Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.c. Receive Feasibility Report / Set Public Hearing , Water & Sanitary Sewer to Armory, City Project #236 & #237
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 1992 AGENDA ITEM:Receive Feasibility/Set Public Hrg AGENDA SECTION: Water & Sanitary Sewer to Armory,Prj 236&237 Old Business PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NOJ City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director ATTACEMENTS: Memo, Resolutions, Mailing List APP Public Hearings, Feasibility Reports The Council has previously been, apprised of 11 the o6ncepts f;9 -the public utilities required to serve the Armory site. The purpose of todays agenda item is to receive the feasibility reports for the water and sanitary sewer utilities and set a public hearing for these projects. The storm drain utilities require further investigation and that feasibility reportwill be presented at a later date., The three utilities have very little in common in relation to physical location and assessable property, making it easy to separate the utilities into three distinct projects. The timing of the projects is based on the premise that construction of the Armory building will begin in late September or October this year. We should wait until all signatures are in place for the Armory before awarding any contracts for the utilities. The attached memo provides a`brief explanation of the feasibility reports. Staff recommends that the Council receive the feasibility reports for Project No.'s 236 and 237 and sets public hearings for these projects on July 21, 1992. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MAYOR McMEMONY COUNCIL MEMBERS: MEMO KLASSEN STAATS WILLCOX WIPPERMANN BUD OSMUNDSON, CITY ENGINEER JUNE 11, 1992 ARMORY SITE UTILITIES The purpose of this memo is to summarize the attached Feasibility Reports prepared by OSM and SEH and to give an overview of Staff's -recommendations. The Water Utility Feasibility Report was completed by the firm of OSM. Brian Bourassa, P. E., from OSM will be present at the meeting to give an overview of the watermain feasibility. This project has been designated as City Project No. 237. The Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Report was completed by the firm of SEH. Dave Simons, P.E., of SEH will be present at the meeting to give an overview of the sanitary sewer feasibility. This project has been designated as City Project No. 236. 1. WATER UTILITIES - PROJECT NO. 237 The recommended water service to the site is to be accomplished by an extension of a 12" main along the west ditch of Trunk Highway 3 from 143rd Street northerly to the Armory site. In addition a 12" main would be extended from Trunk Highway 3 to the 6" main at the High School along 142nd Street. These two 12" lines conform to the Comprehensive Water System Plan. The 12" line to the High School will greatly enhance the volume available for firefighting at the High School which was a major safety concern pointed out in the Comprehensive Water System Plan. This 12" line also improves the pressure and volume to the proposed Armory site. The Consultant, OSM Engineering, also advises that the proposed 16" main from the new tower along Connemara Trail be completed as soon as possible to provide complete fire protection to the Armory site. Staff estimates that the -Connemara Trail line should be installed within 2-5 years. The total estimated cost of the proposed 12" watermain project is $188,000. The project may be divided into two parts due to the construction along 142nd Street. The first part would involve the placement of the 12" line along Highway 3 to the Armory site to provide construction water for the building construction. The second 12 line along 142nd Street to the High School would be constructed after school is out in the spring of 1993. The proposed funding for this watermain project is to assess Independent School District 196 $94,600.00 with the remaining $93,400.00 to be paid for out of the Armory and Core Funds. 2. SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES - PROJECT NO. 236 SEH completed the sanitary sewer feasibility report for the Armory site. They suggested three options for the sanitary facilities, which are summarized as follows: OPTION A: This option consists of the installation of a lateral from Lift Station #2 along Upper 138th Street then southerly and westerly along property lines with a service to the Armory. It would also serve three parcels on the east side of Trunk Highway 3. The estimated cost of this option is approximately $237,000.00. OPTION B: This option consists of the installation of a portion of the 27" trunk facility along Connemara Trail which will be described in Option C. It also includes the relocation of Lift Station #2 from its present location on 138th Street to Connemara Trail. In addition, an 8" lateral would run southerly and westerly from Connemara Trail to service the Armory and three parcels on the east side of Highway 3. This option does provide a limited service area in addition to the Armory site which is dependent on the capacity of the 6" forcemain from Lift Station #2. The project cost estimate is $459,000.00. OPTION C: This option involves the installation of a major trunk facility all the way from Highway 3 along Connemara Trail then cross-country to the in-place Metro Waste interceptor in Section 28. This option involves approximately 9,000 feet of sanitary sewer and the elimination of the Lift Station. This trunk facility would be able to serve a large area north and west of the Armory site. SEH will provide more details as to the service areas in their presentation. This cost estimate is $1,114,000.00. These three options were considered by SEH and Staff and we have agreed that Option B is our recommended sanitary sewer route. Option A has the advantage of being the cheapest, but the disadvantages of the total disruption of Upper 138th Street and the limit of servicing only the Armory site and the three parcels on the east side of Highway 3. Option B has a cost of approximately $200,000 higher than Option A, but does service a larger area and does include the installation of a portion of the permanent trunk facility which will be needed in the future to serve the area north and west of the Armory site. The 8" lateral line which would run south from Connemara Trail and then west to the Armory site would be required for both Option B and C. Therefore the added cost of the relocation of Lift Station #2 which is estimated at $75,000 is the only detriment to the Option B. Option C does provide a permanent solution to servicing the Armory site and the areas north and west of the Armory without a Lift Station. However the line which is east of Brazil Avenue would be installed through areas which are currently used for agriculture and are not scheduled to be in the MUSA area until the Rosemount Treatment Plant is expanded or until 2000. Therefore all of the cost of that line would not be assessable because it would not provide benefit until the treatment plant is expanded. Furthermore, the City could not pick up any sanitary sewer access charges to pay for this trunk until it is within the MUSA. Therefore to install that option now would mean we would be K providing approximately $500,000 worth of infrastructure and would have to pay the bonding cost for that until such time that it could be paid for with assessments and sanitary access charges. At 8% interest over 5 years until the treatment plant is expanded, this $500,000 would yield approximately $40,000 per year for a total of $200,000. As a comparison, Option B includes $75,000 to relocate Lift Station #2, plus operating costs of approximately $4,000-$5,000 per year for the next 5 years which has a total cost of $100,000.00. Therefore, Option B appears to be a more reasonable option at this time. 3. STORM DRAIN - CITY PROJECT NO. 238 The City has several options under investigation for providing storm drain facilities for the Armory site which have previously been discussed with the Council. At this time, due to questions regarding pending property acquisitions and final Armory site plan design, the options have not been narrowed down for a Staff recommendation. The cost estimates range from $200,000 - $700,000 depending on final design totally coming from the Storm Drain Core or Armory funds. These options for the utilities and funding were reviewed with the Utility Commission on June 8, 1992. The Administrator can provide you with an oral update of their considerations if required. A tentative schedule for the projects and further details can be found in the Feasibility Reports. 3 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1992- A 992 - A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT ARMORY SITE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 236 WHEREAS, the City Council deemed it necessary and expedient that the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, construct certain improvements, to -wit: City Project #236, Armory Site Sanitary Sewer Improvements, in the City as described in and in accordance with the feasibility report prepared by Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, Inc., Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised by the Consulting Engineers that said sanitary sewer improvements, City Project #236 are feasible, and should best be made as proposed, and the Consulting Engineers' report to this effect has heretofore been received by Council, and filed with the City Clerk. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount accepts the feasibility report for City Project #236 and places it on file. ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1992. E. B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1992 - A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ARMORY SITE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #236 WHEREAS, the City Council received the feasibility report and found the project feasible for Armory Site Sanitary Sewer Improvements, City Project #236, on the 16th day of June, 1992; and WHEREAS, the statute provided that no such improvements shall be made until the Council has held a public hearing on such improvements following mailed notice and two publications thereof in the official newspaper stating time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated costs thereof, and the area proposed to be assessed, in accordance with the law; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing will be held at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A to consider said proposed improvements. 2. The nature of the improvements, the estimated cost of each major portion thereof, and the areas proposed to be assessed therefor are described in the form of Notice of Hearing hereto attached. 3. The notice of said public hearing shall be in substantially the form contained in the notice hereto attached. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be given two publications in the official newspaper. Said publications shall be one week apart, and at least three days shall elapse between the last publication and the hearing. Not less than ten days before the hearing the Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the owner of each parcel of land within the area proposed to be assessed as described in the notice. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown to be such on the records of the County Auditor or, if the tax statements in the County are mailed by the County Treasurer, on the records of the County Treasurer. As to properties not listed on the records of the County Auditor or the County Treasurer, the Clerk shall ascertain such ownership by any practicable means and give mailed notice to such owners. ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1992. ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Seconded by: K E. B. McMenomy, Mayor "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS ARMORY SITE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 236 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota will meet at 8:00 o'clock p.m. or as loom thereafter as possible, Tuesday, July 21, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, to consider the following improvements: Project #236 - Armory Site Sanitary Sewer The nature of improvements shall include the construction of sanitary sewer and restoration as required. The total estimated cost of said improvements is $459,000. The total assessment cost of said improvement is $459,000. The area proposed to be assessed for the foregoing improvements would generally be all that area generally described as Parcel Identification Numbers: 34-02010- 050-80; 34-02010-040-80; 34-02010-030-80; all located in Section 20, Township 115, Range 19, Rosemount, Minnesota recorded in the office of Dakota County, Minnesota. Such person(s) as desires to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Written or oral opinion will be considered. Dated this 16th day of June, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Susan M. Walsh City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota MAILING LIST ARMORY SITE SANITARY SEWER CITY PROJECT NO. 236 PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 21, 1992 8:00 P.M. Louis Gramsey 825 Crystal Lake Rd Burnsville, MN 55337 Martin P. & Ritha Lucking 13830 So. Robert Trl Rosemount, MN 55068 Dean C. & Bernice V. Falls 13836 So. Robert Trl Rosemount, MN 55068 34-02010-050-80 34-02010-040-80 34-02010-030-80 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1992- A 992 - A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT ARMORY SITE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 237 WHEREAS, the City Council deemed it necessary and expedient that the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, construct certain improvements, to -wit: City Project #237, Armory Site Watermain Improvements, in the City as described in and in accordance with the feasibility report prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised by the Consulting Engineers that said watermain improvements, City Project #237 are feasible, and should best be made as proposed, and the Consulting Engineers' report to this effect has heretofore been received by Council, and filed with the City Clerk. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount accepts the feasibility report for City Project #237 and places it on file. ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1992. E. B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1992 - A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ARMORY SITE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #237 WHEREAS, the City Council received the feasibility report and found the project feasible for Armory Site Watermain Improvements, City Project #237, on the 16th day of June, 1992; and WHEREAS, the statute provided that no such improvements shall be made until the Council has held a public hearing on such improvements following mailed notice and two publications thereof in the official newspaper stating time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated costs thereof, and the area proposed to be assessed, in accordance with the law; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing will be held at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A to consider said proposed improvements. 2. The nature of the improvements, the estimated cost of each major portion thereof, and the areas proposed to be assessed therefor are described in the form of Notice of Hearing hereto attached. 3. The notice of said public hearing shall be in substantially the form contained in the notice hereto attached. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be given two publications in the official newspaper. Said publications shall be one week apart, and at least three days shall elapse between the last publication and the hearing. Not less than ten days before the hearing the Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the owner of each parcel of land within the area proposed to be assessed as described in the notice. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown to be such on the records of the County Auditor or, if the tax statements in the County are mailed by the County Treasurer, on the records of the County Treasurer. As to properties not listed on the records of the County Auditor or the County Treasurer, the Clerk shall ascertain such ownership by any practicable means and give mailed notice to such owners. ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1992. ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Seconded by: E E. B. McMenomy, Mayor "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS ARMORY SITE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 237 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota -will meet at 8:00 o'clock p.m. or as soom thereafter as possible, Tuesday, July 21, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, to consider the following improvements: Project #237 Armory Site Watermain The nature of improvements shall include the construction of watermain and restoration as required. The total estimated cost of said improvements is $187,700. The total assessment cost of said improvement is $187,700. The area proposed to be assessed for the foregoing improvements would generally be all that area generally described as Parcel Identification Numbers: 34-03700- 040-06; 34-03700-210-06; 34-02010-022-60; 34-02010-043-60; 34-02010- 031-60; all located in Section 20 and 29, Township 115, Range 19, Rosemount, Minnesota recorded in the office of Dakota County, Minnesota. Such person(s) as desires to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Written or oral opinion will be considered. Dated this 16th day of June, 1992. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Susan M. Walsh City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota MAILING LIST ARMORY SITE WATER1AIN CITY PROJECT NO. 237 PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 21, 1992 8:00 P.M. Independent School District 196 34-03700-040-06 14445 Diamond Path 34-03700-210-06 Rosemount, MN 55068 Al Monk 34-02010-022-60 13975 South Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 Richard L. Battaglia 34-02010-043-60 P. O. Box K Rosemount, MN 55068 Earl J. & Karen A. Tourdot 34-02010-031-60 2965 Bruce Ct. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 1 1 l 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT ROSEMOUNT ARMORY SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 236 ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA SEH FILE NO. 92040 JUNE 16, 1992 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Mi/Ie ota.1,2 -:,� (/ , DATE: June 16, 1992 EG. NO. 19699 REVIEWED BY: DATE: June 16. 1992 Air AA&WASE" ENGINEERS N ARCHITECTS N PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5108 612490-2000 800325-2055 June 16, 1992 RE: ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ROSEMOUNT ARMORY SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 236 SEH FILE NO. 92040 City of Rosemount 2875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Attn: Mr. Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director/Bldg. Official Dear Mr. Wasmund: In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared the attached preliminary report for the construction of sanitary sewer facilities to serve the Rosemount Armory. This report includes a discussion of the project options, as well as drawings r and cost estimates. ow From an engineering standpoint, all options discussed in this report are feasible. A policy decision may need to be made by the City Council and staff regarding the extent of potential sewer service that the City wishes to provide at this time. We would be pleased to review this report with you in further detail. Sincerely, SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. avid F. Simons, P.E. Project Manager Daniel R. Boxrud, P.E. Department Manager DFS/cih Attachment SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ST. CLOUD, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON, WI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Project No. 236 provides for the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the Rosemount Armory. Several options for serving the Armory with sanitary sewer are discussed in this report. These options are summarized below. Option A: Lateral to Lift Station No. 2 This option provides for the installation of approximately 1,700 linear feet of 8" lateral sanitary main and appurtenances from the Armory to Lift Station No. 2 through the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park. The total estimated cost of this option is $237,000. This cost is proposed to be obtained from a combination of assessments, the Armory Bond Account, and the Sanitary Sewer Core Facility Fund. This option provides sewer service only to the Armory and to several parcels located on the east side of S.T.H. 3 across from the Armory. Option B: Trunk to Lift Station No. 2 This option provides for the installation of approximately 1,110 linear feet of 27" trunk sanitary main and 1,470 linear feet of 8" main and appurtenances from the Armory to Lift Station No. 2 via Connemara Trail. This option also includes the relocation of Lift Station No. 2 to Connemara Trail. The total estimated cost of this option is $459,000. This cost is proposed to be obtained from a combination of assessments, the Armory Bond Account, and the Sanitary Sewer Core Facility Fund. This option provides service to the Armory and to several parcels located on the east side of S.T.H. 3. In addition, this option could also provide limited future service to areas north and west of the Armory. Executive Summary - 1 rr] Option C: Trunk to MWCC Interceptor This option provides for the installation of approximately ij 7,970 linear feet of 27" trunk sanitary main and 1,470 R linear feet of 8" main and appurtenances from the Armory to the inplace MWCC Interceptor located near C.S.A.H. 42. The total estimated cost of this option is $1,114,000. This cost is proposed to be obtained from a combination of assessments, the Sanitary Sewer Core Facility Fund, and the Armory Bond Account. This option would provide service to areas east of the Armory and could ultimately provide service to most areas of the City located north and west of the Armory through future extensions of the trunk main. i Executive Summary - 2 service that the City wishes to provide in conjunction with this project. If development is not expected to continue north, east and west of the Armory, then Option A should be chosen because it provides no potential for future service to other areas. However, if development is expected to continue in these areas, Options B and C should be considered. 3.2 CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS 3.2.1 Option A: Lateral to Lift Station No. 2 Option A is shown in Drawing No. 2 and consists of approximately 1,700 linear feet of 8 inch sanitary main and appurtenances from the Armory site to Lift Station No. 2 through the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park. This option includes a subsurface crossing of S.T.H. 3 and utility relocation and restoration of Upper 138th Street in the mobile home park. In addition, berming will be required to provide adequate cover over the main in the low area west of the mobile home park. Minor modifications ■ will also need to be made to the lift station. Easements will be required from three parcels on the east side of S.T.H. 3 and also from the mobile home park. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to cross S.T.H. 3. 3.2.2 Option B: Brockway Trunk to Lift Station No. 2 Option B is shown in Drawing No. 3 and consists of approximately 1,110 linear feet of 27 inch trunk main and 1,470 linear feet of 8 inch main and appurtenances. The alignment runs from the Armory to Lift Station No. 2 along Connemara Trail. Part 3 - 2 This option includes a subsurface crossing of S.T.H. 3 and will require restoration of Connemara Trail and Brianboru Avenue in the mobile home park. In addition, Lift Station No. 2 will need to be relocated approximately 550 feet north to the intersection of Connemara Trail and Brianboru Avenue. The existing pumps and controls will be salvaged and reinstalled in the new lift station structure. The existing 6 inch forcemain and three phase power will be extended to the relocated lift station. Easements will be required from three parcels on the east side of S.T.H. 3 and also from the mobile home park. A permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to cross S.T.H. 3. 3.2.3 Option C: Brockway Trunk to MWCC Interceptor Option C is shown in Drawing No's 4-6 and consists of approximately 7,970 linear feet of 27 inch trunk main and 1,470 linear feet of 8 inch main and appurtenances. The alignment runs from the Armory to the MWCC Interceptor located in the NE Quarter of Section 28. This option includes subsurface crossings under S.T.H. 3 and under three railroad spurs. Permits will be required for these crossings. Restoration requirements include Connemara Trail, Biscayne Avenue, and the agricultural land east of Brazil Avenue. Some berming will be required to provide adequate cover over the main in low areas. Part 3 3 This option also includes abandoning Lift Station No. 2 and installing a gravity connection from the existing lift station location to the trunk main in Connemara Trail. Easements will be required from several parcels on the east side of S.T.H. 3, the mobile home park, Brockway Glass, Inc., and several agricultural properties east of Brazil Avenue. 3.3 EASEMENTS The cost of the easements discussed above are difficult to j estimate without actually having the parcels appraised. Recent appraisals done near the study area indicate that agricultural land costs range from approximately $3,500 to $5,000 per acre, and residential land costs range from approximately $21,000 to $27,000 per acre. In the absence of actual appraisals, costs of $4,500 per acre for agricultural and $25,000 per acre for residential have been estimated for the purpose of comparing the alternatives. The cost estimates in the Appendix include these easement costs. Required easement widths for sanitary sewer are influenced by depth of installation and the type of soils. Traditionally, widths for permanent utility easements in stable soils have been on the order of 2-1/2 times the depth of installation. Recently, OSHA regulations have tightened, and minimum widths have increased to about 3-1/2 times the depth of installation. In addition, installation depths in excess of 20 feet now have special construction require- ments. Accordingly, the required easement widths for deep pipe installation have increased significantly. Part 3 - 4 1 3.4 SERVICE AREAS All three options could provide sanitary sewer service to the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park and Brockway Glass. However, these properties already have sanitary sewer service, and therefore they would be difficult to assess. With the addition of relatively short service lines, all three options could also provide sanitary sewer service to the commercial and residential lots located on each side of S.T.H. 3 adjacent to the Armory. However, it is not known at this time if there is a desire to provide sewer service to these lots. In addition, the total cost to the City would not be reduced by assessing thee additional lots because the amount assessed would equal the extra cost for the service lines. Option A will not provide service to any other areas except those areas stated above. The proposed pipe elevation between the Armory and the lift station is too high to allow for additional development in the lower areas around the IArmory. Option B could provide limited future service to areas north and west of the Armory. These areas could begin to develop, but only to the point permitted by the capacity of the existing 6 inch diameter forcemain at the relocated Lift Station No. 2. Some additional capacity could be obtained by installing larger pumps in the lift station. However, the existing 6 inch diameter forcemain has limited capacity, and would be very expensive to replace with a larger forcemain. Option C has the largest service area of the three options and could ultimately provide service to most areas of the City located east, north and west of the Armory. With this option, only several isolated pockets of low land will be Iunserviceable by gravity. Part 3 - 5 L All three options discussed in this report provide relatively permanent service to the Armory. However, only Option C provides a permanent solution to the development pressure in this part of the City. 3.5 PRESENT WORTH COMPARISON A present worth cost comparison is a realistic method of comparing costs for several different alternatives. This type of comparison involves calculating the present equivalent of all costs associated with an alternative for a given time period. The time period is usually taken to be the normal useful life expectancy of the alternatives. In the case where the alternatives have unequal lives, the time period is usually selected to be a common multiple of these lives. To equitably compare the cost of the three options, the City's operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs for Lift Station No. 2 should be added to Options A and B. (The lift station is abandoned in Option C, and therefore has no 0 & M costs). An analysis period of 50 years is a logical choice for this analysis since 50 years is the estimated useful service life of the trunk main in Option C. The estimated present worth of 0 & M costs for Lift Station No. 2 for the next 50 years is approximately $175,000. This assumes that the pumps and controls will need to be replaced every 20 years and that the lift station will need to be completely replaced every 40 years. Annual costs for routine inspections, electricity, and minor repairs have also been included. Adding the $175,000 in 0 & M costs to Option A and B results in the following present worth costs: Part 3 - 6 Option A: Lateral to Lift Station No. 2 $ 412,000 Option B: Trunk to Lift Station No. 2 $ 634,000 M Option C: Trunk to MWCC Interceptor $1,114,000 Although this provides a more realistic comparison of the ralternatives, it still does not account for the fact that the potential service area of each option is different. The potential service area of Option C is much larger than the other options, and therefore may justify the additional I cost. A comparison of the options strictly on construction cost or present worth is not appropriate because of the different service areas. As previously stated, the City Council and ' staff may need to establish a policy regarding the extent of potential sewer service that the City wishes to provide at this time. This policy would then dictate which option is best for the City. Part 3 - 7 1 1 1 PART 4 L'T LTX WWI T Vwl 4.1 COST ESTIMATES Detailed cost estimates for the construction options previously described are included in the Appendix of this report. These estimates are based on 1992 bid prices and include contingencies and allowances for anticipated overhead costs. The estimates also include approximate land acquisition costs. However, because of the difficulty of determining land costs, it is recommended that appraisals be done to verify actual easement costs. A summary of the total estimated costs (excluding 0 & M costs for Lift Station No. 2) is as follows: Option A: Lateral to Lift Station No. 2 $ 237,000 Option B: Trunk to Lift Station No. 2 $ 459,000 Option C: Trunk to MWCC Interceptor $1,114,000 4.2 ASSESSMENT AREA The City's Assessment/Improvement Policy states that parcels which receive direct benefit from a City improvement are subject to assessments to recover a portion of the project costs. The Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park and Brockway Glass are not considered assessable parcels under any of the options because they are currently served with sanitary sewer. In addition, the Armory parcel is not considered an assessable parcel in accordance with the City's agreement with the Armory. Part 4 - 1 1 Regardless of the option chosen, the following parcels of land receive direct benefit as a result of this improvement, and are subject to assessments provided that they are or can be included in the MUSA. These parcels are located directly across from the Armory site on the east side of S.T.H. 3. BENEFITED PARCELS 34-02010-050-80 34-02010-030-80 34-02010-040-80 4.3 COST RECOVERY 4.3.1 Core Costs Sanitary sewer core costs have been defined as the difference in cost between the actual improvement and a residential equivalent sewer main (8 inch diameter main installed at normal depth). For Options B and C, the difference in cost between the 27 inch diameter trunk main and an 8 inch diameter lateral is considered to be a core cost. No core costs are associated with Option A because it includes only 8" diameter main. Core costs are paid from the Sanitary Sewer Core Facility Fund and are calculated by subtracting the residential equivalent costs from the total estimated project cost. The estimated core costs are listed in part 4.3.4 of this report. 4.3.2 Assessments The Assessment/ Improvement Policy states that the front footage assessment method will be used to assess improvements in existing developments where the project affects parcels that are not zoned similarly. Part 4 - 2 Assessments can be calculated by dividing the total cost of the residential equivalent improvement (Option A) by the total front footage to determine an assessment rate per front foot. Dividing the $237,000 cost for Option A by the 3,400 total front footage results in an assessment rate of $69.71 per front foot. Assuming that only about 400 lineal feet can be assessed against benefiting property, the total amount to be assessed is about $27,900. This amount is listed in the summary table in part 4.3.4 of this report. 4.3.3 Armory Bond Account Subtracting the core costs and the assessed costs from the total estimated project cost leaves the amount to be paid from other City funds. These costs are also shown in Part 4.3.4 of this report. 4.3.4 Summary A summary of anticipated cost recovery for each construction option is as follows: Sanitary Sewer Armory Core Facility Bond Fund Assess. Account Total Option A: Lateral to Lift Station No. 2 Option B: Trunk to Lift Station No. 2 Option C: Trunk to MWCC Interceptor $ 0 $ 27,900 $209,100 $ 237,000 $205,000 $ 27,900 $226,100 $ 459,000 $515,000 $ 27,900 $571,100 $1,114,000 Part 4 - 3 1 1 i 1 PART 5 PROJECT SCHEDULE The schedule for this improvement may vary depending on the chosen option. A preliminary schedule is listed below. It is based on the provisions of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. The schedule assumes that all elements of the improvement, including easement acquisition, are completed in a timely manner. Receive Feasibility Report Hold Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Receive Bids Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction Hold Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Taxes Part 5 - 1 June 16, 1992 July, 1992 September, 1992 October, 1992 November, 1992 Spring, 1993 Summer, 1993 Fall, 1993 May, 1994 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ESTIMATE OF COST OPTION A: LATERAL TO LIFT STATION NO. 2 ITEM UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1. 8" PVC, 10'-20 DEPTH L.F. 1,600 $18.00 $ 28,800 2. 8" SUBSURFACE CROSSING L.F. 100 150.00 15,000 3. MANHOLE L.F. 85 75.00 6,375 4. FILL OVER SANITARY C.Y. 3,200 7.50 24,000 5. CONNECT TO EXISTING L.S. EACH 1 500.00 500 6. CURB & GUTTER RESTORATION L.F. 2,100 10.00 21,000 7. BIT. SURFACE RESTORATION S.Y. 3,300 7.50 24,750 8. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.3 3,000.00 900 9. SODDING S.Y. 2,700 1.80 4,860 10. SEEDING ACRE 0.4 1,200.00 480 11. RCP CULVERT L.F. 80 20.00 1,600 12. EASEMENTS ACRE 1.5 25,000.00 37,500 SUBTOTAL $165,765 10% CONTINGENCIES 16,235 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $182,000 30% OVERHEAD 55,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $237,000 r 1 1 1 1 ESTIMATE OF COST OPTION B: TRUNK TO LIFT STATION NO. 2 ITEM UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1. 8" PVC, 10'-20' DEPTH L.F. 1,100 18.00 19,800 2. 8" DIP, 20'-30' DEPTH L.F. 130 50.00 6,500 3. 8" DIP, 30'-40' DEPTH L.F. 140 90.00 12,600 4. 27" RCP, 10'-20' DEPTH L.F. 200 $45.00 $ 9,000 5. 27" RCP, 20'-30' DEPTH L.F. 610 60.00 36,600 6. 27" RCP, 30'-40' DEPTH L.F. 300 100.00 30,000 7. 8" SUBSURFACE CROSSING L.F. 100 150.00 15,000 8. MANHOLE L.F. 159 75.00 11,925 9. BIT. SURFACE RESTORATION S.Y. 2,000 7.50 15,000 10. GRAVEL SURFACE RESTORATION S.Y. 2,700 3.00 8,100 11. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.5 3,000.00 1,500 12. CURB & GUTTER RESTORATION L.F. 60 10.00 600 13. SEEDING ACRE 0.9 1,200.00 1,080 14. SODDING S.Y. 8,900 1.80 16,020 15. LIFT STATION RELOCATION L.S. 1 75,000.00 75,000 16. EASEMENTS ACRE 2.5 25,000.00 62,500 SUBTOTAL $321,225 10% CONTINGENCIES 31,775 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $353,000 30% OVERHEAD 106,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $459,000 ESTIMATE OF COST OPTION C: TRUNK TO MWCC INTERCEPTOR ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1. 8" PVC, 10'-20' DEPTH L.F. 1,100 $18.00 $ 19,800 2. 8" DIP, 20'-30' DEPTH L.F. 130 50.00 6,500 3. 8" DIP, 30'-40' DEPTH L.F. 140 90.00 12,600 4. 27" RCP, 10'-20' DEPTH L.F. 4,130 45.00 185,850 5. 27" RCP, 20'-30' DEPTH L.F. 3,000 60.00 180,000 6. 27" RCP, 30'-40' DEPTH L.F. 540 100.00 54,000 7. 8" SUBSURFACE CROSSING L.F. 100 150.00 15,000 8. 27" SUBSURFACE CROSSING L.F. 300 200.00 60,000 9. MANHOLE L.F. 420 75.00 31,500 10. OUTSIDE MANHOLE DROP L.F. 4 150.00 600 11. FILL OVER SANITARY C.Y. 15,000 3.00 45,000 12. ABANDON LIFT STATION 2 L.S. 1 10,000.00 10,000 13. BIT. SURFACE RESTORATION S.Y. 2,000 7.50 15,000 14. GRAVEL SURFACE RESTORATION S.Y. 4,100 3.00 12,300 15. CURB & GUTTER RESTORATION L.F. 60 10.00 600.00 16. SEEDING ACRES 10 1,200.00 12,000 17. SODDING S.Y. 8,900 1.80 16,020 18. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 2 3,000.00 6,000 19. EASEMENTS - AGRICULTURAL ACRE 9.5 4,500.00 42,750 20. EASEMENTS - RESIDENTIAL ACRE 2.5 25,000.00 62,500 SUBTOTAL $ 810,520 10% CONTINGENCIES 80,480 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 25% OVERHEAD $ 891,000 223,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,114,000 CITY OF R©SEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Receive Bids/Authorize Purchase AGENDA SECTION: 1992 Vehicle and Equipment Old Business PREPARED BY: Mike Widstrom Public Works Supervisor AGENDA NO.M #ail ITE5 ATTACffidENTS: Bid Tabulations, Memo AP Y: Salvage Quotes 0,/Y - 't Attached is the bid tabulations for the vehicles and equipment, which were opened June 4,_1992 at 10:00 a.m. Staffs recommendation is in the attached memo 4 TO: Mayor McMenomy Councilmembers Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann City Administrator Jilk Public Works Director Wasmund FROM: Michael Widstrom, Public Works Supervisor/X,�/ DATE: June 8, 1992 RE: SUMMARY OF VEHICLE BIDS Skid Steer Loader As a result of the first bid opening in February when the bids from Case, Carlson and MTI did not meet specs and did not follow all the set requirements, it was decided to go back out for bids. We have now received a bid from Tri-State which meets the specifications. The bid total is $18,092.43 including 6.5% sales tax. It is our recommendation to the City Council to award this bid to Tri-State Bobcat and not to exceed the amount listed above. Pickups and Van Again, staff requested that Council allow the re -advertisement of bids for these vehicles when none were received in February. Minor changes were made which included junking the LTD and using the 4X4 from the Fire Department as a trade-in. Staff sent specifications to Todd Chevrolet, Farmington Ford, Dodge of Burnsville, Superior Ford, Valley Ford, Southview Chevrolet, Freeway Ford, Lakeland Ford, Boyer Ford, Monticello Ford and Grossman Chevrolet. On the June 4 bid opening, only one bids was received. Superior Ford submitted a bid using the state bid prices. It is our recommendation to Council to accept this bid in the amount of $57,426.00 with 3 trade-ins. There is also a $3,821.02 expense for accessory equipment for these vehicles which was approved on February 4, 1992 and is to be paid out of the same CIP account. Attached is a copy of the additional equipment list. Please note that the total of these expenditures is $61,247.02 which is $27,752.98 less than the $89,000.00 budgeted for. Several of the dealers commented that it was too close to the deadline for ordering 1992 models because the factories are starting to switch to the 1993 models and could not fill the orders as specified. Consequently, all submitted a no bid. Page 2 LTD I called AAA and Viking Auto Salvage. It is our recommendation to let Viking Auto Salvage purchase the car in the amount of $225.00. Attached are copies of the two bids. BID TABULATIONS 1992 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENTA.M. BID OPENING: JUNE 4, 1992 @ BID TABULATION FOR: "I"r-TEER LOADER � O Tri-State Bobcat, Inc. Lano Equipment, Znc. BID TABULATIONS 1992 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT BID OPENING: JUNE 4, 1992 @a 10:00 A.M. BID TABULATION FOR: 314_P_ TON FULL SIZE 4X4 ICKUP Todd Chevrolet Farmington Ford Dodge of Burnsville Superior Ford Valley Ford Southview Chevrolet Freeway Ford Lakeland Ford Truck Sales Boyer Ford Truck, Inc. *;onticello Ford Grossman Chevrolet/Geo BID TABULATIONS 1992 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT BID OPENING: JUNE 4, 1992 @ 10:00 A.M. BID TABULATION FOR: 1 /2 TON PICKUP Todd Chevrolet Farmington Ford Dodge�OffurnsvilleSuperord 'Valley Ford Southview Chevrolet I Freeway Ford I Lakeland Ford Truck Sales Boyer Ford Truck, Inc._ I �131� Monticello Ford Grossman Chevrolet/Geo BID TABULATIONS 1992 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT BID OPENING: JUNE 4, 1992 @ 10:00 A.M. BID TABULATION FOR: 1 TON FULL SIZE 4X4 TRUCK CHASSIS W/DUAL REAR WHEELS . ir%r%=n I BID BOND I BASE BID OPTION 1 I NET BID Todd Chevrolet Farmington Ford Dodge of Burnsville Superior Ford Valley Ford Southview Chevrolet Freeway Ford Lakeland Ford Truck Sale Boyer Ford Truck, Inc. Monticello Ford I Grossman Chevrolet/Geo /4, 91.0. -- gg-,q, -- I /`/ gi (C.'. --- BID TABULATIONS 1992 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT BID OPENING: JUNE 4, 1992 @ 10:00 A.M. • BID TABULATION FOR: FULL SIZE CARGO VAN Todd Chevrolet Farmington Ford Dodge of Burnsville j Superior Ford Valley Ford Southview Chevrolet Freeway Ford Lakeland Ford Truck Sales Boyer Ford Truck, Inc. Monticello Ford Grossman Chevrolet/Geo 'ur-08 01:JIFM FROM VIKING SALVAGE VIKING AUTO SALVAGE, INC. Route 2, Highway 3 North Northfield, Mlnnesota 55057 507-645-4435 or 612.460.6166 NEW • USED REBUILT rv 0 n.I^ .nn n... CITY & STATE ZIP SHIP TO A VIA CA ACIT, I -"CREDIT MD5i, . PA , QUAN. MERCHANDISE PRICE ANkC�l�1i 1 l C-� 14 LIZ)an ou LIMITED WARRANTY: Warrantor whose name and &Writs appears above warrants ali engines, auto trAnamisslona Ana rear and assemblies for 30 nays her; date or purchase. Al,other mechanical parts for days, In event c! defect, promptly notRy Warrantor. Warrantor will at WAITIntOr's option rotund or within a reasonatue time replace mechanu pari. WARNINO: This warranty excivaes Ina return for REFUND OR CREDIT on oil BODY PARTS. THE D&LIGATIONS OF THE WARRANTOR ARE LIMITED TO REPLACEMENT OR REFJND ONLY AS PROVIDED HEREIN. IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABIUTY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE ARE LIMITED TO THE SAME DURATION AS THE LIMITED WR'^EN WARRANTY PROVIDED HEREIN, WARRANTOR SHALL NOT BE L!AALE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN- CLUDINO BUT NOT LIMITED TO INSTALLATION, REMOVAL OR USE OF THIS MERCHANDISE, This is the only war!aMy given by the Warrantor, This warranty gives you specific legs: rights, and yo. may also have other rigntB wnich vary from state to state. All claims and returned good* MUST be accompanied 8 T u e D tal Tax T TAL by this bill. P0 CHECK WITH US FOR YOUR USED PARTS PK - Parks and Recreation Department pW - Public ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR VANS AND PICKUPS ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED DEPT. MODEL PRICE TOTAL I. Van Safety Cage 1 PK #86500 $166.00 $166.00 2. Running Boards 1 set PK $208.25 $208.25 3. Parts .Box 1 PK #8912 $ 27.00 $ 27.00 4. Bed Liners 2 PW $225.95 $451.90 5. Tool Boxes 1 PW $249.87 $249.87 6. Splash Guards 16 PW $ 3.50 $ 56.00 7. Beacons - Amber 2 PW $210.00 $420.00 S. Radios 3 PW Uniden $665.00 $1995.00 9. Roof Rack 1 PK $127.00 $ 127.00 10. Rubber Floor Mat 1 PK $120.00 $ 120.00 TOTAL $3,821.02 PK - Parks and Recreation Department pW - Public CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Text Amendment - Ordinance B AGENDA SECTION: - FENCE REGULATIONS - PUBLIC HEARING PREPARED BY: Lisa Freese, Director AGENDA N� M 6 of Planning f�/� ATTACM+1ENTS: Ordinance; Planning Commission APP Review Memo; Hearing Notice. /,I - At their May 12 26 and June 9, 1992 Regular Meetings, the PlanningCommission reviewed text amendments for Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. These text amendments address issues of fence height and type, as well as visibility at intersections. After discussing the ,proposed amendments and requesting several changes,' the Planning` Commission recommended approval of the fence regulations at the June 9th meeting. The proposed fence regulations allow for eight (8) foot fence heights in Commercial, General Industrial, and Waste Management Districts; and allows barbed wire and electrical fencing in Agricultural' and Rural Residential Districts. A definition for security fencing is added to the Ordinance and would be permitted in the Waste Management and General Industrial District Generally, the fence regulations, as amended, will be less restrictive than in the past and are being modified for consistency with appropriate current applications. Also, in conjunction with the fence amendments, a sight distance' provision will be added to the ordinance This provision codifies a policy that is being used by City staff in reviewing structures on property at street intersections. 1 City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B-21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.2 DEF NITIONS of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding the following definitions: Fence A fence is defined for the purpose of this ordinance as any partition, structure or wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located along the boundary or within the required yard. All fences are subject to a building permit as required by the Minnesota State Building code. SECTION 2. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, Subsection C. Supplementary Yard Regulations, of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read: 1. e. Fences and walls not exceeding six (6) feet in height, are permitted in any District in the side or rear yards, but shall not exceed 42 inches in front yards, provided that no structure shall interfere with sight distances for vehicles approaching intersections. Fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in height are permitted in all Commercial Districts except along property lines adjacent to Residential Districts. All fences located in recorded easements are the sole risk of the property owner; and the cost of any removal, relocation, or placement of said structures caused by any activity permitted in said easements is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Link fences shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the top. Barbed wire and electric boundary fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height shall only be permitted in the AG, AG -P, and RR Districts when related to agricultural or permitted uses relative to animal husbandry. SECTION 3. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, Subsection C. Supplementary Yard Regulations, of Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding the following: 1. h. Security fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in height are permitted in the IG and WM Districts. Barbed wire, not exceeding three strands, may be permitted on top of the fence, providing the arms do not project over the public right-of-way or any adjacent public or private property. The minimum height of the bottom strand of barbed wire shall not be less than six (6) feet from finished grade. In all cases where a barbed wire security fence is requested, an application shall be made to the Building Oficial. A Certificate of Insurance indemnifying the City of Rosemount shall be submitted with the application subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and in an amount as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 566.04. 5. Visibilitv at intersections. A minimum sight triangle shall be established on each corner lot at every street intersection through which motorists shall have reasonable unobstructed view. The minimum sight triangle shall be defined as a triangle located at the corner of intersecting streets. The adjacent sides shall be located along the street right-of-way line (and adjacent property lines) of the intersecting streets and shall be 25 feet in length. The third side shall be a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. The City shall have the authority to order the removal of vision obstructions located within the minimum sight triangle. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1992. CITY OF ROSENIOUN7 E.B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Farmington Independent this - day of 7 1992. 0- k,/IIY of Rosemount PHONE (612) 4234411 FAX (612) 4235203 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Richard Pearson 2875 . 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota Mailing Adoress: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 550680510 DATE: June 6, 1992 SUBJ: June 9, 1992 Regular Meeting Reviews Agenda Item 6(b) 6b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Fences and visibility at intersections MAYOR Edward S. McMenomy COUNCiLMEMBERS Sheila Kiassen James (Red) Staats Harry Willcox Dennis Wiipoermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk Recommended Action: No motion is requested at this time. The information relative to visibility at intersections is included with the fence ordinance amendments that the Commission has already seen. The Comission is asked to review the last paragraph of this memo - SECTION 7.2 Subsection C paragraph 5. The Planning Commission discussed Zoning Ordinance amendments on May 12, 1992. At that time, the Commission directed Staff to continue to study alternative amendments for fences. The following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relative to fences are suggested by staff: ) SECTION 3.2 (DEFINITIONS) of Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended as follows: Fence: A fence is defined foe the purpose of this ordinance as any partition, structure or wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located along the boundary or within the required yard. All fences are subject to a building permit as required by the Minnesota State Building Code. DISCUSSION: This amendment adds a definition for fences that is specifically limited to the functions of boundary definition or enclosure for aesthetic, privacy or security applications. Similar structures that might be used for public or private athletic facilities are intended to be excluded. SECTION 7.2 (SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS), Subsection C, of Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read: E. Fences and walls not exceeding six (6) feet in height, are permitted in any district in the side or rear yards, but shall not exceed 42 inches in front yards, provided that no structure shall interfere with sight distances for vehicles approaching intersections. Fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in height are permitted in all Commercial districts except along property lines adjacent to residential districts. All fences located in recorded easements are the sole risk of the property owner; and the cost of any removal, relocation or placement of said structures caused by any activity permitted in said easements is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Lint: fences shall be verlilzil�crsotinllzg n '�bosP.:aouraI.'/ Regular Planning Commission Meeting Reviews May 26, 1992 Page Two constructed in a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the top. Barbed wire and electric boundary fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height shall only be permitted in the AG, AG -P and RR districts when related to agricultural or permitted uses relative to animal husbandry. I. Security Fences not exceeding eight (8) feet in height are permitted in the IG and CNI'M Districts. Barbed wire, not exceeding three strands, may be permitted on top of the fence, providing the arms do not project over the public right-of-way or any adjacent public or private property. The minimum height of the bottom strand of barbed mire shall not be less than six (6) feet from finished grade. In all cases where a barbed wire security fence is requested an application shall be made to the Building Official. A Certificate of Insurance indemnifying the City of Rosemount shall be submitted with the application subject to the appro` al of the City Attorney as to form and in an amount as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 566.0. DISCUSSION: This amendment restricts barbed wire and electric fences to AG, AG -P and RR districts that are agricultural in use, or allow similar uses such as the permitted keeping of horses. It also allows barbs on security fences in the IG and 7N711\1 Districts. It also all fences up to eight feet in height in Commercial districts, IG, R^�2. AG, AG -P and RR districts. SECTION 7.2 (SUPLENT-E TART REGLZ,ATIO'NS) Subsection C, of Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended as follows: 5. Visibility at intersections. A minimum sight triangle shall be established on each corner lot at every street intersection through which motorists shall have reasonable unobstructed view. The minimum sight triangle shall be defined as a triangle located at the corner of intersecting streets. The adjacent sides shall be located along the street right-of-A•ay line (and adjacent property lines) of the intersecting streets and shall be 25 feet in length. The third side shall be a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. The City shall have the authority to order the removal of vision obstructions located within the minimum sight triangle. Cii� of Rosemount PHONE (612) 423.4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR Edward B. McMenomy FAX (612) 423.5203 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Staats Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann Public Notice ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Fence Regulations TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th 'Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on proposed text amendments to Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. The City Council will consider additions and clarifications to Section 7.2 Supplemental Regulations, including but not limited to the following: Definitions for fences; Increasing the height limitations for fences in all front yards to 42 inches; Increasing the height limitations for fences in Commercial districts to eight feet; Allowing (six foot maximum height) barbed wire and electric boundary fences in Agricultural and Rural Residential districts related to permitted agricultural and animal husbandry practrices; Allowing eight foot security fences in General Industrial and Waste Management districts with three strands of barbed wire six feet above ground; Criteria for sight line triangles at intersections. Persons wishing to speak on these proposed amendments are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 at 8:00 p.m. Dated this 2nd day of June, 1992. Dakota County, Minnesota &et-ythl.yrs (Poming `VLp gosemoL my 0- k-,/Tty of 9?osemount PHONE (612) 423.4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR Edward B. McMenomy FAX (612) 4235203 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Stasts AFFIDAVIT OF POSTED HEARING NOTICE Harry Willcox Dennis Wippennann Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ADMINISTRATOR Fence Regulations STATE OF MINNTESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) ss CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. On June 3, 1992, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota, a copy of the attached notice of a public hearing for consideration of text amendments to Ordinance B, City of Rosemount. This was also published in the legal publication for the City of Rosemount, the Farmington Independent Newspaper on Thursday, June 4, 1992. Dated this 3rd day of June, 1992. City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1992. ry t'C,',AFY PUSLIC—fl,I:dkE OTA ` re DAKOTA COUPJTY 111Y COMM. Ex0 ir2s Aug. 25, IS95 Notary Public b 6very1hings Coovn✓ng UP Rosemouvd." ABILFENCE DAKOTA FENCE OF MN FEN-CO INC 114 E ACKER ST 3480 U 149TH ST W SUITE 118 ST PAUL MN 55117 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 810 N LILAC DR GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 MIDWEST FENCE STERLING FENCE GARY'S FENCE 525 E VILLAUME AV 147 W 78TH ST 8479 HERON AV S S ST PAUL MN 55075 BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 COTTAGE GROVE MN 55016 eity of (O?osevnouni PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612) 423.5203 Mailing Address: Edward B. McMenomy P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 COUNCIIMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Staats AFFIDAVIT OF POSTED HEARING NOTICE Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk Fence Regulations STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) ss CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. On June 3, 1992, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota, a copy of the attached notice of a public hearing for consideration of text amendments to Ordinance B, City of Rosemount. This was also published in the legal publication for the City of Rosemount, the Farmington Independent Newspaper on Thursday, June 4, 1992. Dated this 3rd day of June, 1992. City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 d' day of 1992. tti C ?dD`, DGaNN:DEN °U��1C—M,1N- TSOTQ fir, a DAKOTA, d IVY Corm. Exprnts Aug.vv�,r,,,,�,,, S ,, say Notary Public 6verylhing's coming ` jb gosemounl!! eity of Rosemount PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612) 423.5203 Mailing Address: Edward B. McMenomy P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Staats Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann Notice ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Fence Regulations TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on proposed text amendments to Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. The City Council will consider additions and clarifications to Section 7.2 Supplemental Regulations, including but not limited to the following: Definitions for fences; Increasing the height limitations for fences in all front yards to 42 inches; Increasing the height limitations for fences in Commercial districts to eight feet; Allowing (six foot maximum height) barbed wire and electric boundary fences in Agricultural and Rural Residential districts related to permitted agricultural and animal husbandry practrices; Allowing eight foot security fences in General Industrial and Waste Management districts with three strands of barbed wire six feet above ground; Criteria for sight line triangles at intersections. Persons wishing to speak on these proposed amendments are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 at 8:00 p.m. Dated this 2nd day of June, 1992. Sian M. Walsh; City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota (Sveryilzirtgrs CDo,,ning Up gosPnlounill ABLE FENCE 114 E ACKER ST ST PAUL MN 55117 MIDWEST FENCE 525 E VILLAUME AV S ST PAUL MN 55075 DAKOTA FENCE OF MN 3480 U 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 STERLING FENCE 147 W 78TH ST BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 FEN -CO INC SUITE 118 810 N LILAC DR GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 GARY'S FENCE 8479 HERON AV S COTTAGE GROVE MN 55016 Farmington Independent City of Rosemount Public Notice h Ordinance B, City ofRosemount AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ` Z° Ordinance Amendment Fence Regulations Diane Berge, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is an authorized TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City ii agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The Council of the City of Rosemount will hold , Farmington Independent , and has full knowledge of the facts which arepiblic hearing on T"esda7' June 16, 1992 { Stated below: in the Council Chambers bf the City Hall, (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statues , The purpose of ibis hearing is to receive 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws, as amended, comments on proposed text amendments to (B) The printed Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning r�1S A D % Ordinance. The City Council will consider additions and clarifications to Section 7.2 Supplemental Regulations, including but not limited to the following: which is attached, was cut from the columns of said ne spaper, and Was Definitions for fences; printed and published once each week for U Successive Increasing the height limitations for fences weeks; it was first published on Thursday, the day Of in all front yards to 42 inches; _y t J t l?_o� , 19_ and was thereafter printed and h'1°g the height limitations for fences published on every Thursday, to and including Thursday, the�— da of y inCOmmeLCial districts to eight feet; Allowing (six foot maximum height) barbed --- 19 —; and printed below is a Copy Of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby wire and electric boundary fences in ' Agricultural and Rural Residential districts acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition related to permitted agricultural and animal and publication of the notice: husbandry practices; Allowing eight foot security fences in General Industrial and Waste Management abc&fgWj11=opgmwvwxyt districts with three strands of barbed wire six feet above ground; �������� �� By'-1-d`��— Criteria for sight line triangles at, interseptions. Title: Administrator for the Publisher d Persons wishing to speak on these and sworn to before me on this 4� day ---�`---- proposed amendments are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 at 4Notary 8:00 p.m. ,Dates this 2nd day of June, 1992. u lic By /sl Susan M. Walsh Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk i AFFIDAVIT '. City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota 6/4b F A ir. SHERVHEIM ' '�!HUC -MINNESOTA A.QlA COUNTY t.:: es Nov. 19, 1992 �7'rwv �w Honorable Mayor and Council City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West _ Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Armory Site Water Service City of Rosemount City Project No. 237 OSM Project No. 4845.00 Dear Mayor and Council: ' Enclosed is the Feasibility Report for providing potable water service to the Armory site. The recommended 12 -inch watermain will provide potable water service to the site; however, we strongly recommend that the future 16 -inch trunk watermain along the Connemara Trail Corridor (identified in the Comprehensive Water System Plan) be constructed as soon as possible to provide complete fire protection to the site. We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please call me at 378-6397 if you have any questions. ISincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian J. Bour ssa, P.E. Project Engineer cj enclosure cc: Bud Osmundson, Rosemount City Engineer IEqual Opportunity Employer Orr Schelen ayeron & Assoc iates,s, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors May 28, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West _ Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Armory Site Water Service City of Rosemount City Project No. 237 OSM Project No. 4845.00 Dear Mayor and Council: ' Enclosed is the Feasibility Report for providing potable water service to the Armory site. The recommended 12 -inch watermain will provide potable water service to the site; however, we strongly recommend that the future 16 -inch trunk watermain along the Connemara Trail Corridor (identified in the Comprehensive Water System Plan) be constructed as soon as possible to provide complete fire protection to the site. We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please call me at 378-6397 if you have any questions. ISincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian J. Bour ssa, P.E. Project Engineer cj enclosure cc: Bud Osmundson, Rosemount City Engineer IEqual Opportunity Employer CERTIFICATION SHEET I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Brian J. Bourassa, P.E. Date: May 28, 1992 Reg. No. 21816 OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS i TITLE SHEET ' LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET ......................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................ ........................ 1 INTRODUCTION............................................... 2 Authorization/Scope........................................ 2 Data Available............................................ 2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.................................... 3 Watermain...............................................3 Restoration...............................................4 Permits..................................................4 Right-of-Way and Easements.................................. 4 FINANCING 5 ................................................... Cost Estimate 5 5 Assessments .................. ........................... PROJECT SCHEDULE.......................................... 7 APPENDIX Estimated Project Cost - Armory Site Water Service OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page ii ARMORY SITE WATER SERVICE ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 237 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report addresses the feasibility of providing water service to the Armory site. The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and can be accomplished as a stand alone project or combined with other utility work. The project includes the construction of approximately 3,500 feet of watermain, hydrants, valves and restoration. The total estimated cost is $187,700. The funding for the project will come from assessments to the benefitted properties, the Armory Fund and the Water Core Fund. The project will require approximately one month to complete. OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Authorization/Scope - On August 20, 1991, the Rosemount City Council authorized the preparation of engineering feasibility reports to provide public utilities to the Armory site. This report provides for the construction of water service to the Armory site. 1.2. Data Available - Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include: • City of Rosemount Record Plans • Comprehensive Water System Plan, October, 1988 • City of Rosemount Assessment/Improvement Policy • Information supplied by the Architect for the Armory, Art Dickey Architects • Information supplied by Rosemount High School OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 2 2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2.1. Watermain - The proposed watermain facilities will provide water service to the Armory site and the existing parcels adjacent to the Armory. A 12 - inch watermain will be extended along the west ditch of State Highway No. 3, from the existing 6 -inch lines at the intersection of 143rd Street West and State Highway No. 3, to the proposed Armory site located approximately 2,200 feet to the north along State Highway No. 3. In addition, a 12 -inch watermain will be constructed along the Rosemount High School driveway (142nd Street West) and connect with the existing 6 -inch main approximately 1,100 feet west of State Highway No. 3. The proposed watermain improvements conform to the Comprehensive Water System Plan. In addition to improving the water service and fire protection at the Rosemount High School, the watermain connection on 142nd Street West will improve the water volume and pressure at the Armory site. Hydrants will be installed along the project to provide adequate fire protection for the adjacent areas. An 8 -inch watermain stub will be provided to the Armory site. Water services were not included in the project. In the future, if a property owner along the 12 -inch main wishes to connect to the system, the service could be "wet tapped" without causing the main line to be out of service. As a contingency, we have included a 20 -inch diameter casing pipe to be jacked across 142nd Street West (Rosemount High School entrance), so that the existing roadway will not be disturbed during construction if school is in session. It is strongly recommended that the 16 -inch watermain along the future Connemara Trail Corridor, which would loop the system with the new water tower, be constructed as soon as possible to provide complete fire protection in the area. IOSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 3 2.2. Restoration - The majority of the disturbed area will be located in the ditch within the State Highway No. 3 right-of-way. This area will be restored by seeding. A small amount of sod was also included in the project that will be used to restore any established yard areas that are disturbed. Several driveways will also be disturbed during construction and will be replaced with a similar section of Class 5 and/or pavement. The installation of the watermain on 142nd Street West will require the removal of a portion of the existing roadway pavement, the curbing on the north side of the road and the bituminous path for 650 feet, and approximately 2300 square yards of sod. These items will be restored after construction in the area is completed. 2.3. Permits - Permits will be required for this project from the Minnesota Department of Health for watermain extensions and from Mn/DOT for work within the State Highway No. 3 right-of-way. 2.4. Right -of -Way and Easements - It is proposed that the 12 -inch watermain be installed within the existing State Highway No. 3 right-of-way and that no additional permanent easements will be required in this area. Temporary construction easements will be needed from the parcels along the project route. The acquisition of a utility easement will be necessary for a portion of the ' watermain installation along 142nd Street West from Independent School District No. 196. 1 IOSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 4 3. FINANCING 3.1. Cost Estimate - A Detailed Cost Estimate can be found in the Appendix. The cost estimate is based on 1991 construction costs and includes a 10 percent contingency factor and all related administrative costs. The administrative costs are estimated at 30 percent and include legal, engineering, interest, and other administration. A summary of these costs is as follows: Watermain...................................... $187,700 Total Project Cost ................................. $187,700 These costs do not reflect the cost of easements, which will be identified with the final construction plans. 3.2. Assessments - Independent School District No. 196 is the only assessable parcel along the project route. It is proposed that Independent School District No. 196 be assessed at the Residential Equivalent Front Footage Rate for a 6 -inch watermain ($15.00 per front foot) for its entire frontage along State Highway No. 3 (1,667 feet). It is also proposed that the School District be assessed for the proposed 12 -inch watermain installation along 142nd Street from State Highway No. 3 to the Rosemount High School connection. The remainder of the funding for the 12 -inch trunk watermain will be shared between the Watermain Core Fund and the Armory Fund. The estimated funding is listed as follows: OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 5 Estimated Ind. School Armory Fund and Cost Dist. 196 WM Core Fund Armory Site Water Service $187,700 $94,605 $93,095 OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 5 It is assumed that the Port Authority will be acquiring the existing icommercial parcels adjacent to the Armory Site on the west side of State Highway No. 3. No costs were included in this report for the acquisition of these parcels. n 11 11 Il OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 6 4. PROJECT SCHEDULE i The proposed schedule for this improvement is as follows: Approve Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing ..........June 16, 1992 Hold Public Hearing/Order Plans and Specifications ........ July 21, 1992 Approve Plans and Specifications ........................ August, 1992 Receive Bids and Award Contract .................... September, 1992 Begin Construction .................................. October, 1992 Complete Construction ............................... Spring, 1993 Hold Assessment Hearing ............................... Fall, 1993 First Payment Due with Taxes ........................... May, 1994 This schedule is preliminary and will depend on the timing of the Armory construction. 1 ' OSM Project No. 4845.00 Page 7 Armory Site Watermain Improvements Rosemount, Minnesota City Project No. 237 OSM Project No. 4845'00 Estimated Project Cost - Armory Site Water Service Item No. ; Item Unit Qty Unit Price Total Price 1 Connect to Existing Watermain Each 2 $ 500.00 $ 1000.00 2 6" DIP, Class 52 Watermain L.F. 40 12.00 480.00 3 8" DIP, Class 52 Watermain L.F. 20 14.00 280.00 4 12" /f)IP, Class 51 Watermain L.F. 3400 23.00 78,200.00 5 6" grate Valve and Box Each 4 400.00 1,600.00 6 8' Gate Valve and Box Each 1 500.00 500.00 rt 12" Gate Valve and Box Each 5 1,500.00 7,500.00 8 Hydrants Each 4 1,200.00 4,800.00 9 Fittings Lbs. 3000 1.50 4,500.00 10 20" Diameter Casing Pie L.F. 70 100.00 7,000.00 11 Remove Bituminous Driveway and Trailway Pavement S.Y. 1550 2.00 3,100.00 12 Remove and Replace Existing Concrete Sidewalk S.F. 1000 3.00 3,000.00 13 Remove and Replace Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 220 10.00 2,200.00 14 Aggregate Base, Class 5 Ton 495 7.00 3,465.00 15 2331 Type 31 Bituminous Base Course Ton 105 22.00 2,310.00. 16 2331 Type 41 Bituminous Wear Course Ton 175 24.00 4,200.00 17 Roadside Seeding (inc. seed, mulch and fertilizer) Acre 1.7 1,000.00 1,700.00 18 Sodding inc. 4" topsoil) S.Y. 2700 2.00 5,400.00 Subtotal 131,235.00 Contingencies (10%) 13,124.00 Construction Cost 144,359.00 Legal, Administrative, Engineering & Financing 30% 43,341.00 F71 Total Project Cost 1 $187,700.00 (Pity of (Rosemount PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT June, 1992 Scott Aker, Fire Chief Elliel Rnutsen, Police Chief Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ... Managing Critical Seconds Situation Analysis Solution... Decreased Response Time With Improved Safety Recommendation Implementation Reference Material INTRODUCTION "Emergency - an unforseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action." -- Websters Ninth New World Dictionary Immediate action. It's crucial in preventing the serious consequences to life and property that threaten every medical and fire emergency. Minutes -- even seconds -- can make the diffference between saving a heart attack victim or losing a father, between containing a fire or losing a commercial building -- and jobs it sustained in the community. Emergency Response Management is key to any city. With increasing population, traffic and traffic signals, it is important to maintain safe and efficient movement of emergency vehicles along city streets. As crucial as it is to respond to those in need, the safety of emergency service personnel and citizens must also be considered. The City of Rosemount shares similar problems. The increase in population growth from 5,500 to 9,000 over the past ten years will likely be matched or exceeded during the next ten years. With it will come increased traffic congestion. Managing critical seconds, maintaining the highest degree of safety, liability reduction, increased vehicle life, response range and overall dollar savings are key issues that growing cities must face. That's why 3M has developed an Emergency Response Management system specifically to speed emergency help to medical and fire emergencies while protecting the safety of the emergency vehicle drivers, pedestrians and other drivers along the way. The 3M Opticom System has been in use throughout the country for the last 25 years. During that time it has established a record of decreasing emergency response times, as well as decreasing accidents involving emergency service vehicles, personnel and citizens. The following pages contain information on benefits to be realized by the City of Rosemount upon initiation of an Emergency Response Management Program for the safe, efficient movement of emergency vehicles en route to emergency sites. WHEN SECONDS COUNT A victim of a cardiac arrest lies in wait for help. Children are trapped upstairs in their home because of fire. An accident involving injury occurs during rush hour traffic. Most residential areas of the City of Rosemount have average response times of 4 minutes or less. However, traffic congestion and increased travel distances often increase response times along and across major response routes to over 5 minutes. How important is response time? Obviously, management of fire and medical emergency response time is extremely important. But what are the specific issues? The key questions are: Response time is affected by two basic issues: Location of emergency equipment. Travel time to the emergency scene. 3. Is average response time an adequate measurement and what causes response time to deviate from the average? Though average response time is meaningful, it does not adequately address the individual needs of emergency response during peak traffic periods. Response time can increase considerably if measured at peak traffic hours when streets are jammed with vehicles and traffic signals are providing "right-of-ways" to vehicles crossing corridors. 1. At what point can we be satisfied with response time? Flashover is the point where a fire reaches 1500 degree F and is about to go out of control. It is possible for a fire to reach the flashover point in as few as 5 to 6 minutes. (see Figure 1). ' Cardiac Arrest survival rate declines rapidly. At more than four minutes less than 50% of heart attack victims will survive. (see Figure 2). The consequences of lost seconds can be devastating both in human life and property loss. The earlier the response the ' better. And lowered response time ultimately pays for itself. 2. What critical issues affect response time? Response time is affected by two basic issues: Location of emergency equipment. Travel time to the emergency scene. 3. Is average response time an adequate measurement and what causes response time to deviate from the average? Though average response time is meaningful, it does not adequately address the individual needs of emergency response during peak traffic periods. Response time can increase considerably if measured at peak traffic hours when streets are jammed with vehicles and traffic signals are providing "right-of-ways" to vehicles crossing corridors. Cc W O Z NQ J LL LO O tom[) p LO N N r r l!ayuaJt4e-i saaa690 U CI LO C W M N r Figure #1 O C L MM� W E O t C � L U. r WW^ iii.. 0 a i 0.2 Q. i LO O tom[) p LO N N r r l!ayuaJt4e-i saaa690 U CI LO C W M N r Figure #1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r %� ales lenlnanS )1oe:Rd jjeaH ii :- Lo 0 E "r E- N 0 O U C c� E Q Figure #2 ROSEMOUNT PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALLS In the City of Rosemount, Fire and First Responder EMS calls have ' increased over 100% in five years from approximately 189 in 1986 to over 384 in 1991. If during each call the emergency vehicles went through one signalized intersection with an average of four vehicles responding, 1600 intersections were accessed. Assuming 40% traffic ' signals are displaying a "red" when the emergency vehicle arrives, almost 640 intersections may require running a red light. ' Another problem during many emergency response runs is traffic congestion in the form of queues at signalized intersections. The solution to both problems is the OPTICOM Priority Control System from 3M. As part of your Emergency Response Management (ERM) program, the ' OPTICOM Priority Control System creates an open corridor for emergency vehicles through signalized intersections. The OPTICOM System is designed to complement the traffic system already in place. The amount ' of confusion for traffic is decreased because the situation at the intersection appears normal to the motorist. The emergency vehicle moves through the intersection with the safest possible situation - - a ' green light. IN SUMMARY ' 1. Response time is improved. ' 2. Potential for accidents involving emergency vehicles is decreased. 3. Costs involving accidents likely will decrease. 4. Most importantly, chances for survival of citizens and safety for emergency personnel are increased. PROACTIVE PLANNING LEADS TO SAVINGS Everyone is familiar with the reactive procedures of the City of ' Rosemount emergency support services: a call comes in and they respond. The City of Rosemount also has an effective program of preventive ' procedures, community education services, planning for population growth, care for equipment and property. Such planning is typical in any community. It saves money, time, property and lives. 1 "Nationally, over $1 billion is spent annually on education, training and other preventive measures which are meant to avoid 1 injury in an emergency. The projected annual return is over $6.5 billion". U.S. Department of Commerce The OPTICOM System extends the planning procedure to help control the otherwise uncontrollable variables. Drivers with their windows closed and air conditioners, radios or stereos on find it extremely difficult to hear a siren. The OPTICOM System provides a normal situation for 1 the citizen driver and a clear corridor for the emergency vehicle driver. 1 "The chances of hearing a siren when in a car built in 1979 or after when the windows are closed and radio is on is less than 25%". Penn State - National Hearing Testing Agency 1 As the population grows and more signalized intersections are added, there will be more congestion, more emergency runs and more accidents 1 involving emergency vehicles. Many can be prevented. The challenge is to compare the costs of accidents involving emergency vehicles to the cost of preventive procedures. Prevention is the key to savings. "The cost of one accident can range into the millions of I dollars... often a 10 percent increase in population means a 15 percent increase in accidents". U.S. Bureau of the Census 1 MAXIMIZE THE TRAFFIC FLOW DURING AN 04ERGENCY SITUATION It's rush hour traffic. You're waiting for the light to turn green. ' You see a flashing light in your rear view mirror, but cannot move to the side of the road. The light turns green, traffic moves forward and towards the right. The emergency vehicle moves through the intersection safely. The signalized system returns to its normal cycle ' and traffic proceeds as before the emergency. This is the scene at each intersection until the emergency vehicle 1 reaches its destination. There are no erratic movements, no running through red lights, no extreme lane changes, and once the vehicle is through, traffic returns to normal. The ideal emergency situation would mean no other traffic on the road. This, of course, is impossible. The OPTICOM System offers the next best situation. Aside from the fact that traffic flow is enhanced in an emergency situation, the system works with existing signal equipment. It affects only the immediate intersection, for a very short period of time. Safe and efficient movement of traffic, goods and people is the goal. The OPTICOM System helps insure the best possible situation under ' emergency conditions. I 1 i ' "Judgments for the plaintiff are ten times greater than they were three years ago". U.S. Bureau of Justice ' "Legal costs, including attorneys fees have increased by 53 percent since 1985". U.S. Bureau of Justice These facts speak for themselves. Insurance, is simply very expensive; costs skyrocket when a claim is filed. (see Figure 3). The OPTICOM System can help reduce the liability exposure of a ' community. It is the proven Emergency Response Management (ERM) system with "state-of-the-art" technology. These costs are very real, as more and more cities are finding. Can 1 any community afford not to utilize a state-of-the-art system, such as the OPTICOM System, as part of their Emergency Response Management program? LIABILITY AND REDUCING THE COMMUNITY'S LEGAL EXPOSURE Though no dollar value can be placed on human life, insurance companies ' have developed formulas for estimating societal costs of a lost life. The cost of a fatality has increased from $600,000 in 1970 to $1,850,000 in 1985. "Since 1982 there has been a doubling of lawsuits, an increase in ' the number of jury awards and an increase in the amount of award --upwards of $150 million". U.S. Association of Insurance Companies ' "Judgments for the plaintiff are ten times greater than they were three years ago". U.S. Bureau of Justice ' "Legal costs, including attorneys fees have increased by 53 percent since 1985". U.S. Bureau of Justice These facts speak for themselves. Insurance, is simply very expensive; costs skyrocket when a claim is filed. (see Figure 3). The OPTICOM System can help reduce the liability exposure of a ' community. It is the proven Emergency Response Management (ERM) system with "state-of-the-art" technology. These costs are very real, as more and more cities are finding. Can 1 any community afford not to utilize a state-of-the-art system, such as the OPTICOM System, as part of their Emergency Response Management program? c 0 c In C 1 w INSURANCE COVERAGE (If Available) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 (Projected) Source: U.S. Association of Insurance Agencies 1 How much more did the second fire cost? Manpower, equipment, property AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE MANAGE PROGRAM MEANS DIRECT SAVINGS are at stake. The more productive system saved dollars in a very direct An emergency call comes in; there's a fire in a neighborhood store. and organize their and since they It's evening rush hour, but with the OPTICOM System, the fire ' department arrives on the scene within four minutes. The team has time to organize their efforts; equipment is laid out for efficient use in fighting the fire. Assignments are made and the fire is put out. Across town, in an area with no OPTICOM System, another alarm is sounded. It takes the fire department six minutes to arrive at the ' scene. The fire has reached flashover. Another station is called in for help and it takes hours to put out the fire. "Costs for property damage due to fire is rarely properly covered on the insurance policy. Avoiding flashover is the key. Time, then is our enemy". Association of American Underwriters "Worker's compensation, depending on the state, can make up for over 5 percent of the total budget for fire departments. Of any 100 cases, over 75 could have been prevented if only the firefighters had arrived one minute earlier". (see Figure 4.) Ron Navarro Statistical Analyst U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources How much more did the second fire cost? Manpower, equipment, property loss, time and possibly lives are at stake. The more productive system saved dollars in a very direct way. Since the team was able to set up ' and organize their and since they efforts, it arrived before took fewer firefighters, less equipment, flashover occurred, there's less property damage. "Costs for property damage due to fire is rarely properly covered on the insurance policy. Avoiding flashover is the key. Time, then is our enemy". Association of American Underwriters "Worker's compensation, depending on the state, can make up for over 5 percent of the total budget for fire departments. Of any 100 cases, over 75 could have been prevented if only the firefighters had arrived one minute earlier". (see Figure 4.) Ron Navarro Statistical Analyst U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources aNi 70 c� CL E 8 ? 50 o i 12 40 o� *6w- 30 o� 20 E z 10 d 0 WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES ��Oof- n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arrival Time (Minutes) Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Resources RUNNING A RED LIGHT: A STRESSFULL SITUATION Imagine the frustration that comes with driving through traffic when in ' a hurry. Then imagine the stress when driving through traffic when trying to save a life. While almost everyone has experienced the frustration of driving in heavy traffic, few have experienced the trauma of rushing to a life threatening situation. Emergency vehicle operators face this every day, possibly with every run. The responsibility for saving a life, a home or a business weighs ' on the professional emergency vehicle operator. While the issue of stress on the job is often written about, little is known about the actual costs which result due to the affects of stress. Suffice to say, measures which reduce the number of proven stressful situations (i.e. running a red light). can save money. C MAINTAINING EQUIPMENT Brakes. Transmission. Tires. Reducing erratic maneuvers reduces the cost of maintenance and potential repair costs of an accident. These facts are very straightforward. The costs associated with them should be included in review of the total cost of an Emergency Response Management system. The OPTICOM System can directly reduce these erratic maneuvers and the associated costs of the maintenance and repair. (see Figure 5). RESPONSE SPEED PROFILE Without Emergency Vehicle Priority Control System 50 45 a 40 c 35 30 N 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 Signalized Intersection Locations 71 0 1 2 3 4 5 Signalized Intersection Locations Figure #5 ' THE BOTTOM LINE ON CIVIC PRIDE What does it cost to enlist the support of the community? How can one ' accurately quantify quality of life? How do the citizens of the community feel about Emergency Response Management? These questions are difficult to answer. There are, however, steps that can be taken to help gain civic pride. 1. Insurance Rates - There is a possibility of reduced insurance costs ' for the municipality and property owners when the response time for emergency vehicles is improved. "Property taxes are determined through various means, not the least of which is emergency services. A response time reduction can mean a savings of up to $63 per year for the average home owner". U.S. Department of Revenue ' 2. Civic Awards - The use of state-of-the-art systems which helps improve the safety and well-being of all citizens is a key factor in the choice of All American Cities as well as other national civic awards. This type of recognition has both monetary and reputation value. ' "Oneof the first issues we address in choosing the 'All American City' is whether it is actually investing in the protection and well - being of the citizens... monetary rewards for 'All American Cities' have, in the past few years, been measured in the hundreds ' of thousands of dollars". Wes Coleman, Director ' All American City Selection Committee 3. Public Relations - Media involvement during OPTICOM Systems "start up" has a very positive affect on the community. This type of publicity increases citizen awareness of vital and effective services provided for them. ' 4. Value: Reducing Risks/Increasing Image - The realistic and measurable costs of risk management must be weighed against the ' immeasurable costs; reputation, respect and image of the community. 5. Community -Wide Benefits - Civic decision makers must be futurists. Regardless of geographic growth areas, the OPTICOM System assures benefits for the entire community. C' IMPROVED RESPONSE TIME/IMPROVED SAFETY/REDUCE LIABILITY EXPOSURE As part of an Emergency Response Management program, an OPTICOM ' Priority Control System can be an important solution to the travel time segment of emergency vehicle runs. The key Emergency Response Management opportunities/problems are: *Response Time ' *Citizen and Employee Safety *Reduction of Property Loss ' *Reduction of Legal Exposure ' *Overall Risk Management C DIRECT BENEFITS FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Improved Response Time - Reduced time in arriving at the scene of an emergency saves lives and property. It further improves resource allocations. The emergency response teams are more efficient when they have time to organize their efforts. The geographic area an emergency response team covers can be increased because they can get to more areas more quickly. Critical Response Seconds - Lives and property are saved when the ' response time is quick. Survival rate is higher for victims of heart attack, shock and bleeding. Property damage costs are lower when "flashover" is avoided. ' Traffic Safety - Ease in traffic flow results in a safer traffic system. Costs are reduced with fewer accidents through less equipment ' repair and replacement, reduced liability, fewer injuries for emergency personnel and citizens. Liability - The OPTICOM Priority Control System is proven in hundreds ' of cities and municipalities to be the safest, most cost efficient and effective priority traffic control system available today. Through state-of-the-art defense, the likelihood of legal action, and related ' costs are reduced. Further, costs for injury, worker's compensation and societal costs related to injury or fatality are also reduced. Image in the Community - While no dollar value can be assigned to good public relations, there is no doubt that it has a great direct benefit to the community. Citizen confidence throughout the city, because of innovative and aggressive leadership leads to a higher standard of living. The effective use of public funds benefits everyone. Productivity Versus Stress - The OPTICOM System can help reduce the ' stress of intersection travel by providing a green light. It follows that time in getting to the scene of the emergency is reduced. Because there is less stress in getting to the emergency, professionalism in doing the job is increased. This productivity leads to more efficient ' and effective emergency services, thus reducing costs and increasing safety. ' Equipment Maintenance - The useful life of an emergency vehicle is increased because the green light provided by the OPTICOM System minimizes the stop and go situation, maintenance costs are reduced. ' Life cycle Ge.sts (purchase price plus ,maintenance�ps'ts divided by the number of ye fe in service) are therefore reduced Minimizing the Probability of an Accident - This as¢one of the OPTICOM ' System's greatest benefits. The reduction of costs associated with time, life, injuries, personal property, liability insurance, court and attorney's fees, equipment replacement and repair, hinges on reducing accidents between citizen and emergency vehicles. The OPTICOM System provides this opportunity. 0 11 A SECURED INVESTMENT - W_RRANTY COVERAGE Planning Emergency Response Management for a community requires ' investment of resources. The investment made today can and should pay off for years to come. To insure civic leaders of the security of their investment, 3M offers a traffic industry first --a ten year ' warranty on its Emergency Response Management system. This warranty is the result of over fifteen years of experience and confidence in the consistently superior performance of the OPTICOM ' Priority Control System. Under the ten year OPTICOM System warranty, buyers are assured of low maintenance costs, continued support and technical expertise, and system compatibility for the future. The quality and engineering excellence of the products and systems are ' guaranteed under this warranty. ' Defects - The warranty covers any repairs needed during the warranty due to defects in material period or workmanship. Warranty Period - The warranty period for all coverages begins on the ' date of shipment. It ends at the expiration of the extended coverage (ten years). Continued coverage may be available after ten years. the repair costs will reflect current rates at the time. Basic Coverage - The basic OPTICOM System warranty period is five years. The complete system except emitter lamps, is covered during ' this time. There is no charge for repairs during basic coverage. Extended Coverage The extended OPTICOM System warranty period is five years. The complete system, except emitter lamps, is covered during ' this time. A fixed $90.00 charge per repair is applicable during this period. Once repaired, the component will carry no charge on further repairs for one year while on extended coverage. ' Lamp Coverage - Lamp warranty period for new emitters is two years form date of shipment of emitter or 3,000 hours of operation, whichever ' comes first. 0 11 t n C r RECOMMENDATION -----Implementation of the OPTICOM Priority Control System as a tool for Emergency Response Management in the City of Rosemount. With priority control in the hands of the emergency vehicle operator, only intersections along the immediate response route are affected, and only for a short period of time. There is little disruption in traffic flow. In fact, few drivers will notice anything different. It works very simply. (see Figure 6). The OPTICOM System is the state-of-the-art solution for your city. (See system specification in the reference section). The OPTICOM Priority Control System: 1. Enhances traffic flow for priority response. ' 2. Helps gain valuable seconds. 3. Provides safety for emergency personnel and citizens. ' 4. Reduces the city's liability exposure. ' 5. Benefits the entire city and leadership. it proves agressive, innovative 6. Increases the confidence for safer emergency travel, thus reducing stress. 7. Improves the life cycle of equipment. ' 8. Minimizes the probability of an accident at signalized intersections, which in turn saves the costs of lives, liability ' and equipment. 9. Warranty. ' 10. Matched component system. 1 1 C A r 7'M O How the Opticom system works: (1) Emitter generates an optical signal to the (2) Detector, which converts the optical signal to an electronic impulse, which the (3) Phase Selector in the controller cabinet processes and then manipulates I the controller to provide a green signal for the emergency vehicle. IMPLMMATION OF AN ACTION PLAN A single-phase implementation of the OPTICOM Priority Control System as a tool for Emergency Response Management within in the City of Rosemount would exhibit a cost breakdown as follows: 4 Channel System 2 ea. Model 522 Optical Detectors 2 ea. Model 262 Discriminator Modules 1 ea. Model 360 Card Rack 2000' Model M-138 Optical Detector Cable . 3 Channel System ' 3 2 ea. Model ea. Model 511 Optical Detectors 262 Discriminator Modules 1 ea. Model 360 Card Rack 2000' Model M-138 Optical Detector Cable 2 Channel System 1 ea. Model 522 Optical Detectors 1 ea. Model 262 Discriminator Modules 1 ea. Model 360 Card Rack 1000' Model M-138 Optical Detector Cable @ $ 695.00 ea. @ $1525.00 ea. @ $ 175.00 ea. @ $ 390.00/M' $5395.00 @ $ 375.00 ea. @ $1525.00 ea. @ $ 175.00 ea. @ $ 390.00/M' $5130.00 @ $ 695.00 ea. @ $1525.00 ea. @ $ 175.00 ea. @ $ 390.00/M' $2785.00 C n u INTERSECTION EQUIPMENT Intersections would be equipped as follows: CSAH #42 and Chippendale 4 channel $5395.00 CSAH #42 and Shannon 4 channel 5395.00 *CSAH #42 and Diamond Path 4 channel 5395.00 CSAH #42 and STH #3 4 Channel 5395.00 145th Street and STH #3 4 channel 5395.00 Total $26,975.00 Intersection equipment would be installed under contract by Dakota County, by MnDot, or by contractors when new traffic signals are being installed. OPTICAL EMITTERS The 3M Model 196 Optical Emitter System is a stand alone device designed to activate the OPTICOM System from it's mounting position atop the emergency vehicle. The purchase of emitters would exhibit a cost breakdown as follows: * Approach Apple Valley regarding shared installation cost and ' maintenance. Fire Department 12 Emitters @ $1450 $17,400.00 ' Police Department 4 Emitters @ $1450 $5,800.00 Total $23,200.00 ' The Fire Department and Police would install it's own emitters, using city personnel. ' System Total $50,175.00 * Approach Apple Valley regarding shared installation cost and ' maintenance. PUBLIC RELATIONS Benefits While the public attitude towards its community is difficult to measure accurately, officials are acutely aware of the need to keep the public informed of its plans and accomplishments. In order to gain support, communities will often utilize a variety of public relations vehicles. the OPTICOM Priority Control System offers a prime opportunity for positive placements in local media. The OPTICOM System assures benefits for the entire community, regardless of growth areas. Further, the system is easily explained, ' quantifiable and works well with television broadcasts, because it can effectively be shown on camera. ' Possibilities/Recommendations The OPTICOM System lends itself to print, audio and visual media. It ' is recommended that the announcement happens when there are no other major announcements or events scheduled. ' News Conference A news conference should be held at a convenient location, where the ' system can be demonstrated. Key editors and producers should be contacted well in advance of the event. Radio and television interview programs are scheduled weeks in advance, but there is a strong ' possibility a producer will shift things around to accommodate the announcement. ' Be certain that all key players are available and prepared for the interviews, including the fire chief, traffic engineer and other community leaders. ' Media Kits Interviews ' 3M has prepared a media kit with general guidelines to assist in promoting the OPTICOM Priority Control System. This kit includes information on the system, black and white glossy photographs and proposed newspaper announcements. The OPTICOM System media kit is helpful in providing a checklist of items that can be considered as the system is being introduced to the community. _INTERCEPTOR SCALE IN FEET 0 200 40,0 Ci 1 r i h.reGy aert:ry that " pan eo. pnpaed by m. a r I LL IV V. -_ ander my db Ct euperVlWan and that I an a duly o ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA OPTION C: 92040 R.gteta.d Pmfmdohd Engineer ander the lave of th. ® ROSEMOUNT ARMORY SANITARY 6 .tate at Me"n.eatd .�� TRUNK TO M W CC INTERCEPTOR TE R C E PTO R N0. 8Y OAIE REVISIONS ITEM DESIGN CHECKED txt■ 10-1-91 a Ha 19699_ £Ncf:EtxSRAR0*TEC FVPLAWD?S SEWER CONSTRUCTION 10-1-91 6 �--r N � w � � r � � � � s � � �r +� � � �► � �r 0 10 -79� I 1,14 ffl� }�-Zt 'o � 9 ILI 0 it J 1 \ =t SCALE N FEETpm 25 11 0 100 200 400 I.V..w. .s�..44u ��1 ` __ _- .... _..... .__.... .- t._.. ..-..... ... _... .-. ...... .. ... . .............. .._ ,. - _. ........ . .. .. .... .. . _......... 40 ........ 93._... 7.- _.. _. _. _.._. ---- . _ _. _ .. ...._ - . _.._ ... -.. $ PNC Ca? b.40 % ._... _ . SUBSCJRFACE.__C F . - 935 _..........._ _ ...__ _ R ZING - __... _ _ _ - i-__ ........ --------_ ...._ ._... F .. _ ....... _ £ -- _ - _.... .. _. _- .......... t . :. r._. .._ .. _... _._ _. _.... _... , _. - _ - -- -- ..... ..._ .... - nW ckmwtify mop uw pw d t pnpm by duly a —� hILt NU. wM1 and P- lia d Em enA-d1 mrm u Adr ® ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA OPTION B: 92040 Rig6f f `"'"`"'° d �'�"' "" �" "' ROSEMOUNT ARMORY SANITARY _ pleb of YYmwola NO. BY DATE RENSIONS ITEM DESIGN CHECKED �._ ,0—,-9, o� ,9699 5.,.n-��s SEWER CONSTRUCTION TRUNK TO LIFT STATION N0. 2 io—�—s� 6 . _ .. .. _. ,_ .. ..... .. ............-.... .._ .. .. .... -- a _..... ._...... -... _.- .__... .... .... .. .,-. ...-._ ._____...- ... _.. _..... .. .......... ..._..._. .... i.... ,.....,.... -.... ...._.... .. -.. .. _ ,....... _. .. ... .,. i ..... ........_.. ........_..._. ......__ ........._..__. ..._ ... .. ._. ..__........ EXIST RRQFItE :... OVE-R SANITARY J ' • ..... -.._............ _. ..- . - _._..... ...... ........ _..._ _....._.. _ ....._...... m �.,..::.__�.�... _ . __ ..:...w�,.� 3 F .......... ..:....._..wry.:_..... .»..w._.__,m. ,._..wry ...w.....,__�......___.... I �..�._ wM..��, i = . E F ... l .._.... _...- - _ ., ,_._ .._. .11.. �P -'FORCE -MAIN _ u.».��.� .... �.��..�._�..�.�.�..��.V..w.......... ... - .. .... _ .. ... - - ... - ...... ... .., I.V..w. .s�..44u ��1 ` __ _- .... _..... .__.... .- t._.. ..-..... ... _... .-. ...... .. ... . .............. .._ ,. - _. ........ . .. .. .... .. . _......... 40 ........ 93._... 7.- _.. _. _. _.._. ---- . _ _. _ .. ...._ - . _.._ ... -.. $ PNC Ca? b.40 % ._... _ . SUBSCJRFACE.__C F . - 935 _..........._ _ ...__ _ R ZING - __... _ _ _ - i-__ ........ --------_ ...._ ._... F .. _ ....... _ £ -- _ - _.... .. _. _- .......... t . :. r._. .._ .. _... _._ _. _.... _... , _. - _ - -- -- ..... ..._ .... - nW ckmwtify mop uw pw d t pnpm by duly a —� hILt NU. wM1 and P- lia d Em enA-d1 mrm u Adr ® ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA OPTION B: 92040 Rig6f f `"'"`"'° d �'�"' "" �" "' ROSEMOUNT ARMORY SANITARY _ pleb of YYmwola NO. BY DATE RENSIONS ITEM DESIGN CHECKED �._ ,0—,-9, o� ,9699 5.,.n-��s SEWER CONSTRUCTION TRUNK TO LIFT STATION N0. 2 io—�—s� 6 II avwen"19 + v �waNva O N n. Q 00 O O oQ NII a U n iii O _j Q� VII._- 961 9H ON I0lOOH.^,S m 1 aN a V' 1NJON3d�ON3a30 - N1 Q o O O cr - w O J _!Z -- 1 N 10 W Qo Zoo Z>_: SON �z F afO <u Z _ :D�- 0Zw 0 NWS OU) LJ O ~ \ a cr a) o w \ o & w -- — -------- a v a v I =:��o rvoaavwln � 1 0 1 \ U) N ° H° In IT II avwen"19 + v �waNva = w m r it m m w m M M mm " = mm= O N n. Q z O O oQ O_ U O J H U W O O cr a OF-Q� z W Qo Zoo Z>_: SON �z F afO <u Z _ :D�- 0Zw 0 NWS OU) = w m r it m m w m M M mm " = mm= r .� � r � w i � � � � �w � �r r � i � �