The URL can be used to link to this page

09-10-08 AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:30 pm 1. 2008 Pavement Management - 4911 33rd Avenue North 2. Revised Verizon Wireless Antenna Request 3. 2009 Proposed Budget - Other Funds 4. Building Department - Storm/Staffing Budget 5. Replacement of Brookview Community Center Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. alley e ora dum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 10, 2008 Agenda Item 1. 2008 Pavement Management - 4911 33rd Avenue North Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Public Works staff has prepared a response to Mr. Bill Andrei's letter to the City Council dated August 27,2008. A copy of the staff response dated September 4,2008, is attached to this memorandum for reference and discussion. Attachments Memorandum to Jeannine Clancy and Jeff Oliver from Ron Nims and Brian Dahlberg dated September 4,2008 (9 pages) Sample Driveway Agreement (1 page) alley M mo ndum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: September 4, 2008 To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Brian Dahlberg, Engineering Technician Subject: Driveway Restoration at 4911 33rd Avenue North In all City projects, staff observes all facets of the construction for compliance with the project specifications. The base specifications which govern the work are the Standard Specifications for Construction prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), 2005 edition. These specifications are supplemented by the City's Special Provisions for specific requirements that are modified by the City, under the direction of the City Engineer or the consulting engineer, to improve the quality of the work. Although the Asphalt Institute procedures and suggestions, as quoted by Mr. Anderl, are used in the development of project requirements, they are not the specifications or contract documents under which the project is governed. It should also be noted that the City's requirement/policy for replacements is to restore the existing facilities to an "equal or better" condition as present before the project. The attached photos represent the before and after condition of Mr. Anderl's driveway patch. In response to specific comments from Mr. Anderl's letter to the Golden Valley City Council dated August 27, 2008, staff has the following comments: 1. Subgrade was not properly graded and compacted before the installation of the asphalt mixture. Staff and City representatives were present during the compaction of the aggregate base placed under the current asphalt patch. Driveways are compacted in accordance with MnDOT's "Quality Compaction Method" which states that the soil must be compacted until there is no evidence of further consolidation. This was the case with Mr. Anderl's driveway patch. The grade was established between the existing concrete placed by Mr. Anderl's contractor and the apron placed by the City's contractor, a space of approximately 5 feet to 6 feet wide. There is a +/-0.05 foot (approximately G:\PROJECTS\2006 PMP (06-1)\Corres 2006-09 PMP Project No. 06-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-06_revised.docx 5/8 inch) tolerance on a gravel surface being prepared for placement of an asphalt course. The requirement was met by the contractor. 2. Full-depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a minimum of 4- inches compacted thickness on a properly prepared subgrade. The driveway patch does not average 2-inches in compacted thickness. Pavement thickness is designed using the strength of the subgrade, traffic volumes and the design load on the pavement. The local streets in Mr. Anderl's neighborhood were designed for 7 -ton loads over silty sand/silty clay soils with traffic volumes between 400 to 1,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). These same streets have a total of 4.5 inches of asphalt. The City's current standard (and has been for at least 20 years) is to replace asphalt driveway pavements with a minimum of 3 inches compacted thickness (tolerance = +/- % inch). Where existing pavements are thicker than 3 inches, the City replaces the asphalt to the thicker section. This standard has shown very good results and is typically thicker than what is provided by most private contractors on residential driveways. Three inches of asphalt is more than adequate to handle the use as a residential driveway pavement and more than meets the "equal to or better" requirement. Again, staff was present to review the placement of the asphalt and the thickness was within the requirements. 3. Compaction of the subgrade was not done with a roller and no testing was done prior to the placement of the asphalt concrete. It is true that a roller was not used to compact the aggregate below the asphalt patch. Placing a roller on the new concrete that was placed previously could damage/chip the concrete edge. It is not feasible to use a roller on the small, confined space (approximately 5 feet to 6 feet) between the new concrete slabs that were placed previously. Instead, the appropriate tool for consolidating the soil was a walk behind plate tamper, which was used on Mr. Anderl's patch. Although this method typically achieves the desired compaction, should the driveway settle, the City warrants the work for a period of one year. Typically, any deficiencies will manifest themselves during the warranty period and the City will to have the contractor make replacements as necessary. 4. Hand placement of the asphalt mixture should include the placement of forms at the edge of the driveway. No such forms were used. The Asphalt Institute's literature provided with Mr. Anderl's letter, does state that forms should be used in the construction of residential driveway pavements. However, it is hardly the industry standard. Staff cannot recollect G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-08_revised.docx one incident where forms were used on any private or public asphalt driveway construction in 20 years. Again, the City has had no adverse effects on driveway pavements where forms were not used. Also, use of forms was not required under the specifications, therefore none were used. 5. Inspection of the driveway patch job was inadequate. Inspector was not on-site until after the pavement was rolled. Staff does not observe the rolling of every driveway patch as there are typically a multitude of activities that are on-going at any given time during a project like this one. Staff does monitor the rolling of some of the asphalt patches for compliance with the specifications. However, in the case of Mr. Anderl's driveway, staff was present for the rolling operation and the contract requirements were met. In fact, concerns were expressed by staff to the contractor that he should not be rolling over the asphalt pavement onto Mr. Anderl's concrete slab to prevent any damage. 6. The surface of the asphalt concrete driveway patch appears to have excessive course material exposed, indicating a mix that does not meet the specification for asphalt content. The asphalt mixture that is used on driveways is the same mixture used in the wearing course for the street work. It does sometimes have a more "open" surface texture than mixes commonly referred to as "sand mixes." The asphalt is from a certified plant, the design meets MnDOT requirements, and is spot checked by MnDOT personnel at the plant. Since the asphalt is used in streets as well as driveway construction, it is designed to give stability to the pavement more than to achieve a very closed surface texture for aesthetics. This asphalt mixture has been used for years with little negative comment from residents. Staff has received the same comment from a very few residents in the past. However, once given the reasoning they have been very satisfied. In summary, the driveway patch completed on Mr. Anderl's driveway meets the project requirements/policies set forth. The patch exceeds the obligation of the City to restore the pavement with an "equal to or better" condition. Attachments: Bill Anderlletter dated August 27, 2008 Before and After photos of the driveway at 4911 33rd Avenue North G:\PROJECTS\2008 PMP (08-1)\Corres 2008-09 PMP Project No. 08-1\Anderl Memo 9-4-08_revised.docx t t~~~ 'W\) , BILL ANDERL I 4911-33rd Avenue No. t Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 I 763-529-5008 August 27, 2008 City of Golden Valley Attn: City Council 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Subject: Asphalt Driveway Patch Deficiencies Dear City Council: Now that the city's contractor has installed a 4 ft. patch of asphalt ill my driveway, I am writing this letter to inform you of the major deficiencies of this work and ask that it be removed and reinstalled following the Asphalt Institute's Model Specifications for Small. Paving Jobs, CL-2. Major deficiencies that are noted on my driveway patch are: 1- Subgrade was not properly graded and compacted before the installation of the asphalt mixture. 2 - Full-depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a minimum of 4-inches compacted thickness on a properly prepared subgrade. The driveway patch does not average 2-inches in compacted thickness. 3 - Compaction of the subgrade was not done with a roller and no testing was done prior to the placement of the asphalt concrete. 4 - Hand placement of the asphalt mixture should include the placement of forms at the edge of the driveway. No such forms were used. 5 .. Inspection of the driveway patch job was inadequate. Inspector was not on-site until after the patch was rolled. 6 - The surface of the asphalt concrete driveway patch appears to have excessive course material exposed, indicating a mix that does not meet the specification for asphalt content. I will not accept this quality of pavement for my driveway. I expect the patch to be removed and replaced with a properly installed driveway pavement, as was promised by the city. Other driveway patches on 33rdAve. No. were also constructed with the same technique and materials. I would expect that all of them fail to meet some of the model specifications I have cited above. Sincerely, 0~l-t.~ William H. Anderl, P.E. Attachment - Asphalt Institute Construction Leaflet No. 11 Cl Z (3 ~ a: ::J tJ) cO Cl z :> ~ "0 C\I II '<tl~ GENERAL INFORMATION j In order to be a good investment, a residential driveway must be properly constructed. The informa- t ~ tion contained in this leaflet is designed as a general guide to the proper design and construction of ~ :t:: asphalt pavements for private driveways, and to assist the homeowner in obtaining a driveway that will f= ~ be sound, economically constructed, attractive and durable. . A driveway that is correctly designed and constructed by the Full-Depth asphalt method will give , many years of service with little or no maintenance. Such a driveway is simple and economical to \) build, and in practically every area there are reputable contractors who will furnish and properly use the materials, equipment, and labor needed to build a completely acceptable pavement. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Asphalt: A dark brown to black cementitious material in which the predominating constituents are bitumens which occur in nature or are obtained in petroleum processing. In varying proportions, asphalt is a constituent of most crude petroleums. Full-Depth Asphalt Pavement: Pavement. in which asphalt mixtures are used for all courses above the subgrade or improved subgrade. Asphalt Concrete: A high-quality, thoroughly-controlled hot mixture of asphalt cement and well- graded, high-quality mineral aggregate. Subgrade: The soil prepared to support a structure or a pavement system. It is the foundation for the pavement structure. The subgrade soil sometimes is called "basement soil" or "foundation soil." Asphalt Base Course: A foundation course consisting of mineral aggregate, bound together with as- . phaltic material. Asphalt Surface Course: The top course of an asphalt pavement, sometimes called asphalt wearing course. --/ i:::r _CD i~ '0 :::r III ;:; Ullol'o &I rv c. ~ < Z G> po (J) c: :tI ~ (") Z G> DRAINAGE Good drainage is frnportant for pavement durability. It is desirable to blend the surface of the.pave- ment to the contour of the. existing ground so that the surface water runs over it or away from it in its natural course. In flat areas, the driveway should be sloped or crowned not less than 1/4in./ft (2 cm/m) so all surface water will drain off. Roof drainage from downspouts should, if feasible, be piped well away from the edge of the driveway. In some cases, pipe cross drains may be needed to take the water under the driveway. Water should not be allowed to stand at the edges. ....., f Generally, an underdrain system is not required when the pavement is constructed by the Full-Depth asphalt method, even over poor soil or in certain other undesirable drainage conditions. IIowever, an underdrain system may be required if the driveway pavement is constructed by another method in- volving the use of an untreated gravel or crushed rock base. PAVEMENT WIDTH Primary consideration should be given to building a driveway of proper width. It should be no less than 8 ft (2.4 m), but lOft (3 m) is a more practical minimum width. If the driveway will be used for both pedestrians and automobiles a 12 ft (3. 7 ~) width should be considered. It usually is desirable to preselVe aesthetic objects such as trees and rocks. Also, to avoid unsightly cuts in hilly areas, driveways should conform to the terrain. Therefore, where the property. will ac- commodate it, a curving driveway will be more attractive. A curved driveway needs to be increased in width on sharp curves. PAVEMENT mICKNESS Full-Depth asphalt pavements for residential driveways should be a minimum of 4 in. (10 em) com- pacted thickness on a properly prepared sUbgrade (see SUBGRADE PREPARATION, below). This minimum is sufficient for many years of service (automobiles and an occasional truck) if the driveway is properly constructed. However, if there is concern about foundation conditions, such as soft sub- grade or an exceptional number of heavy vehicles using the pavement, it may be desirable to increase the thickness to 5 in. (13 em) or, under extreme conditions, 6 in. (15 cm). Thickness design is further discussed in The Asphalt Institute's publication, Fun-Depth Asphalt Pavements For Parking Lots, Service Stations and Driveways, Information Series No. 91 (15-91). .: .'\ " ) SUB GRApE PREPARATION Before construction begins) buried utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed driveway should be located. If they are likely to be damaged during construction, they should be relocated or protected. The subgrade soil must serve as a working platfonn to support construction equipment and it also must serve as the foundation for the pavement structure. Because it must be capable of carrying tiie . loads transmitted to it from the pavement structure, it is most important that the subgrade be~ ~rly grad~d and ~de9uatelY comp~ After gradingl and compactinR with a roller. the subgrade should be tested to determine if it will support the constrUction equipment. This is done by driving a heavily-laden truck over it and noting the deflections. If a subgrade area shows pronounced deflection, this indicates that the soil has not been sufficiently rolled or that the soil-moisture content of the 8ubgrade is too high. If additional rolling fails to correct the unstable condition, the 80ft areas should be removed and replaced with 2 or 3 in. (5 - 8 cm) orhot-mix asphalt concrete. In some cases of extremely poor subgrade, it may be necessary to remove the upper portion of the subgrade and replace it with select material. Where it is possible that weeds may grow in the subgrade soil, prior to paving the subgrade should be treated with a non-toxic commercial sterilant. -2- COMPOSITION OF PAVING MIXTURE t "~'-"'\ ; J It is recommended that the asphalt paving mixture to be used be of a type locally and readily available. Typically this would be a State Highway Department:mix used for residential streets. Because they are used extensively, these mixes are .usually the least expensive. If such locally specified mixes are not available, it is advisable to use the American Society for Testing and Materials' Standard Specification D3515, Hot-Mixed, Hot-Laid Asphalt Paving Mixtures. Mix Designations and Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate, 1/2 in. (12.5 mm) or 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) are recommended. SPREADING THE MIXTURE The thick lift technique [placing in lifts of 4 or more in. (10 or more cm)] is in most instances satisfactory. However, if subgrade conditions or traffic loads necessitate thicknesses greater than 4 in. (10 cm), it is suggested that the asphalt be placed in two layers. In some cases it may also be necessary to place the mix in more than one layer to achieve desired smoothness. Three in. (8 em) of base and 2 in. (5 em) of surface mix or 4 in. (10 cm) of base and 2 in. (5 em) of surface are suggested thickness combinations for 5 and 6 in. (13 and 15 cm) total thicknesses. Small pavers are available but most asphalt paving machines in use today place widths ranging from 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m). Relatively sophisticated self-propelled pavers as well as simpler towed equip- ment have been successfully used for residential driveway construction. Whenever possible, hand me f the mixture should be avoided. However, where access to the driveway site is limited, hand placement may be the 0 y feasi e construction method. When the asphalt mixture is placed by hand it is essential that ronus be set at the..ed2e o:tthe dnvew@y. These will ensure a neat edge and will minimize surface imperfections when used as a reference for a strike- off board. When used as forms for this purpose, redwood boards may be left in place to provide a separation between driveway and lawn. WEA1HER CONDmONS Weather conditions affect asphalt construction. To obtain the best results asphalt paving should be done in other than wet or extremely cold weather. COMPACTION Regardless of the thickness of the course being placed~ compaction of asphalt pavement mixtures is one of the most important construction operations contributing to the proper perfonuance of the completed pavement. That is why it is so important to have a eroperly Prepared subgrade apinst which to compact the QVerlying pavement. A steel-wheeled tandem roller is generally used Tor this ~ type of work. Howevar, many other types of roller, including small self-propelled vibrating rollers, can be used to attain t}le required compaction. MAINTENANCE It is not necessary to seal the surface of a newly-constructed asphalt concrete driveway. When the \ pavement is properly constrUcted, the driveway should afford many years of service before a thin ap- t) '-- plication of driveway sealer containing mineral grit (available at hardware stores) becomes desirable to improve the surface texture and seal small cracks. But, if the pavement is not properly compacted during construction a surface sealer may be needed within two to four years. -3- ~ i' 1\.;. ~ . I I I I II Public Works Department > 7800 Golden Valley Road ey Golden Valley, MN 55427....-4588 763-593-8030 www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us Private Driveways 2008 Pavement Management Program ] Property Owner: Resident Address: 2933 Generic Ave. N. Address of Driveway: Day Phone: 123.456.7777 Night Phone: !';;:!mp. AREA 5 ASPHAL T ESTIMATE Estimated Total Remove existing concrete pavement 85.7 SY @ $10.45/SY = $ 895.22 Remove existing bituminous pavement 0.0 SY @ $5.96/SY = $ Saw concrete pavement 5.0 LF @ $2.64/LF = $ 13.20 Saw bituminous. pavement 0.0 LF @ $1.94/LF = $ Common excavation 21.4 CY @ $5.82/CY = $ 124.65 Class 5 aggregate base 28.3 T @ $13.91/T = $ 393.24 3" Type L V4 bituminous mix 15.4 T @ $160.00/T = $ 2,467.20 6" concrete pavement 0.0 SY @ $44.02/SY = $ Sodding 42.0 SY @ $4.05/SY = $ 170.10 Bituminous to concrete difference 0.0 SY @ $15.70/SY = $ -----.----- _._-------- nglneer's Estimate = $ 4,063.60 7% Administration Fee = $ 284.45 Total Estimated Cost = $ 4,348.05 I hereby acknowledge the above stated infbrmation is complete and accurate, that I am the fee owner of the subject property. 'I also acknowledge that I desire the above work be completed by the City of Golden Valley, its employees, agents or contractors, under the direction of the City Engineer, upon my property as outlined, and that the estimated construction cost stated above is in fact an esti- mate and may be subject to change based upon conditions encountered in the field during construction. I understand I will be responsible for 100 percent of the cost of the authorized work, plus a seven percent administrative fee. Both are payable to the City of Golden Valley in cash following completion of the work or through a special assessment certified to my property taxes at the same interest rate a.nd length of assessment as the special assessments for the City Improvement Project. I also hereby waive my right to appeal the special assessment for the extra work only as outlined herein according to Minnesota Laws, Chapter 429. I also understand that the above work is warranted for one year from the date of construction against any defective workmanship or materials, in accordance with the specifications, as determined by the City Engineer. By signing this document, I attest that I have read and understand the included explanation of defects that are warranted and those that are not warranted and that the City Engineer has sole discretion in this determination. As the undersigned property owner, I release the City of Golden Valley, its employees, agents, or contractors, from any claim or causes of action in connection with the ad- ditional construction authorized herein. Property Owner's Signature: Date: See sketch on reverse side and attached Driveway Warranty. 2008 Pavement Management Program 4/08 #2933 GENERIC AVENUE NORTH z <( :::2: W a:::: ~ ~ ....J <( ~ cJ z o CD CQNC. APRON TO REMAIN LANDS \ 18' (I CAPING \ . I ! CONC. WALK TO REMAIN NEW DRIVEWAY TO MATCH EXISTING LAYOUT. CITY RIGHT OF WAY LINE REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE ! WITH BITUMINOUS i ! OVER LA Y 1 "in ..- <::I" ~_.. 18' GENERIC AVENUE i"i <::t- SAWCUT SIDEWALK AT END OF GARAGE APRON. REMOVE & ,REPLACE CONCRETE. PROJECT GRADING LIMITS ---- ::::::::---- Hey M morandu Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 10, 2008 Agenda Item 2. Revised Verizon Wireless Antenna Request Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Summary After Council discussion at their August Council/Manager meeting, Verizon was notified that the City would only consider a new building to house Verizon equipment related to operation of antennas on the Golden Valley water tower if it was attached to an existing City building and had matching exterior. Verizon's design staff has provided the attached drawing for Council consideration at a concept level. Verizon will still need to meet all other requirements if the Council provides positive feedback regarding this location. Should formal site and building plans be approved, Verizon's request will be forwarded to the City Council and the Joint Water Commission for consideration of a lease agreement and approval of the building. As part of the lease agreement, staff would negotiate a lease payment from Verizon that would potentially generate revenue for the JWC of which Golden Valley would receive a portion. Attachments Revised Verizon Wireless Concept Site Plan (1 page) ~ co II'l :e 0; f!l ~ t c! l!! ~ U z !E, ~ ~ g. ! c: l!! .. ::!: l I Vi PROPOSED SHELTER ADDITION SMH TOP~902.9 INV~ 898.85 lP * , o I- " , , ", WV if' WV Te Te ........ ........ ...........~ ~ , Te ~ 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344 ROBERT J. DAVIS, AlA (952) 903-9299 FAX 903-9292 ARCHITECT 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (952) 948 . 4700 PROJECT: 2008298434 MINC MAREN CITY WATER TOWER 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 ~ DESIGN~ VERIZON WIRELESS ~ iw ~ -~~ >QQ u. o alley M orandum Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 10, 2008 Agenda Item 3. 2009 Proposed Budget - Other Funds Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At the Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following funds: Brookview Golf Course, Motor Vehicle Licensing, and Human Services Foundation. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions and answer questions from the Council. Please bring your 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget book. Attached: 2009 Proposed Budgets - Other Funds (3 ring notebook, loose in agenda packet) Proposed 2009 Budget (Other Funds) Memo (2 pages, included in Budget book) hlley M moran um Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 10, 2008 Agenda Item 4. Building Department - Storm/Staffing Budget Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The Inspection Department continues to be very busy issuing permits and inspecting repairs as a result of the damage caused by the storm on May 31, 2008. With the increased number of inspections after the storm, an intern was hired and continues to assist the full-time staff with inspections. A total of 1,760 building permits were issued during June, July and August 2008; compared with 333 in 2007, 296 in 2006 and 309 in 2005. Attachment Summary: # of Building Permits Issued 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 YTD (1 page) Summary of Permit Fees: Plan Review: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 YTD (1 page) Summary: # of Re-Roof Permits Issued 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 YTD (1 page) Summary: Re-Roof Permit Fees 2005,2006,2007, 2008 YTD (1 page) Summary: # of Re-Roof Permits Issued 2005, 2006,2007,2008 - June through August (1 page) Summary: Re-Roof Permit Fees 2005,2006,2007,2008 - June through August (1 page) Summary: # of Inspections - June, July, August - 2006,2007,2008 (1 page) 00 o en N c u LLI aJ :) C 0 I In C CI) !;: 0 CO <:t ..... CI) .-t " 0 - CO 0 ~ N 0 - 0 .. :E N ~ ... <( a:: ,..... LLI 0 :E C- O :E ~ N ... :) Z U) u - 0 aJ CI) C 0 0 I -I c N CO - ..... :) ... 1.0 In 0 CO 0 0 N LI- 0 0 N # " 1.0 0'1 o o In N o o o N o o In .-t o o o .-t o o In t:l.O :J <( I C CO ..... 00 o o N u aJ o I C CO ..... In o o N o SUMMARY OF PERMIT FEES: PLAN REVIEW 2005,2006,2007, 2008 YTD $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,156,558 $0 $748,584 $1,000,000 $800,000 $676,154 $621,572 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 2005 Jan-Dec 2006 Jan-Dec 2007 Jan-Dec 2008 Jan-Aug 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 I 213 200 0 2005 Jan-Dec SUMMARY: # OF RE-ROOF PERMITS ISSUED 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 YTD 665 230 2006 Jan-Dec 2007 Jan-Dec 1720 2008 Ja n-Aug $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $48,600 $0 2005 Jan-Dec SUMMARY: RE-ROOF PERMIT FEES 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 VTD $320,112 129.210 $51,347 2006 Jan-Dec 2007 Jan-Dec 2008 Jan-Aug 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 65 o 2005 June - Aug SUMMARY: # RE-ROOF PERMITS ISSUED 2005,2006,2007,2008 JUNE THROUGH AUGUST 1412 80 2006 June - Aug 2007 June - Aug 2008 June - Aug $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $11,993 $0 2005 June - Aug SUMMARY: RE-ROOF PERMIT FEES 2005,2006,2007,2008 JUNE THROUGH AUGUST $270,513 $17,233 $27,775 2006 June - Aug 2007 June - Aug 2008 June - Aug SUMMARY: # OF INSPECTIONS JUNE, JUL~ AUGUST 2006/2007/2008 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 June-06 516 600 400 200 0 Jul-08 1258 Aug-08 1387 Jun-08 715 Aug-06 492 Jun-07 454 Jul-07 444 Aug-07 465 Hey M moran um City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 10, 2008 Agenda Item 5. Replacement of Brookview Community Center Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary At the July Council/Manager meeting City Council directed staff to report on possible financing options for replacing the Brookview Community Center at its current size and scope of activities. Attached is a memo from Counsel that outlines a variety of methods of financing the replacement. Also attached is a memo that gives a brief history of the Community Center and possible next steps. Attachments Memorandum from Jennifer Hanson, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, dated August 7,2008 (3 pages) Memo from Rick Jacobson, Director of Park and Recreation, dated September 3, 2008 (2 page) Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI) 2008 Building Maintenance Prioritization Report for Brookview Center, dated June 16, 2008 (9 pages) DORSEY DORSEY & 'WHiTNEY U..P MEMORANDUM A TTORNEY/CLlENT PRIVILEGED TO: Sue Virnig CC: FROM: DATE: Lynn Endorf Jennifer Hanson August 7, 2008 RE: Financing options for community center You have asked for a description of the processes for financing a new community center. Below is a discussion of three primary options: 1) the issuance of general obligation bonds following an election; 2) the issuance of lease revenue bonds by the HRA secured by the City's lease payments and 3) lease by the City from a lending institution. Certain "private use" concerns sometimes arising in community center financings are also discussed below. General Obliqation Bonds The City has the option, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.191, of issuing recreational facilities bonds for a community center. That section authorizes the issuance of both revenue bonds payable solely from revenues of the financed facility and general obligation bonds. Assuming that the revenues of a community center would be insufficient on their own to secure repayment of bonds, the City could issue general obligation bonds under this Section following a bond referendum. Such bonds would not count against the City's debt limit, and the taxes levied for payment of debt service on the bonds would be outside of the City's levy limits. Lease Revenue Bonds Lease revenue bonds would be issued by the City's HRA and secured by lease payments made by the City from general revenues, including property taxes (see below for a discussion of the exception from levy limits). No election is required for issuance. Assuming that the amount of the financing exceeds $1,000,000, the principal amount of the bonds counts against the City's debt limit, unless it can be determined that the community center, perhaps including the facilities of which it is a part, are a "public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived." In that case, the bonds would not count against the City's debt limit. In order to issue such bonds, the HRA and City would each adopt a resolution approving the project, the operative documents and the sale of the lease revenue bonds. Assuming that the City owns the land underlying the planned new facility, the City would lease the land to the HRA' and the HRA would appoint the City as its agent to cause the new facility to be constructed and would sublease the land and lease the new facility to the City under a lease or lease-purchase agreement between the City and the HRA. The lease revenue bonds would be payable from the revenues derived from the lease payments paid by the City under the lease or lease-purchase agreement. The lease payments would be subject to annual appropriation, and DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP DORSEY the City would have the ability to terminate the lease without penalty at the end of each fiscal year, if the City Council did not appropriate funds to make the lease payments in the next fiscal year. It is typical for lease revenue bonds to be issued pursuant to a trust indenture entered into by the HRA with a trustee (a bank or trust company) for the benefit of the bondholders. The bond trustee would oversee disbursement of the bond proceeds, receive the lease payments from the City, pay the principal of and interest on the bonds and exercise remedies on behalf of the bondholders in the event of a default or non-appropriation by the City. Since the lease revenue bonds would be issued by the HRA, which for federal tax purposes would be considered a "subordinate entity" of the City, the bonds would count against the City's $10 million limit for "bank qualification" purposes, and because the lease revenue bonds would in essence be an obligation of the City, the City would have continuing disclosure obligations with respect to the bonds. The primary advantage to using the HRA lease revenue bonds, rather than the lease/certificates of participation financing described below, is that, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.70, subd. 5(3), the taxes levied by the City to pay the lease payments will be special levies, not subject to levy limits. Lease / Certificates of Participation A second option would be for the City to ground lease the land to a lending institution or a bank acting as a trustee. The lending institution or trustee would in turn appoint the City as its agent to construct the new facility and sublease the land and lease the new facility to the City. The lending institution could either hold the lease obligation or sell certificates ofparticipation ("COPs") in the lease to other investors; if a trustee is involved, it would sell COPs. This structure is similar to the above in that no election is required, debt limits mayor may not apply (depending on the nature of the related revenues, if any) and the obligation is subject to non-appropriation and counts against the bank qualification limit. The City would adopt a. resolution authorizing the project and operative documents.. If no COPs are to be offered for sale, there would be no offering document. COPs would also involve a trust indenture providing for the rights of holders. There is no statutory exception to levy limits for the lease transaction, either directly placed with a lending institution or where COPs are issued. This means that the taxes levied by the City to pay the lease payments will be subject to the City's levy limits. "Private Use" Issues We have found that community center financings often give rise to private use questions, whether as a result of short or long-term rental to community groups (nonprofits and for-profits), use by school districts or the sale of naming rights to the facility or portions thereof. Included is a brief discussion of the implications of use of the financed space by such parties. Use by School District. Use by a school district or any other governmental entity for governmental purposes will not present problems for maintaining the tax-exemption of the financing. Use by 501(c)(3) Organizations. Use by organizations described in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Code could interfere with the tax-exemption of the financing, depending on the nature and 2 DORSEY ,~ WHiTNEY LLP DORSEY extent of the use. If ongoing use of space by nonprofits is contemplated, we should discuss such plans to determine whether it is worthwhile to "qualify" the financing from the outset to permit use by nonprofits. This would require noticing and holding a public hearing, determining the nature of the likely use and, if possible, identifying the nonprofits to be involved. It would also require that no more than 2% of the proceeds of the financing be applied to payment of costs of issuance. In the event that the financing is not so qualified at the outset and use is later contemplated which would exceed that permitted, the tax-exempt obligations could later be "reissued" as qualified 501 (c)(3) obligations following a public hearing, etc. In this event, it would be helpful if costs of issuance paid from proceeds of the tax-exempt financing had not exceeded 2%. Use by Entities other than 501 (c)(3) Organizations or Governmental Entities, Including Use by Nonprofit Corporations that do not have 501(c)(3) status granted by the Internal Revenue Service. Use of Space bv Private Entities. Some community centers offer amenities as diverse as ice arenas, food service and day care, some run or used by for-profit entities. Use by private entities (entities that are neither governmental entities nor 501 (c)(3) organizations) raises potential concerns for the tax status of the financing, depending on the amount and nature of the arrangements for such use. Private entities may use the facilities during the term of the financing ifsuch use is a) allowed without charge b) or "on the basis of rates that are generally applicable and uniformly applied" and providing for use not exceeding a total of 200 days, including all renewal options. Rates may be considered "generally applicable and uniformly applied" even if "different rates apply to different classes of users, such as volume purchasers, if the differences .are customary and reasonable." We would be happy to review any proposed schedule of rates. If rates are not "generally applicable and uniformly applied," or if an arrangement is desired to last more than 200 days and it provides the private entity with "special legal entitlements" to the financed facilities, private use concerns are implicated. The general rule is that no more than 10% of the use of the facilities can be by all private entities combined (unless their use falls under the exception described in the immediately preceding paragraph). In addition, certain contracts (other than leases or other rental agreements) regarding the use of financed space are permissible if they fall into one of the "safe harbors" for so-called management contracts. If any space (such as athletic facilities, food service etc.) may be given over to a third party for management, we should discuss such arrangements. NaminQ RiQhts. Naming the financed facilities or a portion thereof after a private (non- governmental, non-501 (c)(3) entity) raises private use concerns. We should discuss further if any naming of the facility, rooms therein or other space is contemplated in return for payment. 3 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP alley Me 0 ndu Park & Recreation 763-512-2345 I 763-512-2344 (fax) Date: September 3, 2008 To: Tom Burt, City Manager From: Rick Jacobson, Park & Recreation Director RE: Replacement of Brookview Community Center In 2009, the original portion of Brookview Community Center will be 90 years old. The existing community center is a single building comprised of the original building built in 1919 an addition added in 1950, and a second addition added in 1958. In 1984, Brookview received major renovations, including replacement of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, window replacement, plumbing replacement, extensive electrical wiring replacement, reconfiguration of the Park and Recreation office area, as well as the addition of a catering kitchen and a senior center. In 1990, the Golf Operations area was renovated which included enlarging the grill and pro shop area, the addition of administrative offices and a meeting room, restroom/locker room work, extensive outside concrete work, and the addition of the deck/gazebo overlooking Brookview Golf Course. In 2007, the roof and decking was replaced. This past year, the Golf Operation area experienced some air quality issues, which included mold in an exterior wall of the administration area which was remediated, as well as trace amounts of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TBH) classified as gasoline. Replacing the community center was studied in 1980-1982, but the project was tabled due to challenging economic conditions. Again, in 1985 a committee appointed by the Council brought forth information for a community center/pool. In May of 1987, the bond referendum for this proposal was defeated by a vote of 629 to 4,069. At the July 8,2008 Council/Manager meeting, the Council received an executive summary which talked about the necessary building maintenance items at Brookview Community Center as prioritized by, Environmental Process, Inc. (EPI), totaling $1.2 million. These projects were not all planned in the current Capital Improvement Program. The Council suggested that the best approach to correcting the deficiencies at Brookview may be to replace the building. The Council requested staff to puUogether financing options as well as suggestions for a Council appointed community center study committee. Committee make-up could include representation from the Open Space and Recreation Commission and other city Commissions, at large residents, senior representation, Courage Center representation, corporate representation and civic group representation. The Council should also consider the charge to the committee, scope of the new facility, time frame for the committee to bring back a recommendation, potential facilities and programming, and budget considerations. Funds would need to be budgeted for the cost of a community survey, hiring of architects and engineers for cost analysis, relocation expenses for the Golf Operations, Recreation department staff and programs held at the community center, polling site and emergency shelter site. Ii U I I I I I I I I , :> epr Golden Valley, MN Isanti, MN Le Sueur, MN Marshall, MN / / .PROJECT MANUAL 2008 BUILDING MAINTENANCE PRIORITIZA TION Community Center/Golf Operations PREPARED FOR CITY OF GoLDEN VALLEY 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55427 BPI No. 08~967 > ~' PREPARED BY ENvIRONMENTAL PROCESS.llfC. 715 FLORIDA A VB. S.. Surt'E 111 GOWEN V AILEY. MN 55426 JUNE 16., 2008 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ~i Environmental Process, Inc. 71 S Florida Avenue South,. Suite 111, Golden Valley, MN 55426-1700 Phone: 763-398-3040 . Fax: 763-398-0121 emall: eplmplsOrconnect.com DATE: June 16, 2008 RE: City of Golden Valley Community Center/Golf Operation 2008 Building Maintenance Prioritization EPI No.: 2008.967 ) epf Community Center/Golf Operation Building Maintenance Prioritization - Summary 2008 Life Safety 2008 ADA Upgrades 2008 Concrete 2008 Exterior Building/Site Maintenance 2008 Floor Tile RepairslReplacement Total 2009 Air Conditioning Units 2009 Emergency Generator Total 2010 ADA Upgrades 2010 Emergency AlarmslLights 2010 Exterior Building/Site Maintenance Total 2011 ADA Upgrades 2011 Exterior Building/Site Maintenance 2011 Patio Total 2012 Exterior Building/Site Maintenance 2012 General Interior Repairs 2012 Interior Painting Total Future: Ceiling Tile RepairslReplacement Future: Pipe Insulation Future: Boiler Replacement Future: HV AC System Upgrade Future: Lighting Future: Electric Panel Total $ 9,200.00 86,500.00 10,500.00 39,750.00 3.525.00 $149,475.00 $ 60,000.00 125.000.00 $185,000.00 $ 76,500.00 3,400.00 22.550.00 $102,450.00 $ 52,000.00 45,000.00 250.000.00 $347,000.00 $ 20,000.00 30,225.00 5.,300.00 $ 55,525.00 $ 700.00 3,800.00 80,000.00 229,000.00 46,900.00 2.900.00 $363,300.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BUIlDING CATEGORY Analysis Item Descrlptlon 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 TolaI Flltunl 2008 Life Safety BUILDING CATEGORY AnaIyIls Item DescrIptton 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 ToIaI communlly Cented Pn>vfde-1IdequaIely-BIz IancaIgs at an _ doors In SOUth and _ walls Of Room 1021hat are Golf OperatIons- UFE SAFETY flush wlth the lInshoId of the doorS. $1,soo.oo $1,600.00 COrnmunlIy Cented ~ 8IR8fl/8I1CY ex1lIng pa1hS 1hat Iea<l dnoay out of !he enclosed mechanical spaces at both the Golf OperatIons UFE SAFElY noItheast comer 01 the building and at the Center of the bul1dIng's north side. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 COIIlmunIIy Cented Golf OperatIons UFE SAFETY ReconIlgure atat In Room 102 to pmIIlde a top IaIldIng lhalls llu8h wllh the lhI88hokl of the door. $1.200.00 $1.200.00- - HOOf atDOUl aoors on __ at _ cornaror me DllIIllIRO 10 pRlV1a8 a sunace 1hat IS Communfty Centerl flush wlth the 1IlnlshoId of each door; lhls eIevat8d portion of IIoor should be adequately sfzed to Golf ClperaIlona UFE SAFETY llCCOlRlROdalIlthe 8WIng of the door. $450.00 $450.00 COIIlmunIIy Centerl Remove the pJqeolIng C8S81IOfl( In loWer _ north COR1dor lO comorm WItII cummt_ay Golf OperatIons UFE SAFETY guldellnas. Repolr wall. $50.00 $50.00 communay -CentsrI ReconIIgtn slalr Ill8t Is located _the CORCf8lll pallo and WOOd d_ at the _ comer Golf ClperaIlona UFE SAFETY of the buifdlng 80 that aU eteps meet aflowable height speclflcallons. $250.00 $250.00 COIIlmunIIy Cenlsrl Golf OpeRlllons UFE SAFETY Remove eteps at northeast comer of building and replace wIIh code compIisnt steps. $750.00 $760.00 Total $9.200.00 $9,200.00 2008 ADA Upgrades BUIlDING CATEGORY AnaIy$Is Item Descrlptlon 2001 2008 2010 2011 2012 ToIaI ccmmunlly 0entsrI Recommencl8lle mocIltlcaUons and regl8alng to pm\1cle a IUIIy ~ propeJly SIopeCI ramp lor Golf 0peRlII0ns ACCESSIBIUTY access to the upper level Community Oentsr. $90,000.00 $80,000.00 community Cenlsrl Golf Operations ACCESSIBIUTY Recommend constructing ramps from Room 102 to the deck and from the pallo area to the deck. $6,600.00 $6,600.00 Total $96,600.00 $96,600.00 2008 Concrete BUILDING CATEGORY AnltIysls Item Descrfptlon 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 ToIaI Future Community CenlsrI ReconstrucI and Iellftch concrete pallo outside Room 102 (W1low Room) to slope away from the Golf0pent1lons SITE bulIdlng. Cut a trough In lb. patio for downspout to empty 1mo and cany water away from the patio. $10,600.00 $10,600.00 Total $10,600.00 $10,500.00 EnvIronmenIaI PR>oess. lno. 715 FI9dda Ave. S., SUIte 111 _Valey, ....66428 EPIJGbNo.: _ June 16, 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2008 Building/Site Maintenance Project BUILDING CATEGORY Analysis Item Oescriptlon 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Future community CerQrI Golf 0peralI0ns EXTERIOR TIJCk point JoInts 0/ split-faced block and caulI< concrete caps aroond entlre base 0/ clubhouse. $22,000.00 $22.000.00 community centeI'I Golf 0peraIl0ns SITE Recommend rspIacemenl and COINCIIy repair flashing on top of gazebo haIf-helght walls. (15 LF.) $750.00 $700.00 communlty~ Golf 0peralI0ns SITE Replace IIlIscul metal so/lIt on norIh aide of gazebo. (25 LF.) $500.00 $500.00 HepIaC8 _1lI8l8I1llIIIIIll8IIOl1l1lll JlI8C88IOClltl1a at _ opemng Of _ glIZIloo. ttemoY8 CommunIty~ 8ld&tIng caulk end nlOaIIlkjolnta (80 LF.) on gazebo's metal slclIng - 88peCiaUy at lhe top end Golf 0peraIl0ns SITE boIlom column _lnIerseotions. $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Community centerI Modlty metal ....Ings at WOOd deck and _ 8tepe 10 meet current c:cde requlremenls tor a Golf 0peralI0ns SITE gllllRl raIlng. (300 LF.) $15.000.00 $15.000.00 Total $39,750.00 $39,750.00 2008 Floor Tile RepalrslReplacement BUILDING CATEGORY Analysis Item DeIcrIptlon 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Future comlllUlllly centerI Remove carpelIng In OVIlI1IOWwarm ~ SlOlags area. and dry paper goods storage _, and Golf Operations INTERIOR adjacent oIIIcEIIa1orage space. Repaint concrate I\oQr wI\fI f1POllYcoatlng. (1.030 S.F.) $2,000.00 $2,000.00 \;Ieen (OC'l8pI8.Ce IlneoessalYl ClIl1Yana lIIllIreCl YIIIyl composlte_1n rooms 1utl8ll(l11il. alSO at community Cented beverage SlOI8ge room (330 S.F.). Replace ClaCked and loose vlny\ composlle lies In Room 110 $875~00 GoII Operations INTERIOR &f)d lr\SlOI8ge room located dIrecIIy!eaato/ Room 101 (175 S.F.). ' $875.00 COInInunIty Cer1I8f1 Golf Opera/Ions INTERIOR Cleen grout lIUIItlUIIdIng fklor tiles In bo1h UPJ* IewI tolIet roottI$. $100.00 $100.00 commUlllly ~, Golf Operations INTERIOR Replace Cf8d<ed oeaunlc'MIII base tiles In lOWI!l"....... tolIet rooms (appn:>Xlmal8ly eo pleoes). $400.00 $400.00 COmmtJnIly (..-, ReplaCe_ie wall tiles_ate m-.g in UPJ*- CUSlodfal_lOC8leCI_ tolIet Golf 0petatI0ns INTERIOR IOOIll$ (approximately 20 pIeces). $150.00 $100.00 Total $3.525.00 $3,525.00 2009 Air Conditioning Units BUILDING CATEGORY Analysis Item Oescriptlon 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 Total Future community C9ltle11 MECHANICAl. Golf Operations SYSTEMS Replace CllllCIoneIng units that HlW lhelJpper l.eVIlI HVAC systems $80,000.00 $60,000.00 Totals $0.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 __"""""'Inc. 716_A....S.._111 (loIden Valley. Im_ EPI Job 1'10.: 08-867 June Ill. 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2009 Emergency Alarms I LIghts BUILDING CATEGORY AnaI)'8"Ilem~ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total FUlure COlnmUnIty centerl El.ECTRICAL Golf Operalfons SYSTEMs Provide addlllonaI emeIgelICy nghllng In corridors and near offlce exl1s. $3,400.00 $3.400.00 Tol8I $3,AOO.oo $3.400.00 2010 ADA Upgrades BUIl.DlNO CATEGORY Anal)'81s IIIom Descrlptlon 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 Total FUlure CommunllyCenl8I1 Recommend renovaung !he upper end _ _toilet lCOm8 to ..- cummt handicap acoessIbIIIly Golf Operalfons ACCESSl8IUTY requlrements. $6,500.00 $6,500.00 Community centert Golf 0peratI0na ACCESSIBIlITY ProvIde one ~hlgh/IoWdrlnklng fcumaIn 01\ each_. $12,000.00 $12,000.00 COlnmUnIty CenI8I1 RecommenCl renovating tne men's and women'S _ room shoWers 10 haw one IUIIy-acceestbl Golf Operalione ACCESSIBIlITY ehow<< stall. $13,000.00 $13,000.00 CommunIty centerI Other aocessfbIIly llIlm8 ciecuee<<l1n !he JCH' IllpOtl and nol'_ aboVe ehouId be Implemented; Golf 0peratI0na ACCESSlBIUTY pn:Mde an elIcwance for ImpnlV8ll1el1111. $45,000.00 $45.000.00 Tol8I $76,600.00 $76,600.00 2010 Emergency Alarms I Lights BUlLDINQ CATEGORY AnaIyIIe nem DescrlpIIon 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Future Community CenI8I1 a.&."TRlCAL Golf Operetlone SYSTEMS ProvIde addlllolleI eInergency IlghIIng In con1dora and near oIfIce exI1s. $3.400.00 $3,400.00 TolaI $;3,400.00 $3,400.00 _PIcceso.lnc. 71SRorldaAve.S., SUIte 111 Golden Valley, 1.tN_ l!Pl Jab No.: Q8.987 June 16. 3lO6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- ,- - - - '- '- ,- - - - ,- ,- :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, 20121ilterlor Painting BUILDING CATEGORY AIllIIpIs Item OescrIplIon 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TolaI Future COlnI1IunIly centGc'I Retlnlsh Ille.woocf trim 8IIItOUI1d1nQ wl_1n rooms 101, 102 and upper ,_ _ RepaIr or Golf OperatIons INTERIOR replace damaged wood window trim In rooms 101 and 102. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Canmunlty centGc'I WI1et8 WIlier _ -I. pI1me IIllll p8Int texIUrecl gypsum bOaItl cemngo In _level Golf 0peIall0ns INTERIOR admlnlstratlon office and S8nIols Room slDrage dose! (approxlmateIy 250 S.F.). $2,600.00 $2,600.00 community C8nIIlI1 Golf OperatIons INTERIOR RepaIr cracks Iil gypsum board above wlndows In Room 122, prlme and paint. $300.00 $300.00 Total $5.300.00 $5,300.00 Future: Ceiling Tile RepalrsIReplacement BUIl.DlNG CATEGORY AIllIIyals IWm OescrIplIon 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Future COlnI1IunIly centGc'I Replace ml8slng and damage<l g1ueck1p cemng lies In 0V6f1I0W -.m b<mIage slmlge area and Golf OpsraIlon8 INTERIOR ~offloefslorage area (110 S.F.). $700.00 Community centGc'I Replace _ Slalned acousUc8I c:elItng 1Iles In Room 117. Replace ceIIlng ties IIllll QIId In upper Golf OpsraIlon8 INTERIOR level kiIchen (2llO S.F.) $1.000.00 TOl8I $1,700.00 Future Pipe Insulation BUILDING CATEGORY An8lpls IWm 0escrIplI0n 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TolaI Fuhlre Communlly centGc'I MECHANICAL ReInsWll8 pcxUons 01 the lower level dOmesIIc hot llI1<l cold _10 prevent COIlden_ and heat Golf 0pera1I0ns SYSTEMS Io$s. $3,800.00 TOl8I $3.800.00 Future: Boiler Replacement Project BUIlDING CA~ ~I. Item oe-tptian 2008 2008 2010 2011 2012 TolaI Future CO!Il!I'IunIty centGc'I MECHANICAL Repl8C811le ~ modUlar hot weier boIlIr wIIIl a new llIgIHIltcIenoy condel1SIng lloIIer pIanI, llI1<l Golf 0pera1lona SYSTEMS replace Ille aglng hoI.....1er JllI1lP8. $80.000.00 TOl8I $80,000.00 ErMronmonlaI Pn>cea, Ino. 715__S.,_111 Golden VllIey, MN 55426 EPIJobNo.: _ June 16, 200Il - - ._.........,,~.;,'"'.?_;..'1."':_.'.;;,..._.,,:'.,_"''''.,_' ,.,_,.__, 'i""':',,_' "_iJ"_":!:"""_'''''"A;_~\'''''1_:';'' ".~"'.:1(!i_!'{.rq:~;?;:_' Future:flVAC'System Upgrade Project BUILDING CAn:GOl'lY Al!lIlyslsltemDMcl:fptfOl1 - 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Future , ' tIepIace - WIO irane mumzone urmS' wnn new mUl1lZOl18 UIlns mat 1lSV8'1Il18gllII oenum!CllllOaVOn Communlly Cenled MECHANICAL lhrouilh el1her an ,8!18fgy recovety wtl6eI or pre-coollng COIl and reheat. TI1Is Item would li!dUde Golf 0peraU0ns SYSTEMS separately ducl8d freellatr:1nlak8 hoods for IrIlpIOWd air quallfyand VSl'I\Ia1lOn control. $140,000.00 Heplace _ a.ennox'~ lIlI'nanatere wnn new vanilDte Wlume paekaQBO lUf 11anc:I8nI1Il CommImlly Cenled MECHANlCAl. Improve energy effIclencr. ThIe Ilem In<:Iudee an alowance to'proIIide batter weather prolaclIOn to Golf 0paraII0ne SYSTEMS 8lClend equipment 11feepan. $89,000.00 Total $229,000.00 Future: Lighting BUILDING CATEGoRY AnalysIs Item Desc!1pIkm - 2009 2010 21111 2012 Total Future ~Cen\eI1 ELt:CTfUCAL Golf 0peraIl0ne SYsn:MS Replace &ldeting ~ JlghIlng an bulIdJng. $6,100.00 ~Cen\eI1 ELECTRICAL Golf 0penlIi0ne SYSTEMS Replace T-12 ftxIuree wtth HI ftxIuree. $39,400.00 ~'CBnt8l1 ELEC'TI'llGAl. Golf 0paraII0ne SYSTEMS Pn:Mde two (2) addIIlonaIlllCit light lIxlu.... <in lower level. $800.00 Total $46,900.00 Future: Electrical Panels BUILDING CAn:GORY Al!lItpls Item ee.cnptJon 2008 200ll 2010 2011 2012 Total Future ~CBnt8l1 ELECTRICAL Golf Operatione SYSTEMS ProvIde new blank panel over e>cpoeed bus secIIon. $200.00 :;ommunlly Cenled ELECTRICAL Golf Operatione SYSTEMS Replace load _ at boRer lOQm entrance. $2,100.00 Total $2.900.00 _-'Ino. 715__s.._111 _Valley, MIl li542ll EPlJob No;_ June 16,:1JlO8