The URL can be used to link to this page

10.1. SR 01-22-2013i (1tv or E flk.. REQUEST FOR ACTION -% ACTION REQUESTED Implementing a franchise fee to fund the Pavement Management Program; and provide: 1) Authorization to review and re- negotiate franchise agreements with Centerpoint Energy; 2) Authorization to negotiate new franchise agreements with Connexus Energy and ERMU; and 3) Authorization to draft Franchise and Franchise Fee Ordinance for adoption (requires 60 -day notice to utilities prior to adoption). ACKGROUND/ ISCUSSION Funding options for the city's Pavement Management Program were discussed by the Council on July 9, 2012, August 6, 2012, October 8, 2012, November 19, 2012, and January 7, 2013. Council consensus was to proceed with evaluating and implementing a franchise fee to fund the Pavement Management Program. A franchise fee is proposed to be collected from existing gas and electric service providers in the city. State law provides cities the ability to impose such fees for utilities using the public right -of -way. The fee would be dedicated to pay for the maintenance of existing city streets and would eliminate the need for special assessments. Franchise fee revenues combined with current state aid allocations, are projected to fully fund the Pavement Maintenance and Reconstruction Program (or Pavement Management Program) for the existing paved, city -owned street system. Staff is working on the 2013 Street Improvement project. The process for developing the project has, to this point, followed the existing procedure for funding through special assessments. Direction from the January 7, 2013, meeting was to consider combining like projects to equalize assessments. While this may be consistent with past practices, it is very likely that it would not be defendable if an assessment were challenged. The disparity in assessments proposed with the 2013 Street Improvement project further emphasizes the need to consider a different funding option. Proposed Fee Amounts The Pavement Management Program would require an additional $1.5 million annually to maintain current pavement conditions. Initially, staff suggested collecting required revenues through an estimated monthly fee of $7 from residential properties, $50 from small commercial /industrial properties, and $200 from large commercial /industrial properties. Council asked staff to relook at the amount proposed for PO E 0 f a 0 Y NAWRE collection from commercial and industrial properties. The following estimated fees proposed are similar to those recently developed in other cities which are related to energy consumption and total monthly billings. Residential Monthly Fee - $9.00 Small Commercial /Industrial - $36.00 Large Commercial/ Industrial - $126.00 Staff recommends fees be collected on both the electric and gas utilities, but at different percentages. It is proposed that electric bills would have a slightly higher percentage since they are installed in all right - of -ways. Gas lines are not located in all- right -of -ways so they are responsible for lower maintenance costs. In working with Centerpoint Energy, they estimate they have facilities located in 80% of the city right -of -ways. Similarly, they only serve about 80% of the total accounts that are served with electricity. Previously Assessed Properties The proposed funding mechanism would consider property owners who were recently charged a street assessment. Over the past 12 years, 17% or 1,725 individual properties were assessed for street improvements. Nearly 900 property owners are still paying on assessments. To address this inequity, staff recommends a rebate program as follows: All properties with gas and electric service in the city would be charged a franchise fee on their bills starting in July 2013. Property owners still paying a street assessment would receive an annual rebate of the franchise fees paid that year. Rebates would apply whether assessments were prepaid or paid annually, and would be offered through the end of the assessment period. Rental properties, which also qualify for rebates, would need to be in the name of the property owner, not a tenant. To qualify for the rebate, the property owner would present copies of their gas and electric bills, and be refunded the amount paid toward the franchise fee for the year. The total rebate payments may be as high as $330,000 based on the number of properties that would qualify for the program. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. See attached analysis of projected revenues and expenditures of the proposed Pavement Management Fund and the CIP projects previously slated for assessment. Program start -up for the 2013 project will require a transfer from the Street Improvement Fund to the Pavement Management Program fund. The Street Improvement Fund will remain as the Pavement Management Program Fund and will only be used for street reconstruction and overlays. New construction, boulevards, intersection enhancements are planned in the Street Improvement Fund. An analysis of both funds is attached. • July 9, 2012, Staff Report • August 6, 2012, Staff Report • October 8, 2012, Staff Report • November 19, 2012, Staff Report • January 7, 2013, Staff Report • Pavement Management and Street Improvement Reserve Fund Analysis • Comparative list of franchise fees collected by other cities. E I k REQUEST FOR ACTION River To ITEM DUMBER �l;ili)1" }]ld {_It (-,(.k1111cil 6.2 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY NN(]rk Sess] 111 ]ulr 9, 201? ]ustin Femrite, Citf-En leer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Pat°emetit Management Plan Clark Thompson.,Street Superintendent erintendent REVIEWED BY Cal Portner, f--itN- Administrator ACTION REQUESTED Review, discuss, and provide comments on direction staff is proceeding with the pavement management program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSS ION Staff will be prepared to discuss the current and future conditions of the City of Elk River roadway- pavements. We will review the pavement management activities al-id plantullg scenarios which stall'has been working on over the past two years. Attached is a copy of the presentation staff will be presenting at the July 9, 2012,work session. FINANCIAL IMPACT '1'llere is no financial impact with the items to be discussed. ATTACHMENTS ■ PAN-cment Management PowerPoint Action `lotion by Second by Grote Follow Up N:-.Pkibhc Bodiesl,City Cotuzcil\Council RC.'\Agenda Packetl0 09-2012`6, 2 Pavement Management Staff Report.doc.docx INATUREI l � 3 N c a� = O " �a Aw CY) _0 E U- Ul _0 4-+ cn M 4-J 4-J Ul) L C 0 L 0 E 0 H � ' 0 u 4w E w -0 o > •u7 a_+ (10 [!] � C -J � T3 u� > 4-J 4-J U (1)u � ❑ � • m o > CL L CL 3: 4� 4-i (f} 0 L �} Z L L 4-J L L U -0 l L 0 -0 u� Q) V) v 4—J +I.--+ W � a � 0 4—J ON u 0 a o 0 E M (Y) i W Q N rSl 4—J 4—J CD 0 (A x 4—J .- LU � o L 0 `r' Ln T a � t w Ln CD Ln Q Ln o Ln o (Y) m r,14 N r-A r--1 4--) ❑J QJ L L ■ra-�-) 4-J 0 V i C) o L p 00 0 4J 0 i a 0 00 a N x u Q _ > Q Q 4w r� a u D a— C:) a-=) -0 3: 0 > L C:) > (1)C: C W E O aQ) a � � I . CL 0 i--i CD ° ° © dam- o rn CD o 0 U C� r 0 - .. . -- - ' ?4 4wi �~ F 0 4-d r CLW I U L ■ � r k., a � x 4w ! . (1) m 5r') a� 0 i 0 L in, ■ � H u L r 0 -0-) LUI L� a, 4—d i L 4/// ,/� . L � LO ,l 1 I II 'I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I cl LM t! , CUB M CO � W ° C1] I I 0 I (U I P 0 CD Q c) c) a co 0 cv xapul u011!puoo ;uawajN8(j 4kJ E fo flu flu -0 M < < O V o CL o = 000 � � o000 � � oo � 4kJ ru m 0 LU ■ o ii -0 4, U 0 fB � = U � cnU � L 4WJ Cn 1 ■ Z Paz CD TO-1 L OEOz '� ' >• GZ0Z .� gzoz N 9zoz a--) SiDZ _ 0 ■ H oz +� E 0 - Me �- 0 a L zzaz CL +L q u 0406 �' s L 6TOZ W CL 0 STOZ 4-J LTOZ -3 13 (a (1) 9TOZ 4-J cn VTOZ s�caz u CL 0 0 O O 0 O 0 v i- L{1 C) U) U Lo U V3 Lm tr'o 4A iJr? iJ'1 CL LL. L - C� Q Q O m m O m ID m G) 00 r-- Lo Lr) -Z niti rj r-I ❑ TCOZ OEOZ _ L C 0 szoz GZQZ m 4kJ ZOO ! � 00 9Zo? ru SzCIz ! VZo2 a C) OZ fo u Tzoz 0 u .--. 40 4-J oZQZ ' V) fTOZ r (1) -:3 N BTQZ m 0TZ 9TOZ STOZ L - VT0Z CL -0 CTOZ L 'N 0 1 L urti 4 rf; r4 $jaRpn8 L -I C) w r%l � Ln d m ctrl r-4 0 > $DZ Z$DZ 4-J Q} sLOZ ■ � SLOZ TLOZ g90z 0 4- r €90Z L O9OZ LSOZ 0 �SOZ TSOZ > > SbOZ = U) ui -�6 _ ZDZ .N U0Z .a _ 9fOZ a-J UN UN� u Ul O£OZ Ul �, Ca tZOZ L tz0z Ln 1 ■� ZTOZ L A l W ( 3: LA 0 Ln LA C) ilk } tF t1? tr} +r f W • r ru Q) 00 •� L 0— ' (1) 0 4-J 0 m (f)ru L {�`' (1) rs4o 0 _ m uru ro6 4W ft) C: u C o Oru � � L � E � 0 0 > c > (3) ! � (3) � (1) L a--a Ice rl E _0 E C) 0 -0 0 1,0 S 0 u w (!) [Jl 0 a-J 4-J 4—J � ru CU OJ C: E E ul LO Ln Ln r a) CU C Ln L < ru m Ln 0 V) 0 r 4�•�•• Vl �� r 4-�J rV 0 L 0-•- ru 0- :3 a-J L E m '�.. R3 ru X ilk Q)C- w ! -0 C: ra -0 4-J 0 4w ro > U') •V •V L a--) .- UP) L �N .ru 0 u C3 C ) Q •Q) 4-L L o Q a = 0_ (1) -- Cd Im L- 4-J Wo -0 4-J Q) 1 4-J L u►) L � +�[3 E > U u') 0 � � < � L U) u a•+ VW�o L Q O 4W ru r E G) r< Q3 > > ru a LLI � LT-1 � C) O o N r1rj oC �N r t � ■ ..., MIT r" 0 fit cr LOW . . : .. . : .. . : . .. 1l �r 1�t ■f �� 5 1 � I IN do C. dill ff r r ,I 4 I'r l� L� p Ck--J No it Im ECity lk REQUEST FOR ACTION River TO ITEM NUMBER Mayor and City Council 4.3 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Consent August 6, 2012 Justin Fe rite, P.E. City Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Approve Future Pavement Management Projects Cal Portner, City Administrator REVIEWED BY ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached maps which detail the anticipated pavement management projects to be completed by the City of Elk River in years 2013, 2015, and 2017. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the July 9, 2012, City Council work session, staff gave an overview of our existing pavement management program and the pavement condition of our system. As discussed at that meeting, to maintain our pavements at an acceptable quality level,regularly scheduled projects including sealcoating, overlaying, and reconstruction are necessary. Staff recommends the improvements shown on the attached maps as projects to complete over the next five years. We have re-reviewed all of the pavements in the anticipated project areas and refined the projects and specific pavement management techniques. The maps of proposed improvements were updated accordingly. The maps are intended to inform residents of expected improvements. Plan approval will also enable the Sewer Division and Elk River Municipal Utilities to budget and plan for any system upgrades they may want to make in the project areas. The approved maps will be posted on the city website and incorporated into the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Approval of the maps does not formally authorize the projects. All projects will be brought to the City Council for final approval before work begins. The 2015 and 2017 project areas will be reviewed annually as part of the CIP update to assure the budgets and proposed improvements are still appropriate for the conditions of the roadways. Staff recommends pavement management projects be completed every other year. Undertaking larger projects every other year,versus the historic approach of smaller projects every year,reduces the administrative and engineering costs of these projects. Projects of this size will be consulted out for engineering design services. With the addition of an engineering technician,we expect the majority of construction observation and contract management be completed in house. POWERED By NAWREJ FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact associated with this approval. Preliminary estimates of the anticipated project costs are as follows: 2013 - $2,852,000 2015 - $3,995,000 2017 - $4,336,000 Staff reviewed the preliminary budget impact of the projects on the Street Improvement Reserve and State Aid Funds and sufficient funds exist to finance the 2013 project via the Street Improvement Reserve and property assessments. The 2015 project may be a combination Street Improvement Reserve funds,property assessments, state aid and street improvement bonds. The details of the funding sources will be further discussed with the Council later this year during the review of the CIP. ATTACHMENTS ■ Pavement Management Project Maps—2013, 2015, 2017 Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up POWERED By NAWREJ do J 6h, RECONSTRUCTION OVERLAY WITH EDGE MILL FULL DEPTH RECLAIM WITH CURB PATCHING WEAR COURSE PAVING ON UNFINISHED DEVELOPMENT STREETS River CATS: S14EE7 2013 8.2-2012 DMWN 6�'. STREET IMPROVEMENTS CML Elk',t= SCALE: River NOT TO SCALE do 44 1� Ir I-A RECONSTRUCTION OVERLAY WITH EDGE MILL FULL DEPTH RECLAIM WITH CURB PATCHING WEAR COURSE PAVING ON UNFINISHED DEVELOPMENT STREETS River CATS: S14EE7 2015 8.2-2012 DMWN 6�'. STREET IMPROVEMENTS CML Elkkt=�=� SCALE: L River NOT TO SCALE a a a _ _ _ v, ;��`• ] '° ! � ..vi -MT - P!r- RECONSTRUCTION OVERLAY WITH EDGE MILL — FULL DEPTH RECLAIM WITH CURB PATCHING WEAR COURSE PAVING ON UNFINISHED DEVELOPMENT STREETS t 9 El -r River I „ — — — f , �� a IIII � , ee 2017 8 SHEET 8-2-2-?D12 DRAWN BY 1 STRI-+.T IMPROVEMENTS CML SCALE: River NOT T4 SCALE Elk - REQUEST FOR ACTION River TO ITEM NUMBER Ma�'or and City Council 6.7 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Work Session October 8, 2012 Justin Fernrite, P.E.,City Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Assessment Manual/Policy/Funding Options Tim Simon, Finance Director REVIEWED BY Cal Portner,City Administrator ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the city assessment procedures and provide policy direction on street project funding and associated updates to the Assessment Manual. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION At the July 9,2012,City Council work session, staff gave an overview of our pavement management program. The overview explained the program methodology,highlighted existing pavement conditions, and discussed the trending of city street maintenance over the next 40 years. Councilmember Westgaard posed a question regarding our current practice for funding the pavement management program with private property assessments or whether an alternative funding source should be considered. Staff will address the advantages and disadvantages of special assessments verses other funding sources of the pavement management program. If the Council concludes that special assessments are the preferred funding option,we will review some policy questions that should be considered in the update to the assessment manual. Staff has already begun work to update the assessment manual. Pavement Management Program Funding Our existing pavements are in relatively good condition with a high average pavement rating. The large growth experienced over the last 20 years has brought with it many more miles of streets. This has resulted in a larger system to maintain and budget for improvements. Maintenance and improvements include sealcoats,overlays,reclarnations, and full reconstructions. At the July work session,the Council was informed that in order to maintain the current average pavement condition of our street system, additional funding is required to support the larger projects. Following are two options to consider for future projects. Option#1. In order to meet the increased funding needs for larger projects, the levels at which the projects are assessed to adjacent properties could be increased. Elk River has historically funded street improvement projects through a combination of assessments,state aid funding, and bond sales. Up to now, this funding approach has satisfactorily met the system's needs. If this option is continued,the private property assessments and bonding amounts need to be increased to carry out the plan. The attached spreadsheet shows the projections for the Street Improvement Reserve Fund if assessments are continued at the same rates. P__OggwIREO Ur YAW Option #2. As discussed briefly at the July meeting, street improvements could be funded through a general tax levy or,with legislative changes, a city-wide street utility fee approach. Current state legislation does not allow for charging of a street utility fee. There have been attempts to have this included in state statutes as an option for cities,but so far it has fallen short of being passed into law. Funding through a general tax levy or street utility fee would continue to use state aid funding on projects as available, but would eliminate the need to levy special assessments on property owners when improvements are made adjacent to their property. Property owners would pay for street improvements through the existing property tax system.. Some communities,including St. Louis Park,Minnetonka,and Ramsey,who have struggled to prove the benefit of special assessments,have transitoned to or have been considering alternative means of financing their pavement management plans. There are positives and negatives to a tax levy-based approach just the same as with the assessment approach. Below are staff's opinions of positives and negatives of each option: Private Property Assessment Option Pros 1) Property owner can see where their money goes 2) Continues past practice in Elk River,making it fair for all 3) Accepted process used by many cities Cons 1) Property owners don't life large assessments for a city street 2) Potential challenges regarding the benefit of improvement 3) Can only collect what is determined to be the benefit 4) Costly to develop and administer assessment process 5) Project approvals are subject to emotional public hearings G) Residents often challenge or delay projects based on financial impacts to them T) Residents feel the street network is community good, not personal good Tax Levy Based Option Pros 1) Projects are proposed,approved,and proceed based on approved,non-biased Pavement Management Plan 2) Lower administration costs of projects 3) Stable revenue stream 4) Can be readily adjusted to meet funding needs 5) Residents have favorable response to street projects G) Smaller monthly-or yearly fees instead of large lump sum or financing 7) Collects money from all users of the system 8) No need to prove benefit to property owner 9) Funds are direcdy used for corresponding service Cons 1) Change in policy doesn't benefit previous assessments Z) Larger tax levy p 0 W E H L 9 0 NATUREI If the Council would like to look closer at Caption 2,staff should be directed to bring back specific information and model policies for the consideration of the Council in the coming months. This large of shift in policy direction would come back to the Council for discussion ahead of a public hearing process which will take several months. Assessment Manual Policy Updates The existing Assessment Manual was last updated in 1989. There have been some modifications to the policies since the 1989 update that need to be worked into the formal manual. Staff is proposing a full update to the manual. Staff has identified a list of policy questions to be considered as follows: 1) Past practice has been to assess properties on a per unit basis as the primary method for calculating assessments. Does the Council want to continue this practice? 2) There is some ambiguity in the current manual about how assessments are calculated for corner residential lots. How should residential corner lots be treated? 3) Current practice has been to charge residential properties a flat fee for overlays. Most recently, for the 2008 project,this fee was $1,963 per unit. This assessment is intended to cover 100% of the costs of mill and overlay projects per current practices. Should mill and overlay improvements continue to be assessed at 100% of the project costs? 4) Current practice has been to assess street reconstruction projects a flat fee for the reconstruction of a residential street. The summation of all the assessment charges has been near 1/3 of the total project costs. The remaining 2/3 has been funded through bonding, state aid funds and the Street Improvement Reserve Fund. Should reconstruction projects continue to be assessed at 33% of the project costs,or should it be increased to sustain the Street Improvement Reserve Fund? 5) Currently there 's no polio'in place for full depth reclamation type projects. These projects are more costly than a mill and overlay but do not go as far as a full reconstruction. What percentage should full depth reclamation projects be assessed? 6) Assessment terms have varied significantly from project to project in the past. Staff is seeking guidance on specific terms for different assessments. In general,past reconstruction projects have been payable for up to 10 years and overlay projects have been payable for up to five years. 7) The current Assessment Manual does not provide guidance on what properties are exempt from assessments. The revised draft Assessment Manual has been prepared to clearly state that cemeteries are exempt from assessments according to state law. Staff is looking for direction on other properties the Council feels should be exempt including, city facilities, city parks, state,county, school, and church properties. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with the discussion of this item. ATTACHMENTS ■ Street/Capital Improvement Budget Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up P__oggwIREO Ur YAW N O M C7 1!0 'V' ' O C7 N C+ ' C7 O O ' O ' ' C7 + ' ' ' ' O C to ii H7 CD w N 0) C] 00 C7 C] N N O a O C7 O CS N O O CD CO Cp O CON O C7 CC7 G C C O C CJ O 3` Cl hf Cli Ci g ui I-I-C9 o 0 0 00 a C�0 o © m m ri LO ui a w N 0 + O O (D C) r r r p r r s r r r r p m yry u7 LO MI) [p O r M t] O O O m C.] C] CCS to Qy N IMP It DC C O tC+ NN C7M � N � N2 OCCl) N dN' t" � 'd' Lo r 49 LlF N r r 00 C7 co Fl ' C] 0 C3 Cq + 0 0 0 r p r r + r r r r r p (4. O . r C7 I, to O4 0 C) C 10 N M C] a6 O O CA C 0 0 0 [7 C CV � Ii] C7 tK3 Iti [Y] O CJ C{3 � O O Q O C IC1' p t 7 rn- sue-- M1 LO LL.I 0 LO I� C] Y pry O C7 r r r r r r r r O O + v CO v N N LO O 0) O n C] O G r N 4' 0! C] �!'3 I� CJ Ca O C O C7 met 147 00 t 0C� C]o 0 Cl Iti CC) N V n 0 M O CC) M N O d' co CO r d' w W> w co C] ' r p ti O O 0 0 r r r r Ca Wo O O It C7 r N C7 O C] 00 O O N N d' 6 a C7Cs � LOm d fJJ Ci) N C! N In CO ' O O In M p r r r r r p r r 0 r r 0 0 0 C 00 C0 N lf} O Car N C3 O C7 C7 r;7 O I(U ►t N O O O CV M C C7 C O f` C I� 6A t-• r S4 LO M M M Cl to O C'')N O G C) 0 0 CD to OD 0 - r ti .- u7 to 00 v IC7 O r r r r N N I.- r r r r n u7 1@ .In O n [7 (A N M to C7 CC7 r G N M CU u7 C7 I `cI` Ilk W l3 L rn Ci N C r 00 d' CNcq+� I.0 CA CO M (D CV ago Lo r r d t� M O c n CD U C L6 ~ N N CD� l6 o N ro N v. 4= V C] N d 01 LL 7 p N ? w m co CC0 j, �7 ❑ N CL ( DO 00 w ''3 v (D E ro c �y 'sNaa rr10 m 0 0 i Eli REQUEST FOR ACTION ..� River _ To ITEM NUMBER City Council " 10.2 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Administration November 19, 2012 Justin Femrite,P.E., City Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Pavement Management Program Funding Options Tim Simon, Finance Director REVIEWED BY Cal Portner, City Administrator ACTION REQUESTED Discuss and consider alternative approaches to funding the city pavement management program. BAC KGROU NDI'D ISCUSSION At the October 8, 2012, City Council Work Session,staff gave an overview of the pavement management program and funding options. The overview explained the program methodology,highlighted existing pavement conditions,and discussed the trending of city street maintenance over the next 40 years. Staff also presented some pros and cons of funding the pavement management program with a fee or general tax approach instead of a private property assessment approach. Council direction was to come back to a future work session further detailing a general tax approach verses a franchise fee approach. An underlying question to the discussion was how to make a change in policy fair for those property owners that have recently paid a street improvement assessment. As detailed at the July work session,81% of Elk River's streets were constructed or rehabilitated within the last 20 years. All of these improvements have been paid for by residents,either through special assessments by property owners fronting the improvements or by new homebuyers through the purchase of their home or lot. Ideally, the most favorable time to consider a different funding option for a pavement management program is when the entire system is 100%new or 100%deteriorated. Neither of these scenarios is likely,but with 81%of our streets less than 20 years old,this may be as close as we can get to a new system. The system's age and the continual challenges associated with the Minn. Stat. 429 assessment process make it an opportune time to consider alternative funding for the program. Analysis of the pavement management program details the need to invest approximately$4.5 million for rehabilitation every other year to sustain the current average pavement condition or$2.25 million annually. Our current Municipal State Aid allocation dedicated to construction/reconstruction is $750,000 per year,which leaves a $1°5 million yearly shortfall. The two long-term alternative approaches previously discussed include a general tax increase or implementation of a franchise fee. Both of these options,if implemented fully,would eliminate need to assess costs directly to the adjacent property owners. General Tax verses Franchise Fee The first option is a general(special) tax levy against all properties in the city. Under this approach,we would propose to generate the$1.5 million through the collection of a tax over all properties in the city. Through this approach, the highest valued properties end up paying the largest share of the costs. PIMEaEa I NATURE ' Properties utilizing Tax Abatement or located in TIF Districts would not contribute to the program funding as well as benefitting properties exempt from property taxes such as churches, schools and nonprofits. The $1.5 million dollar leNi,would be added as a line item labeled pavement management or something to that effect. The second option is the implementation of a franchise fee. A$1.5 million franchise fee would be charged to the power and gas service providers within the city. The utility providers would then pass this cost on to their customers as a fee listed on their monthly bill. The flat fee is a tax increase and we would propose to inform residents of the pavement management program funding plan and its benefits. St. Louis Park generates revenue for its pavement management program through this option. A franchise fee is the preferred approach based on public input and the benefits over the general tax option,by other communities who have looked into alternative funding of their programs. A breakdown of the estimated taxes verses a franchise fee payable by different value homes and commercial/industrial properties is depicted in the following graphic. The graphic shows what a monthly payment would be from each property in order to generate $1.5 million dollars in revenue. Franchise Fee /# MM�AJi *7 he arluaAtux leg,impaas an based on eunrnt net tax capado.far 2013 The numbers presented for the franchise fee are based on estimated total accounts as received from the Elk River Municipal Utilities. The final number of accounts and amount of the fee would need to be refined through the implementation process with all affected utility providers. Each approach described above has positives and negatives. We have tabulated staffs opinions of positives and negatives of each option below: Special Levy Tax-based Option Pros 1) Simple transparent collection of revenue through general tax process. 2) Recognized taxing process understood by the public. Cons 1) Larger levy and higher dollar amount on tax statements. 2) Unfairly distributes higher costs to higher valued properties. 3) Does not collect money from tax exempt street users. 4) Tax amount could only be adjusted annually and would vary based on property valuations. P0N ( RE@ or NATUR Franchise Fee Caption Pros 1) No increase to the tax levy. 2) Stable revenue stream that can be readily adjusted anytime of the year. 3) Collects from all street users including schools and nonprofits who pay 429 assessments. 4) Smaller monthly fees instead of single larger amount on tax statement or assessment. 5) Collects money from renters, the actual street users,not just the property owners. Cons 1) Less transparency in how the revenue is collected. 2) Would require public outreach to describe the fee and process. Through staff's research into the options,the franchise fee has emerged as the most positive approach to funding of a long-tern pavement management program. If it is the desire of the Council to move forward with a franchise fee, the next step would be to draft and review a franchise ordinance and authorize the holding of a public hearing. Communication with the public would be 'integral through this process. The process would culminate with the adoption of an ordinance and notification made to the utility companies. The entire process for establishing a franchise fee would take between 4 to 6 months. Past Street Assessments The largest challenge identified in making a funding transition is how we make it fair to property owners that were recently charged a street assessment. There currently are property owners who are paying off assessments. At this time,we are collecting payments on over$1.6 million of outstanding street assessments. After discussions with other communities on how they have handled or propose to handle this issue,we found that we are further ahead in this process than most others and we determined that due to the timing and condition of our pavements it is difficult to make it any fairer for residents. As alluded to in the opening paragraphs of this memo,all of the costs of the streets in Elk River have been born by the residents. Either it was through the purchase of their property, the payment of an assessment,or general property tax obligation.. A case can be made that those owners who purchased a new home,call them Owners A, have paid more for the streets in Elk River than a resident, Owner B,who purchased an existing home and was assessed for a street upgrade. In addition to Owner A paying for 140%of the road in front of their house, they have been paying their prorated share of the 66%general city cost of the other reconstruction projects. Owner B has paid 33% of the costs associated with their street in front of their home through an assessment and then their prorated share of the 66%general city cost of the project. Because of the system age and all residents having previously contributed to the system through either the purchase of their lot or a special assessment,staff feels it is a fair approach to move forward with a change in policy. The following are some ideas for consideration of the Council: 1. Charge all properties in the city a franchise fee starting July 2012. Refund about$1.6 million in outstanding unpaid street assessments. No previously paid portions of any street assessments would be refunded. ! / I I I E I I Y NATME 2. Charge all properties in the city a franchise fee starting July 2012. In consideration of those property owners who are still paying a street assessment, offer a yearly rebate to refund the amount paid for the franchise fee by that property for the year. This option would not refund any assessment but would giNIle consideration to those who have recently been assessed. Because the franchise fee will be collected by a third-party utility company,it is impossible to administer a program that would not charge a franchise fee for select properties that are still paying on assessments. 3. Notice the community of the change in policy to establish a franchise fee. Downsize the pavement management program for the next 5 years to only complete overlay and preventative maintenance projects (no reconstructions). Finance these improvements out of the existing Street Improvement reserve fund and do not assess the improvements. Begin collecting the franchise fee from all properties in the city in 2017. All projects moving forward would be reconstructed without street assessments. Staff will be prepared to review the above-discussed information at the work session and take direction on the preferred funding option. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with the discussion of this item. ATTACHMENTS None. Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up I P O N E R E B i Y NATURE] ID, 2 . // -I(7- ZU/2 CCi No- rn a mx-t n g o c� Ln °� al o0 m N Ln 01 O r1 d 0�1 CV O' h! C m o a Ln n rn o 00 0 N n o i• ° °o m 000 ~ o a-J 'o 0 u m lD UO n l0 n Ch N O T-I m 41 O a Ln (� cl ll"1 rn iJ} C7 O OQO CEO t v O 00� � N' i!} CF O1 000 r i N Ln � L n j � � vv rl W-1 v 1 o ° CQ CU O N V m o� -L6 Lin 0� � rm-, o° n � � c "I . L6 o 0 (n ^ 00 ri 00 � � o o -u i tLoi� v v'i'i n C a a a v o � m oo m Ln m olzr LO m [� I:t co N ir} O Ln 00 r� -1 o r,� �o ri v L �f cri m r-� 00 r1 oo '�t Qi a CAA e vLID irq v`n n c +j 01 +, U V i2 V L o i L m' " " L N W CL Q w Q Q N o1 UJ �- 4J N E E E E >* A 7 5. Q1 0 0 Ln Ln cn A A LA a1 cu ++ r•-I ri O L Ln > O (� � ^" J Ll- U- o o C `+- O N -Q m [0 +1 � at OJ L) � v O � C C 0 J Li Li m + a m ra > Q a `� v J C a3 L- C m O N C � L- Z in Q) rxp >- vai 7 w E uw a Q. cam, a� H cu s Q (D a) do a a E U 4' Cho m ra L- a s (� j j L. E QJ j � Q Q vi lz� v vi Q Q Q M v y x IA c v m IA H U d - a f Qj a v cu o v a 0 CL !� w 0 o o a sw E of REQUEST FOR ACTION River TO ITEM NUMBER Mayor and City Council 9.1 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Administration January 7, 2013 Justin Femrite, City Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Resolution Receiving the 2013 Street Improvement Project Cal Portner, City Administrator Feasibility Report REVIEWED BY ACTION REQUESTED Adopt resolution receiving the feasibility report and setting the Improvement Hearing to be held on February 4,2013. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION Please find the attached feasibility report for the 2013 Street Improvement Project,as ordered for preparation on October 15,2012. Representatives from WSB &Associates will be prepared to make a presentation of this report. Upon hearing of the findings of the report,we will ask the City Council to accept the feasibility report and set a date and time for the improvement hearing. FINANCIAL IMPACT No expenditures above previously approved engineering fees are required with this adoption of the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS ■ 2013 Street Improvement Feasibility Report ■ Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report and Ordering a Public Hearing Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up P 6 11 f N E ! 8Y AT NUR RESOLUTION 13- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE 2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS the Feasibility Report ordered by the Council in Resolution 12-56 has been prepared with reference to the 2013 Street Improvements and was received by the city on January 7,2013;and WHEREAS the Feasibility Report recommends that the proposed improvement is feasible; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota: 1. The City Council will consider the 2013 Street Improvements as described in the Feasibility Report and the assessment of the property abutting this proposed improvement for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429,at an estimated total cost for the improvement of$3,685,805.20. 2. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on the proposed improvement on the e day of February,2013,at 6:30 p.m. at the Elk River City Hall Council Chambers. The city clerk shall provide two published notices (one week apart) in the official newspaper with at least three days between the last publication date and the hearing,and mailed notice ten days to the hearing as required by law. Passed and adopted this 7`h day of January,2013. John J. Dietz,Mayor ATTEST: Tina Allard,City Clerk City Elk) RiVer own% City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River,Minnesota 55330 F E A S I B I I I T Y Report January 7,2013 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River Sherburne County, Minnesota WSB Project No. 1992-01 ■ 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 �/ff{�R Minneapolis,MN 55416 �+�►-�+�-+ Tel:(763)541.4800 • Fax:1763)541-1700 e&_4smrinlcs,lrx wsbeng.com FEASIBILITY REPORT 2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA January 7, 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 763-541-1700 (Fax) Feasibiii4-Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 A ��/ YY S - �rm iry f�al•11 rq eA4 L717]nFial-mistI[JCXicn 701 Xenia Avenue South & Associates.Inc. Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel- 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 January 7, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway NW Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River, MN WSB Project No. 1992-01 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herewith for your review is a feasibility report which addresses improvements associated with the 2013 Street Improvement Project. This fcasibility report describes the necessary improvements and associated costs for this street improvement project. I am available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 753-287-8520 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, W cdc Associates,Inc, Jason C.Wedel, PE Project Manager Enclosure St.Cloud• Minneapolis•5t.Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ason C. Wedel, PE Date: January 7 13 Lie. No. 26768 Prepared By: Katie A. Kasper, E[ Date: January 7, 2013 Quality Control Review Completed By: Y ng� Date: January 7, 2013 City Quality Control Re iiew Completed B r Justin F 7*"PE Date: January 7, 2013 Lie. No. 44658 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1 2. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT..........................................................3 2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Authorization.........................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Scope......................................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Data Available............................•..........................•--.---..--..--.•--.---.........................3 2.2 General Background................................................................................................•-.........3 2.2.1 Project Location.................................................------..--..........---..........------.............3 2.3 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4 2.3.1 Surface...................................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Storm Sewer...........................................................................................................8 2.3.3 Water Main............................................................................................................8 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer.......................................................................................................8 2.4 Proposed Improvements .....................................................................................................9 2.4.1 Surface...................................................................................................................9 2.4.2 Storm Sewer......................................................................................................... 11 2.4.3 Water Main Improvements.................................................................................. 11 2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements............................................................................. 12 2.4.5 Mailbox Replacement.......................................................................................... 12 2.5 Permits/Approvals............................................................................................................ 12 2.6 Construction Traffic.................................................................................---......................12 2.7 Public Involvement.................................................................................•--....................... 13 3. FINANCING................................................................................................................................14 3.1 Opinion of Cost..............................................................................•.--..--.-•--•-. ---...,---........ 14 3.2 Funding .... ....------•.............................................................. 14 4. PROJECT SCHEDULE..............................................................................................................1{6 5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION...........................................................................17 Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendix A Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Typical Section—Eagle Marsh, Hillside Estates, K&L Addition,and The Woods at Hillside 4h Addition Figure 3: Typical Section—202"d Avenue NW Figure 4: Typical Section—Country Side Acres and Avon Acres Figure 5: Typical Section—Deerfield 0 Addition and Meadowvale Heights Figure 6: Typical Section—Royal Oaks Ridge and Irving Avenue NW Figure 7: Typical Section—Evans Avenue NW and e Street Figure 8: Typical Section—4 1 Street Figure 9: Typical Section— 185`h Avenue NW Figure 10: Typical Section—Business Center Drive and Gary Street Figure 11: Typical Section—Railroad Drive Figure 12: Typical Section—Residential: 3rd Street NW Figure 13: Typical Section—Commercial: 3rd Street NW Appendix B Figure 1: Irving;Avenue/3d StrecuRailroad Drive Proposed Improvements Appendix C 2013 Street Improvement Project Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix D Assessment Map ID — Eagle Marsh Assessment Map ID — Hillside Estates Assessment Map ID — K&L Addition Assessment Map ID — The Woods at Hillside 4`h Addition Assessment Map ID — 202"d Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Country Side Acres Assessment Map ID — Avon Acres Assessment Map ID — Deerfield 41h Addition Assessment Map ID — Meadowvale Heights Assessment Map ID — Royal Oaks Ridge Assessment Map ID — 185`h Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Business Center Drive and Gary Street Assessment Map ID — 4`h Street,Railroad Drive,3rd Street,Irving Avenue,Holt Avenue, Evans Avenue Appendix E Pavement Coring and Boring Forensics Report 2012 Geotechnical Report—Log of Test Borings Appendix F Public Comments Summary 185`h Street Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Exhibit 185`h Street Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Estimate FeasihX4-Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 1. EXECUTIVE SUNEN4ARY The 2013 Street Improvement Project includes surface and utility improvements to the roadways listed below totaling approximately 40,149 feet(7.60 miles). Improvements include bituminous wear course paving for streets not completed during their original construction, edge mill and bituminous overlay, full depth reclamation, and full street and utility reconstruction. Bituminous Wear Course Paving Bituminous wear course improvements proposed for construction in 2013 consists of spot curb repair where needed and 11/7 inches of new bituminous placed on top of the existing bituminous base course. Bituminous wear course improvements are proposed along approximately 4,340 feet(0.82 miles)of variable width urban roadway sections and include the following roadways: • Lincoln Street NW located within the Eagle Marsh neighborhood • Carson Street NW/Dodge Street NW located within the Hillside Estates 10`b Addition • Vance Street NW located within the K & L Addition • Local streets within The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition Edge Mill and Bituminous Overlay Edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include spot curb repair where needed, edge milling along the existing curb line and full width 1 Y7-inch bituminous overlay to increase the cross slope and promote positive drainage within the roadways. Edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements are proposed along approximately 8,255 feet(1.55 miles) of various 24-foot-wide rural streets and approximately 8,609 feet(I.63 miles)of 35-foot-wide to 40-foot-wide urban streets and include the following roadways: • Local streets within the Country Side Acres neighborhood • Highway 10 Frontage Road located within the Avon Acres 4`h Add]ti an • Carson Street NW located within the Deerfield 4ih Addition • Local streets within the Meadowvalc Heights neighborhood • Holt Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3rd Street NW 202nd Avenue NW located between Zebulon Street NW and Meadowvale Road, approximately 3,400 feet(0.64 miles) of a 24-foot-wide rural roadway section, is also proposed for 11/2-inch bituminous overlay. However, since 202nd Avenue has a rural street section and only 2 inches of existing bituminous pavement,no edge milling will be included. Full Depth Reclamation Bituminous pavement reclamation improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include spot curb repair where needed, reuse of the existing aggregate roadway base and reconstructing the roadway to accommodate a section of 12 inches of approved subgrade, 6 inches of re-used aggregate base, and 3%7 inches of bituminous pavement. Bituminous pavement reclamation improvements are proposed along approximately 7,240 (1.37 miles) of various 35-foot-wide to 40-foot-wide urban streets and include the following roadways: • Local streets within the Royal Oaks Ridge neighborhood • Evans Avenue NW located between Main Street NW and the north terminus Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 Page 1 4`h Street NW located between Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3'd Street NW Full Street and Utility Reconstruction Full strect and utility reconstruction improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include curb and bituminous pavement removal and subgrade corrections to accommodate a roadway section of approved subgrade, 8 inches of aggregate base, and 3'/2 inches of bituminous pavement. Full street reconstruction improvements arc proposed along approximately 8,305 (1.57 miles) of various 22-foot-wide (edge of bituminous to edge of bituminous)to 40-foot-wide (edge of bituminous to edge of bituminous)rural streets and include the following roadways: • 185th Avenue NW located between Troy Street NW and Naples Street NW • Business Center Drive located between Joplin Street NW and Gary Street • Gary Street located between Business Center Drive and State Highway 10 • Lowell Avenue NW located between Railroad Drive and King Avenue • P Street NW located between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW • Railroad Drive located between Jackson Street NW and Main Street NW • 3 r Street NW located between Railroad Drive and Evans Avenue NW Additionally, water main improvements have been identified along 185th Avenue NW, P Street NW, and 4` Street NW between King Avenue and Jackson Street NW. Water main improvements include installing new water main along 185th Avenue and replacing existing undersized water main along the remaining roadways identified above. Replacing portions of the City's utility infrastructure in conjunction with the proposed street improvements provides an opportunity to minimize the replacement costs and traffic disruptions associated with the work. The proposed utility improvements also include the installation of additional storm sewer facilities and the repair of structurally deficient sewer and manholes. The total estimated project cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project is $3,685,805.20. The proposed estimated cost is summarized as follows: Surface Improvements $ 2,988,638.40 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 63,250.00 Water Main Improvements $ 539,307.45 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 94,609.35 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 3,685,805.20 Proposed funding for the project is summarized as follows: City Capital Improvement Funds $ 1,868,680.00 Elk River Municipal Utility Funds $ 539,307.45 Special Assessments $ 1,277,819.75 Total Project Funding $ 3,685,805.20 It is proposed that construction begin in June 2013 and be completed, including all restoration items,by the end of September 2013. This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint, and should be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 2 2. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1 Introduction 2.13 Authorization On October 15, 2012, the Elk River City Council authorized the preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the 2013 Street Improvement Project. 2.1.2 Scope The 2013 Street Improvement Project includes bituminous wear course improvements to past incomplete roadway projects,edge mill and full width overlay improvements, full depth reclamation improvements, and full street reconstruction improvements. [Utility infrastructure rcpairs and replacements arc also proposed to be completed in conjunction with the various surface improvements. 2.1.3 Data Available Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following: • City of Elk River Record Plans • City of Elk River Topography Maps • City of Elk River Pavement Management Program • Discussions with City Staff • Field Observations of the Area • Bituminous Coring Logs and Pavement Core Report, WSB &Associates, Inc., dated December 4, 2012 • Geotechnical Evaluation Report,American Engineering Testing, dated December, 2012 2.2 General Background ZZI ,Project Location The streets and neighborhoods proposed for improvements include: Bituminous Wear Course Paving • Eagle Marsh • Hillside Estates • K& L Addition • The Woods at Hillside FeasihX4-Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 3 Edge Mill and Bituminous Overlay • 202A Avenue NW • Avon Acres • Country Side Acres • Deerfield 4"'Addition • Holt Avenue NW • Meadowvalc Heights Full Depth Reclamation • 4`b Street NW • Evans Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW • Royal Oaks Ridge Full Street and Utility Reconstruction • 185'h Avenue NW • 3rd Street NW • 4'h Street • Business Center Drive • Gary Street • Railroad Drive Specific street information within the proposed improvement areas can be found in Table I of this report_ Project areas are shown in Figure I of Appendix A of this report_ 2.3 Existing Conditions 2.3.1 Surface Streets within the proposed improvement areas are aging and experiencing differing severities of alligator cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. The curb and gutter is in fair condition; however, some cracking and settlements have resulted in isolated drainage issues and additional pavement distress. The table on the following page provides a summary of existing street conditions within the 2013 Street Improvement Project: Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 4 Table 1-2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Fame Length (feet) From To Sub-grade) Avg.Sit. Year (feet) Depth Section Constructed" Eagle Marsh(Wear Course) 770 feet south of south No Boring 2"-Non- LincoN Street 1065 32-70 180`x`Avenue terminus Information Wear 2006 NW Available Course Hillside Estates(Wear Course) Dodge Street th 1200 feet No Boring 2"-Non- NW 1200 30 196 Lane NW southwest Information Wear 20m, Available Course Lodge Street No Boring 2"-Non- cul-de-sac 350 30 Dodge Street east terminus Information Wear 2006 NW NW Available Course K&L Addition(Wear Course) Vance Street north No Boring 2"-Non- NW 715 28 173d Avenue terminus Information Wear 2004 Available Course The Woods at Hillside(Wear Course) 194"Court Xavier Street No Boring NW 390 30 NW west terminus Information 3.5" 2005 Available 190 Circ to Xavier Street No Boring 2"-Non- NW 315 '0 NW east terminus Information Wear 2005 Available Course Xavier Street "t No Boring 2"-Non- NW 115 ? 194` Circle NW 193 NW Avenue Information Wear 2005 Available Course 202°a Avenue (Overlay) 20T Avenue 7.ebulon Street Meadowvale No Boring NW 3400 24 NW Road Information _ 1986 Available Country Side Acres(Overlay) Ironton.Street ?q50 26 Meadowvale 198`t'Avenue Information No B I' � NW - Road NW Available. Gary Street 200x'Avenue 198`x'Avenue No Boring NW 2100 25 NW NW Information 3.75" Available. 200'h Avenue Ironton Street Gary Street No Boring NW 600 25 NW NW Information 4" ])`ti Available Feasihiii{q Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 Pale 5 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Name (feet) (feet) From 'lo Sub-grade) Avg.Sit. Year (feet) Depth Section Constructed" 199"Avenue Ironton Street No Boring NW 1030 -, NW CR 1 Information 3-75" 19 X, Available: 198"'Avenue Ironton Avenue Crary Street No Boring NW 590 -I NW NW Information 4.75" 1986 Available 198-1/2 Circle Ironton Street No Boring No Coring NW 290 -l NW east terminus Information Information 1988 Available Available Avon Acres(Overlay) Highway 10 No Boring No Coring I'disnn Street northwest Frontage 1170 24 Information Information N/A Road NW tcnuinus Available Available Deerfield 4'h Addition(Overlay) Carson Street 1920 Avenue Baldwin No Boring NW 2090 '!' NW Street NW Information 1989 Available Meadoswvale Heights(Overlay) Elgin Street 196`'Avenue 19P Avenue No Boring No Coring `` NW 900 30 NW NW Information Information 1)) Available Available Elgin Court , . 195`'Avenue south No Boring No Coring NW NW terminus_: ! Information Information ` Available Available 195`x'Court No Boring No Coring NW 1 ti rL)gin Street NW west terminus Information Information 19`) Available Available 195"'Avenue Denver Street No Boring No Coring NW 330 ? Elgin Street NW NW Information Information 19,)" Available Available Denver Street 195`h Avenue No Boring NW 1 1`!t '1) NW 193'd Avenue Information 3.5" I'?` Available Denver Court 193Td Ave]]l,.` southwest No Boring No Coring NW 417 '! NW terminus Information Information Available Available 194`"Avenue Denver Street No Boring No Coring NW 1� ? : NW CR 44 Information Information Available Available 193`d Awenuk� Denver Street No Boring No Coring NW I-! .i; NW CR 44 Information Information Available Available Elgin Drive Denver Street 192-112 Lane No Boring No Coring NW 1790 '! NW NW Information Information Available Available FeasihX4,Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 P,i;;r 6 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Name Length (feet) From To Sub-grade) Avg.Sit. Year (feet) Depth Section Constructed- 192-1/2 Court southeast No Boring No Coring NW 342 Elgin Drive NW I�rn�i mi4 Information Information I v4 Available Available 192-112 Lane Meadowvale No Boring NW 1090 3t7 l:hgin Drive NW Road Information 3.5" 1,),) Available Royal Oaks Ridge(Reclaim) 190-112 Baldwin Street Xavier Street 6"base/clay to 7" Avenue NW 1170 :tt NW NW base/clay 5 1" 190'''Avenue Baldwin Street northeast 6"base/sandy No Coring NW 1900 NW terminus material with Information 199 clay Available Zane Street 190-112 Avenue 190'h Avenue 6"base/sandy NW I , I NW NW clay 1 ti 4:ivier Street 42 190-112 Avenue 190`1'Avenue 5"'baseisandy NW 5 30 NW NW clay Yale Circle 1901'Avenue north No Boring No Coring NW 300 30 NW terminus Information Information I9N Available Available Miscellaneous Roadways I95'h Avenue Naples Street S"concrete „ NW 2550 22-_2S Troy Street NW pNW rubblelsilty sand 6 NIA (Reconstruct) Business 6"concrete Center(hive 1475 26-74 Joplin Street NW Gary Street rubble/silty sand 2.5' NIA (Reconstruct) Gary Street Business Center State 151'-4" (Reconstruct) 1070 1 44-5(1 Drive Highway 10 aggregate/silty 2.5"44" NIA sand 4u'Street 350 24 Railroad Drive King Avenue 5"aggregate/silty 3.51" NIA (Reconstruct) sand 4`h Street NW Avenue Jackson Street 7"'base/sand with 3.75"to G" N/A (Reclaim) 370 28-30 King NW mixed gravel west of Irving: sand wlsilt Railroad east of Irving:6" Drive 1100 25-58 Jackson Street Main Street aggregate/3" 1 ti i (Reconstruct) NW NW bituminous pavement/si 1 t v sand Feasihiii{q Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 I'.i Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions F 1liilth Length Sub-grade/ Avg.Bit. Year Street Name (tees) V rom To (feet) Deptb Section Constructed* east of Gates:3"- 4"aggregate/silty sand 3'd Sl 4et NW Irving Avenue west of Gates:7" (Reconstruct) 1600 30-39 NW Evan Avenue aggregate/sand � `1 west of Holt: silty sand(no aggregate) Irving Avenue NW 360 ,6 4`h Street NW 3`4 Street NW 3"base/sand 3" NIA (Reclaim) Holt Avenue No Boring No Coring (Overlay) 3N, - 4"Street NW 3`4 Street NW Information Information N/A Available Available Evans Avenue north d"base/sand to NW 1320 33 Main Street NW terminus 8"base/sand 3 1,to 3.5'1 N/A (Reclaim) ° Estimated date of base course pavement "* Edge of bituminous pavement to edge of bituminous pavement 2.3.2 Storm Sewer City record drawing information indicates that storm sewer facilities already exist within many of the 2013 Street Improvement Project areas. Historically,the existing storm sewer facilities throughout the majority of the 2013 Street Improvement Proicct area have proven adequate for drainage. No storm sewer currently exists along the following roadways: 202'1 Avenue NW, 185th Avenue NW, Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 4th Street, Railroad Drive, and 3rd Street NW. Roadways utilize existing ditch systems to convey storm water. Water ponding issues have not been identified by the City. 2.3.3 Writer Main The majority of the existing water main located within the 2013 Street Improvement Project area is in good condition and functions adequately with no water main breaks or freeze-ups identified by Elk River Municipal Utilities. 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer The majority of the existing sanitary sewer located within the project area is in good conditions and does not warrant replacement_ Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 8 In the winter of 2012/2013, the City's Sewer Department will televise the sanitary sewer pipe located within the down town area and inspect the sanitary sewer manholes to determine if replacement or repairs are necessary. 2.4 Proposed Improvements 2.4.1 Surface The proposed surface improvements included with the 2013 Street Improvement Project include bituminous wear course paving, edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements, full depth pavement reclamation, and full depth roadway and utility reconstruction. Streets within the Eagle Marsh, Hillside Estates,K &L Addition, and The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition are proposed to receive 1'/2 inches of bituminous wear course. Streets within these neighborhoods did not receive the final wear course paving by their respective developers and will be paved with this project. All costs for these improvements will be assessed to the undeveloped lots in each development. Streets within the Country Side Acres, Avon Acres, Deerfield 4 1 Addition, Meadowvale Heights, Holt Avenue, and 202nd Avenue NW neighborhoods are proposed to receive an 8-foot-wide edge mill and I Y2-inch bituminous overlay to increase the pavement thickness and improve the cross slope of the existing roadway, further promoting drainage within the roadways. Structurally deficient concrete curb and gutter will also be replaced with the 2013 Street Improvement Project. Spot repair and replacement of broken and settled curb will be completed based on a field review of the site. Full depth roadway reclamation, in which the existing deteriorating roadway surface is reused as aggregate roadway base, is proposed due to the level of distress the bituminous pavement is expcnencing in the proposed roadwa reclamation areas. Streets within the Royal Oaks neighborhood, Evans Avenue NW, 4` Street NW between Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW, and Irving Avenue NW are proposed to be reclaimed and reconstructed to the following section: 1'/a inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and b inches of reclaimed aggregate base over an acceptable, compacted subgrade. All reclaimed streets will be constructed to a 2-percent cross-slope, further promoting drainage within the roadways. In addition, drain tile will be included as needed at low points to improve subgrade stability and deter premature deterioration of pavements similar to what has been experienced in parts of Royal Oaks Ridge. Roadways identified for full depth reclamation will be reconstructed to match existing street widths to reduce impacts to residential properties and salvage the existing concrete curb and gutter. Full street and utility reconstruction is proposed along 185"' Avenue NW, Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 4th Street, 4`h Street NW between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW, Railroad Drive, and 3`d Street NW. This work includes the removal of the existing bituminous roadway section and subgrade excavation to remove any unsuitable materials. The streets will be reconstructed to the City's urban 10-ton design standard, and are proposed to consist of the following section: 1'/x inches of bituminous wearing Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 9 course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base over an acceptable, compacted subgrade. 3�d Street will be similar,however, it will have 6 inches of Class 5 aggregate rather than the 8 inches proposed on the other streets due to it being a 7-ton design. All reconstructed streets will be re-established to include a 2- percent cross-slope, further promoting drainage within the roadways. Figure 2 through Figure 13 of Appendix A illustrates the proposed roadway sections. Included with the reconstruction is a proposed redesign of the intersection of Irving Avenue/3'd Street/Railroad Drive. These streets are not perpendicular to one another and therefore they intersect at angles that create driver confusion and impaired visibility. To address these concerns we are proposing a roundabout at this intersection. Figure 1 of Appendix B provides an exhibit of the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements also include providing angled parking along both sides of Railroad Drive between Jackson Street and Irving Avenue. The current mail drop off is proposed to be eliminated. Roadways identified for full street and utility reconstruction are proposed to be reconstructed to match existing street widths to reduce impacts to properties where feasible as a part of this project. 185th Avenue NW will be reconstructed to include new concrete curb and gutter along the north side of the roadway. Omitting curb along the south side of the roadway will allow storm water to sheet drain across the entire width of the roadway and maintain the existing ditch drainage system along the south side of the roadway. Additionally,the 10-foot-wide trail along the north side of the roadway is proposed to be extended from its current terminus to Waco Street. Along Business Center Drive and Gary Street,realignment of the roadway is proposed to eliminate the 90-degree elbow where the two roadways intersect. Business Center Drive and Gary Street will be reconstructed to a 40-foot(back-to-back)width with on street parking along both side of the roadway. The realignment of the roadway will be completed within the City owned property; therefore, easements will not be required in order to realign the road. Pedestrian improvements along Business Center Drive and Gary Street include extending the existing concrete walk along the north side of Business Center Drive from Joplin Street to Gary Street. The walk will further extend along the west side of Gary Street from Business Center Drive to State 1-l1 ghway IOM. The proposed pedestrian improvements along Business Center Drive and Gary Street include the construction of traffic calming nodes (curb bump outs) at the intersections where concrete walk currently exists. The nodes would be constructed to narrow the roadway openings and shorten the crosswalk distance for pedestrians at these locations. FeasihX4,Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN "B Project No.1992-01 Page 10 2.4.2 .storm Sewer Reconstruction of the streets also provides a timely opportunity to improve drainage within the project areas with the installation of additional storm sewer facilities. Potential drainage improvements to be evaluated with final design of the project include: • Installing concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer improvements along Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 3 Street NW, Railroad Drive, and 4th Street. • Installing concrete curb and gutter and supplementing existing storm sewer facilities with the installation of additional catch basins along 185th Avenue NW. The location of the storm sewer improvements, as well as the water quality improvements such as rain gardens or infiltration swalcs, will be further evaluated during the final design phase of this project. Manholes,manhole castings and catch basin castings arc also proposed to be rcpairedlreplaced to meet current City storm sewer standards as a part of the 2413 Street Improvement Project. ,2.4.3 Water Main Improvements Existing 4-inch Cast Iron Pipe (CIP)along 4th Street NW from Jackson Road NW to Gates Avenue NW and along 3'd Street NW is proposed to be replaced with 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe(DIP). Existing copper services along 3rd Street NW will be removed and replaced to the right-of-way whereas services along 4t1' Street NW will remain in place and reconnected to the new 8-inch main. These improvements will provide benefits to the water system in the area by increasing the flow capacity and eliminating the old cast iron pipe. A new 8-inch connection loop is also proposed to be installed along 185th Avenue NW between Queens Way NW and Waco Street:NW and between approximately 300 feet east of Pascal Avenue NW and Naples Street NW. The new connection loop will help to improve fire flow and water quality issues associated with dead end water main lines as they currently exist. At the neighborhood open house that was held on December 13, 2012, a property owner raised the question as to whether or not individual water services would be provided to the properties that front on 185th Street. Individual water services were not included as part of this feasibility study due to the lack of readily available sanitary sewer. It is anticipated that water services would be provided at the same time sanitary sewer is constructed in this area. Appendix F includes an exhibit and cost estimate to add water services to this project. Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 11 2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Additional analysis will be completed during final design to identify sanitary sewer rehabilitation necessary along existing trunk sanitary sewer facilities to extend the life of the existing facilities until such time as they can be replaced with future road reconstruction projects. The City will be televising sanitary sewer within the proposed project areas during the winter of 201212013. As was described above with the proposed Water Main Improvements, sanitary sewer services were discussed at the neighborhood meeting on December 13, 2012, for the properties that have frontage on 185`h Street. Sanitary sewer is not immediately available for this area and therefore they were not included as part of this feasibility study. Appendix F includes an exhibit and cost estimate to add sanitary services to this project. 2.4.5 Mailbox Replacement Where existing curb and gutter replacement and new curb and gutter is proposed, it is the City's intent to salvage and reinstall the existing mailboxes and mailbox supports that may be impacted with construction 2.5 Permits/Approvals An NPDES permit for construction activity will be required since more than one (1)acre will be disturbed by construction activities with the project. A permit from the Minnesota Department of Health(MDH)will also be required for the installation and replacement of water main facilities along 185`h Avenue NW, 4th Street NW, and P Street NW. A permit from MnDOT for drainage changes and potentially traffic control related to the Gary Street. 2.6 Construction Traffic The contractor will be responsible for providing access to all properties throughout the project. Adequately signed detours will be identified to direct traffic around the construction zones and notify users of the increased truck and construction activity. Construction will be phased so as to reconstruct the streets located at the center of the project first, such that construction truck traffic will not need to access newly reconstructed streets to complete the project. Detailed construction phasing plans will be developed with final design of the project. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WS8 Project No.1992-01 Page 12 2.7 Public Involvement A public informational meeting for the proposed improvements was conducted for the project. The Neighborhood Open House was conducted on December 13, 2012, for properties impacted by the proposed improvements. Preliminary information was presented to approximately 22 attendees at the meeting regarding the proposed improvements, costs, funding, schedule, and impacts associated with the project. Comment cards were made available to attendees at the meeting. Summaries of the correspondence received and questions and answers provided at the informmationaI meeting are included in Appendix F. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WS8 Project No.1992-01 Page 13 3. FINANCING 3.1 Opinion of Cost Detailed opinions of cost for the various project areas can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinions of cost incorporate estimated 2013 construction costs and include a 10% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 15% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. Table 2 below provides a summary of the opinions of probable cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project. Table 2—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Cost Total Schedule A—Surface Improvements $2,988,638.40 Schedule B—Sanitary Sewer Improvements $63,250.00 Schedule C—Water Main Improvements $539,307.45 Schedule D—Storm Sewer Improvements 594,609.35 TOTAL S3,685,805.20 3.2 Funding Financing for the 2013 Street Improvement Project will come from City Funds,Elk River Municipal Utility Funds and Special Assessments to benefitting properties. The water main repairs are proposed to be financed by the Elk River Municipal Utility Funds. The sanitary sewer repairs are proposed to be financed by the City's Sanitary Sewer Operating Fund. Special Assessments to bcnefitting properties are proposed to fund 100% of the bituminous wear course and edge mill and overlay improvements identified for the project. Special assessments to benefitting properties are proposed to fund 33%of full depth reclamation and reconstruction improvements identified for the project, with the remaining 67% funded using City funds. Assessments for this project were calculated on a per parcel (unit) and/or front foot basis. The funding level anticipated through the levy of Special Assessments to benefitting property owners for street improvements is $1,868,680 with the following proposed assessments: • Eagle Marsh Unit Assessment Rate.............•..-...•........................$4,048.79 per unit • Hillside Estates Unit Assessment Rate........................................$4,976.63 per unit • K & L Addition Unit Assessment Ratc......................•.................$4,788.03 per unit • The Woods at Hillside Unit Assessment Rate.............................$2,159.59 per unit • 202nd Avenue NW Unit Assessment Rate .....---•--•-------••..............$6,600.00 per unit • Country Side Acres Unit Assessment Rate..................................$4,300.00 per unit • Avon Acres Front Foot Assessment Rate(50%Cost).............$18.46 per front foot • Avon Acres Unit Assessment Rate(50%Cost)...........................$4,249.14 per unit Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 14 • Deerfield 4`h Addition Unit Assessment Rate..............................$2,400.00 per unit • Meadowvale Heights Unit Assessment Rate...............................$2,400.00 per unit • Royal Oaks Ridge Unit Assessment Rate....................................$4,000.00 per unit • 4th Street/Irving Avenue Unit Assessment $4,000.00 per unit • Evans Avenue Front Foot Assessment Rate............................$42.56 per front foot • 185th Street Unit Assessment Rate...............................................$7,000.00 per unit • Business Center Drive/Gary Street Unit Assessment Rate........$33,103.79 per unit • 4th Street Front Foot Assessment Rate....................................$26.58 per front foot • 3d Street/Railroad Drive Unit Assessment Rate..........................$7,000.00 per unit An Assessment Map ID highlighting the bencfitting properties and the assessment calculations for benefitting property owners are included in Appendix D. Table 3—2013 Street Improvement Project Funding Summary Funding Source Amount Street and Storm Sewer Assessments $1,277,817.75 Elk Rjvcr Municipal Utility Funds $539,307.45 City CIP Funds $1,868,680.00 TOTAL $3,685,805.20 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Ell,River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 15 4. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule for the 2013 Street Improvement Project is as follows: Order Feasibility Report............................................................................October 15,2012 Neighborhood Open House................ ......-... ...--........ ........ ..........December 13, 2012 Accept Feasibility Report/Set Public Hearing.............................................January 7, 2013 Public Hearing/Order Project...... .............. ...--.......February 4, 2013 Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Ad for Bids ............................March 4, 2013 Open Bids-------- ........ ...... ...... ....... ...--......April 2, 2013 Order Assessment Hearing ........................................ ..................................April 15, 2013 Hold Assessment Hearing/Award Contract....................................................May 20, 2013 Begin Construction.................... ..............-......-............... ....June 10, 2013 Substantial Completion......................................................................... September 30, 2013 Certify Assessments to County. ................................. ......November 15, 2013 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Ell,River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 16 5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOM MNDATION The following improvements are recommended to be constructed as part of the 2013 Street Improvement Project: A I'/2-inch wear course paving along the following streets: • Lincoln Street NW located within the Eagle Marsh neighborhood • Dodge Street NW located within the Hillside Estates 10th Addition • Vance Street NW located within the K& L Addition + Local streets within The Woods at Hillside 4"Addition ➢ An edge mill and bituminous overlay with spot curb and gutter replacement along the following streets: • Local streets within the Country Side Acres neighborhood • Highway 10 Frontage Road located within the Avon Acres 4th Addition • Carson Street NW located within the Deerfield 4" Addition • Local streets within the Mcadowvale Heights neighborhood • Holt Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and P Street NW ➢ Bituminous pavement reclamation with spot curb and gutter replacement along the following streets: • Local streets within the Royal Oaks Ridge neighborhood • Evans Avenue NW located between Main Street NW and the north terminus • 4th Street NW located between.Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3" Street NW Full street and utility reconstruction along the following streets: • 185th Avenue NW located between Troy Street NW and Naples Street NW + Business Center Drive located between Joplin Street NW and Gary Street • Gary Street located between Business Center Drive and State Highway 10 * Lowell Avenue NW located between Railroad Drive and King Avenue • 4th Street NW located between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW • Railroad Drive located between Jackson Street NW and Main Street NW + 3rd Street NW located between Railroad Drive and Evans Avenue NW Replacement and repair of structurally deficient sewer and manholes as identified by the City's Public Works Department The total estimated cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project including roadway, sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer improvements is $3,685,805.20. Proposed funding for the project is provided through a combination of Special Assessments, City funds, and Elk River Municipal Utility funds. Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 17 This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. The project feasibility is subject to financial review by the City. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the improvements as outlined in this report. Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 18 APPENDIX A Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Typical Section —Eagle Marsh,Hillside Estates, K& L Addition, and The Woods at Hillside P Addition Figure 3: Typical Section —202°d Avenue NW Figure 4: Typical Section—Country Side Acres and Avon Acres Figure 5: Typical Section—Deerfield 4th Addition and Meadovale Heights Figure G: Typical Section—Royal Oaks Ridge and Irving Avenue NW Figure 7: Typical Section —Evans Avenue NW and a Street Figure 8: Typical Section—4th Street Figure 9: Typical Section—185th Avenue NW Figure 1.0: Typical Section— Business Center Drive and Gary Street Figure 11: Typical Section—Railroad Drive Figure 12: Typical Section—Residential: 3`d Street NW Figure 13: Typical Section—Commercial: Yd Street NW Feasibifity Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 i g I R ———————————— ----------------_ —_—_ hire I�crke ------------------°----° I I .thin Tibbiti—b s. x I i b I I 3� 121 k � r I a I Fade Leike � I 202nd Ave J f cn€u€trtr SildeAcres f r Hillside Es€ates 10€h qy &MEN 7G - 1.zF�CI The Woods at Hillside ir i 35 Meadowvale Heights L I Deerfield 4th Royal©aks Ridge Y, I 441 I f 1 F1k t�`€R 4th St 185th Ave 1 Q Holt Ave 40 I Lake O7'Oi70 I Orono RdlGary St Evans Ave , I _ - 30 4th St Irving Ave i` ---------_—_-- _ I ---r - -`_� --- Railroad Dr 3rd st {\1 :Varsh Eagle Marsh A I 4� r t � 1 I k r S K&LAddition I 1 I i I 1 I I � Tiof[I3t'coUk r � to ` Avon Acres 2013 Street Improvements Reconstruction _ I Overlay with Edge Mill Full Depth Reclaim with Curb Patching Wear Course Paving on Unfinished Development Streets .� Project Location " 2013 Street Reconstruction Project A WSB Rve ir Figure 1 City of Elk River MN 1 inch - 5,500 feet R/W R/w 30' 30' 33' — 35' B—B SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE 4ZUTTER 2.0% INSETA 1.5° TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWFB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET �� 7p1 xenia Avenue Soulh,Suite app RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 TYPICAL SECTION CTI ON www wsbe"g.°°`" FIGURE — Eagle Marsh, Hillside Estates, Asscdores, Ins. K&L Addition,The Woods at Hillside .y� INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA FF R R/W 30' 30' 5' 24' 5' PROPOSED EXISTING ¢ MAX 4.0� �— 2.t3% 2,0% —� 4�% 1.4 MAx 1:4 MAx 1:4 MAX INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE—ESTABLISH 2% CROSS—SLOPE, 1.5"-3.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET �� 741 xenia Avenue Soulh,Suite app RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 www TYPICAL 5 E CTI�N .wSbeng-coin FIGURE qtr assn inc. 202nd Avenue NON ^- 3 III-7GL54IAem-Fa.763511_1709 Elk _ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING WNSTRUnDN ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA FF R/W R/W 30' 30' 24' PROPOSED 8' EXISTING TAPERED EDGE MIL �— 2. 0 2.0% INSET A 1 -1/2" MILL BELOW Z6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL EDGE OF EXISTING TURF DISTURBED AREAS BEYOND STREET NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE—ESTABLISH 2% CROSS—SLOPE. 8' EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND FULL WIDTH OVERLAY 1.5"-3.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET A 10 7Cenia Avenue South,suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 ��1�+p Minneapolis,vb �� TYPICAL CAL SECTION YY�7L7 FIGURE Country Side Acres,Avon Acres g Associates. Ine. 4 iN�ENGINEE-LAN ING COM o ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R/W R/W 30' 30' 35' B-B PROPOSED 8' EXISTING TAPERED EDGE MIL �- 2. 0 2.0% INSET A 1 -1/2" MILL BELOW SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE EDGE OF CURB CURB AND GUTTER 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE-ESTABLISH 2% CROSS-SLOPE. 8' EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND FULL WIDTH OVERLAY 1.5"-3,0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB24OC) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A �, 2013 STREET 701 xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 ��1�+p Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION CTI dN �' YY�7L? �g °°rn FIGURE Deerfield 41h Addition,Meadow ale Heights g Rssoc;ares, Inc. �� •�- INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING COJSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, M I N N ESOTA R/W R/W 30' 30' 35' — 40' B—B SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER _— 2.0% 2.0% INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET �� 7p1 xenia Avenue Sou,h,Suite app RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 TYPICAL SECTION CTI ON www wSbe'g_°°`" FIGURE �assocrores, inc. Royal Oaks Ridge, Irving Avenue NW .••.y� 6 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R/W R/W 30' 30' 40' B—B SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER - .0% 2.0% -� INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET A 701 xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 ��1�+p Minneapolis,nwN spa+s TYPICAL CAL SECTION Y Y�7L7 _ FIGURE Associates, Avenue NW,4th Street g sacl�tes. ��. E1k —�- -..—7C.LS1i-ONO-FR.?Di-1 7w 7 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING COMTRU"ON ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R W R/1N 30' 30' 5' 35' 8-13 5' SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ] iygX 4, % 2.0% 2.0% �� 44 1:h tJAX 1:4 MAX z:t;r ,.;` i'4 MAX INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET �� 701 xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 www TYPICAL SECTION CTI ON .wsUeng.coin FIGURE 4th Street &Assoeiotas, Inc. pp D �..—,�nA�-F�7�„_,� Elk ,,.,_ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CANSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R/W R/W 30' 30' 5' 24' EDGE — PACE 5' B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER x 4.0% 1:4 MAX ,- INSET A INSET B 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL TO TRAIL) 12" APPROVED SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL TO TRAIL) INSET B 2013 STREET A 771 7Cenia Avenue South,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 ��1�+p Minneapolis,MN 3416 TYPICAL SECTION YY�7L7 v '^ b� °°"' FIGURE 185th Avenue NW g Associates, Ine. Elk —�- ,�,-4NO-FR.?DF 1-1700 9 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R/W R/W 30' 30' 5' 40' F—F 5' 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 7'4 Mak 2.07. 2.0% 2.0% 1:4 MAX z:t;L , 7:4 MAX INSET A CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET 701 xenia Avenue Sou,h,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 WSB Minneapolis,MN 55415 www TYPICAL 5 E CTI ON .wSbeng-coin FIGURE Business Center Drive, Gary Street &Assoeiotas, Inc. n 1 0 �..—,�nA�-P�?�„_,� Elk ,,.,_ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R W R/W 33' 33' 5' 30' — 52' F—F 5' B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ] ¢ MAX 20% 2.0% 2,0% �� 44% 1:h tJAX 1.4 MAX :t;�: z a i'4 MAX INSET A CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET �� 701 xenia Avenue Souft Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 TYPICAL SECTION CTI ON www wsbe"g_°°`" FIGURE Railroad Drive &Assoeiotas, Inc. INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R W R/W 25' 25' 35' B—B 5' CONCRETE CURB GUTTER (8618) 4 MAX 4' 2.0% 2.0% —� 4�% + Ax 1:4 MAX z: : , a i'4 MAX INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5° TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB240C) 6.0" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE ACCEPTABLE SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET �� 701 xenia Avenue Soulh,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55415 www TYPICAL 5 E CTI ON .wSbeng-coin FIGURE per also Residential.3rd Street NW ^-� 12 �..-'f4-54IANO-Pa.76M1,_1700 Elk _ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CaCTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA R/W R/W 33' 33' 5' 53' B—B 5' CONCRETE CURB GUTTER (8618) 7'4 Mak 2.07. 2.0% 2.0% —� 4�% + Ax 1:4 MAX z:': z? 7:4 MAX INSET A CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5° TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB240C) 6.0" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE ACCEPTABLE SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET 701 xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 WSB Minneapolis,MN 55415 TYPICAL SECTION CTI ON www wsbe"g_°°"' FIGURE per also Commercial:3rd Street NW ^— 13 �..-7GLSil-NO-Pa.? 511_1700 Elk _ INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING �CANSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA APPENDIX B Figure 1: Irving Avenue/3"d Street/Railroad Drive Intersection Exhibit Feasihifity Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 w 3 e m r LL k � rrr � qtr r" tt ti�� r - MN @nN3AV ONIANI { - U) C Ik I_ t y U 2 ° w w ¢ O 'o a a s LU CL LU ' Z 2 1..'` LLJ LLJ ° ¢ 0 � z ¢ w J, Uj 2 0 U 0 M W (] N � w 4 s { �. All E qw J m MN 3r1NDAV NOSADv r �� APPENDIX C 2013 Street Improv=ement Project Opinion of Probable Cost Feasihifity Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By K.AK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By C'in,Project No.: WSB Pro jest No: 1992-01 Dole: 117/2013 Item N4N/DOT Estimated LE51 ted Estimated Total No. Specification Na. Description Unit Total ice Cost [quantity A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENT'S 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $40,350.00 540,350.00' 2 2101.501 CLEARING TREE 10 $350.00 $3,500.00 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 10 $350.00 $3,500-00 4 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING(SHRUB) EACH 5 $75.00 $375.00 5 2104.501 REMOVE&REPLACE CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER LIN FT 4360 $18.00 $78,480.00 6 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 2350 $300 $7,05000 7 2104.593 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SO FT 7100 $1.50 $10,650.00 8 2104.595 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SO YD. 2350 $4.50 $10,575.00 9 2104.595 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SO YD 11200 $2.00 $22,400.00 10 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SO YD 650 $5.00 $3,250.04 11 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT(P) SO YD 8000 $5.00 $40,900.00 12 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SO YD. 195 $20.00 $2,100.00 13 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING EACH 19 5700.00 $1,900.90 14 2104.509 REMOVE PERMANENT BARRICADE EACH 3 525.99 $75.90 15 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 140 $5.00 $700.99 16 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3660 $2.59 $9150.99 17 2104.601 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES LUMP SUM 1 $3,900.99 $3,900.99 18 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 18 $100.90 $100.90 19 2104.603 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE LIN FT 400 $18.99 $7,200.99 29 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 1400 $10.90 $14,900.90 21 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION(P) CU YD 1500 $10.90 $15,900.90 22 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 190 $13.00 $1,300.99 23 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW(CV) CU YD 100 $13.90 $1,300.90 24 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 1450 $20.99 $29,009.90 25 2112:501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA 155 $150.90 $23,250.019 26 2118.604 AGGREGATE SURFACING,CLASS 5(3.0"THICK) SO YD. 290 $5.00 $1,450.99 27 2130.501 WATER MGAL 269 $35.90 $9,100.90 28 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 3390 $12.90 $40,680.90 29 2221.501 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING CLASS 5 TON 190 $12,00 $1,200.99 30 2232.501 EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE 8'WIDE(0.0"TO 15') SQ Y❑ 1 29300 $1.50 $43,959.90 31 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS STEP JOINT LIN FT 900 $12.90 $19,800.99 32 2331.604 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQ YD 46600 $2.99 $93,200.90 33 2350.501 BITUMINOUS PATCH MATERIAL TON 585 $75.90 $43,875.90 34 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 19079 $3.99 $39,219.90 35 2369.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,C) TON 14927 $60.90 $841,620.00 36 2369.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIX(2,C) TON 7130 $60.00 $427,800.270 37 2360.503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,6)3.0"THICK SO YD 1860 $35.99 $65,100.99 38 2504.602 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR EACH 4 5459.90 $1,800.99 39 2504.602 RECONSTRUCT VALVE BOX EACH 49 $500.90 $24,500.99 40 2506.516 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH 6 $200.90 $1,200.90 41 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 95 $100.90 $900.90 42 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY(SANITARY) EACH 18 $750.90 j $13,500.99 43 2521.501 6"CONCRETE WALK SO FT 15849 $3.99 $+17,520.99 44 2521.511 2"BITUMINOUS WALK SO YD. 1300 $2.90 $2,600.90 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By K.AK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By C'in,Project No.: WSB Project No: 1992-01 Date: 1/7/2013 Item NIN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated Total No. Specification No. Description Unit Total Unit Price Cost Quantity 45 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT 13550 $12.00 $162,600.00 46 2531.507 6'CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 780 $45.00 $35,100.00 47 2531.603 7'CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD. 105 $65.00 $6,825.00 48 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SO TF 348 $35.00 $12,180.00 49 2540.602 MAILBOX SUPPORT EACH 18 $100.00 $1,800.00 50 2540.602 TEMPORARY MAILBOXES EACH 18 $25.00 $450.00 51 2540.618 BIRCK PAVERS SO FT 1800 $10.00 $18,000.00 52 2557.602 REPAIR DOG FENCE EACH 4 $250.00 $1,000.00 53 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $6,000.00 $61,000.00 54 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SO FT 120 $65.00 $7,800.00 55 2573.502 SILT FENCE,TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT 2800 $2.50 $7,000.00 56 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. EACH 13 $650.00 $8,450.00 57 2573.603 eIOROLL LIN FT 1400 $3.00 $4,200.00 58 2575.501 SEEDING(INCLTOPSOIL$FERT) ACRE 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 59 2575.502 'SEED MIXTURE 240 POUND 420 $3.00 $1,260.00 60 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN(INCLTOPSOIL&FERT) SLt YD 6330 $3.50 $22,155.00 61 2582.502 12"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LIN FT 260 $15.00 $3,900.00 62 2582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY S4 FT 1680 $6.00 $10,080.00 63 2582-502 4'DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LIN FT 3000 $1.50 $4,500.00 64 25$2-502 4'DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT LIN FT 3000 $1.00 $3,000.00 65 2582-502 4'SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LIN FT 600 $0.75 $450.00 66 2582-502 4'SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT LIN FT 600 $0.50 $300.00 Subtotal Schedule A-Surface Improvements 52,362,560.00 + 101%Contingencies $23£1,256.00 Subtotal $2,598,816.00 + 151"0 Indirect Cost 5389,822.40 Schedule A Total-Surface Improvements $2,988,638.40 R. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Subtotal Schedule 13-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $50,000.00 + 1011%Conti n encies $5,000.00 Subtotal $55,[H1[I.[kll + 15%Indirect Cost $8,250.00 Schedule B Total-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $63,250.00 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By K.AK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By Cin,Project No.: WSB Project No: 1992-01 Date: 1/7/2013 Estimated Item 1vINlD(}T Estimated Estimated Total No. Specification No. Description Unit Total Unit Price Cost Quantity C. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 68 2'104.509 REMOVE GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 6 $115.00 $690.00 69 2104.509 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT 2680 $2.00 $5,360.00 70 2104.601 SALVAGE HYDRANT EACH 6 $300.00 $1,800.00 71 2503.62 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND 5960 $3.50 $20,860.00 72 2504.601 TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 73 2504.602 1'CORPORATION STOP EACH 25 $150.00 $3,750.00 74 2504.602 1'CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 12 $250.00 $3,000.00 75 2504.602 2'CORPORATION STOP EACH 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 76 2504.602 2'CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 4 $600.00 $2,400-00 77 2504.602 6"GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 17 $1„750.00 $29,750.00 78 2504.602 8"GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 8 $2,000.00 $16,000.00 79 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 11 $1,000.00 $11,000.00 80 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH 28 $250.00 $7,000.00 81 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 19 $3,200.00 $60,800.00 82 2504.602 CURB BOX REPAIR EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 83 2504.603 1"TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 480 $20.00 $9,600.00 84 2504.603 2"TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 270 $35.00 $9,450.00 85 1 2504.603 6"WATER MAIN-DUCT-IRON CL 52 LIN FT 560 $35.00 $19,600.00 86 1 2504.603 8"WATER MAIN-DUCT-IRON CL 52 LIN FT 1 5210 1 $37.00 1 $192,770.00 St€htot.tt Schedule C-Water Maid Improvements $426,330-00 + 100/o Conti n envies $42,633.00 Subtotal '$468,963.00 15%Indirect Cost S70,344.45 Schedule C Total-11'ater Main Imprrr►cmcnts 5539,307.45 D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 87 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 0 5500.00 $0.00 88 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE(STORM) LIN FT 70 $20.00 $1,400.00 89 2104.509 REMOVE PIPE APRON EACH 0 $100.00 $0.00 90 2501.515 15"RC PIPE APRON EACH 2 $650.00 $1,300.00 91 2502.541 4"PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 $15.00 $4,500.00 92 2503.541 15"RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT 1380 $27.00 $37,260.00 93 2503.541 18"RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT 20 $29.00 $580.00 94 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 0 $1,000.00 $0.00 95 2506.601 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT 50 $350.00 $17,500.00 96 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCH BASIN) EACH 8 $750.00 $8,000.00 97 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY(STORM) EACH 3 $750.00 $2,250.00 98 2506.601 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 99 2511.502 RANDOM RIPRAP CL IV CU YD 25 $100.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal Schedule D-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $74,790.00 + 10%Contingencies $7,479.00 Subtotal $82,269.00 + 15%Indirect Cost $12,340.35 Schedule D Total-Sanitary Server Improvements $94,609.35 Total 2013 Street Reconstruction Project $3,685,805.20 APPENDIX D Assessment Map ID — Eagle Marsh Assessment Map ID — Hillside Estates Assessment Map ID — K& L Addition Assessment Map ID — The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition Assessment Map ID — 202nd Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Country Side Acres Assessment Map ID — Avon Acres Assessment Map ID — Deerfield 4th Addition Assessment Map ID — Meadowvale Heights Assessment Map ID — Royal Oaks Ridge Assessment Map ID — 185th Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Business Center Drive and Gary Street Assessment Map ID — 4th Street, Railroad Drive,3rd Street, Irving Avenue,Holt Avenue, Evans Avenue Feasibifity Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 i O m 3 a n pN E y� a N N g V G4 f \M% f, .f Legend : . 2013 Street Improvements "' o Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N Eagle Marsh w8 Elk 293 Street improvement Project 11ver City of Elk River MN 1 inch = 200 feet . . 0 , k � $ \ # 0 § � f � : / ! w � . : l � ^ . ■ #Jw, - «� : : . . � T ! - . WV r . \ ; . f � Legend 2043 Street Improvements » ° 2» AR BN cE Proposed Pe eels to be Assessed Assessment Map N H my de Estates 10th Add±on A t, 2013 Street Reconkr ction Project WSB ��I C� of Elk River MN ] inch - 200 +& 4 A b S T q a A a ^' N u Y f't f f� - •. F C ir r p V. G c P X73 v QvE ., ..,, 4U �c Le end R 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed " Assessment Map K & L Addition WSB Silt 2013 Street Reconstruction Project inch = 2fl0 feet R l�1ver City of Elk River MN v S S m f► G7 � Q i a S 3 0 6 N a a N n 1" 1 r _ 7 2Nr7 CIR ,� k- va Legend szn�❑Liu 2013 Street Improvements Lu u a Proposed Parcels to be Assessed 1 0 Assessment Map The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition ■ Elk 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WSB l�avf?r 1 inch = 200 feet City of Elk River MN WIN-'r RIA RR 205TH. VE ro x x sb L7 O =i R O. v n k lFJ y Y f �IQ I t 207 sT AVE i ' Legend - x w 23 13 Street I mprovements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed ZZ Assessment Map N 202nd Ave f� ��B E*k - 293 Street improvement Project I� I� r City of Elk River MN 1 inch = 40Q feet "^ s m N O GI y b �i MEpI][]WIIAL�Ftb 'n �4 g 199TH AVM 19TH CIR 188112 cl 19gT4i AVE W Legend c� 2013 Street Improvements o r Proposes€ Parcels to be Assessed _ - - Assessment Map N �� Country Side Acres - ■ Silt 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WS8 llavCr 1 inch =400 feet City of Elk River MN O 3 v S a I L� P L � a v N p a M 4 326 203 Street Improvements � w Praposecf Parcels to iaeAssessed ��-• -- Assessment Map N *kl Avon Acres 4th - ■ El 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WS8 l�av�r 1 inch - 200 feet City of Elk River MN d s 192ND Ny 3 3 79,7 S.T AVE i n ,190 9i2 Z�� ,7Q y � W 1901111F1 LN . i i Legend 790TH AVE 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed f Assessment Map N �� Deerfield 4th Addition - ■ Silt 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WS8 rl ixCr 1 inch = 250 feet City of Elk River MN A r A9gSN � 'Ap ti6� r 195TH A� � � 194 ff,11U. V i3 y " fl ® i s. . � W V } r S.L.. a r � . - n O 99 ��AVM Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N Meadowvale Heights - J Elk 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WSB liver City of Elk River MN 1 inch -400 feet h O ,N '197 ST A]/E l; n i v vi Leo�rx AwE N P PW ly �z • 1., w is 1 1' .i - C_11FI1 I f Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N �� Royal Oaks Ridge - A Ella 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WS8 I-1,avCr 1 inch - 200 feet City of Elk River MN o ys=189THOAVE _ �r s ®af1867M11!N� LLf $6TH.AVE� 185Th AVE US HIGHWAY 10 B_ll_$INES CENTER I]R ..� n ®W � r Legend ® 2013 Street Improvements �o,�� Proposed Parcels to be Assessed 1$2NO7AVE �2 Assessment Map N 185th Ave A WS,B Silt 2013 Street Reconstruction Project inch = 600 feet R l�1ver City of Elk River MN a y n b a l35 HIGHWAY 10 - z 0 4 r► i .•mss � � x N R s 183RD AvE RENO PIEW1' � �®■® � 183Rp AVE Legend o 2013 Street Improvements ,� �� ■ Proposed Parcels to be Assessed uiN WIN Assessment Map N Business Center Drive WSB Elk 2013 Street Reconstruction Project inch =400 feet R River Cit of Elk River MN ■ ■ fir.► SON = SO ST INS ` 8TH ST lTkl SIT NINE-= INS 14 Y��;II■I��111 i��•� N 6TH ST ei;� ■1S■!�I! '�� i�1� N o .;; ®� ��■5�'112tSTr♦III�W�� ■ ■e 4 4TH 5T r Ro • IN III � r; oil LU Ism MAIN ST t„ X11 ■11 �1■III�� 2NU 5T �k ,. � GSytG �� I■I�I��1 rl��ll� �� .1,41 'A� .Ililllll�� Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map ry *kl 4th St/Railroad Drl3rd Stllrving Ave/Holt Ave/Evans Ave - A Si 2013 Street Reconstruction Project WS8 l�avCr 1 inch - 500 feet City of Elk River MN APPENDIX E Pavement Goring and Borings Forensic Report 2012 Geotechnical Report—Log of Test Borings Feasibility Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 A WSB cC Associares.Inc., Engineering ■ Planning ■ Environmental ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55415 Tel: 753-541-4800 Technical Memorandum To: Mr. Justin Femrite City Engineer City of Elk River From: Andrea Azary,EIT,Pavement/Materials Specialist Date: December 4, 2012 Re: Pavement Coring and Borings Forensic Report Introduction WSB & Associates is pleased to submit this pavement forensics report detailing the results of the pavement coring and soil borings which were obtained on November 9, 2 012 on pavement within the City of Elk River. The various characteristics of the pavement cores were analyzed in order to assist in determining the appropriate pavement rehabilitation method for each roadway segment. A total of 23 pavement cores were taken within the roadway segments with a few soil borings taken to determine the classification of the underlying layers. The locations of the pavement cores are summarized in Figure I below and a summary of the pavement depths, conditions and underlying soil classifications are show on Table 1 below. Pictures of the pavement cores and roadway surface are shown in Appendix A of this report. Minneapolis.St.Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Justin Femrite Deccmbcr 4, 2012 I CA.• S.at 4&" -- , Ti 4 I 3 L pA7J'4Ye°., �- c • R �r �r•MO � �;,, Try Ir._��_,_ �'` ._- RECONSTRUCTION � i OVERLAY W TH EDGE BILL - — ! FULL DEPTH RECLAIM WITH CURB PATCHING WEAR COURSE PAVING ON UNFINW-ED DEVELOPMENT STREET 5 �.} r1"ci� �rrrKSS 4 9-Pr �lo°depa i �._ t n X013 ' ' 8.22011 STREET WROy'OENTS 1 NOT 70 SC&E Figure 1: Pavement Core Locations Minneapolis.5t.Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer na U S6 N C L>O N = Y N N ch 4� ❑ m V y c -0 U1 Q bA N p 0( VI L (A ao m a 3 m s C a a v - u s c M ao da a LM LM 41 ❑ N m ❑ f6 to D U A N Z -� --Z -0 A �o 0 M vy � ❑ 01 f6 7- ❑ -a-) _ '❑ ❑ 0 N M L ❑ M y m �n ? w in u _ ra � @ o s •3 o a — r 1 00 °1 _ 4, s "L {a N O 0 t fu cu cu tn p � c to m a o ❑ Q � U Q + W ( w LD ■ -� N � o Co - - - - - - - _ - - - - us �n in - - - cD m n iD m m Lq �n Lq �n ry �n �n Lq in n n r• [.1 �.1 ry - Qm m dr Ln m m m m ui i M rr ca w s s s s s s s m � n1 n1 n1 a1 � u -a ova ao _0 -o -o -a u u " u " u " m -a -a3 a1 n1 n1 a1 41 41 41 O N v N p w c c ❑c ❑ c 3 Ln LA a o a M o o a ~ a v 0 o o w o o fl fl o �^ 01 t11 ++ } ups ate+ N t^ s a-+ s s s s s p l0 t' N j ca N 7 7 7 3 = a v 3 3 Q a a 3 = 0 v = ❑ v = 3 0 o fl o i cD � zo 4 O 4 [D l0 [C rl r-I r-I O r-I r-I Od lD lD 00 lD r. D w N W N m u1 N M n O D Od ri O 1-1 �1 � -❑ -O m r I 01 � Q n � LD 01 � 1Ln � 1n + M m -1 °o •N v, .i m � Z m [D m M cD V! 'Q .-1 ° 41 n +1 r1 r-1 +' M -1 3 O N -4 Ci N N N 6 4- 41 91 W w �j N UY w m +� +� E Ito +� N 4- V N N DA vi f6 N 7 R} 7 a..i +, N 7 ? V1 f6 c c v Q Q Q c u U � Q Q c s v o -� 4� 41 v N J N ++ N N ❑ s N N ❑ +' +� Q — c N C i 7 m 7 ` s L ++ L s ++ 00 VS N O N 0.) L. s s — w �p �-I ri +' C'f +' p N p Gy w -I rI rI 'U r1 ct v O r-1 N M V] ko n m m O r-1 N M 1-1 N M V D I� 0 O rI rI rI -I rI -I -I -I -I rI N N N N❑ V L^ Mr. Justin Femrite Dcccmbcr 4, 2012 Summary of Findings Several factors are considered when determining the number of pavement cores to be taken, including the pavement condition or visible distresses present on the pavement and the variability of the pavement depth as the cores are being completed. Pavement coring identifies what exists under the visible layer of the pavement and can give a wealth of information including depths of the pavement layers,signs of bonding or unbonding and distresses that might not be visible from the road surface. In general the core samples taken had bituminous depths ranging in depth from 2 inches to 6 inches. It was also found that the majority of the underlying material from the core samples taken was sand. Core 2 was in an area of deteriorated bituminous which was seen by visual inspection of the surface and validated when the core broke up in the hole. There was some deterioration at the bottom of Core 5. Core 6, 7,S,9 and 10 had some underlying material that was either sandy clay or clay. Cores 1 - 10 were taken on roads where full depth reclamation with curb patching has been proposed. As was previously mentioned,the bituminous depths in these pavement cores ranged from 3 inches to 6 inches, noting also a thinner base on Irving and 4th Street. After reviewing the pavement cores,we support the recommendation of full depth reclamation with curb patching pointing out the fact that the existing base thicknesses highlighted along Irving and 4tn Street may lead to thinner bases in those areas pending on the pavement design. Cores 12 and 13 showed pavement still in sound condition. These roads are being recommended to have a wear course placed on the unfinished development streets. We support this recommendation. Core 11 and Cores 14-20 were taken on roads where an overlay with an edge mill was proposed. Due to the sound quality of the cores along these roads, we support the recommendation for an edge mill and overlay along these roads. Cores 21-23 were taken on roads where an overlay was proposed. The existing pavement along 202"d Street is showing no serious signs of distress. Due to the thin bituminous depth along this street,we support the recommendation to do an overlay on this road. Minneapolis.St.Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix A Elk River Pavement Coring Pictures i cc)Re CORE 2i OR C 0 Re cc)Rf COO�^ L � sx • ski I CORE 4CQF E 16k CC)RF- 1�71 C[7 K E 1$ C[7 R 19 CC7 R E '2-41,] C-7(D R,E c-7Co R E 21 CL7 R E '2`2-- I � � � ! � III � f � ! ; 1 � ► I M � � ; I � I ► I ' AMERICAN I I I I ENG E RIE m h ► ► II CONSULTANTS ► ENVIRONMENTAL I { MATERIALS RIA CAS I REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL !'M�vILS I I I !'FORENSICS j � j f I j EXPLORATION AND REVIEW ► f I C I � ! I 2C 1 3 Street and Utility Improvements 1 ► I C Elk River, Minnesota ! ► AET Project No. 26-44538 I I II I I I it Date: I j ► I ► December 21,2412 � � I I I I � � I ► ► � I I f ,I M ► I I i l j I i I � ! I rl I ► ICI I � I ► I P Pre ared far. I City of Elk River ! I C/O WSB&Associates,Inc. I 1 701 Xenia Avenue South I I suite 300 Minneapolis,Minnesota,55416 I � f I I I w I I I I I � I I i i lIII� i I { ANIER1CAN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERING -ENVIRONMENTAL o GEOTECHNICAL INC.TESTING, I .MATERIALS 6 FORENSICS December 21, 2012 City of Elk River C/O WSB&Associates,Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,Minnesota,55416 Attn: Mr. Jason Wedel,PE RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review 2013 Street and Utility Improvements Elk River,Minnesota AET Project No. 26-00538 Dear Mr.W edel: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for your 2013 Street and Utility Improvements project in Elk River, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated November 16,2012 We are submitting two copies of the report to you and one copy to the City of Elk River. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the report. I can also be contacted for arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing,Inc. Brian F. Arman Geologist/Branch Office Supervisor Phone: (763)428-5573 Cell: - (612) 685-6571 barmanAamen est.com cc: City of Elk River—Justin Fenuite,PE,City Engineer This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of American Engineering Testing,Inc- 5548 Barthel Industrial Drive,Suite 500•Albertville,MN 55301 Phone 763-428-5573-Toll Free 800-972-6364-Fax 763-428-5575.www.amengtest.com Offioes throughout Florida,Minnesota,South Dakota&Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 2€13 Street and Utility Improvements Elk River, MN AET Project No. 26-00538 December 21, 2012 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Elk River American Engineering Testing,Inc. 5548 Barthel Industrial Drive C/O WSB&Associates,Inc. Suite 500 701 Xenia Avenue South Albertville,MN 55301 Suite 300 (763)428w55731www.amengtest.com Minneapolis,MN 55416 Attn:Jason Wedel,PE Report Authored By: Peer Review Co ducted By: a Brian F.Arman Benjamin M.Hoefer,PE GeologiWBranch Office Supervisor Project Engineer I hereby certify that thLs plan,specification,or --_.___.— _ __. ___—.---- ---------- •-_--- report wxs prepared by me'or under my direct— _ ..--- supervision and that I am a duty Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Date: IDecember 2l,2(312 License#:-47156 Copyright 2012 American Engincering Testing,lac. All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the spec f e project. CONTENTS AFT Project No. 26-003511.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 2.4 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..................................................................................................... 1 4.4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING................................................................2 4.1 Field Exploration program....................................................................................................2 4.2 Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................................................2 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................3 5.1 Surface Observations...--...................................................................................................... 3 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology..................................................................................................... 3 5.3 Ground Water........................................................................................................................ 3 5.4 Review of Soil Properties......................................................................................................4 6.0 RECOMMENNDATIONS..........................................................................................................4 6.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................................4 6.2 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................................................4 6.3 Estimated R-Value.................................................................................................................6 6.4 Pavement Design...................................................................................................................7 6.5 Utility Support, Bedding and Baclfiliing.............................................................................. 8 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 8 7.1 Potential Difficulties--......................................................................................................... 8 7.2 Excavation Backsloping........................................................................................................9 7.3 Observation and Testing........................................................................................................9 8.4 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................... 9 STANDARD DATA SLEETS Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design Bedding/Foundation Support of Buried Pipe Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backficling APPENDIX A—Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 -Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B---Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW FOR 2013 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA AET PROJECT NO. 26-00538 1.0 INTRODUCTION We understand you are proposing to reconstruct portions of 3rd Street NW, Railroad Drive, Lowell Avenue, 4th Street NW, Orono Road, Gary Street, and 185th Avenue NW in Elk Raver Minnesota_ To assist in planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET's services were performed according to our proposal to you authorized and dated November 19,2012. The authorized scope consists of the following: • Fourteen(14) standard penetration test borings,to a terminal depth of 11 feet. • Soil laboratory testing consisting of sieve analysis tests and water content tests. • Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotecbnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The portions of the previously listed streets planned for reconstruction are detailed on Figures 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix A. These roadways will remain as residential streets, approximately 26 feet wide with concrete curb/gutter along the both sides,with the exception of 185a'Avenue NW. 185'' Avenue NW will have curb and gutter along the north side of the roadway and a rural section on the south side of the roadway. We understand final street grades will be within 2 feet AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 of the existing street grades. Underground. utilities (watermain) will be replaced as part of this construction on 3'd Street NW. New watermain will be a part of this project at 1851` Avenue NW. The information stated above represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of fourteen(14)standard penetration test borings. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value). The boring locations are shown on Figures 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix A_ The borings were located in the field by personnel from AET. Surface elevations at the boring locations were measured in the field by AET personnel using multiple benchmarks provided by the City of Elk River. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included six(d) sieve analysis tests and four (4)water content tests. The test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. Page 2 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 26-{14538 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Observations The roads proposed for reconstruction extend through commercial areas with the exceptions of 3`d Street NW east of the intersection of Gates Avenue NW and 185th Avenue NW. 311d Street NW east of Gates Avenue NW is a residential area with homes and multi-family housing on both sides of each street. The portion of 185 ` Avenue NW to be reconstructed is a frontage road to US Highway 10 and provides access to commercial properties and residential subdivisions. The new roadways will follow the same alignment as the existing roadways. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology Below the bituminous pavement the site geology consists of existing fill soils overlying naturally deposited course alluvial sand, sand with silt sand with gravel and gravelly sand. Thickness of the bituminous pavement ranged from 2-inches to 7 inches thick. The existing fill depth ranged from 4 feet to 8 feet below grade. Subsurface soils which differed from the typical profile were encountered in a portion of the borings. Boring#8 encountered buried topsoil from a depth. of 2 feet to 4 feet below the existing grade while Boring #5 encountered a buried layer of bituminous pavement. Borings #11, #12, and#14 encountered concrete rubble below the existing bituminous pavement. 5.3 Ground Water Ground water was encountered during drilling operations in Borings#7 and#8 at depths of 9 feet 7 feet below grade, respectively. Ground water was not encountered in the remaining borings at the time of boring completion. The water levels were encountered in relatively fast draining sands; therefore, it is our judgment that the measured water levels in these two borings could be the indication of a perched water table in that area. Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts,as well as other factors. Page 3 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-41538 5.4 Review of Soil Properties Generally, the sails in the upper profile of the existing roadway are fill soils consisting of sands, sands with silt, and silty sands. These soils range from moderately fast to moderately slow draining and have a low to moderate susceptibility to frost heaving during freezing temperatures. However, the silty sand soils can hold water or impede infiltration of water, and can then trap water in the aggregate base and/or upper zone of the subgrade. When these soils are wet and subjected to vehicle traffic, subgrade instability, softening, weakening, and differential frost heaving can result. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition or a Mn/DOT reference. The definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled "Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction"or are defined in an ASTM standard or a Mn/DOT specification. 6.2 Subgrade Preparation 6.2.1 Suhgrade Preparation As described above, all borings encountered layers of uncontrolled fill below to roadway. Ultimately, our recommendation is to remove any uncontrolled fill in an effort to reduce the likelihood of differential settlements of the pavements. However,based on the past performance of the in-place material and because complete correction of the uncontrolled fill may be deemed non-cost effective. We are presenting a more cost effective option for the City in the recommendations below, however with this option there is some risk of long term differential settlement due to the presence of uncontrolled fill below the bituminous roadways. We understand that currently there is no plant to-incorporate the use of a sand subbase. However, in order to promote material uniformity provide consistent drainage below the pavements and aggregate base layer, we recommend that a 12-inch thick sand subbase layer consisting of Select Granular Borrow be placed as the upper zone of the subgrade. Page 4 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 25-00538 The free draining subbase layer assists in reducing periods of saturation, and greatly reduces the detrimental effects of frost heaving and subsequent thawing. Some of the onsite fill soils encountered in our borings may meet the MnDOT Specification for Select granular Barrow (MnDDT 3149.2B2) based on the sieve analysis performed on materials collected in our borings. The results of these sieve analysis tests are shown on the respective boring logs in Appendix A. Please note these test results should not be relied upon for bidding purpose and that contractors are encouraged to perform their own testing to determine quantities of materials for reuse. Placement of the 12-inch thick sand subbase layer will require excavation of the existing subgrade throughout the project. Before placement of new fill,the existing subgrade soils should be scarified and recompacted to the levels recommended later in this report. New fill should be like materials and consist of sands (SP), sands with silts (SP-SM) or silty sands (SM). Clays and silts should not be used as fill. The recommended 12-inch thick sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent buildup of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to the catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains"), or to other gravity outfail areas. Where the street is relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. Where the thickness of the sand subbase varies longitudinally, we recommend a 24:1 (H:V)taper to minimize differential frost heaving. Where organic sails are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within or below the critical subgrade zone. Where buried rubble or pavements are exposed in excavations, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone. Page 5 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 2G-40538 For more information about subgrade preparation and design, please read the standard sheet entitled"Bituminous Roadway Subgrade Preparation and Design"at the end of this report. 6.2.2 Fill Placement and Compaction All fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3171 (Specified. Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content 65%to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unite weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase layer can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the trip of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. Compaction of the fill should be performed with equipment that will provide the recommended compaction levels through the entire lift. 6.2.3 Subgrade Stability and Test Doll Subgrade stability within the critical subgrade zone is important for pavement support, construction and performance. With the 12-inch sand subbase layer comprising the upper foot of the critical subgrade zone,the existing soil portion(or new fill, if needed) will then comprise the lower 2-feet of the critical subgrade zone for the existing embankments. Stability of these existing subgrade soils should be evaluated, preferably using the test roll procedure, before placement of the sand subbase layer. 6.3 Estimated R-Value The limiting soils within the critical subgrade zone are the silty sands. These soils have an estimated R-value of 20. This estimate'is based on Table 5-3.3(a) within the 2007 Mn/DOT .Pavement Manual and our experience. Page 6 of AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC_ AET Project No.26-00538 6.4 Pavement Design Based on the traffic counts provided to us by the City and the estimated growth rates which have been provided by MnDOT,we are anticipating two separate load levels for streets throughout the project. 3rd Street NW has an anticipated load level of 1450 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT); all other streets evaluated by AET for this project have an anticipated load level of 2350 AADT. We have assumed a growth rate of 3% based on MnDOT projections for Sherburne County. Based on anticipated loads we have calculated that 3`d Street NW will require a minimum total gravel equivalency(GE) of 18.11-inches (within 0.5-inches). The remaining streets evaluated by AET for this project will require a minimum total GE of 21,09-inches (within 0.5-inches) based on the anticipated loads. In addition to exceeding the minimum GE, we recommend the bituminous thickness be a minimum 3.5 inches and the total section be a minimum of 12.5 inches. Table A, below, shows two options for recommended pavement designs based on the two anticipated load scenarios throughout the project. Pavement Design; Table A Location 3r Street NW Railroad Dr. 185t Ave, and others Section Option Option-1 Option-2 Option-1 Option-2 '"V6Fear Course 2-inches 1.5-inches 2-inches 1.5-inches Non-wear Course 2.5-inches 2-inches 2.5-inches 2-inches Aggregate base 8-inches 6-inches 10-inches 8-inches Select Granular NIA 12-inches NIA 12-inches Total GE 18.13 19.88 20.25 21,88 Page 7 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 6.5 Utility Support,Bedding and Backf lling We judge the existing soils below the current subgrade to be suitable for utility foundation support. If clayey or silty soils are present at the trench bottom, a 4-inch thick Granular bedding (Mn/DOT Specification 3149.F) layer should be placed beneath pipes to improve support uniformity. Differing bedding thicknesses and/or material types may be needed if unstable soils or if water is present in the trench bottom. Additional details regarding utility bedding and utility backfilling can be found on the attached standard sheets entitled "Bedding/Foundation Support of Buried Pipe"and"Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backfilling" 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 7:1.1 Runoff Water in Excavation Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with well points 7.L2 Disturbance of Soils The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. Page 8 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 7..1.3 Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site can include cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. 7.2 Excavation Sacksloping If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, AExcavations@ (can be found on www.osha.ga_v). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this,no warranty, either expressed or implied,is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use". Page 9 of 9 DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base/subbase, by reducing and "bridging"frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 31.49.213 1.This refers to granular soils which,of the portion passing the 1" sieve,contain less than 20%by weight passing the#200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2332. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1"sieve,contain less than 12%by weight passing the x#200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the#200 sieve and less than 40%by weight passing the#40 sieve. GEOTEXTIILE STABILIZATION FABRIC Geotextile meeting Type V requirements defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. When using fabric, installation should also meet the requirements outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3FI). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near-surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non-granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber-tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than 1" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present,and/or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content"defined in ASTM:D698(Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties/stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. OIREP0I9 (08/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. BI'T'UMINOUS PAVEMENT SURGR.ADE PREPARATION AND DESIGN GENERAL Bituminous pavements are considered layered "flexible"systems. Dynamic wheel loads transmit high local stresses through the bituminous/base onto the subgrade. Because of this, the upper portion of the subgrade requires high strength/stability to reduce deflection and fatigue of the bitusninouslbase system.The wheel load intensity dissipates through the subgrade such that the high level of soil stability is usually not needed below about T to 4'(depending on the anticipated traffic and underlyingsoil conditions).This is the primary reason for specifying a higher level of compaction within the upper subgrade zone versus the lower portion.Moderate compaction its usually desired below the upper critical zone,primarily to avoid settlements/sags of the roadway.However,if the soils present below the upper T subgrade zone are unstable, attempts to properly compact the upper 3' zone to the 100% level may be difficult or not possible. Therefore, control of moisture just below the 3' level may be needed to provide a non-yielding base upon which to compact the upper subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance is dependent on the soil subgrade drainage and frost characteristics.Poor to moderate draining soils tend to be susceptible to frost heave and subsequent weakening upon thaw.This condition can result in irregular frost movements and"popouts,"as well as an accelerated softening of the subgrade.Frost problems become more pronounced when the subgrade is layered with soils of varying permeability.In this situation,the free-draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water infiltration which exaggerates the movements.The placement ofa well drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minimize trapped water,smooth frost movements and significantly reduce subgrade softening.In wet,layered and/or poor drainage situations,the long-term performance gain should be significant. If a sand subbase is placed, we recommend it be a "Select Granular Borrow" which meets Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. PREPARATION Subgrade preparation should include stripping surficial vegetation and organic soils.Where the exposed soils are within the upper"critical"subgrade zone(generally 2''1W deep for"auto only"areas and 3'deep for"heavy duty"areas),they should be evaluated for stability. Excavation equipment may make such areas obvious due to deflection and rutting patterns.Final evaluation of soils within the critical subgrade zone should be done by test rolling with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment,such as a loaded dump truck.Soils which rut or deflect i"or more underthe test roll should be corrected by either subcutting and replacement;or by scarification,drying,and recompaction.Reworked soils and new fill should be compacted per the"Specified Density Method"outlined in MnIDOT Specification 2105.3F'l (am inimum of 100%of Standard Proctor density in the upper 3'subgrade zone,and a minimum of 95%below this). Subgrade preparation scheduling can be an important consideration.Fall and Spring seasons usually have unfavorable weather for soil drying.Stabilizing non-sand subgrades during these seasons may be difficult,and attempts often result in comprom isingthe pavement quality.Where construction scheduling requires subgrade preparation during these times,the use of a sand subbase becomes even more beneficial for constructability reasons. SUSGRADE DRAINAGE If a sand subbase layer is used, it should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent water build-up. This can be in the form of draintile lines which dispose into storm sewer systems,or outlets into ditches.Where sand subbase layers include sufficient sloping,and water can migrate to lower areas,draintile lines can be limited to finger drains at the catch basins. Even if a sand layer is not placed, strategically placed draintile lines can aid in improving. pavement performance. This would be most important in areas where adjacent non-paved areas slope towards the pavement. Perimeter edge drains can aid in intercepting water which may infiltrate below the pavement. 0 IREP016(02101) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TES'T'ING, INC. r BEDDING/FOUNDATION SUPPORT OF BURIED PIPE GENERAL This page addresses soil bedding and foundation support of rigid pipe, such as reinforced concrete, and flexible pipe, such as steel and plastic_ This does not address selection of pipe based on loads and allowable deflections, but rather addresses the geotechnicallsoil aspects of uniform pipe support. Bedding/foundation support needs relate to local conditions directly beneath and to the sides of the pipe zone, which may be influenced by soft in- situ ground conditions or by soil disturbance due to soil sensitivity or ground water. Bedding relates to granular materials placed directly beneath the bottom of the pipe (usually 4" to 6" thick), which is intended to provide increased support uniformity. We refer to foundation soils as thicker layers of sands and/or gravels (beneath the bedding zone) intended to provide increased foundation strength support, usually needed due to soft, unstable and/or waterbearing conditions. GRANULAR BEDDING With circular pipes, high local loads (approaching point loads) develop if pipes are placed on hard surfaces. Load distribution is improved by placing granular bedding materials beneath the pipe, which are either shaped to match the pipe bottom or are placed without compaction to allow "settling in." The bedding should be placed in such a manner that the pipe will be at the proper elevation and slope when the pipe is laid on the bedding. Common bedding material is defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2F, Granular Bedding. Published documents recommend rigid pipes having a diameter of 12" to 54" be placed on a bedding thickness of 4", which increases to 6" of bedding for pipe diameters ranging from 54" to 72". Beyond a 72" diameter, the bedding thickness can be equal to the pipe outside diameter divided by 12. Typically, the need for bedding under small diameter pipes (less than 12") depends on the pipe designer's specific needs, although in obvious point loads situations (bedrock, cobbles, significant coarse gravel content), bedding is recommended. Note that bedding should also account for larger diameter bells at joints. FOUNDATION FELL Positive uniform strength is usually compromised in soft or unstable trench bottom conditions. In this case, deeper subcuts and foundation fill placement is needed beneath the pipe. In moderate instability conditions, improvement can likely be accomplished with a thicker bedding layer. However, in more significant instability situations, particularly where ground water is present, coarser materials may be needed to provide a stronger foundation. Thicker gravel layers can also be a favorable media from which to dewater. The following materials would be appropriate for stability improvement, with the coarser materials being appropriate for higher instability/ground water cases. • Fine Filter Aggregate--Mn1DOT Specification 3149.2} • Course Filter Aggregate—Mri1DOT Specification 3149.2H When using a coarser material which includes significant void space, we highly recommend enveloping the entire gravel layer within a geotextile fabric. The gravel material includes open void space, and the fabric acts as a separator which minimizes the intrusion of fines into the open void space. If an additional granular bedding sand is used above foundation gravel, the fabric would also prevent downward infiltration of bedding sand into the rock void space. Although it is preferred to not highly compact thin granular bedding zones directly beneath the pipe center, it is desirable to compact the foundation materials to prevent more significant pipe settlement. We recommend foundation fill be compacted to a mirimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). It is not possible to test coarse rock fill, although this material should still be well compacted/tamped. Often, pipes entering structures such as catch basins, lift stations, etc., enter the structure at a higher elevation than the structure bottom, and are therefore placed on the structure backfill. Fill beneath these pipes should be considered foundation fill. Depending on the flexibility of the connection design, it may be necessary to increase the minimum-compaction level to reduce differential settlements;particularly with thicker fills. SIDE FILL SUPPORT If the pipe designer requires support from the side fill, granular bedding should also be placed along the sides of the pipe. In poor soil conditions, the sand fill may need to be placed laterally up to two pipe diameters on both sides of the pipe. With rigid pipe, compacted sand placement up to the spring line (within the haunch area) is usually sufficient. With flexible pipe, side fill should be placed and compacted at least to the top of the pipe. For positive support, it is very important to properly compact the sands within the haunch area. OJ EP017(03/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTILITY 'FRENCH BACKFYLLING GENERAL Clayey and silty soils are often diff icuit to compact.as they may be naturally wet or may become wet due to ground water or surface/rain water during construction.Soils wilt need to be placed within a certain range of water{moisture)content to attain desired compaction levels. Moisture conditioning to within this range can be time consuming,labor intensive; and requires favorable weather. The degree ofcompaction and the soil type used for backfiII within open cut utility trenches depends on the function of the overlying land surface. Details are as follows: ROADWAYS Where trenches are located below roadways.we recommend using inorganic fill and compacting these soils per Mn/DOT Specification2105.3F] (Specified Density Method).This specification requires 100%of the Standard Proctordensity in the upper one meter subgrade zone,and 95% below this.Note that this specification includes moisture content range requirements which are important for proper subgrade stability. Where available soils are wet or of poor quality,it may be possible to use the"Quality Compaction Method"(Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3172) for soils below the upper one teeter subgrade zone if you can tolerate some subsidence. However,a liigh level of stability is still important within the upper subgrade zone and recommend that the"Specified Density Method" be used in this upper subgrade area. We caution that if backfill soils in the lower trench area are significantly unstable, it may be difficult or even impossible to property compact soils within the upper one meter subgrade zone.In this case.placing a geotextile fabric directly over the unstable soils can aid in offsettina the instability. STRUCTURAL AREAS If fill is placed beneath or within the significant zone of influence of a structure(typically a 1:1 lateral oversize zone),the soil type and minimum compaction level will need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Because trenches result in variable fill depths over a short lateral distance,higher than normal compaction levels and/or more favorable(sandy)soil fill types maybe needed. If this situation exists,it is important that special geotechnical engineering review be performed. NON-STRUCTURAL AREAS In grass/ditch areas,backfill soils should be placed in reasonable lift thicknesses and compacted to a minimum of90%of the Standard Proctor density(ASTM:D698)and/or per the Mn/DDT"Quality Compaction Method."If lower compaction levels are attained, more noticeable subsidence at the surface can occur. Steep or high slopes require special consideration. O1 REPO 19(02/01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Appendix A A.ET Project No.26-00538 Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 —Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AEC Project No.26-00538 A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling fourteen (14)standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1,preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples(SS)-Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM-.D1586 with one primary modification.The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches.The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight,which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60%of it=s potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system.This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count. Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system,which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N-values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55%to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET=s hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60%n to 65%u of the theoretical energy of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N-values, stating that N-values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date,we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N-values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples(DS)/Spin-up Samples(SU) Sample types described as"DS"or"SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples,which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples,possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample,contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools.Cobbles,boulders,and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings,and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of"topsoil"layers is usually limited,clue to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery,and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition,alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments.Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system,the descriptive terminology,and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description.A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached_ Appendix A-Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No.26-00538 The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under AWater Level Measurements @ on the Iogs: • Date and Time of measurement Sampled Depth: lowest depth ofsoiE sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth:depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement • Cave-in Depth:depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level:depth in the borehole where free water is encountered Drilling Fluid Level:same as water level,except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes.This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid,weather conditions,and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 0I-LAB-010,which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265. A.5.2 Sieve Analysis of Soils(thru#284 Sieve) Conducted per AET Procedure 41-LAB-040,which is performed in general conformance with ASTM:D6913,Method A. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures.Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. Appendix A-Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENG1NEERI`NG TESTING,INC. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definitlon Symbol Definition B,H,N: Size of flush joint casing CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test CA: Crew Assistant(initials) DEN: Dry density,pcf CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in DST: Direct shear test inches E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf CC: Crew Chief(initials) HYD: Hydrometer analysis COT: Clean-out tube LL: _Liquid Limit, % DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in incites LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure,tsf DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry OC: Organic Content, % DR: Driller(initials) PERM: Coefficient of permeability(K)test; F-Field; DS: Disturbed sample from anger flights L-Laboratory FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in PL: Plastic Limit, % inches qg: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf(approximate) HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter 4: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf HSA: Hollow stem auger;number indicates inside diameter qU: Unconfined compressive strength,psf in inches R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-erns LG: Field logger(initials) RQD: Rock Quality Designator in percent(aggregate length MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of samples and for the ground water level symbols total core run) N(BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in SA: Sieve analysis blows per foot(see notes) TRX: Triaxial compression test NQ: NQ w�reline core barrel VSR: Vane shear strength,remoulded(field), psf PQ: PQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength,undisturbed(field), psf RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight REC: In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube %-200: Percent of material finer than#200 sieve sampling,the recovered length(in inches)of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with REV: Revert drilling fluid a 140-pound hammer and counting the number of Mows applied SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 1%" is inside in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), otherwise permitted in ASTM:D 1586, the blows for each complete 6" SU Spin-tip sample from hollow stern auger increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the in inches nearest 0.1' below the slash. WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and column.The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below 144-pound hammer the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod ASTM.D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even ■ Water level directly measured in boring extend more than 18"). V: Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance 01FLD012(05102) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. r UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICA[ � ASTM Designations: D 2487,D2488 ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. Soil Classification Notes Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name 'Based on the material passing the 3-in Symbol V5-nrm) sieve, Coarse-Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu�4 and 1<Cc<3 GW Weli graded gravel If•field sample contained cobbles or Soils More than 50%coarse Less than 5% _ boulders,of both, add"with cobbles or than 50114 fraction retained finest Cu<4 arid/or IaCc>3 GP Poorly graded gravel boulders,or both"to grog name, retained on on INo.4 sieve cGravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual No.200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty grave symbols: Fines more GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt titan 12%fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel GW-GC Well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt Sands 50%or Clean Sands Cti?6 and 1 cCc<3 SW Well-graded sand GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay more of coarse Less than 5% – oSands with 5 to 12%fines require dual fraction passes fineso Cu<6 and I>Cca3 SP Poorly-graded sandT symbols: No.4 sieve SW-SM well-graded sand with silt Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand SW-SC well-graded sand with clay Fines more SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt than 12%fines o Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey saltd ' SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay Fine-Grained Silts and Clays inorganic Ply7 and plots on or above CL Lean cla Soils 50%or Liquid limit less "A"finer (DA more passes than 50 PI=4 or Mots below ML Silt MA =Ili+tDt.t Cc= the No.200 "A"line D Lip K Bill sieve organic Liquid limit—oven_dried OL OrganiccI F `•U.75 If soil contains>15%sand,add"with (see Plasticity Liquid Iinit—not dried Organic i L H?A silt ' ' sand"to group name_ Chart below) GIf fines classify as CL-M L,use dual Silts and Clays Inorganic PI Plots on orabove"A"line CH Fat cia Ymbol GC-GM,or SC-SM- Liquid limit 50 t If fines are organic,add"with organic or more Pl plots below"A"line MH Elastic sil fines"to group name. 11fsoiI contains 3 15%gravel,add"with organic OH Organic cla ravel"to group name. Liquid]iinit—oven dried,*. 7g [€Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, Liquid Iimit—not dried Organic si ILK,LAW soils is a CLML silty clay. Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat Flf soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200 soil in color,and organic in odor add"with sand"or "with gravel", whichever is predominant, LI f soil contains X30%plus No-200, SIEVEANALYSr6 w predominantly sand,add "sandy"to Fcr driliwim M&ie-uanxd spiv and -dmnR,w:m Vol-�—s.N.urra.e—•--1 awm.rrcerra6ondcwneva+kM ua�i. gC011p' mlf sail contains>30%plus No.200, ,o] I.4 ' 0 1:+ia wof Adint + xa"zw"Ira•areu•sss. Y pred ominantly gravel.add "gravelly„ —__{m w 0-pi -M s, 'Z' to group name. ? [�anon xvane NPI>4 and plots on or above"A"line. a.�s9rUn �l -i a varu=IemPl=r. G`�` oPl<4ar Intsbelow"A"line, m 1. n p erkd•a9;LL�1 P a ti — — '0 IM plots on or above"A"lisle. l� L 4Pl plots below"A"line. QO y,F,, RFiber Content desc ri ption shown below. 33 �' ; 40 _ i sa - W as so 661l 70 R W ,cu lie PARTICLE SIZE IN MILUMErERS UQUID LIMIT(t•Y G-a•Qy. Plasticity Chart ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOI2 SOIL IDENTIFICATIOiN AND DESCRIPTION Grain Si xe Gravel Fercentaaes Consistency of Plastic Soils Relative Density ofNlaiI-Plastic Soils Term Panicle Size Term Percent Tenn _N-Value BPF Term Nl-Value R Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft less than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3"to 12" With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2-4 Loose 5-10 Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50% Firm 5-8 Medium Dense 11-30 Sand 4200 to#4 sieve Stiff' 9-15 Dense 31-50 Fines(silt&clay) Pass#200 sieve Very Stiff' 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moisture/FrostConditi on -Layering Notes f�iberCantcntoiPeat Organiclftonts rscriotion(if,noIabtess) (MC Column) Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content Soils are described as gMgpdc,if soil is not peat D(Dry): Absense of moisture,dusty,dry to W thick of Term [Visual F.stimatel and is judged to have sufficient organic fines touch- differing material content to influence the soil properties. 51_ighrjY M(Moist): Damp,although free water not or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% or¢wn used for borderline cases. visible- Soil may soil have a high Hemic Peat-. 33—67% water content(aver"optimum'}. Lenses: Packets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity W(Wet/ Free water visible intended to greater than'" of rootsto influence the soil Waterbearing): describe Ion-plastic soils. thick of differing properties. Waterbearing usually relates to material or color. Trace roots: Shall roots present,but not judged sands and sand with silt. to be to sufficient quantity to F(Frozen): Sail frozen significantly affect sail properties- 0 1 CLS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. cal W ` I A 41F v F ri _ r ♦ E" x CL . � r i w 4� tv itY 1 cn f 4 f c Uw r �' •er. � �f �' � �Cj RAJ�t h W zR. � 0 2 R Qk 0.4 & d � � k NL �e - - ¢ . � k r- 71.1 . .� � �� } d _ � E Q : f /. � 2 � � oU & ? 2 � � 2 & q2 � � m � Irv- oo p e.� MEN H � � m A U `r...w a GA A _ m � AZOV F k •D ,. Ap H W W 0. Z wF AMERICAN ! ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING :LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 891.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL o420 2"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 4"Apparent aggregate base I FILL,a mixture of sand and silty sand,a little gravel,brown and grayish brown 17 M SS 13 FILL,a mixture of sand with silt and silty sand, a little gravel,brown and dark brown 3 10 M SS 14 a 4 M SS 18 6 7 11;D 4 M SS 18 is M CLAYEY SAND,grayish brown,soft, ALLUVIUM of silty sand(SQ $ SILTY SAND,fine grained,grayish brown, COARSE moist,medium dense(SM) ALLUVIUM g 11 M SS 18 I4 SAND,a little gravel,fine to medium grained, 10 M SS 12 RE I I brown,moist,loose(SP) M END OF BORING LUU W Q 0. pU'• `2 LU Of K SLY DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER 0-10' 3.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHEI] 11/16112 WD None SHEETS FOR AN ti 11/16/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 11116/12 THIS LOG DR. BR LO: DR Rig: 178 GRIP D 1-DHIt-060 0312011 AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG a TESTING,INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p• 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2413 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk River,NW DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 891.1 GEOLOGY N �C SAMPI.I. REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL ,42 -1113"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 3"Apparent aggregate base t FILL,mostly silty sand,a little sated with silt,a g little gravel,brown 14 M SS 15 2 3 9 M SS 3 4 5 4 M SS I2 FILL,a mixture of silty sand and sand,a little gravel,brown and light brown 7 3 M SS 14 6 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLMUM 9 5 M SS 17 10 SAND,fine grained,light brown,moist,loose 6 M SS 13 (SP) END OF BORING h F !N C A (7 F "L w ur a DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO Y r �r /DATE TIME SAMPLED TH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED N d-10 3.25 HSA 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11116/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF CBORING 11116/12 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: BR LG: DR Ri : 178 G THIS LOG 0312011 01-DHR 060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AFT JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. _ 3 (p•_1 of I) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Iii rovernents• Elk River MN DIN SURFACE ELEVATION: 888.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET` MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL a42 3.5"Bituminaus avement FILL AS 7"Apparent aggregate base I FILL,mostly sand with gravel and silt,brown 14 tv1 5S 11 Z FILL,mostly sand,a little gravel,brown 3 9 M SS 18 SAND,a little gravel,fine grained,light brown, = : COARSE moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 7 M SS 17 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, brown,moist,medium dense,lease dark brown silty sand(SP)(possible fill) 7 23 M SS 2 $ SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM g 12 M SS 17 la 12 M SS 12 a 11 END OF BORING a. a W. W DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASURENMNTS NOTE: REFER TO Y M '� DATE TIME SALT THD CAVE DEPTH FL RI VEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED s 0-10 3.25 HSA 11/16/12 WD [one SHEETS FOR AN 11116112 AD 4.0 Note EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON v COMPLETED: 11/16/12 THIS LOG DR: BR LG. DR Rig-- 178 GR 01-DIIR-060 0312011 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-40538 LOG OF BORING NO- 4 (P• 1 of I) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk River,MN DEPTH B SURFACE ELEVATION: 886.1 GEOLOGY MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL 442 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown I 8 M SS 14 12 2 FILL.,a mixture of silty sand and clayey sand,a little gravel,brown and dark brown 3 4 M SS 16 24 a FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown,a little dark brown 5 6 M SS 18 6 7 6 M SS 16 8 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) _ ALLUVIUM g 7 M SS 18 = 6 M SS 12 �_ II 0 0 END OF BORING v 'a ra a w w rn w x DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO r rr DATE TIME SFP,L�IETJ DEPTH CAVE-IN D H FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED ty 0-14 3.25 HSA 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11/16112 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON p COMPLETED: 1111611.2 TMS LOG DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 G 01-nHR-06o 0312411 AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 (P. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk R€ver 1L71V DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 886.6 GEOLC}GY SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N MC TYPE IN_ WC DEN LL PL 042 5"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 6"Apparent aggregate base I 3"Bituminous pavement 29 M SS 1 I FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,pieces of bituminous,dark brown,brown and grayish brown 3 31 M SS 17 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, ` :COARSE light brown,moist,loose to medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM g 10 M Ss 18 5 11 M SS 15 8 9 11 M SS 17 Ia 12 M SS 12 � II END OF BORING J V Q d Y2 F Uj N tl.l a DEPTIi: DRILLING,METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO Y SAMPLED CASING CAVE-1N DRILLING WATER 0-101 3.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN N 11/16112 AD U None EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON o COMPLETED: 1111+6112 THIS LOG DR: BR LG.--DR Ri : 178 G 0312011 O1-DHR 0611 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. A.ET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 6 (p• 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk liver Street improvements;Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 890.1 GEOLOGY 14 MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC [7E11 LL FL 4420 4.5'Bituminous pavement FILL AS FILL,mostly sand with silt,brown 1 15 M SS 14 FILL,mostly sand,s little gavel,brown,a little dark brown 3 15 M SS 18 4 8 M SS 17 6 7 SAND, fine grained,light brown,moist,very :_:COARSE 3 M SS 17 loose to loose(Sp) -ALLUVIUM 8 g 8 M SS 17 to— 8 M SS 13 � EI END OF BORING tu J F U F Q d C9 C. 2 W all 5 IU W � DEPTH: DRILLING A,TTHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE. REFER TO Y J SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED 4-10' 3.251 HSA DATE TIME DEPT DEPTH DEPTH 'FLUID LEVEL LEVEL N Ill]6112 WD None SHEETS FOR AN N 11116112 AD 5,0 None EXPLANATION OF « COMPLETED: 11/16/12 T>;r�M rrOLOGY ON THIS LOG a DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 G 01-DHR-460 0312011 AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING,INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 TOG OF BORING NO. 7 (p. Z of I) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 897.9 GEOLOGY MC SAMPLE R.EC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE W. WC DEN, PL 42 3.5"Bituminous pavement FILL. AS 5"Apparent aggregate base 1 Fill,mostly sand with silt,a little gravel,brown 3 12 M SS 12 2 3 10 M SS 14 4 — GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT,medium to COARSE coarse gained,brown,moist,loose(SP-SM) ALLUVIUM (possible fill) OR FILL 7 M SS 12 $ SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE light brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLUVNM 7 5 M SS 16 GRAVELLY SAND,medium to coarse grained,light brown,moist to 9'than waterbearing,medium dense to dense(SP) g 1I SS 14 32 W SS 1 Ir - END OF BORING U a a s? ru w t� r m w DEPTH. DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO Uj r 1i DATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTIH DEPTH DRILLING LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0-10 3,25 HSA 11/16/12 WD 9.0 SREETS FOR AN N 11]16112 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF BOMNG TERMINOLOGY OAF oCOMPLETED: 11/16/12 TTHS LOG DR: SR LG.- DR Rig: 178 G 0312411 41-DHR 064 AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 (F• I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk Rimer Street Improvements; Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 898A GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN N MC FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL %420 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 5"Apparent aggregate base I FILL,mostly silty s nd with gravel,brown 11 M SS 8 Slightly organic silty sand,black,moist, BURIED medium dense(SM-OL) TQp5Q1L 3 10 M SS 19 47 4 SAND,fine to medium grained,brown,moist, COARSE medium.dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 5 12 M SS 14 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, grayish brown,wet to T than watcrbearing, loose(SP) 7 g SS 18 & SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,medium to fine grained,dark gay,waterbearing,loose 9 (SP-•SM) 7 W SS 18 10 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine gained, N gray,waterbearing,loose,(SP) 8 W 5S 15 j II F END OF BORING a a c7 a w nU a r a> w DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMEMI'S MOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER 0-101 3.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 11/16112 WD 7.0 SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 AD 5.0 Wane EXPLANATION OF COMP TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED. 11/1G112 THIS LOG DR: $R LG: DR Rig: 178 G 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LUG TESTING, INC. r AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 9 (P• I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 883.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN TYPE IN. FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL "2 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 2.5"Apparent aggregate rase I FILL,mostly silty sand,brown and dark brown IQ M SS 14 2 FILL,mostly silty sand,brown 3 8 M SS 12 4— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, ` ;COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM QR FILL 5 8 M Ss 17 6 SAND WITH GRAVEL,medium to fine COARSE grained,brown,moist,medium dense(SP) `'' ALLUVIUM 15 M SS 17 S g 14 M Ss 13 1 0— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, N light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) _ 22 M SS 12 �_ 1T END OF BORING Uj yJ 3 F U C7 a tu W cc r m - °c rx DEPTH: DRIILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUkEMENTS NOTE: REFER TO J SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME THE ATTACHED S Q-1©" 3.25"' USA DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11116/12 AD 4.4 None EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 11/16/12 THIS LOG wi DR. BR LG: DR Rig: 178 G 0I-DHR-060 0312011 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 10 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street improvements; Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 885`6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE WC DEN LL PL u-#20 2.6"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 4"Apparent aggregate base I FILL,mostly silty sand,dark brown 18 9 M S5 18 FILL,mostly silty sand,brown 3 6 M SS 17 4 CLAYEY SAND,trace roots,brown,stiff(SC} MDMD (possible fill) ALLUVIUM 13 OR FILL 5 - COARSE 7 M SS 16 SAND,fine to medium grained,brown,moist, loose(5P) =° ALLUVIUM 6— SAND,a little gavel,medium to fine grained, mottled brown,moist,loose(SP) 7 6 M SS 16 8 9 6 M SS 18 6 M SS 12 �_ II F �? END OF BORING LU J `L FU W a 'a C7 a: ry w z tu DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER M 0-10' 3.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 1111.6I12 WQ None SHEETS FORAM 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF =BR : 11!16112 Ti RMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG d G: DR Rag: 178 G 0312011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO- 26-00538 LOG OF BOMG NO. 11 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION- 885A GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE RLC FIELD 8c LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL.DESCRIPTION 1 YPE WC D1 N LL PL o-#20 2.5"Bituminous pavement F1LL AS 6"Concrete rubble 1 FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown 9 M SS IZ FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,dark brown 3 11 M SS 14 ¢ SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fire to _COARSE medium grained,brown,moist,loose(SP-SM) ff ALLUVIUM (possible fill) .OR FILL g M SS 16 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE mottled brown,moist,loose to medium dense AL.LUV UM 7— (SP) = 8 M SS 16 8 4 10 M SS 15 l0 i6 12 M SS 14 �_ 11 END OF BORING tua 0. tu a N It! x DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO Se DATE TIME THE ATTACHED 0-10 r 3.25 r11SA DRILLING E 11/16/12 "AID None SHEETS FOR AN 11116/12 All 4.4 None EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON o BORING OMMIPL'ETED: 11116112 THIS LOG DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 GRD 01-DHR-060 0312011 AMERICAN 1 ENGIN-ERING SUBSURFACE BORING ]LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 12 (p. T of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk Riser N1N DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 889.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REG FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEE[ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN' WC DEN LL PL '-#20 6"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 7"Concrete rubble 1 FILL,mostly silty sand,a tittle gravel and 8 M SS 14 clayey sand,brown 2 FILL,mostly sand with gravel,brown 3 14 M SS 12 GRAVELLY SAND,coarse to line grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) _ ALLUVIUM .:=-. OR FILL 5 10 M SS lei 6— SAND,fine grained,grayish brown,rnoist, _ C+DARSE medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 16 M SS 17 8 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, brown,moist,medium dense(SP) g 16 M SS 17 10— 13 M SS 12 �_ ll 1? END OF BORING U d L7 a. zi 6 W W 1- VI K W x DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO M SAMPLED CASING CAVE-1N DRILLING WATER DATE TIME THE ATTACHFEI] i; 4-10' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL. LEVEL 11/16112 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 AD 4.4 Nane EXPLANATION OF -B-6 RUN G TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED. 11/16/12 THIS LOG a DR: BR LG: DR Rig. 178 GR 0312011 O 1-I]HR-060 AMERICAN L ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG �e TESTING,INC. AET JOB NO- 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO- 13 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk Diver MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 892.8 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPO IN. WC DEN LL PL o#2 7"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 8"Apparent aggregate base I FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown 15 M SS 14 and dark brown FILL,mostly sand with gravel,brown 3 16 M SS 14 2 ¢ SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, ; COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 7 M SS 17 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, : COARSE light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) _ ALLUVIUM 7 14 M SS 16 SAND WITH GRAVEL,medium to fine grained,light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) g 26 M SS 18 IQ 20 M SS 12 iq a 11 a END OF BORING 0. G 0. t] 0. 11 lil 1E VY IL DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER •� DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED a-lo} 3.25"I1sA � 11116112 VM Dane SfIEETSFV1tAIv 11116112 AD 4.0 bane EXPLANATION OF n a TERMINOLOGY ON =! LG:: 11116/12 THIS LOG DR Rig: 17$GR 0312011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN L ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE ]BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 14 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements;Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 895.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE - WC DEN LL P1 V o-92Q 6"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 7"Concrete rubble i FILL,mostly silty sand,a little ravel,dark 16 M SS 14 brown to brown 2 3 26 M SS 16 4 FILL,mostly gravelly sand with silt,brown 10 M SS 12 5 SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) :' ALLUVIUM 8 M SS 16 8 g 6 M SS 15 1Q 6 M SS 12 `� II[V END OF BORING W U 0. U'- 0. W tU w n N W DEPTH.- DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO Ni w SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER M r sr DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED ti 0.10 3.25 HSA 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11116112 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF n. BORING TERMINOLOGY ON CMLEED: 1 /16/12 0 THIS LOG DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 G a l-DHR-osa 0312011 Appendix B AET Project No.26-00538 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use A]ET Project No.26-00538 B.)I REFERENCE,: This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE3,of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Revd the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client's goals,objectives, and risk management preferences;the general nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored,or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation,configuration, location,orientation,or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team,or • project ownership. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes,even minor ones,and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;by man-trade events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE,8811 Colesville Road/Suite 0106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:3011565-2733 :www.asfe.or Appendix B--Page I of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No.26-04535 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Igo not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engineers develop them principal€y from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. 5.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences,and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.29 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can snake contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation_ To help prevent costly problems,give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter,advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited, encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled"limitations"many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. head these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. $.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmenta€study differ significantly 6rom those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Appendix B—Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC APPENDIX F Public Comment Summary 185th Street Sanitary Server and Water Main Exhibit 185th Street Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Estimate Feasihifity Deport 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River MN WSB Project No.1992-01 a m 9 _ a 'm& u Nm w `s mq� ^� O m am m a k a T W mmc onY � M d= m m ap jE« ma € ®- E 3 o = E w PE = = m om z= 24 L7 m 6E« o SS m m m g d U N 1-N co w!i ap Q v = w N d CL nN m t _ - pe E7 r U o S = o m e R m m W g o N a v � Y y y m F 2£ 2 m = _ R Q m_oUN d �°n in 5, c a � ©o 'Q•T saw �Q � a°wy, - E ffim 5r� v m do . o r °- " c 2- B �L �r T ei w. Q R Z %m$ a v° E �' g `o_ W - m G7 G7 cc m oo�w = d c � 3 cr �i T W C mt N 3 m D w m d N + b— oc m m r r Ego = omd°m`o o' c71 Em �L E3w Q7 u = °- mnsdm Vl uE W'$ um m � Cr7 r Kt� f¢ 3 O e3i o O 4ay m°a °R� mm R N GR a «a -`am N 0 0 3 E U-°o E ,N � oz.aw gym =� � - wa .2 L.7 r yr.-o mc� N ��. n d 3m 3 Wa "q � o CQ �-. a L y'. w o w fl U m y m E V a E� Z-o �'L,m 0 To �� -m� °€ tea t � 4 CL v3ia cm+ `° m -F, IE A b m w aka ¢ mow i c2 o ❑ o 3 0- o m 0 z z � c') �._• 2' � v a � v m N m r �t gip° F_� v •-�p°Mp° v � �� o m c m = E m E c c F m w m m u aLL v $m o co jE rc E < o rc # u � Ell s 6 u ■1■ a3i a p }g x mN a W za t 4 iE Lu .7 ! . dddZZ t�, 11 11 33Re7 9 z ®. _ AIMS N,-J3nN 1■ ao 5SnoNlano �4 - j- Y 3 .n o � Sewer and water costs for west 185th $69,000.04 8"gravity sewer $15,000.00 manholes $2,500.00 castings $8,000.00 services $48,000.00 8" watermain $15,000.00 hydrants $5,700.00 Valves $25,000.00 Surface restoration of Troy St $15,000.00 Turf restoration $203,200.00 Total construction $40,640.00 Administration $243,840.00 1$27,093.33 Lateral cost per property(9 total) Sewer and water Costs for East 185th $28,500.00 8"gravity sewer $5,000.00 manholes $1,000.00 castings $5,000.00 services $33,000.00 8" watermain $3,000.00 hydrants $1,900.00 Valves Surface restoration of Troy 5t Turf restoration $77,400.00 Total construction $15,480.00 Administration $92,880.00 1$18,576.00 Lateral cost per property(5 total) a W 0 Z L LI V LU Q Q� W Q— LLJ M - J � U W W z � Q� M 0 L u r � Q N V -y , \ A � \ OD ) &. . 10 \ j } \\) � j \ ............. 4=J LL � � � � � | _ | ri CU r �.3 -j Q Ct u 4—j 4—J CCU � •,"' �_' � � -� • ct 4-j +-j i 1 i 4 . ; {{ LU on 0 I X-V 0 V.- ■ U3 0 U) U) Z3 U) :3 v :3 0 S- Q Q •L •E V J ♦--' L ♦-A S� � _ cm • 4) .- a .� > a v ' v L C13 v > 4- > F. w Z; CU 0 v •— cn p L- cn E x � 0 L � � 73 v D �3 CID 0) .� .� E -0 -° E M ca — }' cu 0 o N v a 0 :3 � � 0 CY) Uri -aov �. � 0 ao w CL W U -C a--r %(D X ti3 0 7 _ E 5 E < a� � L- a C: M 4 a Em 0 0 ra � Q- c > '� 2 '— m 03 QL > L E CL E � o 0 E a) 4-j N > 3 w 0 Q O) p 'm 3 -- Q .� n3 U ❑ Q M N N Q3 1 (n U m t� 70 I L W cn 4—J ZZ LO a m 0 Q) L vy 0 a 4-j v� .E E cu _ D +-+ -- '(D C: o Q u 0 4 cu `—' " a) 0 a) W U) n L- C m ce) 0- • 0 U) o o {L Cf3 L W M U � CY) > 73 �--� + a U U) :3 co > Q CY) M E (D 00 (n > t7 4-J +a CU CY) U m 0 CU 0 +r [6 (L3 `~ C)-� N m 0 CI3 U � ca� Q 0 D_' > D Cu 0 -0 i � M a) � 0. }" p Q Q Q Ca . cn 4 �+ E 7cu � v � CY, E E M a) c F L Q � m � w �!] °� j U) Z3 0 0 � [ r Irw I I • �{ y w w ALI Arm --Nw- .r tt o� - MN-3nN3nv E)NIAU r 0 CL T '--- �. L � ` 0 ==Emir AAN EjnN3AV NOS>IOVr r' Q c) c) c) ,jr.. lll�r L(7 T--- r N CIO (D .. C cr G 0 CN cyi Vy a-1 v E v 0 a) _ L u 0 (u E E N 03 a) E (n c a) ?-% 2 co Q) E :t.-! 0 E 122 C: -- �- 0 0 c c/) L. W o o o o am • Q a c) T 00 CY7 (D I� C37 OQ 00 CV LO w r r cyi to 60- {0" U) (n 0 70 cn p }, D E C > LL E — E E a) u E CU-Ne 0 Q) E ow � cry w +� L. W o o o CL • 0 0 0 i Q DO Gz r r LO Vl (D M N Q { to �-- � °�° ° Lo o . . cn ,dry {ll Q N a) C Q w -3 N in (U V3 C Q L/] " � ■ U) Q Q N cn 0 :� Q � � !0 can < cn o a-- a w a (D a) ° < Q < .� a) J cu N o o • � W 2 N t -< 4—J E 1 Lij U-1 C3 Q +A C] 0 � 0 C> C> .� 0 W �= t1] O p�j 0 M1 Q } ty I cn 5 N Q . . EE to t/3 ■V ■ W U) < 0 cU � ^ (D .= V J (n i--� s.. v a, cv > o C7 o -0 " - L U— m --,,e e a) .�� 0 y_ L � N [!) 0 F= a--+ {U 0 > CO : -a E L' W W CV co co co co [Y7 r r r r r r C] Q C7 Q C] C7 C\l C\1 CV CN C\1 CV c7 f` C) � r C\I N CU LLC) a C f) m I D u o Ln U _>1 u 70 rl •r1 � L p CU CU ] 0 c( T4 (n tl) Q 0 LL CU a- 0 Q (J} v Q 0 o L. Z LL CL < Q U Q.., n C/) ) 70 r {� C) L QL v � L L v -U, LL m v v E ca 0- F– v U - _ U C.3 < r v cu n Q n _0 v � a-4–J 'L- 0 x w cu v v v L o� _ n Z 0 0 �W f�• f�• f�• N C O N o r o r o o w _ m = E \E \ E E R m 7 \ E \ \ § \ \ \ \ a 2 - - & 4 z _ \ \ \ \ � � = a E 2 �2 �2 k \ \ / \ \ 4 z � _ \ \ \ \ C CD CD C � § � \ \ \ \ k \ \ \ Q d ± & 4 S ° \ \ \ \ \ § / o / _ _ ¥ 4 I § % f % % G g z 4 a r ° \ \\ \ \ \ \ � � E k � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � 0) e z m « « _ m ° \ \ \ \ § § e � a a \ \ \ \ \ k z _ . ) = E E E $ $ y G ma o CC a a » . � / § \ r- \ \ \ \ / z am m m e / \ { \ / -0 � ° g 0 I E f U) \ } k \ E J � I § \ � w CL LL r 2 » ) . . \ \ \ a - �§ - k § \ r S S \ � eo G2a) > m E e e ƒ © e C & _ © e e a x © \ R R / a E ƒ E m m § \ i w ir 0 0 k / m 0 N I� M O n N O O O O N N O O N 00 N N O O O O N M N r V N n N O O O O N f0 O n I� V r Cl) O O O O Cl) N En o V 00 Cl) I� M 00 V LO n co O r r N N f0 j 00 OD LO O O O LO 00040 Lf) ON 00O I� Lq Lq O O I- 0 0000 rn LO LL 40 m T N N N T LO LO N N CO Il T LO 0 M O J V3 0 LO 40 0 O O O O O LO 0 00 O N Cl) O N CO O Lq Lq Lq O O n O O O O O LO O D N M T N N T O N O LL O) CC,) r r r O � N N N U C 0000 O O O O O LO 0 O O O N co 'N 0 40 LO 0 Lq Lq Lq O O n O O O O O Lf) Q LO W - O Co N N O N O O O V R LL T N� N 0 U fA N N O N O O LO O O O O r- 0 00000 01 O N CO O NLq Lq O O I- O O O O O LO �? LO 40 0 LO co N N N N O �2 co LO v =0 E Cl) N M r r N r r M I- E O 0 L 0 LO 0 O O LO LO 0 O O O co m 0 r� r 0 N Lq Lq O N n O O O O M On LO C10 LO N co N N LO LO N CO O LO LO CO ui E T O U � 0 0 co 0 LO 0 O O O LO 0 0 0 0 LO r, QOOLOLO rnLq Lq � Lq I- 0 00LO0 rn E V M r N V N N r N N Cl) LO LO r N N LU E W O H U V) Z O O N O LO 0 O O LO LO 0 00 0 LO X M O O CO LO LO n M n LO O LO LO O M N Cl) r N r N N r O N r r r r N ago NQU cs Z 2 a O 000OLF0000OOOOOO70LF00Lo00LFOOOOOO000 Q E a O V O O O N L O LO 0 0 0 O O O O N O I- L O I- LO O N LO 0 0 O O O O O O W 3 r N , O 0 40 N N N 0 0 0 N O M V r O V M N V O M I, O O M 0 0 Lo 40 N r W S a r r r r r r r r r r J W H c y LL 30 H W O N H a o 0 0 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M n n o o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O V O O 0 40 LO 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 O O CO N I- LO O I- LO O r LO 0 0 O O LO 0 0 LO C4 O V Z E w r N LO LO 0 0 N Co N O O N N O Lo N 0 0 O V N N V r r r 0 0 co r N r N M M 0 0 E r r r ON r 0 (� W Q 0 z va IL tl1 O V O O O MLO OLO 0 0 0 O O OLO n O O nLO O N 0 N O C5 L V N � � M M N O N O O � N O � r r 0 0 N r N 't LO M r CO O O M N O r O _ N � r U J N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 U O O O O O O LO LO LO 0 0 0 O O O O N O LO L O I- O O O LO O O O O O O n LO M LO LO O M N Co N O Co O LO LO LO 0 0 0 Il V O N CO 0 LO Il O M O LO LO C6 a U M N LO M M 40 o r r' O LO M r M CO M M I' N LO M r co N N N r r N r r r r M r co CE'O J N O CO O O O N 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 0 0 N O O C10 0 0 O O O O CO O O O NLO OLO OLO 0 0 0 O O V O OLO O I- O O N N V R Lo O M M N N N N N N N V O V O M V M N M V M M O V M O N N N CO C\l N D r r r r r r r r r r r O O 0 LO 0 0 O O O O 0 LO 0 LO 40 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 O O O M 0 LO 0 0 O O O O r 0 0 O CO LO O LO CO O O O M O N M O LO LO LO I- LO L r O O M 0 I- LO O LO L N _ f0 N M C10 LO M r N CO N r N CO N CO LO LO r r r VLO N V r r NLO CO CO r N N N V ci U m Eo N � O z vs N N O N O M I- CO O O O M O I- M O O I- O O I- O M I- 0 0 I O O g O O O 000 lL O LO LO M n CO � CO H M O I- M n M n M � I- LO M I- LO O n O � O O O LO LO O O � N w N r N r N r N N N r N N N r r N r 0 o N r N r r O r r N M r M r N M N L U V3 C R LL m a' m N o C5 > 3 E m o o m m m a N w U C5 '` .Q °°� a o� m t N > :O- V o 0 ° a o m a -a a 3 3 x o � r a 3 °' y 41 O ° i Q m a ¢ U W m 0 0 v 0 o o w w c7 c7 x z z z 0 ` um) 0 0 0 in 3 Q D t.„, r, ar y 3 a a ? g. H S PI? ' • O _ m (1 tii N ra — O cD iil•N r ro o a' N "D, N 3 -n rf CD a O DJ O • a < D (D fl. _ rD o Q a) N D N < � 0 y -� O e3-r CT < -s (D v a s a rt r+ CD to (1a O �? a 4 8 m O 3 0q fD < C� m N c, O 3 Iv (D ES ,.� O (D col 3 -< O N (D 3 �p F,' fnD f�D D N O O Zz 3 -0 Sv r+ < - (D V1 �` N O r0 N 3 '< '< "E7 "D r+ -n T "TI W O < ( (D (D < (D g '< 3 3 O `�° O o O rt CD___ifD rr E 3 (D (D Fit, Z5 � F-� F-� = U1 N ft' CD CD▪ 73 rn �° m Q Q 0) s� sv 0) 3 0) ti) N N N N `< (J V) Vl rt CD Q = IA IA* U1 O N (!� pwp N 01 01 000 l.0 3 00 lD W 0 �, i-� '.0 �I v 0 1-, �I 00 V 0 0 CO Ui Ui Ui 0 W U'I ;A NJ 0 0 O or O • n rr0 n = T O ▪ m N N O m O •n 0 Ui i/) W N 01 `C C O i!') N cl o• O W N P P 00 ;l0 W �''' 0 y Q F �I 0 a> J O I- v 00 V 0 0 o p �,, V7 00 O U'I P O W U'i P N O O (7 Qto "N rp 4 rp z �• to _ Q Q �' C2 NJ V) a v N N 00 • t0 01 0°0 -0 a N 00 h o rn . p o o a) co N cn t_,„) N o N o o `^ a V) ro a Uri i m 431 O Uri -(1)-r, I)- t/� �h t( - I• H N i/} O_ a n' W N O N O 'er `n N 01 E 'rip' W I-� 00 CO l0 0 0 �I O a. a A 0 �P 0 CO 0 l0 �I (II 00 0 ro r) c a O' i/} r\ 172_ W CO N i/} I-� I— -in I— N 00 Ui N.) CD I `1 C01 00 N N co J O Iv (.0 Q `0 N NJ --"'7 �`; • N (J) 1 W 0 l0 00 UUii O O O �-/J ri...„ O I� 0 F' 0 CO A 0 00 0 0