HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Mankato Rehabilitation Center Project (MRCI) - Preliminary Approval to the Project and the Issuance of a Commercial Development Revenue NoteAGENDA ITEM: Mankato Rehabilitation Center Project
(MRCI) Preliminary Approval to the
Project and the Issuance of a
Commercial Development Revenue Note
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Jeff May, Finance Director
AGE y
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Memo from Springsteds,
Memo from Briggs Morgan, Community
Development Memo to MRCI with
Conditional Administrative Site Plan
Review Approval
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution Reciting a Proposal for a
Commercial Development Project, Giving Preliminary Approval to the Project and the
Issuance of a Commercial Development Revenue Note Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.155 and Authorizing the Preparation of Necessary Documents (Mankato
Rehabilitation Center Project (MRCI)).
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date' Apnl 18, 2006
ISSUE
Hear testimony and discuss the proposed project and financing for MRCI.
SUMMARY
Recommend approval of the motion listed under the Recommended Action.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
This item is on the agenda for Council to conduct a public hearing for the proposed project and financing
for MRCI. This is the first financing that the City will have undertaken for these types of notes since the
Council adopted a Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing Policy on March 6` of this year This pubhc
hearing is a step in the process for the company to work with the City to secure this financing This step
involves the prchttnnary approval of the bonds by passing of the proposed resolution following the public
hearing. The public hearing and approval is required by federal and state law It is important to
understand that this approval does not constitute approval or waiver of any other City regulauons or
requirements for the project, such as land use regulations The approving resolution authorizes and is
contingent on the project receiving the approval of the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Econorruc Development Also, the project will come back to the City Council at a later date for the
approval of a final resolution approving the terms of the financing documents
Both our financial advisor, Sprmgsted, and our bond counsel, Briggs Morgan, have supplied information
included with this packet that addresses the project and the financing MRCI is in compliance with the
City's Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing Policy at this time
From the planning side, the Community Development issued the attached letter to MRCI giving them
conditional approval of their site plan.
Representatives from MRCI will be present to speak about the specifics of the project
1887703v1
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2006-
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR
A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT AND THE
ISSUANCE OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE NOTE PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTION 469.155 AND AUTHORIZING
THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
(MANKATO REHABILITATION CENTER PROJECT)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Sections 469 152 through 469.1651, as amended (the
"Act the City of Rosemount, Minnesota (the "City is authorized to issue a revenue note for the
purpose of financing real and personal property, whether or not now in existence, which property is
used or useful m connection with a revenue producing enterprise, whether or not operated for
profit; and
WHEREAS, in enacting the Act, the Legislature found that the welfare of the State of Minnesota
requires the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound
industry and commerce to prevent, as far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands
and areas of chronic unemployment and to prevent econorruc deterioration, and the provision of
necessary health care services and employment opportunities; and
WHEREAS, Mankato Rehabilitation Center, Inc. d /b /a MRCI, a nonprofit corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Company has proposed that the City
issue its commercial development revenue note in the approximate principal amount of $3,000,000
(the "Note to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 20,000
square foot facility in the City for use as a training and rehabilitation facility for disabled persons (the
"Project and
WHEREAS, the full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged to the Project or for the
payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate the selective development of the community and
surrounding area and help to provide the range of services and employment opportumnes required
by the population; and the Project will assist the City in achieving those objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised by representatives of the Company that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is available only on a hnuted basis and at
such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, and
WHEREAS, no pubhc official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the
Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Project was held on the date hereof, after nonce was published
and materials made available for public inspection at the City Hall, all as required by the Act and
RESOLUTION 2006
Secnon 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, at which public hearing all those
appearing who desired to speak were heard and written comments were accepted; and
WHEREAS, the undertaking of the proposed Project and the issuance of the Note to fmance the
cost thereof will further promote the pubhc purposes and legislative objectives of the Act by the
assisting in the training and rehabilitation for persons with disabilities
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota (the "Council as follows:
1. The Council hereby indicates its preliminary intent to undertake the Project pursuant to the
Act and pursuant to a revenue agreement between the City and the Company upon such terms and
conditions with provisions for revision from time to tune as necessary, so as to produce income and
revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of and interest on the Note in the total principal
amount not exceed $3,000,000 to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the Project.
2. On the basis of information available to this City it appears, and the City hereby finds, that
the Project constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful m connection with one or more
revenue producing enterprises engaged in providing services within the meanuig of Subdivision 2(b)
of Section 469.153 of the Act, that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 469 152 of the
Act, that the Project is located in the City, at a site which is readily accessible to residents of the City
and the surrounding community; that the availability of financing under the Act and the willingness
of the City to furnish such financing will be a substantial inducement to the Company to undertake
the Project, and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to assure that adequate trainuig
and rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities will be available to, among others, the
residents of the City at a reasonable cost.
3. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, in its capacity as Bond Counsel is authorized
to assist in the preparation and review of the necessary documents relating to the Project, to consult
with the City, the City Attorney, the Company, the original purchaser or purchasers of the Note, and
their respective attorneys, as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and provisions of the
Note and as to the covenants and other provisions of the revenue agreement and other necessary
documents and to submit such documents to the Council for final approval.
4. The Project is hereby given prehmmary approval by the City subject to consideration of
information, if any, presented and further subject to final approval by this Council, the Company,
and the purchaser of the Note as to the ultimate details of the financing of the Project.
5. The Company has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all costs incurred by the
City in connection with the financing of the Project, including legal fees, whether or not the Project
is carned to completion will be paid by the Company
6. In anticipation of the approval of the Project by the State of Minnesota, Department of
Employment and Economic Development, the issuance of the Note to finance all or a porton of
the Project, and m order that completion of the Project will not be unduly delayed when approved,
the Company is hereby authonzed to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of that
portion of the costs of the Project to be financed form the proceeds of the Note as the Company
considers necessary, including the use of intenm, short -term financing, subject to reimbursement
(887703vI 2
from the proceeds of the Note if and when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of
the City.
7. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the
expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project
or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Note shall not constitute a charge, hen or
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City, except the revenues and
proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, or the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holders
of the Note shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay
the outstanding principal on the Note or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against
any property of the City The Note shall recite in substance that the Note, including interest
thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof The
Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any consntunonal or statutory
limitation.
8. This adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obligation on the
part of the City or the City Council to issue revenue bonds for the Project nor does it constitute an
approval or waiver by the City of any land use, planning, permitting or other municipal approvals
required for the Project.
ADOPTED this 18 day of April, 2006.
A 11 'PST:
James D. Verbrugge, Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2006
William H Droste, Mayor
Motion by. Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted Against
Members Absent.
1887703v1 3
1887703v1
RESOLUTION 2006
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
I, the undersigned, being the duly appointed, acting and qualified Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Rosemount do hereby certify that I have examined the City of Rosemount records and the Minute
Book of said City for the meeting of the 18` of Apnl, 2006 and that the attached copy of the
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT AND THE
ISSUANCE OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE PURSUANT
TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.155 AND AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS was approved and is a true and correct
copy of the City Proceedings relating to said Resolution
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of said City this day of
2006.
James D Verbrugge, Deputy City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
April 12, 2006
Mr Jamie Verbrugge, Administrator
Mr Jeff May, Finance Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
RE Mankato Rehabilitation Center, Inc (MRCI) Request for Tax Exempt Financing
Gentlemen:
The City of Rosemount has been asked to issue bonds on behalf of the borrower, Mankato Rehabilitation
Center, Inc (MRCI} for the construction of a 20,000 square foot building on 5.521 acres of land near the
intersection of Highway 3 and County Road 42 in Rosemount MRCI's programs currently located in
Lakeville and Burnsville would be combined at this new facility The primary activities will include
employment transition services (lob training); workshop employment including subcontracted packaging
and assembly; day training and, rehabilitation and support. There are 110 consumers (clients) and about 25
staff.
Bond proceeds of up to $2,640,000 will be used to finance land and construction of the facility The total
cost of $3,300,000 is financed by the bond proceeds and cash of $660,000. The cost components are
estimated as follows:
Land 51,000,000
Building $2,033,000
Architect/Engineer 165,000
Financing 102,000
Total $3,300,000
SpnngstedIncorporated
380 Jacrtson Street, Sude 300
Sant Paul, MN 55101 -2887
Tel 651 223 -3000
Fax 651-223.3002
www springsted corn
Wells Fargo will be the underwriter (initial purchaser of the bonds). The bonds will be secured by debt
service coverage of 125% of annual debt service along with liquidity of $500,000 to be held at Wells Fargo
Bank at all times, which serves as a debt service reserve fund. The bonds will also be secured by a first
mortgage and an assignment of rents and leases on the facility being constructed The term of the bonds
is up to 21 years with a 20 year amortization Wells Fargo will hold the bonds for the entire bond term. The
bonds will not be rated and restrictions on placement with private investments required by the City's Tax
Exempt Financing Policy will not be necessary as the bonds will not be placed with private investors,
MRCI expects to begin construction August of 2006 with completion by March 31, 2007
Public Sector Advisors
Rosemount, Minnesota
April 12, 2006
Page 2
Considerations'
1) Does the project provide a positive benefit to the City?
Economic Base -The proposal provides full -time employment for 25 to eventually 35 people who will
be assisting 110 to eventually 125 clients who will transition to jobs
Education- Education is a primary function of MRCI Training adults for gainful employment and
providing work experience allows adults to become self- supporting gainfully employed members of the
community.
Community Services- MRCI provides community services that complement employment services
provided by counties.
2) Is the application complete with all fees paid?
The applicant has completed the application, as requested, and followed all steps outlined in the City's
policy The application fee has been paid. They have agreed to pay the administrative fee plus all out of
pocket costs.
3) Are the bonds structured to protect the City's assets and resources?
The only revenues pledged are those of Mankato Rehab'Matron Center, Inc (MRCI). The Issuer is not subject
to any liability related to this transaction nor shall any holder of the bonds have the right to compel the
exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay the bonds or the interest thereon The bonds do not
constitute a pecuniary liability, general or moral ooligation, charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable
upon any property of the Issuer.
The City and its representatives are held harmless should any legal challenges be made regarding the
bonds. The City's policy requires a statement of indemnification stating that the applicant agrees to
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all losses, claims
damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees incurred in their defense, to which the City, its
officers, employees and agents may become subject in connection with the City's consideration. issuance
or sale of the bonds for the Applicant s project and the carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this
agreement and any resolutions adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with the
issuance of its bonds for this project.
4) How is the likelihood of default minimized?
The $500,000 reserve along with cash used to finance a portion of the building of $660,000 provides capital
of 33% of the project cost that the borrower would lose in the case of a default This is a large stake
providing a strong incentive for repayment. The bank would have ownership of the facility in the case of
default, and could sell the building or use t to generate revenue streams to service the bonds Required
coverage of 125% of annual debt service provides a small contingency on an annual basis Wells Fargo will
not be placing the bonds with other investors.
Rosemount, Minnesota
April 12, 2006
Page 3
The impact of non repayment of the bonds on the City of Rosemount's credit rating is negligible Rating
agencies have indicated that conduit debt does not reflect the City's ability to repay, only that of the
borrower
5) Is the transaction administratively manageable?
After completing the closing document signatures, the transaction will be administered by MRCI and Wells
Fargo Bank. Unless there is a change to the covenants or bona schedule, the City will not need to be
involved. The County should report this Issue in their Financial Statements in the Notes section, not on the
balance sheet.
6) Impact on the City of Rosemount's ability to issue other bonds
These bonds are bank qualified, meaning the City does not intend to issue more than $10,000,000 in bonds
during 2006, including this issue There is an understanding that the City will stay within $10,000 000
However, if circumstances require the City to issue bonds causing the total to exceed this cap and be sold
as non -bank qualified (reducing the tax exempt benefit to banks) the additional estimated cost in interest
rates will be paid by MRCI.
In conclusion, the applicant has complied with the City's policy for Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing.
The resulting transaction saves interest costs for MRCI by using the City's tax- exempt bonding authority,
but does not obligate or impact the City's finances today or in the future
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
Terri Y Heaton, Senior Vice President
Client Representative
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
April 7, 2006
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55430
Attn: Jeff May
Wells Fargo Brokerage Services LLC
608 Second Avenue South
Tenth Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55479
Attn: Mark Schuler
Ladies and Gentlemen
1892513'1
Mankato Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
15 Map Dnve
Mankato, MN 56001
Attn: Pam Year
SAINT PAUL OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING WWWBRIGGS COM
MEMBER LEX MUNDI A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS
2200 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 977 -8400
FACSIMILE (612) 957 -8650
Re: City of Rosemount, Minnesota $3,000,000 Commercial Facility Revenue
Note, Series 2006A (MRCI Project)
WRITERS DIRECT DIAL
(651) 808 -6625
WRITER'S E-MAIL
mdyrseth @briggs com
We have been asked to serve as Bond Counsel for a proposed revenue note (the "Note
to be issued by the City of Rosemount, Minnesota (the "Issuer and purchased by Wells Fargo
Brokerage Services LLC (the "Bank The proceeds of the Note will be loaned by the Issuer to
Mankato Rehabilitation Center, Inc a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Company and
used to pay for certain costs incurred by the Company in connection with the construction of a
new facility.
In performing our services as Bond Counsel, our client will be the Issuer. Our principal
responsibility as Bond Counsel is to provide the Issuer, the Company and the Bank an expert
opimon (the "Bond Opmion upon which each of them and the holders of the Bonds may rely,
as to (i) the validity and enforceability of the Note and the Issuer's obligations under the
financing documents, and (ii) exemption of interest on the Note from federal and Minnesota
income taxes We will also assume pnncipal responsibility for draftmg the financing documents
and any security documents agreed to by the parties.
We do, not assume any responsibility for any disclosures made to the Bank regarding the
Company, the Project, or the security for the Note. We do not expect to give any opinion with
respect to the Company's participation in the financing or the status of title or the pnonty of any
mortgage lien or security interest securing the Note As to these and other matters the parties
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
April 7, 2006
Page 2
will be relying upon the opinion to be given by counsel for the Company or upon a policy of title
insurance.
The Bond Counsel opinion will be executed and delivered by us m written form on the
date the Note is purchased by the Bank and will be based on facts and law existing as of that
date Upon delivery of the Bond Opinion, our responsibilities as Bond Counsel will be
concluded with respect to this financing.
In rendering the Bond Opimon, we will rely upon representations of the Issuer, the
Company and the Bank set forth in the fmancing documents, the certified proceedings, and other
eettificattons of public officials, officials of the Company and other persons (including
certifications as to the use of Note proceeds and various tax matters) without undertaking to
verify the same by independent investigation. As Bond Counsel, we do not review the financial
condition of the Company or the fmancial feasibility of the financing, and we will express no
opinion relating to the foregoing
We wish,to point out to the parties that while the Bank and the Company have engaged
separate counsel for this transaction, we have represented the Bank from time to time in the past
on legal matters unrelated to the present financing and may do so in the future While these
related and unrelated representations may be "adverse" under applicable ethics rules, this letter
will confirm our understanding that the parties are agreeable to our acting as Bond Counsel in
this proposed financing notwithstanding our representation of the Bank on unrelated matters. If
our understanding is not correct, please contact us
We understand that the Company will be responsible for payment of our fees and
disbursements as Bond Counsel Based upon: (i) our current understanding of the terms,
structure, size and schedule of the financing represented by the Note, (n) the time we anticipate
devoting to the financing, we estimate that our fee as Bond Counsel for this transaction will be
approximately $15,000, plus disbursements. Such fee may vary: (i) if the principal amount of
Note actually issued differs significantly from the amount stated above, (n) if the manner m
which the Note is marketed (pnvate placement, public offering, etc) changes, (in) if material
changes in the structure of the financing occur, or (iv) if unusual or unforeseen circumstances
anse which require a significant increase in our time or responsibility If the Note is in fact
issued we will submit our statements for services and disbursements to the Company at or
promptly after the closing.
If the transaction is cancelled before closing for whatever reason, we would then submit
our bill to the Company for the time expended and disbursements made by us to the date of
termination at our standard hourly rates.
If the foregoing omits or misstates any item, please contact me. Otherwise, we will
assume our participation as Bond Counsel and the scope of our engagement as Bond Counsel are
1892513v1
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
April 7, 2006
Page 3
acceptable to you. We are pleased to be working on this matter and look forward to bnngmg it
to a successful conclusion.
MMD /lmc
I892513vI
4
9 ROSEMCLJNT
April 10, 2006
Pam Year, Executive Director
bf&CI Headquarters Mankato
15 Map Dave
PO Box 328
Mankato, MN 56002
Re: MRCI Administrative Site Plan Review
Dear Ms. Year:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Please accept this letter as notice of conditional approval of the site plan materials received by
the City of Rosemount's Community Development Department on April 6, 2006 for the above
referenced project. Conformance with these conditions will enable your project to move on to
building permit reyiew. The site plan is approved subject to.
1. Recording of the JJT Business Park First Addition Plat.
2. Approval of a building permit
3. Revise the Landscaping Plans as follows:
a. Screen the loading dock area by adding a double row of six -foot (6') evergreen trees
fifteen feet (15') on- center along the east side of the loading docks
b. Add at least four ornamental shade trees to the four parking lot bump -outs along the
front (east) side of the building.
4. Submission of a Landscape Guarantee equal to one hundred and twenty five percent
(125 of the value of the landscape plantings illustrated on the Site and Foundation
Landscape plans.
5. Reposinon the walking trail on the north end of the site to provide at least a five -foot
(5') separation from the edge of the future parking area and relocate the eastern entrance
to this trail out of the northern row of parking to allow direct pedestrian access.
6. Any portion of the trash enclosure located above grade shall be constructed of the same
materials as the principal building.
7. The fence for the shelter area abutting the north side of the building shall conform to all
City standards and must be approved under a separate fence permit.
SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS
Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
651- 423 -4411 TDD /TTY 651- 423 -6219 Fax 651- 423 -5203
www.ci rosemount.mn.us
8. Conformance with all requirements and condition of the City Engineer outlined m the
memo Ted Witkowski of WSB dated Apnl 7, 2006 (attached).
Please make the changes listed above and submit the request matenals as part of your building
and grading permit apphcattons. If you have any question, I can be reach at 651 -322 -2090
Sincerely,
son R Lindahl, A.I.0 P
Planner
Enclosure
cc: Gary Fahl, I S Engineers and Architects (w/ encl.)
Alan Strand, Building Official (w/ encL)
Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer (w/ end.)
April 7, 2006
I have completed my review of the MRCI Rosemount Building preliminary plans received from I
S Engineers Architects The documents reviewed included the following
1. MRCI Preliminary Site Utility Plan Sheet C2.11 undated -plot date 4/5/06
2. MRCI Preliminary Site Lighting Plan Sheet C2 12 undated -plot date 4/5/06
3. MRCI Preliminary Overall Grading Plan Sheet C3 11 undated -plot date 4/5/06
4. MRCI Preliminary Site Grading Plan Sheet C3 12 undated -plot date 4/5/06
5. MRCI Drainage Map Calculations Plan Sheet C3 13 undated -plot date 4/5/06
6. MRCI Preliminary Landscape Plan (FP)Sheet C3 12 undated -plot date 4/5/06
7 MRC1 Preliminary Landscape Plan (TE) Sheet C3 11 undated -plot date 4/5/06
8. MRCI Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Sheet C4 11 undated -plot date 4/5/06
9. MRCI Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Sheet C4 12 undated -plot date 4/5/06
The development plans and storm water management plan was previously reviewed on February
14 2006 Based on my review I offer the following comments and observations for your
consideration.
Summary
1. The Storm Water Management Plan for rate control and water quality is being provided
off -site in the Business Park Pond being constructed as part of the JJT Business Park
plan. The issue of a ponding fee for each of the lots in the Business Park appears to be
applicable
2. The storm sewer design capacity appears to meet the City requirements The system
design may require some revisions which will be outlined in detail below
3. The grading plans will require additional information to be consistent with the City
Engineering guidelines (see comments below)
4. The proposed storm sewer layout on the west property line appears require work off -site
on the Railroad property In addition, the storm sewer serving this area would appear to
require a drainage and utility easement for the off -site runoff I am recommending a
grading swale to the south which could possible eliminate the storm sewer on the west
property boundary
The following consists of the detail review comments for the documents provided for review.
MRCI Preliminary Site Utility Plan Sheet C2.11
1. The utility plan CB -3 is designed with 1 75' of build which does not appear to be feasible
with a 15" diameter pipe to MH -2 The site engineer should evaluate if this structure can
be built
2. The proposed 10" pipe from DI -10 DI -11 on the west property boundary is less than the
15" diameter minimum in the City standards The pipe diameters should be increased to
the City minimum if this system is going to remain in the plan
3. The 24" storm sewer pipe and the DI -10 DI -1 system should be located in a drainage
and utility easement to serve the off -site runoff It may be beneficial if the site engineer
created a drainage swale on the west property boundary in the drainage and utility
easement to direct the storm water to the south into the drainage swale located
southwest of the site
4. The proposed pipe slopes should be added to the plans
5. The riprap at the storm sewer system outfall on the southwest should be shown on the
plans The nprap volume should be consistent with the City standard detail plates for the
24" RCP
MRCI Preliminary Overall Grading Plan Sheet C3.11
1. The emergency overflow routes and elevations should be added to the plan to be
consistent with the City Engineering guidelines The direction of flow should be added to
the plans
2. The overflow from the southwest corner of the site should be directed southwest into the
drainage swale and not to the site entrance at the cul -de -sac The grading plan of the
proposed berm on the southwest corner could be adjusted to create the overflow to the
southwest
3. The lot corner elevations and benchmarks should be added to the plan
4. The proposed open space on the north end of the site does not appear to be at the
2 00% minimum outlined in the City Engineering guidelines It is recommended that the
site engineer review the proposed grades in this area for drainage
MRCI Preliminary Site Grading Plan Sheet C3.12
1. It is requested that the overflow elevation on the east curb line south on CB -9 be a
minimum of 0 5' above the rim elevation
2. The invert elevations for CB -8 CB -9 should be verified. The elevations appear to have
a typo on this sheet
3. The 1 75' structure build of CB -3 and the 2 11' build of CB -9 should be verified The
proposed structure builds do not appear to be feasible.
MRCI Preliminary Landscape Plan (FP) Sheet C3.12 MRCI Preliminary Landscape Plan
(TE) Sheet C3.11
1. The plan sheet numbers should be verified The sheet numbers appear to be duplicates
of the grading plan sheet numbers
MRCI Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Sheet C4.11
1. The installation area of DI -10 DI -11 on the west property boundary should be
encompassed be silt fence if the structures remain in the design.
2. The silt fence on the north end of the site should encompass the proposed trail -path. The
silt fence should be between the proposed infiltration pond and the path.
3. The plan should include silt fence downstream of the proposed 24' RCP storm sewer
outfall on the south west corner of the site.
4. The catch basins located in the cul -de -sac (future road) should include inlet protection for
any sediment tracked from the site
MRCI Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Sheet C4.12
1. The receiving waters in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Notes should include
Wachter Lake (DNR 345W) It is anticipated the discharge from the area will be ultimately
directed to this water body on an interim basis until the storm water management plan
routing is constructed.
This completes my review comments of the MRCI site plans provided by I S Engineers
Architects If you have any questions concerning my comments feel free to give me a call
Thanks
Ted Witkowski
Engineering Specialist
WSB Associates
701 Xenia Ave So Ste 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Phone 763 541 -4800
Direct 763 287 -7165
Fax 763- 541 -1700
tedw(awsbenq corn