Y 6 r xsmu ° y h uu e � d i 31Ytlpxtlrl N E � 3M R Nn IBYGMn V 8no °I F£ K5 I 1LL � ■n k ®: W tl33Mb W6YnbAYMT7 9M0 J ) T Y]S] z �° mY H..� B Qtl OHtl13YA y g 13 6 i.1. 3S G L: WS AVE �n S �VlJey q � Yy 34 MIiM m ` LL mG� NRxtlYO 3d 3Po mnpbSlMlN `� ss3ttLU pp" -I ti 0 .n ♦ i 3y 3AV 4nav 1 I -_ _ , Q m U C W u. rg i :6228¢.6 : R6 S S $GSSG. tlaaG ST °, a Saaq SggggG ^o C Z8$RmS52S7tlR2Rf9s {76'GS{ 'oi£f'RSdabS,mzA & &6goQe$ ° 1 Po 6 .'G3 sR 33 R�6 IgR :wyR €d$ '� .161j, 93¢ '3" . " ' - .. - - .. J 1 5'm43Mzi itil 1,10 w gC.s84o¢:IS gaegeaq38aaaaagaa88aasx; 3aiaa7aaa3q£aSaa3 629ID49SY77R7fsi022S S2a238�aa EEy,° -5S YoB� nofWS4 GYf6f fd6S2gG6G -° x'6RS Gi 1.3 :R 3 <�mRRF 4 R E Ro 'tl233pm S mg_lm`�`d�uuR RR mm fiYff3�i WN(r55''gG53:3 gx4R4 5 °'"4 3 35 JL3$@g%G FF�g 3- 33g ggQ� Gw sS ER �z ygyg;; 3 Rgygy <6 R �y ;M @ y��{j ii 'i�'E6,- 33f,� mY Tt §.G.:FSF.::� -3 tlGe 3K.4iF:�YpiGff S'GRg3R356 S. z$.1��.OYC9R�k�i..r43ii Gw_wk�� S�x%'� axis 53��Y�t g�.63z. $Q�$$�HU sEN W w a r x W m m � r N S u �r oz h � z LL fn J O m .�zz�s c z2� cw a Rw a S vi u U 5Q aUwwOw uQi ?eirr a��2 t-.�.F 06'-�� Oi�JU° Owd a,LL�za3o�000r zzz?��zzzb adaadm z �- �000Ag °000<zw"W wp rr wwwwzp °99 °9za c a a a a a¢¢ a a P w w w w� F F F� > > > >� m m m m rccazaz wwww wwwww wwmAww w ww w w w w wwoQ a z a z g= x x LL� cr. a a� r s g a r� a erg r Y. Y. 4. LL F! 4. {L � li F li 4. Y. F li '� 1i F 0 3 a o a o x c" H � F 2 w ° m a az a _u lll� 5I e v q o`�m Mm E r g _ 2 3 _ nc pm G C - arv- ry m Do a m � r N S u �r oz h � z LL fn J O m .�zz�s c z2� cw a Rw a S vi u U 5Q aUwwOw uQi ?eirr a��2 t-.�.F 06'-�� Oi�JU° Owd a,LL�za3o�000r zzz?��zzzb adaadm z �- �000Ag °000<zw"W wp rr wwwwzp °99 °9za c a a a a a¢¢ a a P w w w w� F F F� > > > >� m m m m rccazaz wwww wwwww wwmAww w ww w w w w wwoQ a z a z g= x x LL� cr. a a� r s g a r� a erg r Y. Y. 4. LL F! 4. {L � li F li 4. Y. F li '� 1i F 0 3 a o a o x c" H � F 2 w ° m a az a _u lll� 5I e v q o`�m Mm nc pm U arv- ry m m � r N S u �r oz h � z LL fn J O m .�zz�s c z2� cw a Rw a S vi u U 5Q aUwwOw uQi ?eirr a��2 t-.�.F 06'-�� Oi�JU° Owd a,LL�za3o�000r zzz?��zzzb adaadm z �- �000Ag °000<zw"W wp rr wwwwzp °99 °9za c a a a a a¢¢ a a P w w w w� F F F� > > > >� m m m m rccazaz wwww wwwww wwmAww w ww w w w w wwoQ a z a z g= x x LL� cr. a a� r s g a r� a erg r Y. Y. 4. LL F! 4. {L � li F li 4. Y. F li '� 1i F 0 3 a o a o x c" H � F 2 w ° m a az a _u lll� 5I e v q o`�m Mm U o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O cd F- V OO It N V O X 000 N M vii O l0 O 7 C1 ('F O to W r- O ° "d d x V) N O N� v 7� U 0 N� 0 vii ON O Q M l0 to 00 F 0o rq N V) M �n O O V a^ V N N 69 O DD 00 h O O M M 69 O O O O o O O O O O O O cd F- V (n xn N O O t N 00 x kn O l , w ON 04 r- O ° "d d x ° Cr�00 O co v U U E O 0 U ON N Q M l0 to 00 F 0o rq N V) M �n O O V a^ V N N 69 O DD 00 h O O M M 69 U 00 — �O I � 609 M d s bs s9 00 00 00 7 o Or N > r^ O N O cd F- V (n N 01 lcl �O t N 00 x kn O l , w ON M r- O ° "d U 00 — �O I � 609 M d s bs s9 N 00 00 00 7 o r- N > r^ y N N cd F- V DA O w O ° b O e Ucl N x o 9 w if) w H O O W ° "d d x ° > O co v U U E O 0 U ON N H M l0 to 00 v 0o rq N V) M �n M �O r- M N �O N 69 0 69 U U 7 iA M �O OD 00 M 00 IA s. w a 7 u O O 0 H H9 0 Vi N O cc a O O N w ~ Y N 00 00 00 7 o r- M M 0 y N N cd F- V DA O w O ° b O 6 d N M 00 i i M if) .N-� O N x Rt v O U E O 0 0 ON N H M l0 to 00 Vn 0o rq N V) M �n N 0 � O W o O tT, pop C� O L) N cd F- V Oi O w O ° b O 7 d N M 00 CV M if) .N-� O N x M N fl) r- N O N O N rl M h V N O M D 00 h 00 O N m C- M N +1 N N OA O a1 b N O N n W td H U G4, 4. Q O Q� b N 7 W y N U O N Y g O C ad+ A U .O v O � � w � y bD O" � w 0 y C O O O V1 O ID �6 O� o \O 7 N — O N 16ls N 69 N M d V "t M D N O D\ m N h �D V1 00 �p Q` oo N vi �O O N N a N o0 oNO 00 00 00 `D N m O C 00 .-. 'zr to O O l'- 00 00 00 M M o 0 0 � O W o O tT, pop C� 7 L) N cd F- V Oi O w O ° b O r. Z ) U 00 o CV if) .N-� so00 x Rt v O U E O 0 0 0 0 H \O M .H �0 m C- M N +1 N N OA O a1 b N O N n W td H U G4, 4. Q O Q� b N 7 W y N U O N Y g O C ad+ A U .O v O � � w � y bD O" � w 0 y C O O O V1 O ID �6 O� o \O 7 N — O N 16ls N 69 N M d V "t M D N O D\ m N h �D V1 00 �p Q` oo N vi �O O N N a N o0 oNO 00 00 00 `D N m O C 00 .-. 'zr to O O l'- 00 00 00 M M o 0 a. b . w > o�0 U C7 x b w w w o O O O w U' o UUUc4 o° °o M M O O I 0 0 0 o e o a r C� 7 O C O V Oi It O r oo 00 o CV if) .N-� so00 x O U E 0 0 a. b . w > o�0 U C7 x b w w w o O O O w U' o UUUc4 o° °o M M O O I 0 Q O O U 0 O " m C l-� o O_ rt vMt r oo h D\ M1+ N so00 O b E 0 0 0 0 145 \O M .H �0 Vn 0o rq N V) M �n M �O r- M N �O N 69 0 69 U U 7 iA M �O OD a. b . w > o�0 U C7 x b w w w o O O O w U' o UUUc4 o° °o M M O O I 0 tl a C 0 m h n 0 V 0 V h 0 Q O O U 0 O 0 O_ N so00 O b E cc N 145 O� M .H Vn �D Vl OO �O M Oi 69 o0 69 N H Vi vi �O N 69 + 69 U U 7 iA M �O OD 00 M 00 IA s. a 7 u O O 0 69 H9 0 Vi N cc a O O Oa w ~ Y O '°vUUU0� tl a C 0 m h n 0 V 0 V h 0 Q U 0 0 s so00 O b E cc a 4. 4. 0 M Q� M Vi O + U U U 7 iA M �O OD 00 M 00 IA M 7 N O N 0 69 H9 N Vi N 69 N9 tl a C 0 m h n 0 V 0 V h 0 U so00 O y E cc a 4. 4. 0 v + U U U tl a C 0 m h n 0 V 0 V h 0 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Membership Action Required: Approval Summary: At the June 11, 2015 City Council meeting, staff updated the Council on changes taking place within the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council of which the City of Corcoran is a member. Significant grant funds from Hennepin County are no longer available and the organization is going through a process of re-defining its focus. Over the last several months I have been involved with the process of guiding the organization as an active board member. Although the organization will likely continue forward and do good work for the region, I feel it is no longer a strong investment for the City of Corcoran at this time. According to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement governing the organization, “an active member may elect to become inactive by giving written notice to the Executive Director by September 30 of the year preceding the budget year for which the municipality will be on inactive status”. This notice is recommended for submission and attached as a resolution to this report. Financial/Budget: Membership to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council for 2015 was $2,385 which is based upon $0.42 per capita of the 2010 census. If the City discontinues membership in 2016 those funds would not be expended. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: 1) Approve Resolution 2015-54 Authorizing Withdrawal from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement. 2) Take no action and continue as a member of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council in 2016. Page 2 Recommendation: Approve Resolution 2015-54 Authorizing Withdrawal from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement. Council Action: Consider a motion to approve Resolution 2015-54 Authorizing Withdrawal from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement. Attachments: 1) Resolution 2015-54 Authorizing Withdrawal from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement City of Corcoran September 24, 2015 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2015-54 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran is a member of the Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has lost a significant funding source to continue its operations into the future; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is going through an exercise to update its non-profit business plan and determine its future endeavors; and WHEREAS, the uncertainty of the future priorities of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has led the City of Corcoran to reconsider its membership and participation in the organization and has determined that it no longer wishes to be a member; and WHEREAS, the agreement provides that any active member party may withdraw from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council by giving written notice of withdrawal by September 30 for the following year. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Corcoran hereby withdraws from membership in the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council beginning with the 2016 budget year. The City Council further thanks the Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council for the service they provide to northwest Hennepin County and wish it good luck in its future endeavors. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Guenthner, Ken Guenthner, Ken Hank, Pat Hank, Pat Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 24th day of September, 2015. City of Corcoran September 24, 2015 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2015-54 _____________________________ Ken Guenthner – Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City Seal STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11c. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Corcoran Insert – 2016 Proposed Levies and Taxes Notice Action Required: Approval Summary: At the September 10th meeting of the City Council, the preliminary levy was approved which will be used to send out property specific notices in November showing proposed levies and taxes. The City of Corcoran has an option to include an additional insert along with those notices if it wishes, for a fee. Attached to this report is a draft insert. It is requested that the Council provide feedback on the draft and consider directing staff to move forward with the opportunity. The insert must be received by Hennepin County by September 30 th. Financial/Budget: Hennepin County charges cities for the opportunity. Last year the City of Medina was charged $228, it is anticipated that Corcoran’s cost would be similar to that amount as we have a similar number of parcels. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Options: 1) Authorize staff to submit the insert to Hennepin County and incur the costs associated with the project. 2) Decline the opportunity. Page 2 Recommendation: Authorize staff to submit the insert to Hennepin County and incur the costs associated with the project. Council Action: 3) Consider a motion to authorize staff to submit the insert to Hennepin County and incur the costs associated with the project. Attachments: 1) Draft Insert 2016 Proposed Budget and Levy The City Council adopted its preliminary levy for 2016 at the September 10th meeting. This levy amount may be decreased prior to final approval but not increased. This levy amount was used to create the City tax amount you see on your proposed 2016 levies and taxes notice. The adopted preliminary levy is in the amount of $3,501,918 which is a $184,350 or 5.56% increase from the 2015 levy. The overall 2016 budget is $4,225,631 which is a $174,813 or 4.3% increase from 2015. The increase in the levy is larger than the increase in the overall budget, this is primarily due to a reduction in state aid. The tax rate is projected to increase from 45.3% to 48.5%. This increase is due to the additional levy as well as a decrease in fiscal disparities distribution the City will receive in 2016. Why is a property tax levy needed? Only a small portion of the City budget is funded through fees or charges for services. For 2016 the portion funded by fees or charges covers only 17% of our expenditures. The remaining 83% is funded through the levy. Budget Process Timeline May—June Staff develops budget July 9th: Council provided staff with direction on priorities to include in budget July 23rd: Council reviewed first draft of budget and provided staff direction on changes August 13th: Council held a work session to discuss employee compensation August 27th: Council held a work session to review the second draft of the budget and provided staff direction September 10th: Council reviewed the third draft of the budget and adopted the preliminary levy November: Hennepin County mails Truth-in-Taxation notices showing proposed levies and taxes December 10th: Council holds Truth-in-Taxation Hearing December 21st: Council approves 2016 final budget and levy CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763/420-2288 Fax: 763/420-6056 2016 Proposed Budget and Levy Information Continued Learn More... The entire budget and related staff reports are available on the City’s website at www.ci.corcoran.mn.us. Under the Government tab click “Council” then “Agenda Packets” then “2015”. Select the 2015-09-10 Council Agenda packet to view the budget used to set the preliminary levy. The City Administrator Brad Martens, can also be reached at bmartens@ci.corcoran.mn.us or 763-420-2288. Prepared by the City of Corcoran Tax Effects The median household value in Corcoran is $284,300 according to the Metropolitan Council. The proposed levy increase would likely bring the City tax amount for 2016 to $1,324 for 2016 or about $110 per month. The chart below shows where the $1,324 is spent. Item Annual Cost Cost Per Month Administration $264.80 $22.07 Planning /Engineering $39.72 $3.31 Building Inspections $26.48 $2.21 Public Works/Parks $397.20 $33.10 Police/Fire $450.16 $37.51 Transfers $13.24 $1.10 Debt Service $132.40 $11.03 Next Steps Truth-in-Taxation Hearing City Council Chambers Thursday, December 10th, 7:00 pm 2016 Budget and Levy Adoption City Council Chambers Monday, December 21st, 7:00 pm STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11d. Council Meeting: September 24, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: City Council Compensation Action Required: Direction Summary: At a recent City Council meeting, staff was directed to review the compen sation of City Councilmembers as compared to the City of Corcoran. Below is information from our surrounding cities: City Position Annual Salary Corcoran Mayor $1,800 Council $1,200 Medina Mayor $4,250 Council $3,000 Loretto Mayor $2,400 Council $2,000 Greenfield Mayor $4,800 Council $3,600 Rogers Mayor $4,200 Council $3,600 Dayton Mayor $6,396 Council $5,117 Maple Grove Mayor $15,000 Council $13,000 Plymouth Mayor $14,479 Council $10,484 Average Mayor $6,666 Council $5,250 Staff further looked into the average City Council compensation of the seven county metro area for communities between 4,000 – 7,000 in population. After removing two outliers (low of $750 from Rockford and high of $16,500 from Wayzata) the following average City Council salary was found: Mayor: $4,620 Councilmember: $3,641 The data clearly show that Corcoran’s Councilmembers are lower paid than our surrounding communities and similar sized cities. Staff requests direction from the City Council on further action regarding City Council compensation. Council salaries are set by ordinance which takes effect following the Page 2 next succeeding regular election. This means that salaries could next increase in 2017. The last salary increase took place in 2001. Financial/Budget: Any increase in salary would increase the budget. The increase would not take place at the earliest until 2017. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: 1) Direct staff to draft an ordinance increasing City Council compensation. 2) Direct staff to take no further action. Recommendation: The data clearly show that the Corcoran City Councilmembers are underpaid as compared to their neighboring and similar sized communities. If the Council recommends a salary increase staff recommends continuing the “per month” approach. Council Action: Consider a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance increasing City Council compensation. Attachments: N/A City of Corcoran 2015 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 13. Page 1 of 2 September 24, 2015 (Brad and Kendra unable to attend) Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report Call Assessment Hearing – Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project City Council Compensation Public Safety Traffic Report – Trail Haven Road History of Consideration of Paving Roads Consideration of NWHHSC Membership Budget Insert in Tax Notices October 8, 2015 (Mayor unable to attend - also hold Charter commission meeting) Performance Report Preliminary Plat and Ordinance Amendment for “Strehler Estates” for property at 22900 Strehler Road (PID 17-119-23-32-0004) (city file no. 15-017) Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for “Fehn Meadows” at 20909 County Road Number 117 (PID # 03-119-23-12-0002 and PID 03-119-23-13-0001) (city file no. 15-018) Lennar Vacation of Easement for Ravinia (Ebert Property) (City file no. 15 -020) Delinquent Fees Special Assessment Public Hearing Background Check Policy October 22, 2015 Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report TIF Report – allocation of past and remaining funds Assessment Hearing – Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project Utility Billing Process – Sewer billing 2016 Fee Schedule City Council Email Addresses November 12, 2015 Elm Creek Watershed Commission – Chair Doug Baines Performance Report Ordinance Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project o Review Plans and Specifications o Consider authorizing bid of project Draft Water/Sanitary Sewer budgets City of Corcoran 2015 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 13. Page 2 of 2 November 23, 2015 (Monday) Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report Consider authorizing bids for downtown utility and street improvement project Consider authorizing bids for paving gravel collector road Recognition program for employees, elected officials, and appointed officials 2016 Budget December 10, 2015 Performance Report Truth-in-Taxation Hearing City Administrator Performance Evaluation December 21, 2015 (Monday) Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report Adopt 2016 Budget and Levy Consider approving bid for downtown utility and street improvement project Consider approving bid for paving gravel collector road