Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07.21.2020 Complete City Council Meeting Packet Posted 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 7, 2020 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Pay Application for the Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project B. Set Date of Truth in Taxation Meeting for December 1, 2020 C. Resolution Accepting Donation from Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. D. Approve Agreement for Prosecution Services with Steven Tallen E. Approve Agreement for Assessing Services with Rolf Erickson VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT A. COVID-19 Discussion on Council Member Request for City Mandate for Mask Wearing IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. CLOSED SESSION: POLICE UNION CONTRACT Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.03 XII. ADJOURN Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122 Enter Conference ID: 357 897 539# MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: July 16, 2020 DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2020 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 357 897 539# V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Pay Application for the Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project – Staff recommends approval of the final pay request for Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project. See attached memo and pay request. B. Set Date of Truth in Taxation Meeting for December 1, 2020 – Staff recommends setting the date for the annual Truth in Taxation meeting for December 1, 2020. This meeting has historically been the first meeting in December. No attachments for this item. C. Resolution Accepting Donation from Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. – Staff recommends accepting the donation and dedicating the funds to the general fund for police training. See attached memo and resolution. D. Approve Agreement for Prosecution Services with Steven Tallen – Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen is proposing no increase for 2021, 1% increase for 2022, 2% increase for 2023, and a 3% increase for 2024. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement. E. Approve Agreement for Assessing Services with Rolf Erickson – City Assessor Rolf Erickson is proposing no increase for 2021. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement.  2 VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Tamarack Drive Corridor Vision Study – The City Council on May 19th directed staff to complete the Tamarack Drive Corridor Vision Study based on the preferred roadway alternative and take the actions necessary to secure approval from relevant agencies for the full signalized access at Highway 55. Staff will present the completed study at the July 21st meeting. The study provides guidance to the City for requiring dedication of right-of-way along the corridor and requiring construction of improvements in connection with development along the corridor. See attached report. Recommended Motion: Motion to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55. VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT A. COVID-19 Discussion on Council Member Request for City Mandate for Mask Wearing – Council Member John Anderson requested discussion regarding a city wide mandate requiring the wearing of masks in public. He also sent a link to an MPR story on this topic. City Attorney Ron Batty has put together information for the July 21st City Council meeting regarding what the cities of Minnetonka and Duluth have recently put in place on this topic. Staff is requesting Council discussion and direction on this topic. See attached information. X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005573E-005591E for $81,780.43 and order check numbers 050409-050467 for $778,544.62, payroll EFT 0510348-0510379 for $51,717.71. XI. CLOSED SESSION: POLICE UNION CONTRACT Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.03 See attached closed session packet. INFORMATION PACKET:  Planning Department Update  Police Department Update  Public Works Department Update  Claims List  Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 July 7, 2020 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2020 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on July 7, 2020 at 7:00 5 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 Martin read aloud a statement explaining that all City meetings will continue to be held in 8 a virtual manner due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She provided instructions on how the 9 public can access and participate in the meeting. 10 11 I. ROLL CALL 12 13 Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 14 15 Members absent: None. 16 17 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 18 Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim 19 Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and 20 Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 21 22 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:07 p.m.) 23 24 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:08 p.m.) 25 Johnson stated that Anderson requested to add an item to the agenda titled Motion to 26 Rescind the Motion to Approve the Hackamore Road Project. 27 28 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to add an item to the agenda to discuss 29 the Hackamore proposal with the idea of rescinding the previous vote from June 16, 30 2020. 31 32 Further discussion: Martin stated that if approved, perhaps this item should be added to 33 Old Business. 34 35 Batty stated that there should first be a vote on whether the item should be added to the 36 agenda. He noted that following that action the Council should consider approval of the 37 entire agenda. 38 39 A roll call vote was performed: 40 41 Pederson aye 42 Anderson aye 43 DesLauriers aye 44 Albers nay 45 Martin aye 46 47 Motion passed. 48 49 Johnson stated that the item could be added to the agenda as Item D under New 50 Business. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 July 7, 2020 1 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:12 p.m.) 2 3 A. Approval of the June 16, 2020 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the June 16, 2020 special City 5 Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 6 7 B. Approval of the June 16, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 8 Martin noted that proposed changes submitted by Anderson were distributed to the 9 Council prior to the meeting for incorporation. 10 11 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the June 16, 2020 regular City 12 Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 13 14 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (Continued) (7:15 p.m.) 15 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion 16 passed with a vote of 4 -1 (Albers opposed). 17 18 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:16 p.m.) 19 20 A. Resolution No. 2020-34 Appointing Election Judges for the August 11, 2020 21 Primary Election and November 3, 2020 General Election 22 B. Resolution No. 2020-35 Appointing Absentee Ballot Board for the August 23 11, 2020 Primary Election and November 3, 2020 General Election 24 C. Ordinance No. 657 Amending Section 512 of the Code of Ordinances 25 Regarding Surface Use of Lake Independence 26 D. Resolution No. 2020-36 Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance Regarding 27 Surface Use of Lake Independence by Title and Summary 28 E. Appoint Theresa Couri to the Planning Commission 29 Anderson referenced Item A, noting that the list of election judges was included in the 30 packet and asked if the list would be closed after approval or if others could still be 31 added to the list prior to the election. 32 33 Johnson stated that election judges can be added after tonight’s meeting. 34 35 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. 36 37 A roll call vote was performed: 38 39 Pederson aye 40 Anderson aye 41 DesLauriers aye 42 Albers aye 43 Martin aye 44 45 Motion passed unanimously. 46 47 VI. COMMENTS (7:20 p.m.) 48 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 July 7, 2020 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 1 Gretchen Piper, candidate for State Senate, stated that she grew up in Hamel and 2 advised that she is running for District 33 as a candidate for Senate. She stated that she 3 currently lives in Wayzata with her family and would be proud to serve as a Minnesota 4 State Senator. She provided background information on her career experience in the 5 medical, consulting, and education fields along with work with different non-profits. She 6 stated that she believes that the values of the community to work together are being 7 overshadowed by parties rather than representing the communities and their values. 8 She stated that she would like to focus on recovering from the pandemic including 9 getting children back to school, people back to work and allowing businesses to reopen. 10 She welcomed any additional comments from the Council and community and provided 11 her contact information. 12 13 Martin thanked Ms. Piper for introducing herself and looked forward to seeing how the 14 election process continues. 15 16 Piper thanked the Council for its dedication to the community. 17 18 B. Park Commission 19 Scherer reported that the Park Commission recently discussed the Park Capital 20 Improvement Plan, noting that the redesign of Hunter Lions Park project has begun with 21 the consultant. He reported that he and Martin attended the rededication of the little 22 league field the previous night, noting that the scoreboard installation should be 23 completed later this week. 24 25 Martin agreed that it was a fun event to attend. 26 27 Pederson asked if WSB has been hired to complete the redesign study for Hunter Lions 28 Park. 29 30 Scherer confirmed that WSB was hired for the redesign. He noted that the Hamel 31 Athletic Club and residents would be engaged for input during the process. 32 33 C. Planning Commission 34 Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold three 35 public hearings: a preliminary plat request for the Meadowview townhome project from 36 Lennar, continued discussion related to accessory structure size and setbacks, and a 37 proposed amendment to the Code related to septic systems to remove the requirement 38 for percolation testing prior to permitting. 39 40 VII. NEW BUSINESS 41 42 A. Ordinance No. 658 Amending Building Materials in Commercial Districts; 43 Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code (7:32 p.m.) 44 Finke stated that the proposed amendment would make changes to the allowed exterior 45 material standards within the commercial, business, and industrial districts. He reviewed 46 the existing standards for new building construction within those districts, noting that the 47 City added an exemption to those building materials for cases of rehabilitating existing 48 buildings that have experienced water damage. He provided details on a request the 49 City has received to allow additional materials for rehabilitation. He provided details on 50 the engineered wood product. He stated that the proposed amendment would allow 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 July 7, 2020 engineered wood panels as an allowed material, in addition to the cement fiber 1 materials, to be allowed as a primary material in the case of rehabilitating existing 2 buildings. He noted that some brick, stone, stucco, or glass would still be required. He 3 noted that the amendment would allow this within the business and industrial districts in 4 addition to the commercial district. He stated that there was also discussion in allowing 5 the materials to be used for rehabilitation in general rather than only for rehabilitation 6 resulting from water damage. He stated that the Planning Commission discussed using 7 metal siding but did not recommend that change. He stated that the Commission 8 discussed building materials in general and believed there would be benefit in reviewing 9 the building standards more broadly, when time permits, to determine if additional 10 amendments should be made. 11 12 Pederson asked if the amendment would allow the exception only for rehabilitation from 13 water intrusion. 14 15 Finke stated that the amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission would allow 16 for engineered wood or 5/8 thick fiber cement architectural panels for any rehab of a 17 masonry building, with or without water intrusion issues. 18 19 DesLauriers asked if there is a reason lap siding is excluded, noting that it looks nice 20 and has benefits in terms of lifespan. 21 22 Finke stated that his impression of the Planning Commission discussion was that the 23 recommendation was related to design, noting that the Commission viewed lap siding as 24 more of a residential material and therefore favored the panels. 25 26 DesLauriers referenced a portion of the staff report which mentions lap siding and asked 27 for clarification. 28 29 Finke confirmed that if the Council agrees with that limitation that should be added to the 30 list. 31 32 Martin commented that the ordinance is well drafted. She stated that she was intrigued 33 with the metal applications, as presented on the manufacturer’s website. She stated that 34 personally, if there was an applicant that wanted to review the possibility of a metal 35 exterior or using a metal product in the exterior, she would be interested in seeing the 36 request. She stated that she would entertain discussion about that at a future point. 37 38 Pederson agreed that metal has come a long way and agreed that it would make sense 39 to consider that material at a future time. 40 41 Finke stated that he spoke with the Building Official and commented that there would be 42 benefit in discussing building materials more broadly, as mentioned by the Planning 43 Commission. He confirmed that staff would prefer the Council to take action on the 44 ordinance as discussed tonight and the broader discussion could occur later, and 45 perhaps guided by an architect or someone with similar experience. 46 47 Martin clarified the proposed technical amendment related to lap siding. 48 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 July 7, 2020 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt ordinance no. 658 amending 1 building materials in commercial districts, including the change mentioned by 2 DesLauriers on page four, line item three. Motion passed unanimously. 3 4 1. Resolution No. 2020-37 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 658 by 5 Title and Summary 6 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-37 7 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 658 by Title and Summary. Motion passed 8 unanimously. 9 10 B. Resolution No. 2020-38 Calling for Public Hearing Levying Special 11 Assessment for Hickory Drive Street and Utility Improvement Project (7:52 12 p.m.) 13 Johnson stated that staff recommends that the Council hold a public hearing on August 14 4, 2020 to consider the proposed assessment for the Hickory Drive street and utility 15 improvement project. He noted that because of the virtual format, all votes should be 16 completed in a roll call format. 17 18 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adopt resolution no. 2020-38 calling 19 for public hearing levying special assessments for Hickory Drive street improvement 20 project. 21 22 A roll call vote was performed: 23 24 Pederson aye 25 Anderson aye 26 DesLauriers aye 27 Albers aye 28 Martin aye 29 30 Motion passed unanimously. 31 32 Martin asked if the Council needed to revisit any of the previous votes tonight that were 33 done by voice to complete roll call votes. 34 35 Batty stated that he was comfortable moving forward with the votes as completed 36 tonight, as the voice votes were clear. He stated that going forward, all votes should be 37 completed in roll call format. 38 39 C. Resolution No. 2020-39 Calling for Public Hearing Levying Special 40 Assessment for Brockton Lane Street and Utility Improvement Project (7:53 41 p.m.) 42 Johnson stated that staff recommends that the Council hold a public hearing on August 43 4, 2020 to consider the proposed assessment for the Brockton Lane street and utility 44 improvement project. 45 46 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adopt resolution no. 2020-39 calling for 47 public hearing levying special assessment for Brockton Lane street improvement project. 48 49 A roll call vote was performed: 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6 July 7, 2020 Pederson aye 1 Anderson aye 2 DesLauriers aye 3 Albers aye 4 Martin aye 5 6 Motion passed unanimously. 7 8 Martin stated that she would like to go back and restate the votes in previous agenda 9 items with roll call votes. She reviewed the actions taken previously tonight confirming 10 the motions as documented in the minutes with roll call votes. 11 12 D. Hackamore Road Proposal Discussion (7:59 p.m.) 13 Batty stated that the item before the Council tonight would be consideration of a motion 14 to rescind, and not a motion to reconsider as a motion to reconsider can only be taken at 15 the meeting the action was taken. He explained that unlike a motion to reconsider, a 16 motion to rescind can be brought by anyone but needs three affirmative votes to be 17 adopted and reverse the previous action related to the engineering part of the 18 Hackamore study. 19 20 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to rescind the direction to staff to 21 proceed with the design of the Hackamore Road project to a 75 percent level based 22 upon option two with the flexibility that had been discussed by the Council. 23 24 Further discussion: Martin asked Anderson to explain why he would like to proceed with 25 this action. 26 27 Anderson stated that when this was discussed three weeks ago, the prevailing argument 28 in moving forward was to ensure that Medina would have a seat at the table and be a 29 part of the planning. He stated that the argument that he brought up at that time was 30 that the City should not pay for something when it could be completed for free. He 31 stated that he believes that this project is more important to Corcoran than Medina 32 because of developer pressure. He stated that Medina should not pay for something 33 when it will get a seat at the table for free. He stated that since the direction was given 34 to staff there have been concerning developments in a local newspaper from Corcoran 35 City Council and staff. He stated that it seems that Corcoran is far more vested in the 36 project and will move more quickly than Medina would like to and will have to ask 37 Medina to the table. He stated that it is unclear as to what Corcoran will ask of Medina 38 to financially contribute. He stated thus far the costs have been split 50/50 for planning 39 and he would be opposed to Medina paying 50 percent of the project costs. 40 41 Martin asked if Anderson is asking the City to withdraw the action to proceed to 75 42 percent plans. 43 44 Pederson stated that he has changed his mind from the standpoint that he does not 45 understand how they can be completing design work without knowing who will pay the 46 construction costs. He stated that he agrees that this project is more beneficial to 47 Corcoran and he does not see how this can move forward until it is known the portion of 48 construction costs that Corcoran will pay. He stated that he does not like not knowing 49 the details of financing or the comments made in the local newspaper from Corcoran. 50 He agreed that this project would greatly benefit Corcoran and barely benefit Medina. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7 July 7, 2020 1 Albers asked if Medina “owns” half of the road. 2 3 Scherer confirmed that the City line runs on the section line with each city responsible 4 for half the road. 5 6 Albers asked where Medina’s voice would be in the process if Medina pulls out of the 7 design process. 8 9 Scherer stated that the design process is not committing the City to a cost-share of the 10 construction. He stated that the planning process ensures that the appropriate right-of-11 way could be taken when development comes forward. He stated that the road has 12 been improved once before when Medina had development and Corcoran did not. He 13 explained that this time the situation is flipped with Corcoran having development. 14 15 Albers stated that the conversation was that the City needs to go through the planning 16 process to identify the costs. He stated that the cost split cannot be discussed until the 17 cost is known. He believed that the planning must move forward in order to get to the 18 next step where the costs are known, and the split can be discussed. He noted that the 19 plans would have a long shelf-life and therefore would still be valuable down the road. 20 21 Scherer asked Stremel to provide an update on the work that has been done in the past 22 few weeks. 23 24 DesLauriers stated that he stands by his comments from the June 16th meeting. He 25 stated that there is a budget shortfall in 2021 and all the departments are attempting to 26 cut costs. He stated that the cost share for the project is unknown and the total project 27 cost is a lot of money. He stated that he continues to support his position. 28 29 Barnhart stated that for 2021 and for 2020 the City is not projecting a budget shortfall 30 overall. She stated that there will be a line item shortfall for the Hamel Community 31 Building, but the overall budget is not projected to be in a shortfall. She explained that 32 this project would be funded through the road fund and not the general fund, therefore 33 they are completely separate pots of funding. 34 35 Martin clarified that the design cost is within the road fund and that expenditure would 36 not impact the overall budget. 37 38 Barnhart explained that there was some lack of clarification during the budget kick off 39 meeting, as that focused on the general fund. She stated that the road projects have 40 budgeted funding within the road fund. 41 42 Anderson stated that he agrees that it is a good idea to try to be a part of the planning 43 process, except that in this case being a part of the planning process will cost the City 44 more than $70,000. He stated that even though funds have been budgeted, it is still 45 $70,000. He stated that if Medina is going to be asked by Corcoran to re-engage in the 46 process, the City would still get a seat at the table in the design process. 47 48 Martin stated by being a part of the planning process, it would permit both sides of the 49 street to plan for right-of-way needs. She noted that there will be specific storm 50 improvement sites that could be placed on the church development site. She stated that 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8 July 7, 2020 Medina has made it clear that it was not voting to fund the project but only participate in 1 the planning process. She stated that she does not believe the road will develop for 2 some time but noted that the planning process would allow each city to secure the 3 needed right-of-way when the situations present themselves. She stated that Medina 4 already has significant build out on its side and therefore the right-of-way dedication 5 would happen on the Corcoran side, along with securing space for the needed 6 stormwater improvements. She stated that planning for the future is a wise expenditure 7 of funds to ensure that the road can be properly aligned and that there is room for the 8 needed improvements. She stated that she is not advocating for proceeding with the 9 project or funding the project at this time but believes that the planning should occur. 10 She used Brockton as an example, where the City received right-of-way in advance of 11 the project because it planned. 12 13 Anderson stated that he believed the City will be involved in the planning when Corcoran 14 goes forward with planning for the road. 15 16 Martin asked for the opinion of staff. 17 18 Albers stated that he is concerned with how the City spends its money. He stated that 19 the cost to plan for the project will only increase if that is kicked down the road. He did 20 not believe delaying the planning would be in the best interest of the City. He stated that 21 the planning needs to be completed and delaying that action will only increase costs 22 later. He stated that it is not in the best interest of the City to not move forward with this 23 planning process. 24 25 Anderson agreed that it is not likely that Corcoran will plan it on its own and will come to 26 Medina in the future to get the process started. He stated that it is still costing Medina 27 $70,000. 28 29 Albers commented that the cost will only go up and, in a few years, it will cost Medina 30 $80,000 or $90,000. 31 32 Pederson stated that his concern is the construction cost and the impression the article 33 in the local newspaper provided. He stated that there have been interactions with 34 Corcoran in the past that he felt were not fair. He stated that he realizes that without 35 planning, the construction costs will be unknown. He stated that there should be a 36 meeting between the City Administrators to discuss how the construction costs would be 37 split. He stated that there are a lot of unknowns right now due to COVID-19 and until 38 that passes, he struggles to spend funds on this. 39 40 Martin commented that this is not a vote to proceed to incur construction costs, noting 41 that the prior motion authorized moving to 75 percent design documents. 42 43 Finke stated that his recollection of the scope and costs do not match what is being 44 discussed tonight and asked Stremel for clarification. 45 46 Stremel stated that the 30 percent design had a cost of $67,000, out of the total amount 47 of $118,000 that is split between the two cities. He stated that the current billing to date 48 was about $70,000. He stated that with the holiday the previous week and authorization 49 a few weeks ago, there has not been many costs incurred for the 75 percent design 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9 July 7, 2020 process. He confirmed that the remaining funds to reach 75 percent design would be 1 split between the two cities. 2 3 Martin clarified that the cost to Medina to reach the 75 percent design phase would be 4 $25,000. She confirmed with Barnhart that those funds are available and have been 5 allocated in the road fund. 6 7 Barnhart recognized that there is uncertainty with the pandemic but noted that the funds 8 in the road fund cannot be used for City operations or to assist with pandemic costs. 9 She stated that funds in the road fund can only be used for road projects. 10 11 Finke asked Stremel to provide additional details on the benefits that would be provided 12 in developing the 75 percent design. He noted that there are existing drainage problems 13 on both sides of the road, and he believed that the 75 percent design took into account 14 those stormwater improvements that would provide benefit. 15 16 Stremel confirmed that the 75 percent design is a refinement of the design. He 17 explained that the 30 percent design focused on developing two options, whereas the 75 18 percent design would refine the option selected to determine specific right-of-way needs 19 and improvements that would be needed for the infrastructure, right-of-way, and 20 stormwater. 21 22 Martin commented that it seems that this process could lead to improvements on the 23 Corcoran side that would alleviate stormwater problems that residents are experiencing 24 on the Medina side of the road. 25 26 Scherer used the example of a Medina resident that experienced front yard flooding the 27 previous summer, noting that staff was trying to provide a resolution to those problems 28 through this process. 29 30 Albers asked if there are public safety concerns with the current condition of the road 31 and whether there would be challenges if additional traffic uses the road in this condition. 32 33 Nelson stated that from a public safety standpoint he was unsure there would be a big 34 impact on public safety. 35 36 DesLauriers asked if there is a chance this project could go over budget. 37 38 Stremel stated that the design costs are specified in the proposal and did not see that 39 would go over budget unless the scope of the project is changed. 40 41 Johnson asked the estimated lifespan of the current road. 42 43 Scherer stated that the eastern portion is in rough shape, noting that both Medina and 44 Corcoran did a lot of patching this year. He estimated that an overlay would be needed 45 in about one year. He stated that Medina has commitments to the developers on its side 46 of the road. He commented that the east side of the road is not in good shape. 47 48 A roll call vote was performed: 49 50 Pederson aye 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10 July 7, 2020 Anderson aye 1 DesLauriers aye 2 Albers nay 3 Martin nay 4 5 Motion passed. 6 7 Johnson stated that staff will move forward with the direction. 8 9 VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:42 p.m.) 10 11 A. COVID-19 Public Meeting Update 12 Batty stated that this is an update on the past memorandum and of the discussion that 13 occurred at a recent Council meeting related to electronic meetings. He stated that 14 there are three legal reasons that allow non in person meetings including the pandemic, 15 local declaration of emergency and State declaration of emergency. He stated that 16 telephonic meetings can be conducted in different manners and noted that Medina has 17 gone the route of no in person attendance of the Council, staff of members of the public. 18 He stated that in the Medina declaration of emergency, it stated that it is not feasible to 19 hold in person meetings because of the small size of the Council Chambers. He stated 20 that if the Council wishes to take a different approach, it can return to in person meetings 21 or an interim step could be taken where some members attend in person and others 22 attend via telephone. He noted that some Councils have chosen to have Council and 23 staff attend in person with members of the public attending virtually. He stated that at 24 the last discussion, the majority of the Council wished to continue meeting in the current 25 manner. He stated that the declaration impacts not only the Council but all other Boards 26 and Commissions. 27 28 Anderson thanked Batty for this work and for the update. He stated that throughout this 29 process he has learned that the actions of the governmental leaders matter. He stated 30 that the public looks to its leaders for leadership and believed that the Council should err 31 on the side of caution and continue to meet virtually. He stated that it sends the 32 message that the Council is concerned with safety in Medina and demonstrates that 33 concern for safety. 34 35 Martin agreed with the comments from Anderson. She stated that Medina should 36 continue to be safe and encourage its residents to be safe. She stated that the Council 37 will continue to meet virtually. 38 39 B. Police Activity Update 40 Johnson stated that Chief Nelson will provide an update. 41 42 Nelson stated that there are multiple groups of people working to the west of Medina, 43 burglarizing homes, and stealing property, similar to the activity of the previous summer. 44 He stated that Medina has not experienced these burglaries, but the parties are traveling 45 through. He stated that they are crimes of opportunity, where garage or car doors are 46 unlocked. He noted that this activity has been steady for the past two weeks in the 47 communities to the west. 48 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 11 July 7, 2020 Martin stated that last summer, in instances where she felt comfortable, she did stop and 1 encourage residents to close their garages and lock their vehicles. She noted that in 2 most instances her comments were welcomed. 3 4 Nelson stated that when Officers patrol at night and see open garage doors, they 5 attempt to shut them without waking up the homeowner. He stated that they also leave 6 reminder cards stating that they noticed the garage doors were open during the night. 7 He encouraged people to continue to have these discussions. 8 9 IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:53 p.m.) 10 No additional comments. 11 12 X. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:54 p.m.) 13 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the bills, EFT 005560E-14 005572E for $48,076.25, order check numbers 050346-050408 for $325,249.64, and 15 payroll EFT 0510320-0510347 for $52,519.62. 16 17 A roll call vote was performed: 18 19 Pederson aye 20 Anderson aye 21 DesLauriers aye 22 Albers aye 23 Martin aye 24 25 Motion passed unanimously. 26 27 XI. ADJOURN 28 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. 29 30 A roll call vote was performed: 31 32 Pederson aye 33 Anderson aye 34 DesLauriers aye 35 Albers aye 36 Martin aye 37 38 Motion passed unanimously. 39 40 __________________________________ 41 Kathleen Martin, Mayor 42 Attest: 43 44 ____________________________________ 45 Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 46 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer DATE: July 16, 2020 MEETING: July 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project – Final Voucher Background: On February 19, 2019 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project plans/specifications and authorizing advertising for bids. Bids were opened in March of 2019 and the project was substantially complete by the fall with minor improvements and punch list items completed this spring. The final construction cost was less than the low bid amount; the final pay voucher is on the agenda for approval. Funding Update: According to the City’s Assessment Policy, the assessable costs for street, watermain, and storm sewer are levied at 50% of the cost of these improvements with the other 50% paid for with City funds; The total final assessment amount based on final construction costs is $213,371.91. The stormwater ponding improvements are proposed to be paid for in part with grant funding and the remaining 50% from City stormwater utility funds. The proposed project funding comparison is summarized as follows: Funding Summary Funding Source Original Feasibility Amount Final Amount Street Assessments $123,250.00 $122,211.49 Watermain Assessments $46,050.00 $31,236.07 Water Service Assessments $22,600.00 $19,835.50 Storm Sewer Assessments $43,050.00 $40,088.85 City and Grant Funds $436,550.00 $447,298.95 TOTAL $671,500.00 $660,670.86 Next Steps: On July 7, 2020 the City Council passed a resolution calling for a public hearing levying special assessments for the project. The assessment hearing is scheduled for the August 4th City Council meeting. City Council Action Requested: Approve the final voucher. Agenda # 5A Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project Client: City of Medina 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Pay Voucher 3 WSb WSB Project No.: 012125-000 Client Project No.: State Project No.: Federal Project No.: Contractor: Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 1451 Stagecoach Rd. Shakopee, MN 55379 Contract Amount Funds Encumbered Original Contract Contract Changes Revised Contract Work Certified To Date $460,432.47 $0.00 $460,432.47 Base Bid Items Contract Changes Material On Hand Total Work Certified This Voucher $441,824.36 $0.00 $0.00 $441,824.36 Original Additional Total $460,432.47 N/A $460,432.47 $90,358.45 Work Certified To Date Less Amount Retained $441,824.36 $0.00 Percent: Retained: 0% Less Previous Payments $333,892.62 Amount Paid This Voucher Total Amount Paid To Date $107,931.74 , $441,824.36 Percent Complete: 95.96% This is to certify that the items of work shown in this Pay Voucher have been actually furnished for the work comprising the above - mentioned project in accordance with the plans and specifications heretofore approved. Approved By WSB July 9, 2020 Date Approved By City of Medina Date Approved By Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Date Page 1 of 7 Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project Pay Voucher 3 wsb 17 2331.603 BITUMINOUS TAPER L F $3.2 720 0 $0.0 dl $0.01 18 357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GAL COAT $3.01 80 210 $630.0 210 $630.01 19 360.5041 1 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR CRS MIX (2,B) 3,0" THICK S Y $21.11 520 627.5 $13,177.50 627.5, $13,177.51 20 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2;B) ON $79.2 181 143.89 $11,406.16 143.89 $11,406.16 1 360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE ON MIX (2;B) $72.90 350 336.7 $24,545.43 336.7 $24,545.4 22 505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS $500.0' T $0.01 1 $500.00 r 3 506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $485.0« 1 1 $485.01 1 $485.00 r4 2506.602SEAL MANHOLE EACH $1,700.01 1 0.45 $765.01 0.45 $765.01 506.602 CHIMNEY SEALS (EXTERNAL) EACH $222.0+ 1 1 $222.0' 1 $222.00 531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER L F DESIGN B618 $16.51 831 0 $0.01 945 $15,592.50 531.504 8' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S Y PAVEMENT 1 $81.0+ 3 $0.01 34.7 $2,810.70 531.6037" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER L F $55.01 1 $0.01 9 $495.01 2540.602 MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY) EACH $135... $0.00 0 $0.00 30 563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $3,500.06 1 0. $1,750.0e 1' $3,500.01 31 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F $100.0. 20 6.2 $625.06 6.25 $625.01 2 564.518 IGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL F $85.01 5 $425.01 511 $425.41 33 2564.602 FURNISH SIGN POSTS EACH $100.01 1 1 $100.01 1 $100.01 34 573.501, TABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS $1,000.0+ 1 1 $0.00 1 $1,000.01. 35 573.502 TORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $150.01 11 1 $0.01 10 $1,500.1+ 36 573.503 EDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE L F OOD FIBER $3.00 36 1 $0.01 0 $0.00 37 573.503 `EDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE L F ROCK $3.2 50� 0 $0.01 0 $0.01. 38 574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y $30.00 290 4 $1,350.00 19 $5,910.00 9 575.504LODDING TYPE LAWN S Y $8.01 800 720 $5,760.00 720 $5,760.0 0 575.523 ATER MGAL $55.0. 81 1 $0.01 1 $0.00 104.502 EMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $100.01 1 $0.01 2 $200.00 104.502 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH $300.01 1 0 $0.00 1 $300.00 Page 3 of 7 Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project Pay Voucher 3 wsb 0 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F $52.23 17d $313.381 17 $9,244.71 2503.503 1" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F $60.63 30 + $0.00 5 $3,274.02 503.60312" HDPE PIPE SEWER L F $34.6 15' M. $138.6 $6,795.32 506.502 ASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $525.0+1 6 ' $0.00 $4,200.0s ONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LF i25o6503DEs48o20 $384.0 $0.0+ $16,128.00 506.602 ; EAL MANHOLE EACH $1,500.0+ $5,250.0+ $5,250.0+ 2506.602 ONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH DESIGN SPEC 3 ++ + $0.0+ E� $3,525.0. 506.602 ONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') $1,276.0+ 0 $0.0+ 2 $2,552.01 11 506.602 HIMNEY sEALS (EXTERNAL) EACH $222.0+ 6 +'; $0.0+ $1,554.0+. 101.505CLEARING CRE $7,500.++ 0..' 0 $0.0+ 0.91 $6,750.0+ 101.505 RUBBING CRE $4,000.0 0,' + $0.0+ 0.' $3,600.0+'1 104.502 ALVAGE PIPE APRON EACH $200.0' $0.00 + $0.00 82 104.503 ALVAGE PIPE SEWER L F $15.0+ $0.0+ II +. $0.0+ 83 105.601 DEWATERING LS $0.01 1 0 $0.0+ 1 $0.01 84 105.607 HAUL &DISPOSE OF C Y ONTAMINATED MATERIAL $45.0+ 15+ $0.0+ 5+ $2,250.0+, :5 106.507 EXCAVATION -CHANNEL AND C Y POND (P) $10.1 260' 0 $0.0+ 2609 $26,481.3' 86 2106.507 OMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y $7.0+ 3900 18 $1,302.+ 462• $32,368.0+ 501.502 15" RC PIPE APRON EACH $892.+. 0 $0.00 1 $892.00 88 2501.502x4" RC PIPE APRON EACH $1,141.0' + $0.0. $2,282.0. 89 501.502 INSTALL PIPE APRON EACH $591.00 1 1 $0.0+ i $0.0+1.. 90 501.602 RASH GUARD FOR 15" PIPE EACH PRON $495.0+', 1 + $0.0+ 1 $495.00 91 1501.602 FLASH GUARD FOR 24" PIPE EACH • PRON $1,156.0+ 2 + $0.00 $2,312.0. 92 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F $48.4 11 + + $0.0+ $2,616.30 '3 2503.503 4" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL IIIL F $35.94 1.+ + $0.00 $5,067.54. 94 2503.503 INSTALL PIPE SEWER L F $28.0+ 3 + $0.0+ +, $0.00 95 r 506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $525.00 2 $0.00 $1,050.00 Page 5 of 7 Hickory Drive Street & Utility Improvement Project C CC No. Line No. Item Description Pay Voucher 3 wsb Contract Change Totals: Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Voucher Amount This Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date Contract Change Totals No. Contract `Change Description Amount This Amount To Voucher Date Revised Contract Total: $441,824.36 Material On Hand Additions Line Item No. Description Date Added Material On Hand Balance Line No. Item Comments Description Date Added Used Remaining Page 7 of 7 July 9, 2020 Arrowhead Drive Railroad Crossing Improvements Client: City of Medina 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Pay Voucher 1 wsb WSB Project No.: 013211-000 Client Project No.: NIA State Project No.: SAP. 250-593-001 Federal Project No.: Contractor: Minger Construction Companies, Inc. 620 Corporate Drive Jordan. MN 55352 Contract Amount Original Contract Contract Changes Revised Contract Funds Encumbered $426,969.10 Original 1 $426,969.10 $0.00 Additional N/A $426,969.10 Total $426,969.10 Work Certified To Date Base Bid Items $317,531.97 Contract Changes $0.00 Material On Hand $000 Total $317,531.97 Work Certified Work Certified To Less Amount Less Previous Amount Paid This Total Amount This Voucher Date Retained Payments Voucher Paid To Date $317,531.97 $317,531.971 $15,876.60 f $0.00 $301,65.37 i $301,655.37 Percent: Retained: 5% _ Percent Complete: 74.37% This is to certify that the items of work shown in this Pay Voucher have been actually furnished for the work comprising the above - mentioned project in accordance with the plans and specifications heretofore approved. Approved By WSB Approved By Minger Construction Companies, Inc. Contracto Date Approved By City of Medina Name Date -- �3 -- ai Page 1 of 6 Arrowhead Drive Railroad Crossing Improvements Pay Voucher 1 wsb 14 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST $331.00 3 3 $993.00 3 $993.00 15 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR $140.00 20 $420.00 3 $420.0 16 2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 17 18 2301.504 2357.506 ONCRETE PAVEMENT 6" CY $61.50 145 75 $4,612.50 75 $4,612.5 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 19 2360.503 PE SP 9.5 WEAR CRS MIX (2,B) .0" THICK 20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3;B) 21 ;2505.601 22 2531.503 23 2531.503 SY $85.50 77 62.44 $5,338.62 62.44 $5,338.6 UTILITY COORDINATION CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 GAL SY ON L S $28.00 14 $45.50 $175.00 53 17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 IL F $33.5 33 33 $11,122.00 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B818 IL F $33.50 39 65 $21,909.00 24 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 25 LS $19,000.0 3 654 $11,122.00 $21,909.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 2564.518{SIGN PANELS TYPE C 26 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN 27 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM 28 2573.501 SF $89.00 EACH SYS $550.0 $34,000.0 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.0 $0.00 $34,000.00 1 $34,000.0 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS $2,000.0 $0.00 0 29 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $130.0 $130.00 $0.0 $130.0 30 2573.503 SILT FENCE; TYPE MS LF $2.1 50 630 $1,354.50 630 $1,354.5 31 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER LF $3.1 500 40 $1,260.00 400 $1,260.0 32 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F $4.15 20 $0.00 0 $0.0 133 2574.507 34 2575.504 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW CY $70.0 $0.00 $0.00 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3N 35 2575.504 6 2575.508 SY $2.6 48 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 SY SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB $1.6 $0.00 0 $0.00 $3.6 3 $0.00 0 37 2575.604 38 2582.503 BLOWN COMPOST SEEDING " SOLID LINE PAINT SY $6.5 48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 LF $3.2 2 0 $0.00 $0.00 39 2582.503 " BROKEN LINE PAINT LF $3.2 3 $0.0 0 $0.00 Page 3 of 6 Arrowhead Drive Railroad Crossing Improvements Pay Voucher 1 wsb 67 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y $110.50 14 11 $1,547.0 14 $1,547.00 68 2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 C Y $140.00 14 7 $980.0 7 $980.00 69 2301.602iDRILL GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPDXY COATED) EACH $22.40 10 10 $224.00 10 $224.00 70 2360.503 TYPE SP 4.0" THICK 9.5 WEAR CRS MIX (2,B) s Y $61.60 1 66 0 $0.00 9 $0.00 71 2521.518.6" CONCRETE WALK IS F $16.25 405 415 $6,743.75 415 $6,743.75 72 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 L F $35.65 8 14 $499.10 14 $499.10 73 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F $65.50 40 48 $3,144.00 48 $3,144.00 74 2021.601 RR LICENSE FEE LS $1,500.00 1 1 $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00 75 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL (SPECIAL) LS $30,000.00 1 0.5 $15,000.00 0.5 $15,000.00 Bid Totals: $317,531.97 $317,531.97 Project Category Totals Category Amount This Voucher Amount To Date A. Surface Improvements $207,703.12 $207,703.12 B. Storm Improvements _ - $75,819.00 $75,819.00 C. Trail Improvements - $17,509.85 $17,509.85 D. Railroad Crossing _ $16,500.00 $16,500.00 Contract Change Item Status CC CC No. Line No. Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Voucher Amount This Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date Contract Change Totals: Contract Change Totals No. Contract Change g Description Amount This Voucher Amount To Date Revised Contract Total: $317,531.97 Material On Hand Additions Line No. Item I Description Date Added Comments Material On Hand Balance Line No. Item Description Date Added Used Remaining Page 5 of 6 TO: City Administrator Scott Johnson and City Council FROM: Director Jason Nelson DATE: July 17, 2020 RE: Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services Inc. Donation On June 23, 2020, the police department received a check for $500.00 from Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. Marianne requested the funds be put towards the Medina Police Department training fund. I would ask the Medina City Council to accept the donation for the police training fund and direct staff to respond with a thank you letter to Marianne Houlihan. MEMORANDUM Agenda Item # 5C Resolution No. 2020- July 21, 2020 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2020- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM MARIANNE HOULIHAN OF HOULIHAN INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. WHEREAS, Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. have generously offered to donate a check in the amount of $500.00 (the “Donation”) to the city of Medina (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Donation will be dedicated to the City’s General Fund to support police department training; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the Donation and express its gratitude to Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. for their generosity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina, Minnesota, that the City accepts the Donation and thanks Marianne Houlihan of Houlihan Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. Dated: July 21, 2020. ____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # 5D Paul and I have enjoyed acting as Medina City Attorneys for the last 34 years. I am now on my fourth Chief of Police, and if I recall correctly, you are my third City Manager. The residents of Medina are fortunate to have a dedicated, educated, compassionate and competent police department. In this time of turmoil in the criminal justice system, I regard myself as fortunate to work with such a fine group of men and women. If you think we need to discuss my proposal any further, please give me a call. Thank you for the support you have shown me in the past. Sincerely, S ` ei `M. T lien Medina Prosecuting Attorney SMT/mw cc: Chief Jason Nelson TO: Medina Mayor and City Council Members Scott Johnson, City Administrator Jodi Gallup, Administrative Assistant Erin Barnhart, Finance Director FROM: Rolf Erickson (763) 473-3978 DATE: June 29, 2020 RE: 2021 Assessment Proposal Contract Attached Term of Contract: September 1, 2020 through August 30, 2021 Current Contract amount: $96,816 Requested amount for 2021 Assessment: $96,816 Requested increase: $0 Expenses for supplies and postage should be approximately the same as last year, but could be slightly higher due to required County equipment costs. Please present this request at the next council meeting possible. Please make 2 copies of the contract and have them signed when approved. I will sign then. Agenda Item # 5E CONTRACT FOR ASSESSING SERVICES This contract is made this first day of September, 2020, by and between the City of Medina Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called the “Municipality”) and Rolf Erickson, 14520 12th Ave. North, Plymouth, Minnesota, 55447 DBA Southwest Assessing, a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter called the “Contractor”) The Contractor represents that he is a Licensed Minnesota Assessors as required in Chapter 273 of Minnesota Statutes and that he is a qualified real estate appraiser. ASSESSING SERVICES: The Municipality hereby contracts for and the Contractor hereby agrees to cooperate with officials of the Municipality and the County of Hennepin in performing 2021 assessment services as defined in Minnesota Statutes. The Municipality agrees and acknowledges that the manner and the method used in the performance of the assessment duties will be under the control and direction of said Contractor. CONTRACT PRICE: In consideration of the services rendered by the Contractor, the Municipality shall pay to the Contractor at the above stated address, the sum of $96,816.00 payable in twelve (12) installments of $8,068 beginning September, 2020 and ending August, 2021. TERM OF CONTRACT: September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. The following services are to be billed separately on a one time basis. NONE. FURNISHING OF EQUIPMENT: The contractor shall provide all transportation necessary for the performance of the services contracted for. The Municipality shall furnish all equipment and supplies necessary for the performance of the services contracted for, including the Hennepin County data fee and Hennepin County computer equipment rental fees. ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: The Contractor shall attend the local board of review meeting on the date selected by the Municipality and the Contractor and not to exceed three other Municipality council meetings during the term of the contract. LEGAL STATUS: The parties agree that the Contractor is not required to maintain office hours, shall not receive retirement benefits, health insurance benefits, or any other fringe benefits offered to employees of the Municipality and shall, in all respects, be deemed an independent contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the Municipality have executed this Contract this day of 2020. City of Medina(Municipality) by Southwest Assessing (Contractor) by MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer DATE: July 16, 2020 MEETING: July 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Tamarack Drive Corridor/Visioning Study – Final Report Background: A project update on the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study was provided to the City Council at the May 19th Council meeting that included the purpose and need for the study, results of the traffic forecasting, traffic operations analysis, the public engagement efforts conducted, and a review of the specific geometric alignment options considered for the corridor. At that time, the Council selected a preferred roadway alternative which included an undivided roadway section without a center parkway median, a traditional intersection at Meander, and a roundabout intersection at the future commercial intersection. The Council then directed staff to complete the study based on the preferred roadway alternative and take the actions necessary to secure approval from relevant agencies for the full signalized access at Highway 55. Property along the Tamarack Drive corridor north of Highway 55 is staged for commercial and residential development at any time. As a matter of fact, review is currently underway for a townhome development on the north end. Property along the corridor south of Highway 55 is staged for development in the near term, after 2025. The study will provide guidance for the City requiring dedication of right-of-way along the corridor and requiring construction of improvements in connection with development along the corridor. Project Update & Final Report: Since the last meeting, the final project exhibit was updated to reflect the Council’s preferred roadway alternative and vision for the corridor. A final report memorandum was also drafted to include the detailed results of the full corridor study findings and cost estimates for the various improvements proposed. The table below provides a summary of the estimated project cost for the various project components. Agenda Item # 7A 2 Description Estimated Project Cost TH 55 Signal $ 645,000 North Approach Street & Storm $ 497,000 South Approach Street & Storm $ 503,000 Railroad Crossing Improvements $ 791,000 North Street & Storm to Meander Rd $ 1,103,000 Watermain Looping Connection $ 401,000 South Street & Storm to Hamel Rd $ 1,206,000 Grand Total Estimated Project Cost $ 5,146,000 It is likely that several projects may occur at different times within the corridor prior to implementing this vision. Most of the proposed improvements are anticipated to be constructed with adjacent development to extend public streets, utilities, and other infrastructure. The Study will provide a framework to secure agreements to fund some of these projects from developers or property owners. Portions of the improvements that cannot be constructed with adjacent development may need to be implemented as a public project and funded through an area-wide Chapter 429 Special Assessment to benefitting property owners. Based on discussion with MnDOT and Hennepin County, it is not anticipated that a cost share of the intersection improvements at either Hamel Road or TH 55 is possible. Next Steps Consider adopting the corridor study in its entirety with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55 and the general geometric design of a future Tamarack Drive roadway. The adoption of the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study will allow City staff to take the necessary steps to secure right-of- way, require construction of the street which serves and is adjacent to development along the corridor and the financial obligations for proposed improvements from adjacent property owners as development plans are submitted to the City. Approving the concept plan and corridor study does not commit the City to provide funding for the project. City Council Action Requested: Staff requests a motion to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55. 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Report Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Stremel, PE, City Engineer Date: July 16, 2020 Re: Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study Background The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates residential, institutional, and commercial growth within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The study corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south up to Meander Road to the north. There has been development interest on the north side of Trunk Highway (TH) 55 within the medium density parcels, and on the south side of TH 55 where the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Although no specific plans are underway for construction of a school on this site, staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the potential after 2025, when the property is staged for development. It is anticipated that the development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties at different times. The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study was initiated to develop a cohesive plan guiding the transportation needs, right-of-way, public utilities, access points/spacing, pedestrian mobility, and other parameters within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The Study will provide a guide to the City for the following as development occurs: 1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements. 2. Require construction of portions of the roadway as part of the required improvements by adjacent developments. 3. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the roadway which benefit all of the adjacent developments and may not be able to be constructed until a future time. Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data included: · Existing and historic traffic volume data · Updated crash history · Proposed and anticipated development plans · Wayzata School master site plans · As built roadway and utility plans · Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available · Wetland and floodplain locations from available GIS or other mapping · Property owner and stakeholder engagement data Existing Conditions Roadway Currently, there is no connection between TH 55 and Meander Road or between TH 55 and Hamel Road. A prescriptive easement does exist for the current unmaintained roadway south of TH 55, but not to the north. The proposed roadway corridor is a combination of agricultural land, floodplains, and wetlands. There is no existing paved (improved) roadway or City utilities within the proposed corridor. There is an access off of TH 55 in both the north and south directions including eastbound and westbound turn lanes. Just to the south of TH 55, CP Railroad owns and operates a single track and a narrow crossing exists. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 2 TH 55 is an east/west four-lane facility with two lanes in each direction and left and right turn lanes at Arrowhead Drive, future Tamarack Drive and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). West of Arrowhead Drive the roadway transitions to a two-lane facility. TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection currently has eastbound and westbound left and right turn lanes. TH 55 has a functional classification of a Principal Arterial. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. Utilities There is a 16-inch trunk watermain located adjacent to TH 55. From Tamarack Drive, the watermain runs on the north side of TH 55 west and on the south side to the east. An existing 24- inch trunk sewer runs parallel along the south side of TH 55 in a drainage and utility easement adjacent to the existing road right-of-way. At the westerly property line of the commercial property to the west of Tamarack Drive, a sewer main runs north/south connecting to the trunk main and to the residential neighborhood to the north. A storm sewer culvert runs underneath TH 55 at the intersection with Tamarack Drive connecting the low-lying wetland areas on each side of the highway. No other storm sewer exists at this location. Traffic Forecasting Analysis (Summary) Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were developed based on existing data available for the area. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts are based on the current City of Medina, Hennepin County, and MnDOT State Aid count data. Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. Based on this review, a factor of 1.1 (0.5%/year) over a 20-year period was used to project traffic from existing conditions to the 2040 analysis year. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The future area development traffic was determined based on the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and adjacent development Traffic Studies. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan shows that the area will include: commercial, medium density residential, mixed residential, and rural residential uses north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. The size of the land use estimates was based on available land in the area assuming typical uses from similar sites and density calculations outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Traffic forecasts were prepared for the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full development of the area. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and anticipated area development site traffic generation to determine the 2040 Build traffic conditions. The estimated existing and projected 2040 traffic volumes are shown below in Table 1. Table 1: Existing and Projected ADT Traffic Volumes Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT Tamarack Drive south of Meander Road NA 1,750 Tamarack Drive north of TH 55 NA 8,300 Tamarack Drive south of TH 55 NA 3,300 Tamarack Drive north of Hamel Road NA 1,000 TH 55 west of Arrowhead Drive 16,600 22,300 City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 3 Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT TH 55 west of future Tamarack Drive 18,800 24,800 TH 55 west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 18,800 27,200 TH 55 east of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 25,000 33,500 Meander Road east of Arrowhead Drive 400 1,200 Meander Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 900 2,200 Arrowhead Drive north of Meander Road 1,050 7,100 Arrowhead Drive south of TH 55 2,200 2,500 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of Meander Road 9,600 12,200 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of TH 55 9,600 11,000 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) south of TH 55 2,200 2,600 Hamel Road east of Arrowhead Drive 1,200 1,400 Hamel Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 1,600 2,100 Traffic Operations Analysis & TH 55 Signal Review (Summary) The traffic operations analysis was completed for the Tamarack Drive area, including the intersections of: · TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive · TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Meander Road at Arrowhead Drive · Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) · Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Tamarack Road at Meander Road (projected only) · Tamarack Road at Development Access (projected only) · Tamarack Road at TH 55 (projected only) · Tamarack Road at Hamel Road (projected only) Tamarack Drive has been identified by the City of Medina as a future Collector roadway between Meander Road and Hamel Road that would provide access to the development area north and south of TH 55. The access of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines as a future full movement signalized intersection. In addition, left and right turn lanes are currently provided for both eastbound and westbound TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection. The City has been guiding development of the areas adjacent to TH 55 based on the current City 2040 Comprehensive plan assuming a full movement signalized access on TH 55 at Tamarack Drive. However, in order to verify the need for this access, two roadway access alternatives were included as part of this analysis including: 1. A full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes; and 2. A partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. The traffic analysis evaluated the operations for the existing and projected 2040 conditions at the impacted area intersections with the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor improvements using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections and RODEL software for the roundabout controlled intersections. The capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak hours assuming the two Tamarack Drive Improvement City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 4 access alternatives. The following table shows the level of service comparison of the existing and 2040 build conditions with both access alternatives at TH 55 considered. Co n t r o l Intersection Existing Projected 2040 Full Access Projected 2040 Right-in/Right-out AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Si g n a l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr D (E) C (E) E (F) D (E) F (F) E (F) Si g n a l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) E (F) D (E) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (B) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (F) A (C) F (F) A (F) F (F) C (F) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (A) A (B) A (B) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access NA NA A (B) A (B) A (A) A (B) Si g n a l TH 55 at Tamarack Dr NA NA D (E) D (E) C (E) C (E) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr NA NA B (C) A (A) C (D) A (A) C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB The details of the traffic analysis and alternative comparison is documented in the memorandum attached in the appendix. Based on the analysis documented in the memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: · The City of Medina identified the need to prepare a preliminary plan and vision for the future Tamarack Drive corridor from Meander Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). The corridor has been included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. · The access to TH 55 at Tamarack Drive is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. · The areas north and south of TH 55 adjacent to the future Tamarack Drive corridor is planned for commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 5 · The future area development is anticipated to generate up to 10,307 daily, 752 AM peak hour and 1,030 PM peak hour trips north of TH 55 and; 3,079 daily, 955 AM peak hour and 260 PM peak hour trips south of TH 55. · Two roadway access alternatives were prepared and analyzed including a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and a partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. · The results of the existing conditions traffic operations analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. · The analysis results for the 2040 condition with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. · The analysis results for the 2040 condition with right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. · Based on comparison of the two access alternatives, the right-in/right-out access alternative would divert traffic to the adjacent roadways and would have significant traffic operation impacts specifically at the adjacent intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116);and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road. In addition, there is a safety concern with vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles on TH 55 traveling at 55mph. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended: 1. Provide a full movement intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive to provide access to the existing and future development area north and south of TH 55, as identified by the City of Medina and in the current MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for the TH 55 corridor. 2. The construction of Tamarack Drive including the full movement access connection to TH 55 should be completed as development continues to occur in the area north of TH 55. It is recommended that should Meander Road reach a level of 3,100vpd, which would be a level to warrant a traffic signal at the Meander Road and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) intersection, the connection to TH 55 should be completed. Assuming the existing traffic volume on Meander Road (900vph) with the full development of the Meadow View Townhomes (1,010vpd), a portion of the commercial development (1,190vpd) or approximately 12% of the development could be completed prior to the need for the construction of Tamarack Drive. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 6 3. As the area adjacent to TH 55 and Tamarack Drive is developed, continue to review the warrants for installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection. When warrants are met, work with MnDOT for approval and construction of the traffic signal system. Based on review of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) traffic signal warrants, it is estimated that the required traffic volume currently exist on TH 55 (>15,000vpd) to warrant a traffic control signal system; however, it is anticipated that the approximately 35% of the development on the north side of TH 55 or the school development on the south side of TH 55 or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) would need to be completed to warrant the traffic signal system. 4. As traffic grows in the area work with MnDOT and Hennepin County on possible improvements at the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116); and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road to improve future traffic operations The full traffic forecast and operations analysis is included in Appendix B. Proposed Improvements & Concept Plan Development Commercial Site Analysis WSB’s Land Development team analyzed the commercial areas north of TH 55 for potential site layouts and access points to the proposed Tamarack Drive extension. This included a site-fit analysis to maximize potential commercial uses with current City ordinance guidelines for setbacks and parking areas. The uses considered include a convenience store/gas station, hotel, single/multi-tenant retail, and a single tenant retail (with loading dock), with various access options to both Tamarack Drive and Meander Road. Based on feedback gathered as part of the public engagement process, two concepts for the corridor were developed: an undivided roadway (Concept A) and a parkway (Concept B). Each concept displayed a roundabout at Tamarack Drive and a future frontage road providing access to the east and west to commercial areas. An alternate two-way stop intersection was also considered. At Meander Road and Tamarack Drive, a two way stop intersection was shown graphically. These concepts are provided in Appendix A. Full Corridor Concept Plan Based on the traffic forecasting and analysis, a concept plan for the entire corridor was prepared that includes the recommended geometric improvements, preliminary intersection control design (stop condition or roundabout), signal improvements at TH 55, and right-of-way needs. The street section considered for each of the concepts include an undivided roadway/parkway design with both sidewalks and multi-use trails. The divided roadway option was not preferred by the City Council; the roundabout was the preferred intersection control at the primary commercial site entrance. The installation of a roundabout at the commercial site entrance will provide improved turning/access operations and be safer than a traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian connectivity is also an important component of the corridor considering the proposed land uses and the need to connect the north and south portions of the corridor. The proposed concepts include a multi-use trail and a sidewalk, one on each side of the roadway along with a crossing at TH 55. The Three Rivers Park District is planning a regional trail system (Diamond Lake Trail Corridor) and the City believes the Tamarack Corridor is a feasible location for this improvement, including a crossing at or near TH 55. City staff have been in contact with the Three Rivers Park District and is a willing partner for this opportunity. The corridor concept figures have been included in Appendix A of the report. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 7 Railroad Crossing Improvements The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 will require an expansion of the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55 to accommodate the proposed roadway and pedestrian improvements. Canadian Pacific Railroad will require that a new four- quadrant gate system is installed. With these improvements, a railroad quiet zone (whistle-less crossing) is also proposed. Public Utility Planning Utility extensions along Tamarack Drive, including storm sewer and new watermain, are proposed to be a part of the final alignment option(s). The watermain extension is proposed to be 16-inch ductile iron trunk line from TH 55 to the existing Meander Road. This line will provide additional looping within the system, as well as a point of connection for the future developments. It is anticipated that adjacent development would connect to this trunk main and extend further into the area and serve individual lots. Existing sanitary sewer is located along the south side of TH 55, westerly boundary of the commercial area that connects at Meander Road and Cavanaugh Drive, and at Jubert Drive. As development occurs, it is anticipated that these development areas will connect to the sewer at these locations and extend further to serve individual lots. Storm sewer improvements will likely include a storm piping system sized to convey runoff from an urban street section to meet State Aid design criteria, stormwater treatment areas to capture and retain storm sewer in accordance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC), and culverts to facilitate flow to the existing floodplains. Additional discussion of the stormwater management improvements is included in the section below. Right-of-Way Considerations Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for the extension of Tamarack Drive north and south of TH 55, where no platted easement exists. The proposed right-of-way needs have been compiled electronically with the CAD work completed with this visioning study and can be provided upon request. It is important to note that the City may request more right of way from property owners/developers then what is shown in the exhibits. Right of way that is not utilized for the public improvements would be vacated once the projects are completed. The location of the proposed right-of-way is shown graphically in Figure 1 in Appendix A of the report. Public Engagement Activities Public Engagement Activities In order to gather input and engage the public on a vision for the Tamarack Drive corridor, City staff prepared a survey, mapping activity (currently underway), and held an open house. Initially, when the scope of the project was prepared, and in-person open house was proposed to engage the pubic on this project. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and to respect the CDC guidelines limiting public gatherings, the public engagement strategy needed to be in a virtual format that did not require direct in-person contact. With that challenge at hand, the City ultimately decided to use Social Pinpoint, an online public engagement platform where surveys and a mapping interface can be developed. Here is a summary of the virtual public engagement activities utilized for this study, which generally focused on the portion of the corridor north of TH 55. · A survey was developed asking for input on various hard-scape design elements and street sections that would be feasible in the corridor. These included a center median (parkway) street section, typical undivided street section, round-about/traditional intersection designs, landscaping ideas, and pedestrian access options. Those who participated were able to vote on these various options and provide other input on the City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 8 “ideas wall.” Enclosed with this memo are the survey results and comments placed on the ideas wall. · A virtual open house through a webinar platform was held on April 14, 2020 that included general information on the corridor and study elements, a commercial site analysis/mapping, review comments provided on the initial online survey, and live resident feedback (voice calls and written questions) from residents during the meeting. The intent was to mimic what would normally have been available at an in-person meeting. · Based on the initial survey results and the virtual open house, two final concepts were created (Concepts A & B) utilizing both a parkway roadway design and a traditional undivided roadway section with various commercial site alternatives. The concepts were posted on Social Pinpoint and open for comments until May 28th. The results of the initial survey and comments provided for the final Social Pinpoint website are included in Appendix D. The final commercial site layout concepts in response to the public engagement comments are located in Appendix A. Agency Coordination A number of coordination meetings were held with project stakeholders including Hennepin County to discuss the proposed improvements throughout the corridor including detailed discussions on the intersection at Hamel Road and TH 55. Meeting with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) City engineering staff met with MnDOT to discuss the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55 and the need for a fully signalized intersection to accommodate the proposed traffic for a fully developed condition. MnDOT was receptive to the improvements but will need to revisit the original signal justifications. MnDOT will require that the City provide them with an analysis of the traffic forecasting, traffic operations, and a review of alternatives in-lieu of further improvement to the intersection at TH 55. In preparation for the signal improvements, MnDOT will require that a more refined design is submitted for review and approval. The timeframe for final design review and approval by MnDOT can take up to 18 months. Meeting with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety City staff met with representatives of both Canadian Pacific Railroad and MnDOT Rail Safety. The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55 were discussed along with the potential need to expand the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55. The primary take-away from this meeting was that further refinement of the proposed design is needed and coordination with CP Railroad will be required to acquire the additional right-of-way for the improvements. The railroad will require that the local agency fund any improvements needed including the crossing panels, improvements needed to facilitate a whistle-less crossing, and the gate/lighting system. The timeframe to design and coordinate these improvements and right-of-way acquisition with CP Railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration on the whistle- less crossing can take up to 24 months. Meeting with Hennepin County City staff met with Hennepin County to discuss proposed improvements at Hamel Road. The improvements of Hamel Road will be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with development and will include the need for a dedicated left turn lane at minimum. Hennepin County asked that the City continue to provide updates as the project progresses. Once development occurs between Hamel Road and TH 55 and a specific plan is being developed, the County will require review and approval of any proposed changes to the intersection at Hamel Road. The timeframe for final design review and approval by Hennepin County can take up to 12 months. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 9 The meeting minutes and documentation of these discussions are included in Appendix E. Permitting Considerations Stormwater Management The preferred concept plan exceeds the 5,000 square foot threshold requiring a City of Medina Stormwater Management Plan for any new impervious surfaces. The total new impervious within the project area is approximately 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres). The stormwater management plan must include at a minimum: · Volume Control – Design calculations of a BMP to capture and retain onsite 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · Rate Control – Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to show that post development discharge rates are less than existing discharge rates. · Storm Sewer Sizing – Storm sewer sizing to meet State Aid design criteria. The proposed improvements are located within the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC). A permit will be required from ECWMC because the proposed improvements disturb more than 1 acre. Since this is a linear project, the net new impervious surface must meet ECWMC’s runoff rate restrictions, volume control requirements, and water quality requirements listed below: · Runoff rates for post development must be less than existing discharge rates. · Stormwater runoff volume must be abstracted onsite to meet 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · No net increase in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) from the existing conditions. The City of Medina’s standards are more stringent than ECWMC’s for stormwater management for this project. NPDES permitting will be required for construction activity. Based on the amount of impervious cover proposed, the NPDES permitting requirements for treatment and volume control do apply but are satisfied through the City and ECWMC permitting. To meet the requirements of the City of Medina and ECWMC, it is anticipated that adjacent development will oversize their stormwater management to treat impervious created from the Tamarack corridor. Since timing of development cannot always be predicted, temporary ponds may need to be installed as necessary to manage stormwater. Preliminary BMPs have been sized along the corridor to manage runoff if the timing of development does not correlate with road construction. It will be necessary to extend an existing culvert that runs under TH 55. The culvert extension is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of TH 55 and Tamarack. Along with this culvert extension some regrading of the existing ditch will be necessary. The culvert and ditch will be designed such that the hydraulic capacity is maintained. Environmental Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory and nearby approved wetland delineations, wetland impacts may occur as a result of development and the extension of Tamarack Drive including the area at TH 55 with the proposed signal improvements. A wetland delineation will need to be completed for parcels that do not already have approved boundaries. Impacts are anticipated north and south of the intersection of Tamarack and TH 55. Options to minimize wetland impacts will need to be evaluated during final design. The project will require permits from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), WCA (via City of Medina), and ECWMC. We expect it will take 6-9 months to prepare documents/plans and obtain permits from all agencies. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 10 Mitigation for WCA regulated wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio and it is anticipated to be provided through the purchase of wetland credits from an USACE approved wetland bank or through onsite mitigation. Wetland banks are available in Hennepin County at a cost of approximately $2.50-$3.00/square foot (2020 dollars). Options for onsite mitigation will also be reviewed and would require 5 years of monitoring following construction to ensure success. The State’s Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) rules were reviewed. The project would not trigger an EAW based on the mandatory thresholds for a highway project. Utilities For the extension of the 16-inch trunk watermain from TH 55 to Meander Road, a Minnesota Department of Health watermain permit will be required. Construction For disturbance greater than 1 acre a MN Pollution Control Agency (NPES) permit will be required for construction activities. Permitting requirements for permanent BMP’s will be satisfied through the City and ECWMC permits. Project Cost Estimates & Funding Opinion of Probable Cost A detailed opinion of cost for the project can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2020 construction costs and includes a 10% construction contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the options under consideration. Table 2: Estimated Project Cost Summary Description Estimated Project Cost TH 55 Signal $ 645,000 North Approach Street & Storm $ 497,000 South Approach Street & Storm $ 503,000 Railroad Crossing Improvements $ 791,000 North Street & Storm to Meander Rd $ 1,103,000 Watermain Looping Connection $ 401,000 South Street & Storm to Hamel Rd $ 1,206,000 Grand Total Estimated Project Cost $ 5,146,000 The above costs in Table 2 are estimated project costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater improvements, signal improvements, and watermain as indicated for the various areas of the project. The cost to obtain right-of-way for the proposed improvements was not included with the project estimates; It has been assumed that adjacent property owners would provide the necessary right-of-way with proposed development. The approximate cost to mitigate disturbed wetland areas was included with the estimated costs. It was assumed the purchase of wetland credits and not onsite mitigation. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 11 Excavation quantities were estimated based on available soil information (NRCS) and known wetland locations; soil borings or a geotechnical analysis were not completed with the visioning study. The actual depth and composition of peat or other poor soils within the project area could affect the cost of the project significantly. Soil borings and a geotechnical analysis are recommended if the City proceeds with further refinement of the design. Potential Project Funding/Implementation It is likely that several projects may occur at different times within the corridor prior to full completion of this vision. Most of the proposed improvements will be implemented with adjacent development to extend public streets, utilities, and other infrastructure. Agreements to fund these projects would be required of developers or property owners. Portions of the improvements that cannot be constructed with adjacent development may need to be implemented as a public project and funded through an area-wide Chapter 429 Special Assessment to benefitting property owners. Based on discussion with MnDOT and Hennepin County, it is not anticipated that a cost share of the intersection improvements at either Hamel Road or TH 55 is possible. The City may also need to fund a portion of the trunk watermain looping connection, but the share of the cost will be determined at the time of development approvals. Summary, Recommendations, & Next Steps Summary The Tamarack Drive corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south up to Meander Road to the north. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the Future Land Use Plan, shows that this area has been planned for a combination of medium density residential, mixed residential, and commercial land uses. It is anticipated that the development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties at different times. The study will provide a guide to the City for the following as development occurs: 1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements. 2. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the roadway/intersection improvements which benefit adjacent landowners. 3. Require construction of portions of the roadway, watermain, or other improvements in conjunction with adjacent developments. There has been development interest on the north side of TH 55 with the medium density residential property and on the south side of TH 55 within the mixed residential zoning area where the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Plans have been submitted to the City for a townhome development within the medium density residential property. Although no specific plans are underway for construction of a school on the Wayzata School District site, staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the potential after 2025, when the property is staged for development. The corridor visioning study is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and represents the City’s vision for this corridor. Roadway, Intersections, and Signal at TH 55 The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study and the final concept plan is based upon input from City Council, City staff, MnDOT, Hennepin County comments made through the public engagement process, and the City’s engineering team. The final vision incorporates a roundabout as the preferred access to the future commercial area and minimizes the use of center medians. The installation of a roundabout at the commercial site entrance will provide improved City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum July 16, 2020 Page 12 turning/access operations and be safer than a traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. Based on the traffic forecasting and operations analysis completed with this study, a signal at TH 55 is warranted when approximately 35% of the development occurs on the north side of TH 55, the school development on the south side of TH 55, or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) occurs. The proposed medium density residential development (Meadowview Townhomes) will not in itself warrant the signal at TH 55; the proposed increase in traffic for this development is 1,190 vehicles per day (vpd). It is anticipated that further development within the corridor would likely trigger the need for a full signalized intersection at TH 55 to accommodate the increase in traffic levels. It is important to note that the increase of traffic could change if the final development is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. The timeframe for design, review, right-of-way acquisition, and approvals between MnDOT and CP Railroad for the intersection at TH 55 could take 18 to 24 months prior to the construction of the proposed improvements. Next Steps Consider adopting the corridor study in its entirety with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55 and the general geometric design of a future Tamarack Drive roadway. The adoption of the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study will allow City staff to take the necessary steps to secure right-of- way and the financial obligations for proposed improvements from adjacent property owners as development plans are submitted to the City. Approving the concept plan and corridor study does not commit the City to provide funding for the project. List of Appendices and Figures Appendix A Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit Figure 2 – Commercial Analysis Concept Appendix B Traffic Study Appendix C Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs Appendix D Social Pinpoint Survey Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses Appendix E Meeting Minutes with MnDOT Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County Appendix A Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit Figure 2 – Commercial Development Concept W S B F i l e n a m e : D a t e : P r i n t e d : 7 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 K : \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ La y o u t \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 _ l o . d g n City of Medina May 2020 Tamarack Drive Corridor Study REQUIREMENTS PLANS AND SIGHT DISTANCE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ROAD INTERSECTION WILL BE FINAL LOCATION OF HAMEL BASE ON DEVELOPMENT ACCESS TO BE DETERMINED EXACT ALIGNMENT AND Legend ROADWAY SHOULDERS (PAVED) CURB SIDEWALK INPLACE SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING R/W PROPOSED R/W S TO P ROUNDABOUT OPTION S TO P STOP STOP N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure X S TO P EXISTING ADT PROJECTED 2040 ADT XXX (XXX) MINNESOTA 55 M e a n d e r R o a d H a m el R o a d Final Proposed Roadway Geometics and Alignments 4 0 ' 4 0 ' 5 0 ' 4 0 ' 6 0 ' 1 0 0 ' 3 0 ' 160' 1 3 5 ' 160' 4 5 ' 7 0 ' 4 5 ' 7 5 ' 400 (1800) 900 (2200) 1200 (1400) 18,800 (24,800) 0 (1000) 0 (3300) 0 (8300) 0 (1750) 18,800 (27,200) 1600 (2100) Figure 1 July 2020 C: \ U s e r s \ e k e l l y \ D o c u m e n t s \ P R O J E C T _ M e d i n a \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 C o m m e r c i a l C o n c e p t s 0 4 2 9 2 0 Tamarack Drive Study - Commercial Area Concepts Tamarack Drive Study - Medina, Minnesota April 29, 2020 | WSB Project number: 015599-000 Concept A Concept B Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Undivided Roadway Section - 66’ R.O.W.Parkway Section - 80’ R.O.W. Tamarack Drive - Undivided Road Tamarack Drive - Parkway Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Note: Commercial uses are illustrative only to show context for potential street orientations. LEGEND PROPOSEDTAMARACK DR ALIGNMENT COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPESCREENING STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA FRONTAGEROAD DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ROUNDABOUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - HIGH W A Y 5 5 HIGH W A Y 5 5 MEANDER ROAD RETAIL 2.3 ac. +/- RETAIL 1.5 ac. +/- RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COMMERCIAL 2.5 ac. +/-COMMERCIAL 5.5 ac. +/- City Park Fields of Medina City Park Fields of Medina COMMERCIAL 5.0 ac.+/- CO M M E R C I A L 1. 8 a c . + / - MEANDER ROAD stormwater management Paved Trail Paved Trail MedianSidewalkSidewalk TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 2.0 ac. RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 4.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 2.5 ac.+/- RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 8.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 4.0 ac.+/- TA M A R A C K D R stormwater management Appendix B Traffic Study 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Technical Memorandum To: Scott Johnson, City Administrator Dusty Finke, AICP, Planning Director Steve Scherer, Public Works Director City of Medina From: Charles Rickart PE, PTOE, Principal, Traffic Engineer Jim Stremel PE, Project Manager WSB Date: May 11, 2020 Re: Tamarack Drive Corridor Project Development/Visioning Traffic Engineering Review Medina, MN WSB Project No. 015599-000 Background The City of Medina has initiated a Project Development/Visioning study for the Tamarack Drive corridor from Hamel Road (CSAH 115) to Meander Road. The study will provide the adjacent property owners and developers a guide for the look and feel of the corridor, street section, right- of-way needs, public utilities, pedestrian access, and vehicular access spacing as this area develops. The attached Figure 1 shows the proposed project location. The City’s current and past Transportation Plan identifies the future Tamarack Drive roadway connection including a proposed traffic signal system at TH 55 to accommodate future land use growth planned in the vicinity of Tamarack Drive north and south of TH 55. MnDOT developed the TH 55 Corridor Access Framework which has been included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for this section of roadway. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. The City was a key partner in developing the concept and is supportive of TH 55 expansion to address existing and future congestion on the highway. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to: document the existing traffic conditions in t he area; determine the proposed traffic generated from the area development; analyze the impacts the area development would have on the adjacent roadways and intersections with a full movement signalized access or a right-in/right-out access at Tamarack Drive and TH 55; provide conclusions and recommendations for lane configuration and intersection control. Existing Conditions The impacts from the proposed area development was evaluated at the following existing intersections: • TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • Meander Road at Arrowhead Drive • Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) • Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 2 Roadway Characteristics Meander Road: Meander Road is an east/west two-lane local City street from Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to Arrowhead Drive. The roadway has a curvilinear urban cross section alignment with a pedestrian path on the north side, from Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to Cavanaugh Drive whe re it transitions to a rural cross section. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 40mph. TH 55: TH 55 is an east/west four-lane facility with two lanes in each direction and left and right turn lanes at Arrowhead Drive, future Tamarack Drive and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). West of Arrowhead Drive the roadway transitions to a two-lane facility. TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection currenting has eastbound and westbound left and right turn lanes. TH 55 has a functional classification of a Principal Arterial. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55mph. Arrowhead Drive: Arrowhead Drive is a north/south roadway from Hackamore Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). South of TH 55, Arrowhead Drive is a four-lane County Road (CSAH 118) to just south of Prairie Drive where is transitions to a two-lane facility. This section of Arrowhead Drive is designated as a Minor Collector with a posted speed limit of 40mph. North of TH 55, Arrowhead Drive is a two-lane local City street with a posted speed limit of 30mph. Left and right turn lanes are currently provided only at the intersection of TH 55. Hamel Road (CSAH 115): Hamel Road (CSAH 115) is an east/west two-lane rural cross section, Major Collector from CSAH 19 to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). The roadway has a posted 40mph speed limit from Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) to west of the proposed Tamarack Drive intersection, and 30mph from there to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). Pinto Drive (CSAH 116): Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) is a north/south roadway from Hamel Road (CSAH 115) through City of Medina and City of Corcoran to Territorial Road in the City of Rogers. North of TH 55, the roadway is a “Other Arterial” (former B-Minor Arterial) with a two-lane urban cross section from TH 55 to north of Clydesdale Trail and a rural cross section from that point north. South of TH 55 the roadway is a Major Collector with a two-lane urban cross section. A pedestrian path is provided on the west side of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of TH 55 and on the east side south of TH 55. A raised concrete median with left and right turn lanes is provided at TH 55. The roadway has a posted 55mph speed limit north of TH 55 and 30mph south of TH 55. Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were developed based on existing data available for the area. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts are based on the current City of Medina, Hennepin County and MnDOT State Aid count data. The turning movement traffic at the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Arrowhead Drive at Meander Road were determined based on resent previous studies in the area. The turning movement traffic volumes at the other intersections were estimated based on the existing hourly approach counts conducted with the ADT counts. Historic turning movement counts were also used to help estimate each movement. The attached Figure 2 shows the existing area intersections that were analyzed as part of this, with the existing AM and PM peak hour and ADT traffic volumes. Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Analysis The existing traffic operations were evaluated at intersections in the study area for the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections. The operations analysis results are based on the established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 1 – Existing Traffic Operations Summary shown below, summarizes the existing LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and existing traffic volumes. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 3 The analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. All movements during the AM peak hour are operating at a LOS C or better, however there are some movement during the AM and PM peak hours that are operating at LOS E or F including: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM = LOS E • TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • WB TH 55 - Thru: PM = LOS E • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: AM = LOS F • EB TH 55 - Left: PM = LOS E Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116 • EB Meander Rd - Right: AM = LOS E Table 1 – Existing Traffic Operations Summary C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Tamarack Drive Alternatives Tamarack Drive has been identified by the City of Medina as a future Collector roadway between Meander Road and Hamel Road that would provide access to the development area north and south of TH 55. The access of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines as a future full movement signalized intersection. In addition, left and right turn lanes are currently provided for both eastbound and westbound TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection. The City has been developing the areas adjacent to TH 55 based on the current City 2040 Comprehensive plan assuming a full movement signalized access on TH 55 at Tamarack Drive. However, in order to verify the need for this access, two roadway access alternatives were included as part of this analysis including: a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and; a partial acce ss, right-in/right-out stop- controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. Co n t r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g na l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr D (E) 41 C (E) 33 Si g na l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) E (F) 70 D (E) 47 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (F) 9 A (C) 2 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (A) 5 A (A) 4 Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 4 Traffic Projections In order to analyze the lane configuration and traffic control needs of the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor and impact on the existing area roadways and intersections, projected traffic volumes were determined for the area. Projected 2040 traffic volumes were determined based on the anticipated future development land use in the area and the City’s current Transportation Plan. The following sections outline the projected background traffic growth, traffic generation from the study area, as well as the traffic distribution and projected traffic volumes. Background Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. Based on this review a factor of 1.1 (0.5%/year) over a 20-year period was used to project traffic from existing conditions to the 2040 analysis year. Proposed Development Area Traffic Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed area development is shown in Table 2 on the following page. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute o f Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The table shows the Daily, AM peak and PM peak hour trip generation based on anticipated commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Minnetonka School District use south of TH 55. The size of the land use estimates was based on available land in the area assuming typical uses from similar sites and density calculations outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Development Area Traffic Distribution Area generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including previous traffic and transportation studies in the area; the City’s current Transportation Plan; anticipated origins and destinations for specific land use, and; existing travel patterns and future roadway connections. Based on these parameters the following general traffic distribution was used to distribute the projected traffic volumes to the area roadway network: • 46% to / from the east on TH 55 • 30% to / from the west on TH 55 • 12% to / from the north on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • 5% to / from the north on Arrowhead Drive • 5% to / from the east on Hamel Road • 2% to / from the west on Hamel Road Projected Traffic Volumes Traffic forecasts were prepared for and the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full development of the area. The traffic forecasts were prepare d by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and anticipated area develop ment site traffic generation to determine the 2040 Build traffic conditions for both TH 55 at Tamarack Drive access alternatives. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 5 The attached Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows the 2040 Build Traffic Volumes assuming the full movement signalized intersection, and; Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows the 2040 Build Traffic Volumes assuming a right-in/right-out intersection. Table 2 - Estimated Area Trip Generation Planned Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out North of TH 55 - East of Tamarack Town Homes 138 units 1,010 505 505 63 15 49 77 49 29 Office 30,000sf 292 146 146 35 30 5 35 6 29 Restaurant 5,000sf 561 280 280 50 27 22 49 30 19 Bank 4,000sf 400 200 200 38 22 16 82 41 41 Total Trips North of TH 55 East of Tamarack 2,263 1,132 1,132 186 94 92 242 125 117 North of TH 55 - West of Tamarack Office 70,000sf 682 341 341 81 70 11 81 13 68 Hotel 145 rooms 1,212 606 606 68 40 28 87 44 43 Convenience / Gas 2,500sf 1,561 780 780 101 51 51 123 62 62 Fast Food Restaurant 2,500sf 1,177 589 589 100 51 49 82 42 39 Retail 40,000sf 1,510 755 755 38 23 14 156 75 81 Pharmacy 6,000sf 655 327 327 23 12 11 62 31 31 Day Care 6,000sf 286 143 143 66 35 31 67 31 35 Restaurant 5,000sf 561 280 280 50 27 22 49 30 19 Bank 4,000sf 400 200 200 38 22 16 82 41 41 Total Trips North of TH 55 West of Tamarack 8,044 4,022 4,022 566 332 234 788 370 418 South of TH 55 Elementary School 750 Students 1,418 709 709 503 271 231 128 61 66 Middle School 780 students 1,661 831 831 452 244 208 133 65 68 Total Trips South of TH 55 3,079 1,539 1,539 955 516 439 260 126 134 Total New Trips 13,386 6,693 6,693 1,707 941 765 1,290 621 669 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 6 Forecasted Conditions Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was completed evaluating the traffic operations for the projected 2040 conditions at the impacted area intersections with the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor improvements using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections and RODEL software for the roundabout controlled intersections. The capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak hours to document the 2040 traffic operations assuming the two Tamarack Drive Improvement access alternatives including: Tamarack Drive at TH 55 as a full movement access with a traffic control signal, and; Tamarack Drive at TH 55 as a right-in / right-out stop sign controlled access. The results of the analysis are discussed in the following sections: 2040 Analysis with Full Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive Table 3 – 2040 Traffic Operations Summary with TH 55 full access shown below, summarizes the projected LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area assuming: Tamarack Drive constructed with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55; Arrowhead Drive improved to include a southbound dual left turn at TH 55: Existing lane geometry and traffic control at all other intersections, and: projected 2040 traffic volumes based on the traffic generation shown in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The analysis results show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. All movements during the AM and PM peak hours would operate at a LOS D or better, however there are some movement that are operating at LOS E or F including: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: PM = LOS E • SB Arrowhead Dr - Left: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: PM = LOS E; Thru: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • NB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: PM = LOS E; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: PM = LOS F; Right: PM = LOS F • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS F Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Thru: AM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F • EB Meander Rd - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Tamarack Drive • NB Tamarack Dr - Right: AM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM = LOS E • SB Tamarack Dr – Left: PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 7 Table 3: Projected 2040 Level of Service, with a Signal at TH 55 Co nt r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g na l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr E (F) 69 D (E) 44 Si g na l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 102 F (F) 123 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 1 A (A) 2 Thr u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 108 A (F) 7 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 3 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (B) 5 A (A) 4 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access A (B) 4 A (B) 5 Si g n a l TH 55 at Tamarack Dr D (E) 54 D (E) 48 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr B (C) 14 A (A) 2 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. 2040 Analysis with Right-in/Right-out Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive Table 4 – 2040 Traffic Operations Summary with Right-in/Right-outl access shown below, summarizes the projected LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area assuming: Tamarack Drive constructed with a stop controlled right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55; Arrowhead Drive improved to include a southbound dual left turn at TH 55: Existing lane geometry and traffic control at all other intersections, and: projected traffic volumes based on the traffic generation shown in Table 2 The analysis results show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. All movements during the AM and PM peak hours would operate at a LOS D or better, however there are some movement that are operating at LOS E or F including: Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 8 TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • NB Arrowhead Dr – Left: AM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: PM = LOS F • SB Arrowhead Dr - Left: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • NB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS E, PM = LOS F; Right: PM = LOS F • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS F Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Thru: AM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F • EB Meander Rd - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Right: AM and PM = LOS F TH 55 at Tamarack Drive • NB Tamarack Dr - Right: AM = LOS E • SB Tamarack Dr – Right: PM = LOS E Table 4: Projected 2040 Level of Service, with a Right-in/Right-out at TH 55 Co n t r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g n a l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr F (F) 82 E (F) 56 Si g n a l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 171 F (F) 168 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (B) 3 A (B) 3 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 164 C (F) 23 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 3 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (B) 8 A (B) 5 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access A (A) 4 A (B) 5 Th r u - St o p TH 55 at Tamarack Dr C (E) 22 C (E) 15 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr C (D) 20 A (A) 1 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 9 Alternative Comparison Two alternatives were reviewed and analyzed for the 2040 build conditions. The advantages and disadvantages for each alternative is outlined below: Full Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive: Advantages • Improvement has been planned by the City of Medina and MnDOT • The ADT volume on Meander Road traffic would remain at a local street level (1,750vpd) • The ADT on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Arrowhead Drive between Meander Road and Hamel Road (CSAH 115) would have less impact than right-in/right-out access alternative Disadvantages • Additional full movement signalized intersection in the TH 55 corridor • With the increase in traffic from the site development TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive, TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) will have increased delays and LOS from the existing conditions. Right-in/Right-out Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive: Advantages • Limits access to TH 55 • Distributes local traffic to adjacent roadways Disadvantages • The ADT on Meander Road would more than double from the full movement access alternative. • The ADT on Hamel Road would increase more than 30% from the full movement access alternative. • The ADT on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Arrowhead Drive between Meander Road and Hamel Road (CSAH 115) would increase between 15% and 25% from the full movement access alternative. • The AM peak hour volume in the southbound Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to eastbound TH 55 dual left turn lane would increase from 766vph to 916vph • The AM peak hour volume in the eastbound Meander Road to southbound Pinto Drive right turn lane would increase from 28vph to 301vph • TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive, TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) will have longer overall delays and worse LOS than with the full movement access alternative • Safety of vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles going 55mph on TH 55. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 10 Conclusion / Recommendations Based on the analysis documented in this report, WSB has concluded the following: • The City of Medina identified the need to prepare a preliminary plan and vision for the future Tamarack Drive corridor from Meander Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). The corridor has been included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. • The access to TH 55 at Tamarack Drive is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. • The area’s north and south of TH 55 adjacent to the future Tamarack Drive corridor is planned for commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. • The future area development is anticipated to generate up to 10,307 daily, 752 AM peak hour and 1,030 PM peak hour trips north of TH 55 and; 3,079 daily, 955 AM peak hour and 260 PM peak hour trips south of TH 55. • Two roadway access alternatives were prepared and analyzed including: a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and; a partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. • The results of the existing conditions traffic operations analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. • The analysis results for the 2040 condition with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. • The analysis results for the 2040 condition with right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. • Based on comparison of the two access alternatives, the right-in/right-out access alternative would divert traffic to the adjacent roadways and would have significant traffic operation impacts specifically at the adjacent intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road. In addition, there is a safety concern with vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles on TH 55 traveling at 55mph. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 11 Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide a full movement intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive to provide access to the existing and future development area north and south of TH 55, as identified by the City of Medina and in the current MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for the TH 55 corridor. 2. As the area adjacent to TH 55 and Tamarack Drive is developed, continue to review the warrants for installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection. When warrants are met work with MnDOT for approval and construction of the traffic signal system. Based on review of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) traffic signal warrants, it is estimated that the required traffic volume currently exist on TH 55 (>15,000vpd) to warrant a traffic control signal system, however, it is anticipated that the approximately 35% of the development on the north side of TH 55 or the school development on the south side of TH 55 or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) would need to be completed to warrant the traffic signal system. 3. As traffic grows in the area work with MnDOT and Hennepin County on possible improvements at the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road to improve future traffic operations. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Chuck Rickart at (612).360.1283. W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 5 / 9 / 2 0 2 0 K: \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib i t s \ F ig u r e 1 P r o j e c t A r e a . d g n Medina, MN Tamarack Dr Traffic Study FIgure 1 - Project Area N 115 COUNTY 116 COUNTY 115 COUNTY 101 COUNTY P i n t o D r Meander Rd A r r o w h e a d D r Hamel Rd B ro c k to n La n e H u n t e r D r Pioneer Tr B r o c k t o n L a n e MINNESOTA 55 Project Area Figure 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Average Daily Traffic Volume Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd 20 9 ( 1 9 0 ) 18 ( 1 6 ) k 10 (21) (1 8 8 ) 2 0 1 (2 2 ) 1 2 15 (17)r w s 4 8 2 ( 3 ) 1 (1) 2 (2) f k (59) 23 6 (3) x 2 4 8 w sir v (2 6 ) 1 9 (7 7 3 ) 2 4 6 (6 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(25) 54 43 ( 6 2 ) 79 9 ( 3 0 2 ) 60 ( 4 1 ) 73 ( 3 4 ) i w k x 57 (69) 52 (57) f (70) 43 v(49) 35 97 ( 5 0 ) 5 ( 3 ) i r 20 (33) 62 (78) f k (59) 47 2 (3) x 2 4 8 w s v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (16) 11 ,(2) 1 74 ( 4 5 ) (32) 20 v (6 2 ) 1 8 (4 1 ) 2 8 (1 2 1 ) 6 0 (807) 1776 ,(16) 42 121 (65) x 2 4 8 k 165 (137) f 389 (1687) s 34 ( 2 9 ) 61 ( 3 1 ) 12 9 ( 1 4 7 ) i r w (949) 1826 ,(15) 70 (111) 69 v (1 5 ) 8 (9 4 ) 7 7 (3 2 ) 2 7 42 (27) x 2 4 8 565 (1811) 120 (600) f k 69 3 ( 2 0 7 ) w s 10 2 ( 6 3 ) 64 ( 6 0 ) i r X,XXX 16,600 18,800 1,050 2,200 1,600 1,200 1,600 2,500 25,0002,200 9,600 900 9,600 400 Figure 3. 2040 Build Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r 25 7 ( 2 1 6 ) 52 ( 5 6 ) k r w s 47 (53) 17 (19) 4 8 (2 1 5 ) 2 4 4 (2 4 ) 1 3 12 0 ( 1 3 4 ) 92 4 ( 3 4 4 ) 2 ( 3 ) k 2 (2) f 1 (1) i r w s 7 (3) x 2 4 8(142) 86 v (2 9 ) 2 1 (8 6 5 ) 3 0 7 (7 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(28) 60 38 ( 3 2 ) 67 ( 3 4 ) k 16 9 ( 1 6 8 ) i r w s 641 (2029) 204 (158) f (35) 22 v (6 9 ) 2 0 (4 5 ) 3 1 (1 3 4 ) 6 6 134 (72) x 2 4 8 (1063) 2214 ,(18) 46 15 4 ( 8 0 ) 71 ( 6 6 ) 76 6 ( 2 2 9 ) 133 (663)k i r w s f 46 (30) x 2 4 8 1010 (2258) (17) 77 (141) 111 v (1 7 ) 9 (1 0 4 ) 8 5 (3 5 ) 3 0 (1344) 2408 , 81 ( 3 8 ) 57 (63)k i w f 66 ( 4 5 ) x 88 (91) (77) 48 v(69) 69 96 (74) i r w s 2 (3) 8 2 ( 5 0 ) 6 ( 3 ) 1 0 7 ( 5 5 ) k 69 (86) f x 2 4 8(65) 52 v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (58) 73 ,(2) 1 LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Forecasted Average Daily Traffic VolumeX,XXX 22,300 24,800 7,100 2,500 2,100 1,400 2,100 3,500 33,6002,600 11,000 2,200 12,200 1,200 1,750 8,300 3,300 1,000 27,200 Figure 4. 2040 Build Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r f 46 (57) 5 (6)s (12) 12 v (1 5 ) 8 (1 0 ) 5 (58) 53 , 2 8 s f 67 (59) 2 8 33 (48) v (1 5 ) 1 8 (6 1 ) 5 6 (52) 38 ,(16) 200 (0) i r w s 76 (96) 40 ( 4 5 ) 36 ( 9 ) 16 ( 2 1 ) k 16 (24) f x 2 4 8(46) 27 v (2 7 7 ) 2 5 5 (1 0 ) 3 1 (1 0 3 ) 7 8 (0) 0 ,(291) 195 97 ( 1 3 0 ) 60 ( 4 6 ) 14 5 ( 2 2 0 ) k f 746 (2087) 184 (206) 243 (61)i r w s (38) 160 (139) 118 v (4 2 ) 1 3 6 (4 5 ) 6 2 (6 4 ) 2 1 0 (1188) 2171 , x 2 4 8 61 ( 4 0 ) 74 (38)k i w f 25 ( 1 5 ) x 91 (123) (15) 30 v(85) 65 Figure 5. 2040 Build Right-in, Right-out Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r (2 1 5 ) 2 4 4 (1 8 3 ) 1 5 0 22 (27) 4 8 r w s 28 (50) 25 7 ( 2 1 6 ) 42 ( 4 3 ) k (129) 64 v (2 9 ) 2 1 (8 7 0 ) 3 2 5 (7 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(301) 227 7 (3) x 2 4 8 1 (1) i r w s k 2 (2) f 99 ( 1 2 8 ) 94 5 ( 3 4 4 ) 2 ( 3 ) (930) 2117 ,(18) 46 (184) 150 v (1 0 9 ) 1 5 2 (5 9 ) 6 0 (1 3 4 ) 6 6 136 (78) x 2 4 8 i r w s 528 (2024) 182 (151) f k 15 8 ( 1 6 6 ) 54 ( 4 2 ) 67 ( 3 4 ) (17) 77 (133) 107 v (4 2 ) 3 1 (1 1 0 ) 1 0 7 (3 5 ) 3 0 (1111) 2220 , 283 (88) x 2 4 8 818 (2229) i r w s f 133 (663)k 11 3 ( 7 0 ) 15 0 ( 1 0 8 ) 91 6 ( 4 7 5 ) (87) 57 v(57) 49 x 72 (79) i w f 211 (110)k 73 ( 4 7 ) 92 ( 4 8 ) (71) 74 v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (25) 34 ,(2) 1 x 2 4 8 46 (42) i r w s 2 (3) 3 8 0 ( 1 2 3 ) 6 ( 3 ) 1 2 4 ( 8 2 ) k 91 (111) f LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Forecasted Average Daily Traffic VolumeX,XXX 22,300 22,900 7,100 3,100 2,100 1,900 2,800 3,500 33,6003,800 12,900 4,800 12,200 2600 5,900 4,150 1,400 1,700 24,200 LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Figure 6. 2040 Build Right-in, Right-out Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r (96) 87 v (2 0 ) 1 2 (0 ) 0 (130) 105 , 2 8 5 (6)s 38 (57)f v (6 ) 5 (7 4 ) 5 8 (42) 33 , 46 (53) 2 8 33 (48) s f (88) 72 (272) 153 v (1 6 9 ) 1 6 8 (0 ) 0 (6 4 ) 4 8 (0) 0 ,(125) 70 x 2 4 8 0 (0) i r w s 30 (37) 72 ( 7 9 ) 0 ( 0 ) 46 ( 6 2 ) k 63 (80) f (42) 170 v (7 2 ) 2 3 3 (1188) 2171 , 8 i 746 (2087) 216 (253)k f 98 ( 1 6 0 ) (5) 21 v(85) 65 x 91 (123) i w f 325 (79)k 1 6 3 ( 5 8 ) 4 4 ( 1 3 ) Appendix C Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs WSB Project:Tamarack Drive Corridor Design By:LME Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS City Project No.: WSB Project No:015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 Item No. MnDOT Specification No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$ 2 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 245 200.00$ 49,000.00$ 3 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 336 12.00$ 4,032.00$ 4 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 256 18.00$ 4,608.00$ 5 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 264 24.00$ 6,336.00$ 6 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 7 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 438,236.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (15%) 65,735.40$ SUBTOTAL 503,971.40$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 141,111.99$ TOTAL 645,000.00$ 8 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$ 9 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3455 3.00$ 10,365.00$ 10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1900 14.00$ 26,600.00$ 13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 634 16.00$ 10,144.00$ 14 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2073 24.00$ 49,752.00$ 15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 691 20.00$ 13,820.00$ 16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 888 35.00$ 31,080.00$ 18 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 19 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 173 5.00$ 865.00$ 20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 308 88.00$ 27,104.00$ 21 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 410 86.00$ 35,260.00$ 22 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 23 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 24 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 25 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 26 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 27 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 268,298.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,829.80$ SUBTOTAL 295,127.80$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 82,635.78$ TOTAL 378,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 28 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 29 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 31 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 67,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 6,700.00$ SUBTOTAL 73,700.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 20,636.00$ TOTAL 94,000.00$ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST A. Roadway Costs - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack B1. Roadway Costs - North TH 55/Tamarack Approach B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North 32 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 14,800.00$ 14,800.00$ 33 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 4063 3.00$ 12,189.00$ 34 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$ 35 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$ 36 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 2235 14.00$ 31,290.00$ 37 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 745 16.00$ 11,920.00$ 38 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2438 24.00$ 58,512.00$ 39 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 813 20.00$ 16,260.00$ 40 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 41 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1044 35.00$ 36,540.00$ 42 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 43 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 204 5.00$ 1,020.00$ 44 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 362 88.00$ 31,856.00$ 45 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 483 86.00$ 41,538.00$ 46 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 47 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 48 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 49 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 50 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 51 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 310,033.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 31,003.30$ SUBTOTAL 341,036.30$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 95,490.16$ TOTAL 437,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 52 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 53 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 54 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 29,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 2,900.00$ SUBTOTAL 31,900.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 8,932.00$ TOTAL 41,000.00$ 55 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 31,200.00$ 31,200.00$ 56 2540.602 RAILROAD CROSSING PANELS LF 115 1,500.00$ 172,500.00$ 57 2565.601 GATE SYSTEM LS 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 653,700.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 65,370.00$ SUBTOTAL 719,070.00$ INDORECT COST TOTAL (10%) 71,907.00$ TOTAL 791,000.00$ B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North C3. Roadway Costs - Railroad Crossing C1. Roadway Costs - South TH 55/Tamarack Approach 58 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 30,200.00$ 30,200.00$ 59 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 60 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 61 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 62 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6067 3.00$ 18,201.00$ 63 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 3866 12.00$ 46,392.00$ 64 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 2552 12.00$ 30,624.00$ 65 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3337 16.00$ 53,392.00$ 66 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 3640 24.00$ 87,360.00$ 67 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$ 68 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 69 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1559 35.00$ 54,565.00$ 70 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 2600 1.25$ 3,250.00$ 71 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 304 5.00$ 1,520.00$ 72 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 540 88.00$ 47,520.00$ 73 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 720 86.00$ 61,920.00$ 74 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C), 3.0" THICK S Y 709 50.00$ 35,450.00$ 75 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 76 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 77 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 4801 10.00$ 48,010.00$ 78 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 240 15.00$ 3,600.00$ 79 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2860 16.00$ 45,760.00$ 80 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 81 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 82 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 83 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 84 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 85 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 86 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 87 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 88 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 89 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 191 30.00$ 5,730.00$ 90 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 91 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1734 1.25$ 2,167.50$ 92 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 40 5.00$ 200.00$ 92 2575.604 SODDING S Y 1014 7.00$ 7,098.00$ 93 2575.605 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 94 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2600 1.00$ 2,600.00$ 95 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1300 1.00$ 1,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 632,785.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 63,278.55$ SUBTOTAL 696,064.05$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 194,897.93$ TOTAL 891,000.00$ 96 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 97 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 98 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1300 60.00$ 78,000.00$ 99 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 100 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$ 101 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 39 450.00$ 17,550.00$ 102 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 103 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 12 2,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 104 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 150,530.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 15,053.00$ SUBTOTAL 165,583.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,363.24$ TOTAL 212,000.00$ 105 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ 106 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 4 6,800.00$ 27,200.00$ 107 2503.602 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 108 2503.602 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 109 2503.603 6" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 110 2503.603 8" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 111 2503.603 16" DIP WATERMAIN L F 1300 130.00$ 169,000.00$ 112 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 20 40.00$ 800.00$ 113 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 2000 10.00$ 20,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 284,500.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,450.00$ SUBTOTAL 312,950.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 87,626.00$ TOTAL 401,000.00$ D. Roadway Costs - Tamarck North of TH 55 E. Storm Sewer - Tamarck North of TH 55 F. Watermain - Tamarck North of TH 55 114 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 115 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 116 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 117 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 118 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6732 3.00$ 20,196.00$ 119 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4642 12.00$ 55,704.00$ 120 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1609 12.00$ 19,308.00$ 121 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3703 16.00$ 59,248.00$ 122 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4039 24.00$ 96,936.00$ 123 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 17 300.00$ 5,100.00$ 124 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 125 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1729 35.00$ 60,515.00$ 126 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 3320 1.25$ 4,150.00$ 127 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 337 5.00$ 1,685.00$ 128 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 600 88.00$ 52,800.00$ 129 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 799 86.00$ 68,714.00$ 130 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 131 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 132 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 3652 16.00$ 58,432.00$ 133 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 134 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 135 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 136 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 137 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 138 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 139 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 140 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 141 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 288 30.00$ 8,640.00$ 142 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 143 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2614 1.25$ 3,267.50$ 144 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 145 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 146 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3920 1.00$ 3,920.00$ 147 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1960 1.00$ 1,960.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 586,841.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 58,684.15$ SUBTOTAL 645,525.65$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 180,747.18$ TOTAL 826,000.00$ 148 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 149 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1950 60.00$ 117,000.00$ 152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$ 154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 59 500.00$ 29,500.00$ 155 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 156 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 14 2,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 157 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 269,730.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,973.00$ SUBTOTAL 296,703.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 83,076.84$ TOTAL 380,000.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,690,654.00$ GRAND TOTAL COSTS 5,146,000.00$ G. Roadway Costs - Tamarck South of TH 55 H. Storm Sewer - Tamarck South of TH 55 Appendix D Social Pinpoint Survey Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses 1 Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Social Pinpoint Activity Results Survey (22 responses as of 04/21/20) Section 1: Example Roadways Ranking 1 = most preferred choice, 6 = least preferred choice Summary Votes for Each Rank by Example Rank Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 1 6 0 12 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 0 9 2 3 4 3 1 5 3 4 4 0 5 3 5 4 3 5 3 4 0 7 3 2 6 5 5 0 2 0 7 6 0 12 1 1 22 3 5 0 9 2 4 3 1 5 3 4 0 5 3 5 4 33 4 0 7 3 2 5 5 0 2 0 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Ranking Distribution Overview 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Example 1 6 2 4 0 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 1 Ranking Distribution 3 Example 2 0 3 3 5 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 2 Ranking Distribution 4 Example 3 12 5 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 3 Ranking Distribution 5 Example 4 1 0 5 5 7 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 4 Ranking Distribution 6 Example 5 1 9 3 4 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 5 Ranking Distribution 7 Example 6 2 2 4 3 2 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 6 Ranking Distribution 8 Section 2: Roadway Features Summary Yes Votes by Feature Feature Yes Votes Percent Trees/Vegetation 18 82% Sidewalks and/or Trails 18 82% Grass or Landscaped Median 14 64% Decorative Lighting 13 59% Roundabout 5 23% Bump-Out (Curb Extension) 2 9% Concrete Median 2 9% Sidewalks and/or Trails Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%) Comments: · Trails will be nice. Combination of this with natural landscaped median. · Trails are a good idea. · It would be nice to extend the trails in the area along both sides of Tamarack Drive. · Trail/sidewalk is great for families and kids to be able to walk and bike the area · Making the neighborhoods connected with bike trails wold be ideal. · Walking, jogging and biking trail · Trails or wide sidewalks are a must. Lots of pedestrians in high residential areas and for commercial business. · Adding trails is always positive in my opinion. 2 2 5 13 14 18 18 0 5 10 15 20 Concrete Median Bump-Out (Curb Extension) Roundabout Decorative Lighting Grass or Landscaped Median Sidewalks and/or Trails Trees/Vegetation Number of Yes Votes 9 Trees/Vegetation Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%) Comments: · This would be an ideal scenario. · I prefer trees and vegetation. · The more trees/vegetation the better as far as I'm concerned. · We need WAY MORE TREES in Medina so that along with other vegetation, that gets manicured and taken care of would be great to see. · Mature trees and beautiful flowers like hanging baskets... · Whether trees/bushes are located on street sides or the median, they fit that location of Medina well and make it a greener more luxurious look than just roadway. Grass or Landscaped Median Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 14/22 (64%) Comments: · Aesthetically pleasing. · Landscaped is nice. Grass, if not maintained, will be aesthetically unappealing. · I like the look of landscaped medians. · Would prefer this over concrete median, but a median is needed. · Landscaping will be key to make this look upscale and nice. Decorative Lighting Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 13/22 (59%) Comments: · Optional - but not necessary. · I would prefer to not have any additional lights/streetlights added. · I like the idea of decorative lighting as long as it doesn't increase the overall light pollution near residences. Would be nice along trails for safety in the evening, but it does have a more commercial/retail feel to me. · We don't have enough lighting in general in our current neighborhood in the Fields of Medina on Jubert Trail. Also on Meander there is hardly any lighting. For community safety I would like to see more lighting in general. · Well lit roads to take safe evening walks. · I'm not in favor of adding light pollution to our neighborhood. Roundabout Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 5/22 (23%) Comments: · Just doesn't feel right for the area. · No roundabout, too much road, not necessary for this plan and future road. 10 Concrete Median Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%) Comments: · Maintenance issues with this. Not ideal or sustainable long term. · I don't like concrete. · I prefer landscaped medians to concrete. · concrete is so ugly and does not provide an upscale look · One of the reasons I love living in Medina is because of the wildlife and natural beauty. I don't believe that a concrete median would be consistent with the current landscape. Bump-out (Curb Extension) Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%) Comments: · I would not want to encourage parking along Tamarack Drive. I think there should be other, dedicated parking areas. · I think that will slow traffic which will be great. Traffic on Meander drives WAY too fast. Other Features (What other features would you like to see that were not included in the examples above?) Comments: · I think that the combination of the trails with natural landscaping is an ideal scenario. · A stop light at 55/Tamarak is critical to manage egress and release pressure on the meander/116/arrowhead egress that will come from future development · Please ensure Tamarack and ideally, Arrowhead becomes whistle free crossings for train track parallel to 55. Thank you! The whistle free crossings create a better environment for families to enjoy the growing neighborhoods, the ability to play outside without interruption and sleep with windows open. · Would like to see Many Tall evergreens planted on the North side of Meander to separate the Fields of Medina Neighborhood to what will be the newly developed space. · benches, small grass areas for walking, sitting. · I live in the Fields of Medina - West neighborhood, and my biggest concern is the volume and speed of cars on Meander road. Because of how the road straightens out, cars often exceed the 40 mph speed limit, which makes me nervous to have my children playing in the back yard. Thank you for consulting the community for this project! 11 Ideas Wall (14 comments as of 04/21/20) Within each comment type, responses are sorted from most likes to least. Things I would like to see (7 comments) 1. If townhomes are built the city should leverage Meander Rd for an outlet to both 116 and Arrowhead. Meander can be expanded with a median to 4 lanes. No railroad crossing req. There will be minimal traffic northbound to Hamel Rd. We’ve been told by Medina city officials numerous times that the county will not allow an intersection with a light at Mohawk and now somehow it is appropriate to add another intersection and a light on hwy 55. I can’t see any logic or rationale with this decision. [5 Likes, 3 Dislikes] 2. We need to very mindful of walkable areas from Meander onto 116. This walkway does not go through and is very dangerous - especially for those turning right from the southbound lane. We need to be able to mitigate future issues that limit sight lines for those that walk this route. From my standpoint, we cannot move forward with this project until we address the potential density issues that will impact this area. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. Need to have a traffic light at 116/meander and/or tamarack/55. Currently it's very dangerous making a left or right turn off of meander to 116. Meander can't support additional traffic from this new development at this intersection without a light. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 4. Please consider traffic and safety along all of Meander Road with the addition of this proposed neighborhood and new road. There is significant pedestrian traffic from the current residential areas along Meander and traffic controls such as roundabouts at the existing roads of Jubert Dr and Cavanaugh Dr as well as the proposed intersection of Tamarak could assist with slowing traffic and keeping families safe [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 5. If we do need to better link parts of Medina north and south of Hwy 55, could we add a bike and pedestrian tunnel or tasteful access bridge? Always concerning seeing people try to cross the Hwy & hoping drivers follow the traffic lights. Would be nice for the retail and restaurant space to have a very walkable almost park like feel with benches, landscape, fountains, etc. that encourage community vs. a typical strip mall. Adding the biking & pedestrian access could help encourage that vibe. [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 6. *If increasing residential density, will need a plan to mitigate light pollution. *A nice to have for the residents in the area would be an off leash dog park. *Meander Road will need to be expanded into a total of 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction) to accommodate traffic, with a median in between. *And please refrain from using any roundabouts! *When evaluating restaurant ideas, prioritize local eateries/breweries and fast casual (like Chipotle and Punch Pizza). [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 7. first choice would be to see an upscale retail / restaurant development use the entire space to compliment an upscale community like Medina. Using the entire space would allow ample room to keep a country like feeling and draw people from neighboring cities. 12 Second choice would be to move the proposed neighborhood to Meander and Arrowhead where they would already have access to 2 exits eliminating the additional traffic on Meander. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] Things I would not like to see (4 comments) 1. I fail to see how 138 new townhomes, an additional traffic restricting light on hwy 55 and a new railroad crossing aligns with the council’s stated mission statement; “Keep Medina Rural”. Perhaps a business park with small retail shops, restaurants and coffee shops, and maybe a soccer pitch accessible via Meander Rd to 116 and Arrowhead would be less invasive and serve the neighborhoods in the area better without further restricting traffic on hwy 55. [9 Likes, 2 Dislikes] 2. Agree with all other comments. This proposed neighborhood and new road do not make sense in this location. This does not fall in line at all with the vision of Medina and why residents move here. If you need to bring down the average home price in Medina, please don't do it at the expense of other residents. There is PLENTY of space in Medina to add a massive townhouse development that would not be adjacent to an another established neighborhood. Put this development on the other side of 55 [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. I have concerns that the existing park that already accommodates, both East and West Fields of Medina, Bridgewater and the Foxberry neighborhoods would not be large enough to accommodate another 100+ homes. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 4. For safety reason's I would not want a hotel overlooking the park. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] Other comments (3 comments) 1. It would be nice to get public comments on if adding another through road across 55 is the correct design plan vs. just the aesthetics; which I imagine to be ignored regardless. I totally understand new access points to the proposed development area will need to be created off of 55, but I don’t understand why it’s seen as necessary for it to go all the way through to Meander or across the highway to connect to Hamel road. Agreed with another poster that a light at Meander/116 would be better. [6 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 2. If Medina is committed to keeping a rural feeling, they should take a hard look at allowing 130 plus town homes and determine if that really fits the vision of Medina. One of the most attractive qualities of this area is Wayzata schools without the congesting and constant building like Plymouth. What does this mean for our schools that are already filled to the max? Will this result in redistricting yet again? I think this is a slippery slope. [5 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. As Medina expands the neighborhoods near Pinto and Arrowhead, it would be ideal to ensure Tamarack and Arrowhead become whistle free train intersections. To enjoy the peace of the countryside and allow residents to sleep with windows open - whistle free train intersections are a must as Medina expands developments. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 1 Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Concepts A & B Comments A total of 20 comments were received as of 05/18/20. The three types of comments are outlined below along with map showing the location of the comment: • Something I Like • Something I Don’t Like • Make a Comment Something I Like Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 I like landscape screening - important for keeping kids out of the commercial area and keep "Medina" feel of rural view for Fields of Medina homes. Please ensure retail buildings are tasteful on all sides not just front face. 5 0 2 Love that paved trail crosses 55. I hope it continues south to Hamel road providing residents access beyond immediate trails for biking. I'm also a fan of the median as it creates a greener area for residents and commercial alike. 0 0 3 Much more aesthetically appealing. Trees and median needs to be maintained. 3 0 4 I like Concept A better than Concept B. Tamarack Drive is only going to be about .5 miles long--I don't think it needs a median with trees. 0 2 5 I like the roundabout concept as well as the parkway, which for a such a short segment wouldn't have really high maintenance costs. 0 0 6 A staggered entrance between the commercial area and neighborhood would allow for traffic coming from west to enter the commercial area before getting to the neighborhood and potentially cut down on some traffic where there high pedestrian traffic 2 0 7 Parkway is more aesthetically pleasing and allows for more landscaping options, though it must be maintained 0 0 8 Prefer the roundabout over the alternate intersection option for the commercial entrance 1 0 9 I prefer less retail/commercial. 0 0 10 Prefer having the pond closer to Meander instead of Highway 55 - however, not at the extent of having an intersection here. Remove the intersection and keep the pond. 0 0 2 “Something I Like” Comment Locations 3 Something I Don’t Like Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 Would prefer not to have a four way intersection at the neighborhood entrance and commercial area entrance. If a 4 way intersection is added here it need needs to be controlled, preferably by a roundabout 1 0 2 A four-way stop here would significantly negatively impact the neighborhood. 2 0 3 Less traffic into our neighborhood - Fields of Medina. 2 0 4 Having commercial traffic sharing an intersection with the neighborhood is highly undesirable, and adds risk to the many children in this development. 0 0 5 Why is there a need to extend Tamarack drive to Hamel Road? There is not enough traffic to warrant that. Let's keep Medina rural and not an extension of the overdeveloped Plymouth. 0 0 6 We don't need to develop so much in Medina. There are traffic issues on 116 and that intersection is too busy. Let's keep Medina rural. 0 0 4 “Something I Don’t Like” Comment Locations 5 Make a Comment Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 Need more traffic control along Meander as Tamarack Drive and the future commercial and medium density residential building will create more traffic - this is a residential area with a lot of pedestrian activity and the safety and comfort of the families in the area needs to be considered 1 0 2 Please consider the safety of crossing Meander Road to the park by adding cross walks to the intersection 0 0 3 Something for the city to consider is that the railroad crossing at Arrowhead and 55 is still an extremely loud horn and signal crossing. If the city is putting in 100-plus townhomes and increasing the tax revenue so significantly, it makes sense to address this railroad crossing, as almost every single resident in Fields of Medina is frustrated with that issue. 1 0 4 In addition to landscape screening on the south side of Meander - a white vinyl privacy fence like that seen on the Charles Cudd development on Meander/116 would add privacy to the homes backing up to Meander. 1 0 6 “Make a Comment” Comment Locations Appendix E Meeting Minutes with MnDOT Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Agenda: MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: March 5, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: See Sign-In Sheet 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. South of TH 55 i. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so. The school has planned to ii. Railroad crossing: quiet zone anticipated with intersection improvements. iii. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): Scope of study will consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd but not provide as much detail for the roadway section between the railroad and Hamel Rd. b. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development: Plans for the residential development adjacent to Meander Rd have been submitted to the City. ii. Intersection at Meander Rd: Scope of study will consider up to two alternatives for the intersection. c. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 a. The intersection was studied and a full movement access was recommended as part of corridor access framework studied with the 2007 TH 55 design concept vision (EA). b. The full movement access included support by MnDOT for a signal at that location. c. MnDOT considers TH 55 a preservation corridor, not an expansion corridor. ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes March 5, 2020 Page 2 c. MnDOT will require that justification be provided for the timing on need for the intersection, if justified MnDOT would consider the full movement intersection and in the 3-5 year timeframe, and installation of a signalized intersection at such time as it is warranted. iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. iv. Future intersection/signal system a. Look at barriers for using the other access points on Meander Rd and Hamel Rd versus a Tamarack Dr intersection with TH 55, justify need to impact TH 55. b. MnDOT commented on the poor soils and constructed a “land bridge” for a portion of TH 55 in this area. v. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan/stop at CR 116 a. Included with a Metropolitan Council Study b. MnDOT does have some involvement in the process (Todd Sherman) 4. Planning/Schedule for TH 55 Intersection Improvements a. South Side: Wayzata Schools, approximately 4 years out, layout of site (elementary and/or middle school) unknown but the school is in the planning process. The peak hour rush (buses, cars) will have the most impact on the design and planning considerations. b. North Side: i. Residential development concept plan a. Currently being reviewed by the City ii. Commercial development c. Intersection Planning: i. MnDOT will revisit the original justification for the intersection from prior studies. ii. WSB will need to incorporate a review of the surrounding intersections and future capacity to accommodate traffic with or without new Tamarack Rd intersection at TH 55 and provided a summary to MnDOT for review iii. Both parties will review the MnDOT access spacing management guidelines. d. Next Steps with MnDOT: i. MnDOT will review and determine from original studies and WSB traffic analysis if intersection is still justified. Review will take approximately 30 days. ii. If determined to be justified, WSB will prepare preliminary geometric layout for MnDOT review. iii. MnDOT will review geometrics of proposed intersection/signal location. Consideration should be given for an interim condition if the initial development does not require a full signalized intersection. Review will take approximately 30 days. iv. MnDOT will determine what Level (Level I or II) Layout will be required. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes March 5, 2020 Page 3 5. Funding Sources a. City b. Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners c. MnDOT/State Aid 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT 7. Preliminary Schedule First Meeting with MnDOT .................................................................................... March 5, 2020 First Meeting with Hennepin County, CP Railroad ................................................... March, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting) ............................................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) - Provide traffic analysis/study to MnDOT for intersection justification. Submit through Todd Sherman Action Items (City) Action Items (MnDOT) - Revisit/review original justifications for intersection improvements - Confirm whether or not a Level I or II Layout plan is needed at time of geometric review 9. Adjourn WS Sign -In =orm TAMRACK DRIVE CORRIDOR STUDY — MNDOT CO ORDINATION MEETING CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA WSB PROJECT NO. 015599.000 MNDOT CO ORDINATIO N MEETING - MARCH 5, 2020 1:00 PM 0 Name Representing Phone (Include Area Code) 1 Cell/Pager (Include Area Code E-mail Address J j m ,11h 1 t S3 Zcp3-z9z-'o3,2 6;-' q-rs4N - ' 5- o:urn taw, co" .(X)611- OIKSait-- ..., �? A uJ- - ,, edit�, f 1 9 ` " uj 7j , 2 + -VC oc2-' X 71/3 c Cri 1/44vcC . e/i5se., c., 49----1 ts P ( 24 J Ii Cf u 57 77?I ��L 4P --�` J _J 5-7 `:_k IQ a .)-A e " ...,,ar _s % ale .-3-1 _ ��) City o! Medina Tamarack Orroc C orrode( Study PA,arch 5, 2020 Page 2 Name Zfifioof Phone CelUJPager Repr ese nting (Include Area (Include Area Code} C ode} figloT 0-1-,2 4 7720 E-mail Address Zil-.3,0 6514>044s Tab (\-/\,„0 T I(S 1- z 1-1 1 4S bra+-..k<...}.l.$)5 y.. ?r',? ire-cL4 !C r735_'tf1030. nremacriv ra0 00305M'Ir0i Muetr4RJOJ 00 05 PA Irkse.r r. uxr Cur"*u SO" - Sir kidx-s !C r735_'tf1030. nremacriv ra0 00305M'Ir0i Muetr4RJOJ 00 05 PA Irkse.r r. uxr Cur"*u SO" - Sir kidx-s 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Agenda: Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: April 9, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: Brian Osborne (CP Rail), Chris Rice (MnDOT Rail Safety), Dusty Finke (City Planner), Chuck Rickart (WSB), Jim Stremel (WSB) 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development ii. Intersection at Meander Rd and potential modifications b. South of TH 55 i. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so, but the best schedule the school can provide is that development could would likely not occur within the next 4 years. Both elementary and middle school possible ii. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd c. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 may need adjustment depending on final intersection layout ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment c. Railroad proximity to intersection to the south, need for crossing improvements/widening. CP Railroad and MnDOT Rail would like a brief analysis of alternatives to improving this crossing. iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 9, 2020 Page 2 b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. Need to add trail/sidewalk to proposed typical section. iv. Railroad Crossing: a. Existing crossing and panels b. Quiet zone c. Signal phasing d. Crossing improvements for pedestrians 4. Planning/Schedule for TH 55 Intersection Improvements a. Intersection Planning with MnDOT: i. MnDOT will revisit the original justification for the intersection from prior studies. ii. WSB will need to incorporate a review of the surrounding intersections and future capacity to accommodate traffic with or without new Tamarack Rd intersection at TH 55 and provided a summary to MnDOT for review iii. Both parties will review the MnDOT access spacing management guidelines. iv. Complete this analysis and review in May b. Railroad crossing and improvements i. Refine plan to include pedestrian crossing and center median wide enough for a gate system (too wide for one gate on each side). Level of detail should be accurate enough to show proposed right-of-way. ii. CP railroad suggested starting the initial stages of the quiet zone with the FRA and conduct a diagnostic meeting onsite to determine preliminary quiet zone improvement requirements. iii. Submit plan to railroad for review and request the right-of-way needed for the proposed crossing. c. MnDOT Rail Coordination i. Include MnDOT rail in correspondence relating to submittals with the railroad and the FRA for the quiet zone. 5. Easements / Right-of-way a. Adjacent property owners b. MnDOT c. CP Railroad 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT e. Railroad/MnDOT Rail City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 9, 2020 Page 3 7. Preliminary Schedule Meeting with MnDOT ............................................................................................ March 5, 2020 Initial Meeting with Hennepin County ....................................................................... April 2, 2020 Meeting with CP Railroad/MnDOT Railroad ............................................................ April 9, 2020 Meeting with Hennepin County/City ............................................................................ April, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting) ............................................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 Potential intersection improvements ...................................................................... 2022 – 2024? 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) Action Items (CP Railroad) Action Items (MnDOT Rail) 9. Adjourn 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Agenda: Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: April 30, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: Jason Gottfried (Hennepin County), Andy Mielke (SRF Consulting, TH 55 Coalition), Dusty Finke (City Planner), Chuck Rickart (WSB), Jim Stremel (WSB) 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development ii. Intersection at Meander Rd and potential modifications b. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 may need adjustment depending on final intersection layout ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment c. Railroad proximity to intersection to the south iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. Need to add trail/sidewalk to proposed typical section. c. South of TH 55 iv. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so, but the best schedule the school can provide is that development could would likely not occur within the next 4 years. Both elementary and middle school possible v. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd, see map. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 30, 2020 Page 2 vi. The County would expect an eastbound left turn lane on Hamel to NB Tamarack. vii. A future to the south would be a neighborhood access, likely not a major thoroughfare. viii. Railroad Crossing: a. Existing crossing and panels b. Quiet zone c. Signal phasing d. Crossing improvements e. Highway 55 Corridor Safety Coalition i. Started into the early 2000’s ii. Improve the long-term safety, mobility, and operations of Highway 55 through this corridor. iii. Look at opportunities to find funding mechanisms and consider a larger project scope/improvement iv. One of their intents is to extend four lanes further west within TH 55 corridor v. Not a lot of discussion about the 2007 MnDOT corridor study vi. Like to work with local partners and appreciate all of the input from local partners and stakeholders vii. Would like to be included in future discussions and distribution of study reports/materials Add bike/ped connections to the map/plan. Also add fourth leg to the south of Hamel and turn lanes on Hamel. Add dual left turn lanes SB as well as on the westbound on Hwy 55? Any reason to add NB left turn from Tamarack to TH 55? 4. Planning/Schedule for Hamel Road Improvements a. The City is working to construction the intersection at Hwy 55, the vision will establish what the full intersection will look like, and then determine how things will be funded likely through adjacent development. Want to avoid “hiccups” in this corridor between the agencies involved. b. Implementation of intersection at TH 55 is likely in 2-3 years on the short term, 3- 7 on the long-term planning process. c. Next Steps with County: i. Would like to bring to their plat review committee, sight distance is always a concern ii. Signal warrants analysis would be helpful, but this intersection would be up against their prioritization factor iii. Send draft of commercial concept analysis d. Highway 55 Corridor Safety Coalition i. Next meeting is in August and will share this information, will provide any feedback and whether a more formal presentation is necessary City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 30, 2020 Page 3 5. Easements / Right-of-way a. City b. Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners c. MnDOT/State Aid d. CP Railroad e. Hennepin County 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT e. Railroad/MnDOT Rail & Safety f. Hennepin County (Hamel Rd) 7. Preliminary Schedule Meeting with MnDOT ............................................................................................ March 5, 2020 Initial Meeting with Hennepin County ....................................................................... April 2, 2020 Meeting with CP Railroad/MnDOT Railroad ............................................................ April 9, 2020 Meeting with Hennepin County/City ....................................................................... April 30, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting on the month) ......................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 Potential intersection improvements ...................................................................... 2022 – 2024? 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) Action Items (County) 9. Adjourn 1 Jodi Gallup From:John Anderson Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 11:23 AM To:Scott Johnson Subject:City Mandate-Mask Wearing Importance:High Scott,  As I mentioned at the end of our last City Council meeting, one of the things that I have learned during this pandemic is  the importance of leadership. Be it setting an example by wearing a mask, issuing stay at home orders, or making sure  health care facilities/workers have the supplies and PPE necessary, good leadership is critical if we are to get through  this most challenging of times.    Given this, and the continuing disturbing news from our state health experts (see link below), I am emailing you to ask  you to discuss with City Attorney, Ron Batty, what actions would be necessary for Medina to issue a city wide mandate  requiring the wearing of masks in public and to bring this information forward to our next Council meeting for discussion  among Council members. I’m not sure how others feel about this, but I believe that wearing a mask can help people  from being infected and, further, sends a very clear message to our residents that their City government is taking a  leadership role on this issue.   Scott, thank you and my best as always.  https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest‐on‐covid19‐in‐mn  Council Member John Anderson  john.anderson@medinamn.gov  Agenda Item # 8A 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow I MPR News MPRne s COVID-19 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow MPR News Staff St. Paul July 14, 2020 5:30 a.m. A Medical Reserve Corps volunteer checks a patient to be tested for COVID-19. Manuel Balce Ceneta 1 AP Photo file Updated 3:55 p.m. Minnesota's newest COVID-19 report shows continuing patterns of hopeful and worrisome news: New deaths, current hospitalizations and intensive care cases continue to slow even as the count of new cases continues to climb. State officials on Tuesday recorded six more deaths from the disease, putting Minnesota's toll at 1,510 since the pandemic began. It continues a three-week trend of mostly single digit deaths reported. Daily hospitalizations (236) and the count of people currently needing intensive care (107) continue to dip. Those are two closely watched metrics as officials work to managed the spread of COVID-19 so it doesn't overwhelm the state's health care system. The state, however, reported another 403 confirmed cases of the disease, part of an overall trend of steeply rising cases seen in the past few weeks. New COVID-19 cases per day in Minnesota Based solely on cases confirmed by the MN Department of Health. Line represents 7 -day rolling average. Light blue bars are Mondays. 800 600 Y F. 400 200 Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Graphic by David H. Montgomery ! MPR News MIPRr18WS Those increasing caseloads are raising concerns inside and outside Minnesota. Earlier Tuesday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that visitors from Minnesota and Wisconsin must now ar�g antine for 14 days on arrival in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. 20 -somethings drive new cases State health officials continue to worry about the recent spike of coronavirus cases in younger Minnesotans, with current fears including that those infected will inadvertently spread the virus to more vulnerable populations. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19 -in -m n 1/6 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow 1 MPR News Share of new MN COVID-19 cases by age Based solely on cases confirmed by the MN Department of Health 40% 137 to 30% T co N 20% d C 5 10% tu a) a 0% May Jun Jul Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Graphic by David H. Montgomery 1 MPR News MPRneWS Share of new COVID-19 cases by age. David H. Montgomery 1 MPR News Minnesotans in their 20s now make up the age group with the most confirmed cases, approaching 10,000 since the outbreak started. State Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm said Monday she's expecting to see a "second and third generation transmission" cascading from those young adult cases in coming weeks. There's "no question that our metrics have gone in a less positive direction in the last couple weeks," Malcolm said. COVID-19 in Minnesota as of July 14 Recoveries, hospitalizations and deaths are subsets of total cases. Due to limited testing, many COVID-19 cases are undiagnosed. 40,000 d B. 30,000 0 0. 0 0 ai 20,000 E z 10,000 0 Apr May Jun Jul Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Graphic by David H. Montgomery 1 MPR News Hospitalized: 236 Aug MPR news While the jump in young adult cases wasn't unexpected as bars and restaurants slowly reopened to indoor customers, the fairly steep rise in cases has been surprising, Malcolm said. While current hospitalization counts in Minnesota remain relatively low, "we are likely going to see increases in hospitalizations because of the ripple effect" of younger people becoming infected, said Kris Ehresmann, the state's infectious disease director. Young adults, she added, "don't live in a vacuum." The median age of Minnesotans infected has been trending down in recent weeks and is now below 38 years old. Of the 43,170 cases confirmed in Minnesota since the pandemic began, nearly 88 percent of those infected have recovered to the point they no longer need isolation. COVID-19 hospitalizations in Minnesota Line represents 7 -day rolling average. 600 v 400 a .0 0. 0 x 200 0 Apr May Jun Source, Minnesota Department of Health. Graphic by David H. Montgomery J MPR News 600 400 209 Jul 0 MPRROWS Among the dead, nearly 80 percent were living in long- term care or assisted living facilities, nearly all had long-term health problems. Walz continues to weigh statewide mask order Cases have been trending upward in Minnesota for several weeks, in all parts of the state — but especially in the Twin Cities suburbs. Minnesota had nearly 1,500 more active COVID-19 uses than it did in mid June according to data released Friday. Last week, for the first time, the suburban counties of Dakota, Washington, Anoka, Scott and Carver had about as many new cases per capita as Hennepin and Ramsey counties. In mid -June, the five suburban counties were averaging about 70 new cases per day. Over the past week, they averaged 132 new cases per day. Those numbers and other factors have Gov. Tim Walz considering a statewide order requiring Minnesotans to wear masks in indoor facilities. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19-in-mn 2/6 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow! MPR News Medical groups in Minnesota and the state Health Department continue to support a statewide mask - mandate as the cities Winona, Rochester and Mankato have become the latest cities to make such orders on a local level. Minneapolis, St. Paul and Edina have also mandated mask -wearing in the cities' public spaces. Walz on Monday expressed concern that Minnesotans were lagging in efforts to wear masks to stem the spread. However, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R -East Gull Lake, warned a statewide mandate would be a mistake. Malcolm told reporters that Walz was still considering a statewide mask order and asked for research showing the effect of those policies in other states. "He is really looking at all the data from all the angles," Malcolm added. Meatpacking hot spots remain Many of the outbreaks outside the Twin Cities metro area are focused around meatpacking plants. Officials have intensified testing in those hot spots, uncovering more infections. That includes Mower County in southeastern Minnesota, where there were 990 confirmed cases as of Tuesday. Mower County is home to Hormel Foods and Quality Pork Processors. Both have been partnering with Mayo Clinic to ramp up employee testing. While some of Mower County's positive cases are associated with people who work in the facilities and with the people they live with, county officials say they are also seeing transmission among people who live in the county but work in other counties where coronavirus is present. Nobles, in southwestern Minnesota, reported 1,697 confirmed cases as of Monday with six deaths. About 1 in 13 people now have tested positive for COVID-19 in the county since the pandemic began, although the count of new cases has slowed considerably in recent weeks. Worthington's massive JBS pork processing plant was the epicenter of the Nobles outbreak. The JBS plant shut on April 20 but has since reopened with expanded hygiene and health monitoring measures. Similar problems have been reported in Stearns County, where COVID-19 cases tied to two packing plants — Pilgrim's Pride poultry plant in Cold Spring and Jennie -0 Turkey in Melrose — skyrocketed in May. An undisclosed number of workers at both plants have tested positive for the virus. There were about 55 confirmed cases in Stearns County in early May. By Monday, confirmed cases were at 2,549 with 19 deaths. Kandiyohi County in west -central Minnesota is also dealing with a significant caseload more than two months after officials with the Jennie -O turkey processing plant there said some employees had tested positive for the coronavirus. As of Tuesday, the Health Department reported 595 people have now tested positive in the county, the same as Monday. The county had confirmed three COVID-19 cases in late April. Cases have also climbed noticeably in Lyon County (359 cases), around a turkey processor in Marshall. Cases the past few weeks have also grown in Cottonwood County (142 cases), home to a pork processing plant in Windom in southern Minnesota, but the counts there have since stabilized. COVID-19 case outcomes in MN as of July 14 Based solely on cases confirmed by the MN Department of Health. Due to limited testing, many COVID-19 cases are undiagnosed. 100% _ 100% Share of cases 75% 75% 50% 50% 25% 25% Jul Apr May Jun Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Graphic by David H. Montgomery 1 MPR News MPRfIIOWS Developments from around the state Best Buy to require customers to wear masks amid virus spike https://www. mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19-in-mn 3/6 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow i MPR News preparing to institute social distancing protections at those sites. Best Buy, the nation's largest consumer electronics chain, will require customers to wear face coverings at all of its stores nationwide, even in states or localities that don't require them to do so. The retailer, based in Richfield, Minn, joins a growing but still short list of retailers and restaurants that have instituted mask mandates throughout their chains. Starbucks announced last week that customers who visit its company -owned cafe locations in the U.S. will be required to wear face coverings. The policy will be in effect on Wednesday as well. Best Buy Co. said Tuesday it will provide a face covering if a customer doesn't have one, and small children and those unable to wear one for health reasons may enter without one. It said that customers who have concerns about wearing mask will be able to shop Best Buy via its website and app and choose home delivery or contactless curbside pickup. The moves come after The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents Best Buy as well as Target, Home Depot and other major chains, publicized last week a letter it sent to state governors to mandate store customers to wear face coverings. It said the hodgepodge of rules around the country have created confusion for shoppers and that has lead to conflict between customers and workers trying to enforce store rules. The National Governors Association said last week that its members are discussing the letter and others like it from different retail groups. — The Associated Press Minneapolis moves 50 polling places over virus concerns Election officials in Minneapolis say they're relocating 50 polling places, in part to prevent spread of the coronavirus. About a third of those were in senior high-rises and multi -unit housing, where residents might be particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus. Others were in locations with limited space that wouldn't allow social distancing. All told, there will be voting in 94 buildings across the city — some with multiple precincts in the same location. Of those, about a third are in schools, and two dozen in park buildings. Election officials are The city also has already opened an early voting center on East Hennepin Avenue near Interstate 35 West, and is also encouraging voters to apply to vote by mail so they don't have to come into contact with poll workers or other voters. Voters will get postcards about their polling locations for both the Aug. 11 state primary and the Nov 3 general election. —Tim Nelson 1 MPR News Bell Museum, Split Rock Lighthouse reopen this week The University of Minnesota's Bell Museum is reopening this week. The museum closed in March in response to the coronavirus outbreak, but will reopen Thursday through Sunday for members, and next Thursday to the general public. The natural history museum will have limited hours, Thursdays through Sundays, from 10 a.m to 4 p.m. each day. Masks and reservations are required, and the planetarium isn't open yet. On the North Shore, the iconic Split Rock Lighthouse, closed since mid -April, is reopening Wednesday. Timed tickets will be available online, with some available for walk-ups. The interior of the lighthouse and historic Keeper's House will be off-limits. Tickets have been reduced to $8 to reflect the limited building access. Other major museums, including the Science Museum, the Children's Museum and the Minnesota History Center, remain closed amid the pandemic. — Tim Nelson 1 MPR News Top headlines Duluth joins growing list of Minnesota cities to require masks: The Duluth City Council unanimously approved an emergency ordinance Monday night requiring face coverings in many indoor spaces. In the absence of a https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19-in-mn 4/6 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow 1 MPR News statewide requirement, many of the state's largest cities have passed similar measures. 3M developing piper -based coronavirus test that could give results in minutes: Maplewood -based 3M says it is working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on a point -of -care test for the COVID-19 that could make diagnosing infections nearly as simple as a home pregnancy test. Walz announces $100 million in ,COVID-19 housing aid: The $100 million is the state's single biggest designation of federal COVID-19 relief funds, along with $26 million previously designated for emergency homeless aid. COVID-19 in Minnesota Cases confirmed Hospitalized 43,170 236 As of July 141 Minnesota Department of Health 1 NM Number of cases 1-5 6-20 21-50 50-100 100+ Source: As of July 141 Minnesota Department of Health • Get the data • Created with Datawrapper https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19-in-mn 5/6 7/15/2020 July 14 COVID-19 update: 403 new cases; hospitalizations slow 1 MPR News Data in these graphs are based off Minnesota Department of Health cumulative totals released at 11 a.m. daily. You can find more detailed statistics on COVID-19 at the Health Department website. Click next to see the number of hospitalized F cases, deaths in Minnesota iof2v Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Minnesota The coronavirus is transmitted through respiratory Replay droplets, coughs and sneezes, similar to the way the flu March 5 March 27 April 16 May 6 M. can spread. 4OK cases 35K cases 30K cases 25K cases 20K cases 15K cases lOK cases 5K cases OK cases MPRn*WS Source: Minnesota Department of Health Before you go... MPR News is dedicated to bringing you clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives when we need it most. We rely on your help to do this. Your donation has the power to keep MPR News strong and accessible to all during this crisis and beyond. ponate today. A gift of $19 makes a difference. © 2020 Minnesota Public Radio. All rights reserved. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/14/latest-on-covid 19-in-mn 6/6 1 Scott Johnson From:Batty, Ronald H. <rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com> Sent:Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:53 PM To:Scott Johnson Subject:Fwd: Masks Policy Information Attachments:Duluth Mask Ordinance.pdf; ATT00001.htm; MTKA Mask Agenda Item.pdf; ATT00002.htm Scott, here is some information regarding adoption of a mask wearing policy by the city. Many jurisdictions have adopted regulations requiring that masks be worn in public. They vary in terms of the physical settings in which masks are required, the age of the persons required to comply and the method by which the regulations are promulgated. Medina’s emergency ordinance allows the city council to adopt emergency orders by resolution but the resolution expires after 30 days or the end of the emergency order under which is was adopted. As a practical matter, that means any such resolution would likely expire 30 days after adoption. If the council wishes to have the requirement in place for a longer period of time, an ordinance would seem to be a better vehicle. If you think this information would be helpful for the council to have for its discussion at next week’s council meeting, please include this in the packet or otherwise make it available to the council. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Sathe, Joseph L." <JSathe@Kennedy-Graven.com> Date: July 15, 2020 at 8:40:37 PM CDT To: "Batty, Ronald H." <rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com> Subject: Re: Masks Policy Information Hi Ron: Below, please find information regarding a city mandate for mask wearing. Executive Order 20-74, Paragraph 10 - "Enhanced local measures permitted" allows political subdivisions to provide for stricter regulations, but not regulations that are less strict (https://www.leg.state.mn.us/archive/execorders/20-74.pdf ). Minneapolis, Edina, Rochester, Mankato, Winona, Blaine, Minnetonka, Duluth, and Saint Paul have enacted additional restrictions and require the wearing of masks:  Minneapolis' order requires both employees and customers to wear masks inside "places of public accommodation". http://www.minneapolismn.gov/coronavirus/notices/ WCMSP-224618  Edina's order requires both employees and customers to wear masks inside places of public 2 accommodation: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/966 5/Mayor-Emergency-Regulation-No-2020-20-Citywide-Masking-PDF  St. Paul's order requires individuals to wear masks in the following situations (https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/STPAUL/2020/05/27/file_ attachments/1460773/Executive%20Order%202020-09.pdf ): o Required while at city-controlled property when social distancing of 6 feet cannot be maintained. o Required in a business licensed by the City of St. Paul when social distancing of 6 feet cannot be maintained. o Strongly encouraged in all businesses when social distancing of 6 feet cannot be maintained  Blaine - I have not seen Blaine's resolution, but information provided by MPR states that masks are required when entering "government buildings". Blaine's City website confirms this, but I could not find the "official document."  Winona's order provides that masks must be worn in all indoor areas accessible to the public and public bus or for hire transportation, but lists a number of exceptions. Winona's Order provides the most amount of detail of the examples and specifically dictates what types of masking provisions must be included in the COVID-19 Preparedness Plans of different businesses. https://www.cityofwinona.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/Order-Requiring-Face-Coverings.pdf  Minnetonka - Minnetonka's order is similar to Winona's order and provides specific requirements under the COVID-19 Preparedness Plans for businesses (Order and supporting materials Attached).  Duluth - Duluth's order provides that individuals wear masks in places of public accommodation (Order Attached). Minneapolis, Edina, Saint Paul, Blaine, Minnetonka, Duluth, and Winona have city code language that provides that during an emergency, the Mayor and or City Council may promulgate additional rules and regulations. Medina's code similarly provides: "Whenever necessary to meet a declared emergency or to prepare for such an emergency for which adequate regulations have not been adopted by the governor of the state of Minnesota or the City, the city council may by resolution promulgate regulations, consistent with the applicable federal or state law or regulation, respecting the conduct of persons and the use of property during emergencies" Medina City Code, section 206.11, subd. 1. 3 All eight of the foregoing city codes (including Medina) include that these emergency regulations can regulate the conduct of persons and the use of property during emergencies and all other matters which are required to protect public safety, health and welfare in emergencies. In addition to the seven cities above, the following two cities have implemented mask policies using a slightly different mechanism that Medina would be using:  The City of Rochester has also implemented a requirement that masks be worn inside "a building controlled by the City of Rochester." However, Rochester implemented this rule through a mayoral amendment to the Local Emergency and then subsequently received consent from the Council, which is slightly different than the process from New Prague, Edina, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul. Rochester's mask policy can be found here: https://www.rochestermn.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=28379 .  Mankato's ordinance provides that masks must be work in all indoor places of public accommodation, but provides exceptions for children under the age of 12, while persons are eating and drinking, as well as in certain situations at indoor athletic facilities and indoor entertainment venues. https://library.municode.com/mn/mankato/ordinances/code_of _ordinances?nodeId=1028364. However, Mankato's City Code does not include any mention of authority to create emergency regulations and the authority instead is contained specifically in the City's Charter. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me on this issue. Best, Joe Sathe City Council Agenda Item #12$ Meeting of July 13, 2020 Brief Description: Recommended Action: Emergency ordinance regarding face coverings Consider RSWLRQVUHJDUGLQJIDFHPDVNUHJXODWLRQV Background State of emergency The City of Minnetonka and State of Minnesota have been in a state of peacetime emergency since March of this year, due to the international COVID-19 pandemic. Governor Tim Walz first declared a state of peacetime emergency on March 13, 2020, by Executive Order 20-01. The governor has extended that order three times, most recently on June 12, 2020, and he is expected to extend it again on July 12. Mayor Brad Wiersum first declared a local state of peacetime emergency on March 16, 2020, to which the council consented by Resolution No. 2020-029. The city council has since adopted Resolution No. 2020-040, extending the time period for the state of local emergency until 30 days after the expiration or termination of the statewide state of emergency, unless further extended or earlier terminated by a resolution of the city council. The spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 continues throughout the state and the United States. The United States leads the world in number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. As of the writing of this report, Minnesota has had 39,133 confirmed positive cases and 1,477 deaths. In parts of the United States, the number of coronavirus infections is surging, creating threats to the response capacity of hospitals and healthcare workers. Recently, members of the city council have expressed interest in discussing whether to adopt a face covering requirement. This report provides information about the science regarding the effect of face masks on disease transmission, what other cities are doing, and options that the city council might consider. COVID-19 transmission and effect of face masks Growing scientific evidence suggests that the coronavirus spreads through aerosolized particles that are released into the air when an infected person breathes, laughs, sneezes or coughs. Although heavier particles drop to the ground fairly quickly, the virus is able to attach to smaller particles that may linger in the air for longer periods of time. A significant number of persons infected with COVID-19 may present as asymptomatic or presymptomatic, giving no outward appearance of being ill. Those persons may unintentionally spread the virus without knowing it. According to recent reports in medical publications, the use of face masks could result in a large reduction in risk of infection with the coronavirus. (Chu, Akl, Duda, et al., “Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Lancet, Vo. 395, Issue 10242, P19733- 1987, June 27, 2020.) Based on a study of U.S. states that had mandated facial cover use in public, the authors found a significant decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate after the Meeting of July 13, 2020 Page 2 Subject: Emergency ordinance regarding face coverings mandates went into effect. The model utilized by the authors of the study suggests that as many as 230,000-450,000 cases may have been averted as of May 22, 2020 as a result of the state mandates. (Lyu and Wehby, “Community Use of Face Masks and COVID-19: Evidence from a Natural Experiment of State Mandates in the US,” June 16, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Minnesota Department of Health have issued guidelines that recommend the wearing of face coverings in public. In repeated executive orders, Governor Waltz has strongly encouraged Minnesotans “to wear a manufactured or homemade cloth face covering when they leave their homes and travel to any public setting where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.” Face masks and coverings may reduce the risk of transmission from an infected person to others, particularly when combined with physical distancing, hand washing, and other prevention measures. What other cities are doing Several cities in Minnesota have adopted regulations to require face coverings in public, including the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Mankato, Rochester, and Winona. Several other cities are considering the adoption of face covering requirements as a means of reducing the spread of the coronavirus, protecting city employees, and protecting persons who live and work in their cities. The majority of Minnesota cities have not adopted face mask requirements. In parts of Minnesota, primarily outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area, cities have expressed resistance to the governor’s Safe at Home guidelines and executive orders. Other cities in the Twin Cities area have indicated their desire for the governor to adopt a statewide face covering requirement. Options for council consideration Option 1: Continue soft messaging but take no formal action To date, the city council has not taken any formal action to require or encourage the use of face masks. The mayor’s COVID-19 messages to residents have consistently encouraged the use of face masks and following CDC guidelines. The city could choose to continue its current practice. Option 2: Actively encourage businesses to require masks in their establishments In a middle-ground option, the city could take steps to encourage, but not require, businesses to require face masks. This could include one or more of the following options: x Adopt a resolution encouraging businesses to require masks and residents to wear masks. x Adopt a resolution encouraging Governor Walz to adopt a statewide face covering mandate. x Provide local businesses with signage that could be displayed in their businesses, encouraging the use of masks. (Attached is an example of a sign prepared by the Meeting of July 13, 2020 Page 3 Subject: Emergency ordinance regarding face coverings Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.) The signage could be modified to add a message such as “The Minnetonka City Council asks you to mask up!” x In all communications with businesses, encourage businesses to encourage or require face coverings. Option 3: Adopt an ordinance requiring face coverings Like the city councils in Edina, Mankato and other cities, the city council could adopt an ordinance that requires face coverings. The city attorney has prepared an ordinance for the council’s consideration. The attached table identifies the key provisions of the ordinance, provides a comparison of the ordinance to the state guidelines under which the businesses currently operate, and describes how the proposed ordinance compares to those adopted by the cities of Edina, Mankato and Rochester. Those cities’ regulations are attached for information. In terms of general comments, the ordinance largely follows Rochester’s declaration. Both Edina and Mankato have adopted broad regulations that apply to “places of accommodation” or “spaces of accommodation.” In contrast, the proposed ordinance, like Rochester’s regulation, is limited to specifically identified types of businesses . The proposed ordinance covers most businesses where face-to-face customer contact is a concern but does not include service businesses or multi-tenant office or residential properties. The council could choose to broaden the scope of the ordinance by adding additional categories of properties. In effect, the ordinance puts the responsibility for enforcement on the business. The business must require masks, and the business must ask non-compliant customers to leave. The city may take enforcement measures against any business that holds a city license, such as food, liquor or tobacco licenses. Criminal penalties for ordinance violations are not recommended at this time because of the significant backlog of cases in the Hennepin County court system. An exemption is recommended for children aged five and younger. That is somewhat more liberal than Mankato and Rochester, which follow the CDC guideline against any mask for a child under age two. Edina also adopted a five-year age exemption. The city council has the option to change the exemption for a higher or lower age. If the council adopts the ordinance, it needs to determine the effective date. The charter prohibits the city from enforcing an emergency ordinance until (a) at least 24 hours after the ordinance has been filed with the city clerk and posted in at least three conspicuous places in the city or (b) published at least once in the city’s official newspaper. If adopted on July 13, the ordinance would be published on July 23, 2020. As an emergency ordinance, the ordinance requires five votes for adoption. The ordinance will expire after 61 days or upon the expiration of the Minnetonka local emergency, whichever comes first. The city council may also extend the ordinance. Because the city’s local emergency is effective until at least 30 days after the expiration of the state emergency, the end of the state’s emergency would not affect the ordinance. Meeting of July 13, 2020 Page 4 Subject: Emergency ordinance regarding face coverings Recommendation Consider the proposed emergency ordinanceDQGUHVROXWLRQV regarding face coverings. Submitted through: Geralyn Barone, City Manager Mike Funk, Assistant City Manager Originated by: Corrine Heine, City Attorney Resolution No. 2020- Resolution encouraging Governor Tim Walz to issue an executive order that establishes face mask requirements for indoor spaces open to the general public Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. 1.01. 1.02. 1.03. 1.04. 1.05. 1.06. Background. By Emergency Executive Order 20-01, Governor Tim Walz declared a Peacetime State of Emergency to authorize any and all necessary resources to be used in support of the COVID-19 response, as of March 13, 2020. The state’s peacetime state of emergency has been extended three times and continues in effect. By Declaration of Emergency and Emergency Order 2020-01, Mayor Brad Wiersum has declared that a local emergency exists due to the COVID-19 health pandemic. The Minnetonka City Council agreed with the mayor’s findings and consented to the declaration of a local emergency in Resolution No. 2020-029. The local state of emergency has been extended by Resolution No. 2020-040 and continues in effect. The conditions that gave rise to the state and local states of emergency continue to exist. As of July 8, 2020, there have been 3,048,072 confirmed cases in the United States, resulting in 133,322 deaths, 39,133 confirmed cases in Minnesota, resulting in 1,511 deaths, 12,597 confirmed cases in Hennepin County, resulting in 787 deaths, and 214 confirmed cases in Minnetonka resulting in fewer than  deaths. The United States now leads the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. A significant number of persons infected with COVID-19 may present as asymptomatic or presymptomatic, giving no outward appearance of being ill. Those persons may unintentionally spread the virus without knowing it. Scientific studies suggest that wearing face coverings significantly reduces the risk of infection from the coronavirus and that face-covering mandates could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States. On June 28, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued the following guidance on face covering use: 1.CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who do not live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. 2.Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. 3.Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. 4.Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance. Resolution No. 2020- Page 2 1.07. The primary benefit of most face coverings is that it reduces the spread of infection by the wearer to others. Because many persons infected with the coronavirus may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic, without any reason to know that they have the disease, a face-covering requirement protects the health of others, including business employees who provide essential services to the public as well as business customers. 1.08. The Minnetonka City Council is aware of some residents who are fearful of seeking out essential services from businesses because of their exposure to other members of the public who do not wear face masks. Section 2. Council Action. 2.01. The Minnetonka City Council strongly encourages Governor Tim Walz to issue an executive order that establishes requirements for individuals to wear face masks in indoor spaces that are open to the general public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on . Brad Wiersum, Mayor Attest: Becky Koosman, City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. Resolution No. 2020- Page 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on . Becky Koosman, City Clerk Resolution No. 2020- Resolution encouraging Minnetonka businesses to adopt face mask requirements for employees and customers Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. 1.01. 1.02. 1.03. 1.04. 1.05. 1.06. 1.07. Background. By Emergency Executive Order 20-01, Governor Tim Walz declared a Peacetime State of Emergency to authorize any and all necessary resources to be used in support of the COVID-19 response, as of March 13, 2020. The state’s peacetime state of emergency has been extended three times and continues in effect. By Declaration of Emergency and Emergency Order 2020-01, Mayor Brad Wiersum has declared that a local emergency exists due to the COVID-19 health pandemic. The Minnetonka City Council agreed with the mayor’s findings and consented to the declaration of a local emergency in Resolution No. 2020-029. The local state of emergency has been extended by Resolution No. 2020-040 and continues in effect. The conditions that gave rise to the state and local states of emergency continue to exist. As of July 8, 2020, there have been 3,048,072 confirmed cases in the United States, resulting in 133,322 deaths, 39,133 confirmed cases in Minnesota, resulting in 1,511 deaths, 12,597 confirmed cases in Hennepin County, resulting in 787 deaths, and 214 confirmed cases in Minnetonka resulting in fewer than  deaths. The United States now leads the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. A significant number of persons infected with COVID-19 may present as asymptomatic or presymptomatic, giving no outward appearance of being ill. Those persons may unintentionally spread the virus without knowing it. Scientific studies suggest that wearing face coverings significantly reduces the risk of infection from the coronavirus and that face-covering mandates could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and Governor Tim Walz have all urged the use of face masks as a measure to reduce or prevent the spread of COVID-19. On June 28, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued the following guidance on face covering use: 1.CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who do not live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. 2.Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. 3.Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. Resolution No. 2020- Page 2 4. Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance. 1.08. The primary benefit of most face coverings is that it reduces the spread of infection by the wearer to others. Because many persons infected with the coronavirus may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic, without any reason to know that they have the disease, a face-covering requirement protects the health of others, including business employees who provide essential services to the public as well as business customers. 1.09. Businesses are adversely impacted when employees become infected or must be quarantined due to an exposure. Employee illness can result in temporary closure of some businesses. Reducing the rate of employee illness provides an economic benefit to individual businesses and to the economy as a whole. The state encourages businesses to “Stay Safe to Stay Open.” Section 2. Council Action. 2.01. The Minnetonka City Council strongly encourages Minnetonka businesses to require their employees to wear a face covering whenever the employees have face-to-face contact with the public, unless other physical barriers are in place or at least six feet of separation is maintained according to CDC guidelines. 2.02. Minnetonka businesses are strongly encouraged to require their customers to wear a face mask whenever the customers are within an indoor space that is open to the general public. Exceptions are appropriate under specific circumstances (e.g., restaurant patrons who are eating or drinking; fitness customers actively participating in athletic activities), provided that physical distances of six feet are maintained from other members of the general public. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on . Brad Wiersum, Mayor Attest: Becky Koosman, City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Resolution No. 2020- Page 3 Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on . Becky Koosman, City Clerk SO OUR BUSINESSCAN STAY OPEN WEAR YOUR MASK EMERGENCY ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 2.15 OF THE MANKATO CITY CHARTER RELATING TO COVID-19 AND FACE COVERING REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDC GUIDANCE WHEN IN INDOOR SPACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMODATION (#2020-4) WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20- 01, declaUiQg a PeaceWime EmeUgeQc\ aQd cRRUdiQaWiQg MiQQeVRWa¶V VWUaWeg\ WR SURWecW fURm COVID-19; and WHEREAS, Governor Walz signed Executive Order 20-56 to rescind the Stay at Home order put in place by Executive Order 20-48, and included in the order that all Minnesotans are strongly encouraged, "to wear a manufactured or homemade cloth face covering when they leave their homes and travel to any public setting where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) and to follow face covering guidelines issued by MDH and the CDC until this Executive Order is rescinded. Such face masks and coverings are for source control (to help limit the person wearing the covering from infecting others)"; and WHEREAS, it is a priority that race and equity be of paramount consideration in enacting and carrying out emergency regulations during the COVID -19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the data shows that older individuals and those suffering from underlying conditions are prone to more severe disease, and also shows that Black, Indigenous, people of color, and immigrant community members are testing at a higher rate with Black and Hispanic community members accounting for a higher percentage of cases; and WHEREAS, the c ity's workers and other essential workers continue to pr ovide essential services during this emergency, and some of these critical workers face an outsized risk o f exposure, and we must protect these essential workers from infection; and WHEREAS, health officials are increasingly urging non-medical workers to wear non- medical grade cloth face coverings to help curb the spread of COVID -19, by preventing the transmission of respiratory droplets that contain the virus; and WHEREAS, public health experts have determined that it is possible to transmit COVID- 19 even before a person shows symptoms; and WHEREAS, public health experts have determined that the use of a cloth face covering may reduce the risk of transmission by an infected person as a force multiplier for physical distancing, hand washing, and other prevention measures, understanding that face coverings are not recommended as a replacement for these activities; and WHEREAS, as state leaders continue to dial back res trictions in spaces of public accommodation, the city has redoubled its efforts to maintain good hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, and physical distancing while proceeding cautiously and with a focus on slowing community spread and avoiding unnecessary strain on our medical system . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the following emergency regulations be enacted effective July 10, 2020: 1. Any individual who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face covering shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face covering in accordance with CDC guidance when in indoor spaces of public accommodation. 2. All employers of businesses that are spaces of public accommo dation as defined by this Ordinance shall require their employees to wear a cloth face covering whenever such employees have face to-face contact with the public. Definitions: 3. A space of public accommodation means a business, refreshment, entertainment, or recreation facility, or an institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Examples include retail stores , rental establishments, City of Mankato government buildings, and service establishments as well as recreational facilities, and service centers. In addition to, establishments and facilities that offer food and beverage not for on-premises consumption, including grocery stores, markets, convenience stores, pharmacies, drug stores, and food pantries, other than those portions of the Place of Public Accommodation. 4. Spaces not considered places of public accommodation are health care facilities, child care facilities, residential care facilities, congregate care facilities, and juvenile justice facilities. Crisis shelters, soup kitchens, or similar institutions. Restaurants and food courts inside the secured zones of airports. This would also include indoor spaces within the campus of Minnesota State University, Mankato. Exceptions: A face covering or mask shall NOT be required for: a. Children two (2) years of age and under. Face coverings or masks may pose a risk of choking, strangulation, or suffocation to infants and young toddlers b. Eating or Drinking. Persons may remove face coverings while eating or drinking, when seated at a table with at least six (6) feet of social distance from other patrons, provided that they re-cover their faces when interacting with persons not at their tables or when not seated. c. Indoor Athletic Facilities (i.e. fitness centers, commercial gyms, etc.). Indoor athletic facilities shall follow CDC guidelines. Patrons are not required to wear face coverings or masks while actively participating in permitted athletic activates, but are encouraged to wear face coverings when not actively training. d. Movie Theaters and other indoor Entertainment Venues. Persons may remove face coverings when seated in their assigned seat with at least six (6) feet of social distance from other patrons, provided that they re-cover their faces when not seated. 5. Cloth face-covering means a covering that fully covers a person's nose and mouth but is not a Medical -Grade Mask. 6. Medical-Grade Mask means an N95, KN95, surgical, or other mask that would be appropriate for a healthcare setting, or a setting in which direct patient care is provided. Additional Terms 7. A violation of this Emergency Regulation may be enforced by the issuance of warning letter(s), administrative citation, and/or misdemeanor prosecution. Minn. Stat. §12.45. City Code. a. Licensed Establishments - voluntary compliance will be requested with warning being issued. Further violations would constitute a strike/administrative penalty (Resolution R- 16-1212-272 and matrix to include strike and corresponding administrative penalty ($200 plus associated court fees). b. Unlicensed Establishments ± voluntary compliance will be requested with warning being issued. Further violations would constitute an administrative penalty ($200 plus associated court fees). c. Individuals/Patrons ± voluntary compliance will be requested with warning being issued. Further violations would be cited as a misdemeanor offense per MS 12.45. The city could request that the district court designate this violation as a payable offense approved by the Minnesota Judicial council. The payable offense would follow the class II nuisance violation of $100 plus applicable court fees. Individuals could elect to not pay the fine and c hose a court appearance process with a judge prescribing a different penalty/enforcement. Repeated violations by an individual or a business would be handled the same. The city would seek voluntary compliance and cite only when the individual or business refuse to comply with the request for compliance. This Ordinance shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 of the Mankato City Charter, become effective immediately and shall be published and printed as prescribed for other adopted ordinances. This Ordinance shall stand repealed as of the 61st day following the date on which it was adopted, unless it is extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended as adopted by the City Council. Adopted this day of , 2020. Najwa Massad Mayor Attest: Renae Kopischke, MMC Designated City Clerk THIRD AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY Amending Local Emergency Regarding Required Face Coverings. WHEREAS, On March 13, 2020, Governor Tim Walz declared a statewide emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and, WHEREAS, On March 20, 2020, Mayor Kim Norton issued a Declaration of Local Emergency, to which the Common Council consented; and WHEREAS, On May 25, 2020, Mayor Kim Norton issued an Amendment to the Declaration of Local Emergency, to which the Common Council consented; and WHEREAS, On June 27, 2020, Mayor Kim Norton issued a Second Amendment to Declaration of Local Emergency, to which the Common Council consented; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §12.29 authorizes the Mayor to declare an existence of a local emergency, invoke necessary portions of the City's Emergency Operations Plans, and authorizes aid and services in accordance with mutual aid agreements. That authority is also found in Rochester Code of Ordinances, Section 8-1-5; and WHEREAS, Kim Norton is the duly elected Mayor of the City of Rochester and wishes to invoke the authority provided for in Minn. Stat. §12.29, subd. 1, and R.C.O. §8-1-5, to declare a local emergency; and WHEREAS, many individuals with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, yet risk transfer to others. Wearing a face covering greatly reduces risk of community spread; and WHEREAS, Mayo Clinic supports the wearing of cloth facemasks in public settings. The proper use of facemasks helps to reduce the spread of COVID-19 to vulnerable adults; and WHEREAS, Olmsted County Public Health Services follows Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) recommendations and supports the wearing of cloth face coverings in public settings; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2020, the CDC issued the following guidance on mask use: 1. CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who do not live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. 2. Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. 3. Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. 4. Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance. WHEREAS, Rochester is the Med City and has thousands of daily visitors here for medical treatment. Rochester wants these visitors, many with serious underlying medical conditions, to feel safe when they visit; and WHEREAS, the purpose of State Orders requiring limitations on businesses being open and capacity limits is to prevent hospitals and supplies from being overrun. The purpose of this Order is to minimize the need for future reclosing efforts based on public health data; and WHEREAS, many businesses have already required masks and others indicated they would if the local jurisdiction requires them. NOW, THEREFORE, MAYOR NORTON ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The existing Emergency Declaration, as amended, remains in effect as drafted so long as the State of Minnesota remains under a Peacetime Emergency or further Council action. 2. It is hereby Ordered that starting July 8, 2020, and continuing until the sooner of: a. Governor Walz enacts a statewide order requiring face coverings. b. The City of Rochester Emergency Management Director, in consultation with Mayo Clinic, Olmsted Medical Center and Olmsted County Public Health Services recommends it is no longer necessary. c. An end to the State's Peacetime Emergency Declaration. d. Council Resolution. e. September 4, 2020. f. All individuals shall wear a face covering in indoor areas accessible to the public and while riding in any public bus, unless exempted, as follows: i. Restaurants and Bars must include in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan that all customers wear a face covering when not seated at their table. ii. Retail Businesses must include in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan that all employees wear a face covering when the individual is within any area open to the public or within six feet of another person. Customers are required to wear a face covering before entering the retail business and must wear the face covering until exiting the retail business. iii. Public Transportation users are required to wear a face covering before boarding a bus and wear the face covering until the user exits the bus. 2 iv. Gyms, Fitness Centers, and Sports Facilities participants, staff, and spectators are required to wear a face covering at all times when the individual is within six feet of another person. For purposes of this Order, pools, trampoline parks, gymnastics facilities, hockey/skating arenas and climbing walls are considered Sports Facilities. v. Entertainment Venue users are required to wear a face covering when the user is within six feet of another person. When the user is seated and not within six feet of a person they can remove the face covering, but must wear the face covering when walking to or from their seat and while standing in or walking through public areas such as lobbies and restrooms. g. Exemptions: This Order does not apply to: i. Facilities operated by the County, State or Federal Government. ii. Personal Care Services/Salons that already have State face covering requirements. iii. Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements. iv. Children two years of age or younger. v. Individuals actively eating or drinking. vi. Individuals temporarily removing the face covering for identification purposes. vii. Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons. viii. Individuals speaking to an audience, whether in person or through broadcast, as long as the speaker remains six feet or more away from other individuals. ix. Individuals speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires the mouth to be visible to communicate. x. Participants in youth sports are exempt from this Order but subject to all requirements under the State's Executive Orders. h. Enforcement: Violation of this Order is not a criminal offense. However: i. Any individual who fails to comply with this Order will be asked to leave by an authorized representative of the business or organization. If the individual continues to refuse to leave, law enforcement may enforce trespassing laws or any other law the individual may violate. Businesses and organizations may rely on an individual's statements if they claim to be exempt from the Order due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons. ii. Any business violating this Order shall be subject to administrative action for any licenses they possess with the City. 3 3. For purposes of this Order, "face covering" shall mean a manufactured or homemade cloth covering that fully covers an individual's nose and mouth. The terms "mask" and "face covering" are synonymous. 4. Businesses and organizations are encouraged to provide masks for customers at no or nominal cost. 5. Restaurants and bars are encouraged to take advantage of outdoor seating. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this 6th day of July, 2020. 1 Ki No on, Mayor City erk 4 CITY OF EDINA LOCAL EMERGENCY ORDER #2020-03 Amending Local Emergency Order #2020-02 Regarding Required Face Coverings WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, Gov. Tim Walz declared a statewide emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and, WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, Mayor James Hovland issued a Declaration of Local Emergency, to which the City Council consented; and, WHEREAS, on July 1, 2020, Mayor James Hovland issued an Amendment to the Declaration of Local Emergency, Order #2020-02, to which the City Council consented; and, WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §12.29 authorizes the Mayor to declare an existence of a local emergency, invoke necessary portions of the City's Emergency Operations Plans, and authorizes aid and services in accordance with mutual aid agreements. That authority is also found in Edina City Code, Section 14-23; and, WHEREAS, James Hovland is the duly elected Mayor of the City of Edina and wishes to invoke the authority provided for in Minn. Stat. §12.29, subd. 1, and Edina City Code section 14-23; and, WHEREAS, many individuals with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, yet risk transfer of coronavirus to others; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2020, the CDC issued the following guidance on face covering use: 1. CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who do not live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. 2. Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. 3. Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. 4. Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance; and 2 WHEREAS, a substantial number of health care professionals in Edina are recommending the use of face coverings in public spaces to reduce the spread of coronavirus; and WHEREAS, in a scientific article published in The Lancet 2020; 395:1973-87, June, 2020 the study authors found, from a searched review of studies across 16 countries, that face masking could result in a large reduction in the risk of infection; and WHEREAS, many businesses have already required face coverings for employees and customers and others have indicated they would if the local jurisdiction requires them; and WHEREAS, wearing a face covering may greatly reduce the community spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the purpose of State Orders requiring limitations on both businesses being open and capacity limits is to prevent hospitals and supplies from being overrun; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Order is to minimize the need for future re-closing of businesses based on public health data and to reduce the risks of spreading coronavirus in the community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JAMES HOVLAND, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF EDINA, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL, DO HEREBY ORDER THE FOLLOWING EMERGENCY REGULATION: 1. The existing Emergency Declaration, as amended, remains in effect as drafted so long as the State of Minnesota remains under a Peacetime Emergency or further Council action. 2. It is hereby Ordered that starting July 9, 2020, and continuing until the sooner of: a. Gov. Walz enacts a statewide order requiring face coverings. b. An end to the State's Peacetime Emergency Declaration. c. A Resolution of the City Council rescinding the Order. d. December 31, 2020. 3. All individuals shall wear a face covering in indoor areas accessible to the public, unless exempted under section 4 below: a. Specific to the face covering mandate in section 3, the following shall also apply: i. Restaurants and Bars. Must include in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan that all customers wear a face covering when not seated at their table. ii. Spaces of Public Accommodation. Owners and managers of spaces of public accommodation must include in their COVID-19 Preparedness 3 Plan that all employees wear a face covering when the individual is within any area open to the public or within six feet of another person. Customers are required to wear a face covering before entering the spaces of public accommodation and must wear the face covering until exiting. iii. Public Transportation. Users are required to wear a face covering before boarding a bus and wear the face covering until the user exits the bus. iv. Entertainment Venues. Users are required to wear a face covering when the user is within six feet of another person. When the user is seated and not within six feet of a person they can remove the face covering, but must wear the face covering when walking to or from their seat and while standing in or walking through public areas such as lobbies and restrooms. v. Common Spaces in Multi-Family Residential and Multi-Tenant Office Buildings. Residents of multi-family housing buildings, and their guests; and tenants, employees and their guests in multi-tenant office buildings shall wear a face covering when in common spaces such as hallways, corridors, lobbies, restrooms, mail rooms, elevators, trash and recycling rooms, fitness rooms, recreation rooms, laundry rooms and other space owned and used in common by the residents, employees and tenants of the building. 4. Exemptions: This Order does not apply to: i. Facilities operated by the County, State or Federal Government. ii. Personal Care Services/Salons that already have State face covering requirements. iii. Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements. iv. Children 5 years of age or younger. v. Individuals actively eating or drinking. vi. Individuals temporarily removing the face covering for identification purposes. vii. Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons. viii. Individuals speaking to an audience, whether in person or through broadcast, as long as the speaker remains six feet or more away from other individuals. ix. Individuals speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires the mouth to be visible to communicate. x. Participants in youth sports, as defined by the City of Edina, are exempt from this Order but subject to all requirements under the State's Executive Orders. 4 xi. Indoor athletic facilities. Indoor athletic facilities shall follow CDC and MDH guidelines. Patrons are not required to wear face coverings or masks while actively participating in permitted athletic activities but are encouraged to wear face coverings when not actively training. xii. Places of worship xiii. Public and private school facilities 5. Enforcement: i. Any individual who fails to comply with this Order will be asked to leave the property by an authorized representative of the business or organization. If the individual continues to refuse to leave, law enforcement may enforce trespassing laws or any other law the individual may violate. ii. An individual’s subsequent failure to comply with this Order may be subject to the penalty provisions of Sec. 14-23 and Sec. 1-18 of the Edina City Code which provides that in any case other than those in which a violation is expressly stated to be a petty misdemeanor in this Code, any person violating any provision of this Code, or Code any rule or regulation adopted under this will, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 90 days or both, plus, in either case, the cost of prosecution. The cost of prosecution may be added to the penalty imposed on every person convicted of violating any provision of this Code. iii. Businesses and organizations may rely on an individual's statements if they claim to be exempt from the Order due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons. iv. Any business violating this Order shall be subject to administrative action for any licenses they possess with the City. 6. For purposes of this Order, "face covering" shall mean a manufactured or homemade cloth, paper or plastic covering that fully covers an individual's nose and mouth, secured to the head with ties or straps or simply wrapped around the lower face. The terms "mask" and "face covering" are synonymous. 7. For purposes of this Order, a “space of public accommodation” means a business, refreshment, entertainment, or recreation facility, or an institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, City of Edina government buildings, and service establishments as well as recreational facilities, and service centers. This definition includes establishments and facilities that offer food and 5 beverage not for on-premises consumption, including grocery stores, markets, convenience stores, pharmacies, drug stores, and food pantries. 8.All employers of businesses that are spaces of public accommodation, as defined by this Order, shall require their employees to wear a face covering whenever such employees have face-to-face contact with the public, unless other physical barriers are in place or at least six feet of separation is maintained according to CDC guidelines. 9.The requirement in this Order that face-coverings be worn in certain circumstances is intended to add to (and not substitute for) other practices (such as hand washing, staying home when sick, and maintaining appropriate physical distancing of at least six feet) as recommended by public health officials to minimize the spread of COVID-19. 10.It is recommended that any individual cover their nose and mouth with a mask or a cloth face covering when physical distancing standards or at least six feet of separation cannot be maintained among all individuals in accordance with CDC guidelines when in outdoor spaces. 11.Owners or managers of property subject to this Order shall post written notice of this Order at all points used by the public to access the property. 12.Businesses and organizations are encouraged to provide masks for customers at no or nominal cost. 13.To the extent anything in this Order is inconsistent with the Emergency Executive Order 20-74 of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the language of Emergency Executive Order 20- 74 shall take precedence. This Order is effective 12:01 a.m. (CST) on July 9, 2020. By:__________________________________________ Mayor James Hovland City of Edina, Minnesota July 8, 2020 Description of city ordinance Comparison to state guidance Comparison to other cities What locations are covered and what’s not covered Restaurants and bars. All employees must follow state guidance. Customers must wear a mask except when eating, drinking or seated at a table. Employees must wear masks at all times. Customers are strongly encouraged to wear masks when not eating or drinking. Edina- employees required when face-to-face contact with public unless barriers in place or six feet of separation; customers same as Mtka Mankato – same as Mtka Rochester –same as Mtka Retail businesses that sell products or goods. Employees must wear mask when in an indoor area open to the public or when within 6 feet of another person. Customers must wear masks. Masks are encouraged but not required Edina – employees required when face-to-face contact with public unless barriers in place or six feet of separation; customers same as Mtka Mankato-employees required when they have face-to-face contact with public; customers required Rochester-same as Mtka Gyms, fitness centers and sports facilities, including city-owned facilities. Employees and customers must wear when indoors and within 6 feet of another person, except when actively participating in athletic activities. Masks are strongly encouraged but not required. Equipment must be at least six feet apart, and greater distances are recommended for equipment that encourages high exertion. Edina- indoor athletic facilities are exempt Mankato – employees required when they have face-to-face contact with public; customers required same Rochester –same as Mtka Indoor entertainment venues, including movie theaters. Employees must wear mask when in an indoor area open to the public or when within 6 feet of another person. Customers must wear masks when inside and not in their assigned seat. Masks are strongly encouraged but not required. Six feet of physical distancing is required between household groups. 25% of occupancy with a maximum of 250 persons. Edina- same as Rochester Mankato – employees required when they have face-to-face contact with public; customers –same as Mtka Rochester – none for employees; customers only when within 6 feet of others but not when in assigned seat Description of city ordinance Comparison to state guidance Comparison to other cities City buildings- Employees and other individuals must wear when within areas that are open to general public. (Does not include city-owned fitness and athletic facilities, which are covered above.) Not applicable. Edina-included within “indoor spaces of public accommodation.” Employees required when in any area accessible to public or within six feet of another person; customers required Mankato – employees required when they have face-to-face contact with public; customers required Rochester – not expressly addressed in order Not covered by ordinance: Service businesses and offices Multi-tenant residential buildings Public transportation Edina- includes public transportation and common spaces in multi-family residential and multi-tenant office buildings Mankato – includes service businesses Rochester –appears to include retail service businesses other than salons and medical facilities; includes public transportation (Rochester operates its own system) Exemptions Children under 5 years; persons with medical conditions that make it difficult to breathe; those unable to remove their masks without assistance; those communicating to deaf or hard of hearing Edina- children under 5 yrs; others same as Rochester Mankato – children under 2 yrs; those medically unable to tolerate a face mask Rochester –children under 2 yrs; those unable to wear mask due to disability; those speaking to an audience; those speaking to a deaf person; participants in youth sports; those temporarily removing their face covering for identification purposes Description of city ordinance Comparison to state guidance Comparison to other cities Signage Businesses required to post signs to notify customers Edina- same as Mtka Mankato – no requirement Rochester – no requirement Enforcement No criminal penalty; business must ask person to leave if they refuse to comply; refusal to leave could result in trespass or other charge; city-issued license may be at risk for noncompliant business Edina- first offense same as Mtka and Rochester; subsequent offense punishable as misdemeanor Mankato – may be enforced by warning letter, citation or misdemeanor prosecution; or penalties against licensed business Rochester –same as Mtka Ordinance No. 2020-__ An emergency ordinance relating to face covering requirements within specified indoor spaces within the city The City of Minnetonka Ordains: Section 1. Preamble Since March 16, 2020, the City of Minnetonka has been under a local state of peacetime emergency, due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. The conditions that gave rise to the state of emergency continue to exist. The United States now leads the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, and in some parts of the United States, the number of confirmed cases is surging, posing a threat to the response capabilities of health care facilities. Growing scientific evidence indicates that the wearing of face coverings in public significantly reduces the risk of infection from the coronavirus. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and Governor Tim Walz have all urged the use of face masks as a measure to reduce or prevent the spread of COVID-19. This emergency ordinance is adopted in response to the emergency and in accordance with Section 3.07 of the City Charter and Section 900 of the City Code to protect the public safety, health and welfare. Section 2. Findings The Minnetonka City Council makes the following findings: 2.01 The COVID-19 disease presents a serious health risk to the residents of Minnetonka. As of July 8, 2020, there have been 3,048,072 confirmed cases in the United States, resulting in 133,322 deaths, 39,133 confirmed cases in Minnesota, resulting in 1,511 deaths, 12,597 confirmed cases in Hennepin County, resulting in 787 deaths, and 214 confirmed cases in Minnetonka resulting in fewer than 5 deaths. 2.02 Scientific studies suggest that wearing face coverings significantly reduces the risk of infection from the coronavirus and that face-covering mandates could save hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States. 2.03 On June 28, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued the following guidance on face covering use: 1. CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who do not live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. 2. Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. 3. Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings. 4. Cloth face coverings should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance. Ordinance No. 2020- Page 2 The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. 2.04 Many businesses in the city already require face coverings for employees and customers, and others have indicated that they would also if the local jurisdiction requires it. 2.05 The primary benefit of most face coverings is that it reduces the spread of infection by the wearer to others. Because many persons infected with the coronavirus may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic, without any reason to know that they have the disease, a face-covering requirement protects the health of others, such as business employees who provide essential services to the public. 2.06 Businesses are adversely impacted when employees become infected or must be quarantined due to an exposure. Employee illness can result in temporary closure of some businesses. Reducing the rate of employee illness provides an economic benefit to individual businesses and to the economy as a whole. The state encourages businesses to “Stay Safe to Stay Open.” 2.07 This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of protecting the public health, promoting the local economy, minimizing the need for future reclosing based on public health, and reducing the demand that COVID-19 cases place upon the healthcare system. Section 3. Face covering requirement 3.01 Definition. For purposes of this ordinance “face covering” means a manufactured or homemade cloth covering that fully covers an individual’s nose and mouth. The terms “mask” and “face covering” are synonymous. 3.02 Except as exempted by section 3.03 of this ordinance, all individuals must wear a face covering in the following locations within the city of Minnetonka: 1. Restaurants and bars. All customers must wear a face covering when not seated at a table or counter or, if standing, when not eating or drinking. Restaurants and bars must include the requirements of this ordinance in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. Employees are required to wear face coverings as required by applicable state executive orders. 2. Businesses that sell products or goods to the general public at retail. Customers must wear a face covering before entering a retail business and until exiting the retail business. Employees must wear a face covering when the employee is within any indoor area open to the public or within six feet of another person unless separated by a barrier. Retail businesses must include the requirements of this ordinance in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. 3. Gyms, fitness centers and sports facilities, including city-owned sports facilities. Employees, staff, participants and spectators are required to wear Ordinance No. 2020- Page 3 The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. a face covering at all times when the individual is indoors and within six feet of another person. Face masks are not required for an individual while actively participating in permitted athletic activities. Businesses must include the requirements of this ordinance in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. 4. Indoor entertainment venues, including movie theaters. All employees and customers must wear face coverings when inside the entertainment venue and not seated in their assigned seat; individuals speaking to an audience are not required to wear a mask while speaking, as long as the speaker remains six feet or more away from other individuals. All indoor entertainment venues must include the requirements of this ordinance in their COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. 5. City buildings. City employees and all other individuals must wear face coverings within those portions of city-owned buildings that are open to the general public. This paragraph does not apply to city-owned facilities that are otherwise covered by paragraph 3 above. 3.03 Exemptions. A face covering is not required for: 1. Children five (5) years of age and under. 2. Individuals unable to wear a mask due to medical, disability or developmental reasons. 3. Individuals unable to remove their face covering without assistance. 4. Individuals speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing, if the mouth must be visible to communicate effectively. 3.04 Required signage. Businesses covered by the provisions of section 3.02 of this ordinance must post signage at all public entrances to the business , notifying the public that face coverings are required pursuant to Minnetonka ordinance. 3.05 Enforcement. Violation of this ordinance is not a criminal offense. However: 1. Any individual who fails to comply with this order must be asked to leave by an authorized representative of the business or organization. If the individual continues to refuse to leave, law enforcement may enforce trespassing laws or any other law the individual may violate. Businesses and organizations may rely on an individual's statements if they claim to be Ordinance No. 2020- Page 4 The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. exempt from the ordinance due to medical, disability, or developmental reasons. 2. Any business violating this ordinance shall be subject to administrative action for any licenses they possess with the city. Section 4. Effect This emergency ordinance supersedes inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the City Code and any resolution or ordinance while this emergency ordinance remains in effect. Section 5. Duration This emergency ordinance is effective as of 11:59 p.m. on July __, 2020. The ordinance will expire sixty-one (61) days after its effective date or upon the expiration of the local emergency to which it relates, whichever comes first. Adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on July __, 2020. Brad Wiersum, Mayor Attest: Becky Koosman, City Clerk Action on this Ordinance : Date of introduction: Not applicable Date of adoption: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Ordinance adopted. Ordinance No. 2020- Page 5 The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Date of publication: I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on Becky Koosman, City Clerk City of Duluth Legislation Text 411 West First Street Duluth, Minnesota 55802 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE DULUTH CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 34-45 REQUIRING FACE COVERINGS INDOORS SPACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. (REPLACEMENT) BY COUNCILORS FORSMAN, TOMANEK, KENNEDY, AND SIPRESS: The city of Duluth does ordain: Section 1.That Chapter 34 of the Duluth City Code is hereby amended by adding Section 34-45 as follows: Sec. 34-45.1.Face Covering Requirement - Purpose (a)Face coverings are a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the face covering coughs,sneezes,talks,or raises their voice. This is called source control. (b)Respiratory droplets spread the virus that causes COVID-19 and recent evidence from clinical and laboratory studies show face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. (c)COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet),so the use of face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain. (d)Social distancing is difficult to maintain indoors business establishments. Sec. 34-45.2.Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall mean: (a)A Space of Public Accommodation means a business,or an educational,refreshment, entertainment,or recreation facility,or public transportation,or an institution of any kind,whether licensed or not,whose goods,services,facilities,privileges,advantages,or accommodations are extended,offered,sold, or otherwise made available to the public.Examples include retail stores,rental establishments,Duluth Transit Authority buses,facilities,and bus shelters,government buildings,the Duluth Skywalk system,places of worship,and service establishments as well as educational institutions,recreational facilities,and service centers. (b)Face Covering means wearing a face mask,face shield,N95 respirator,neck gaiter,or fitted piece of material that: (1)Covers the mouth and nose; (2)Fits snugly against the side of the face; and (3)Is secured on the face. Sec. 34-45.3.Face Covering Required Indoors. (a)A Space of Public Accommodation Shall Require Face Coverings Indoors.It shall be unlawful for a Space of Public Accommodation to allow a person to enter or remain indoors their Space of Public Accommodation without wearing a Face Covering. (b)Face Covering Required Indoors a Space of Public Accommodation.It shall be unlawful for a File #:20-044-O,Version:1 City of Duluth Printed on 7/14/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-044-O,Version:1 (b)Face Covering Required Indoors a Space of Public Accommodation.It shall be unlawful for a person to enter or remain indoors a Space of Public Accommodation without wearing a Face Covering. (c)Required Notices.Spaces of Public Accommodation shall post notice of this Face Covering requirement in conspicuous locations inside and outside entrances to their Space of Public Accommodation. (d)Exceptions. Sections (a)-(c) shall not apply to: (1)Persons under the age of ten years old; (2)Persons unable to wear Face Coverings for genuine medical reasons; (3)Persons in a private room of a multi-tenant residence,such as an apartment building,or lodging establishment,such as a hotel,motel,or vacation rental.Face Coverings must be worn in all indoor common areas of said establishments; (4)Business patrons who are actively eating and/or drinking provided that all individuals wear a Face Covering when walking to or from their seat and while standing in or walking through public areas such as lobbies and restrooms; (5)Business owners,managers,and employees who are in an area of a business establishment that is not open to customers,patrons,or the public,provided that six feet of distance exist between persons; (6)Education and child care facilities with written plans in compliance with state guidelines; (7)Fitness facilities with written plans in compliance with state guidelines; (8)In settings where it is not feasible to wear a Face Covering,including when obtaining or rendering goods or services such as the receipt of medical or dental services,swimming,or while actively participating in organized athletic competitions or practices; and (9)Police officers,fire fighters and other first responders when not practical or engaged in a public safety matter. Sec. 34-45.4.Violations- Penalties (a)Violations of this Section (34-45)by Spaces of Public Accommodation are punishable by one or more of the following: (1)Issuance of warning letter(s); (2)Fines not to exceed those set in accordance with Section 31-8 of this Code for the first and second offenses and a fine as provided in Section 1-7 of this Code for all subsequent offenses; and/or (3)Misdemeanor criminal prosecution pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 12.45. (b)Violations of this Section (34-45) by persons are punishable by one or more of the following: (1)Civil trespass from the Space of Public Accommodation; (2)Prosecution, if applicable, for trespass in violation of Duluth City Code 34-30; and/or (3)Criminal prosecution,if applicable,for criminal trespass in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 609.605. Sec. 34-45.5.Duration and Severability (a)In the event that the State of Minnesota Governor Timothy Walz ends his Declaration of Local Emergency related to COVID-19 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 12.29,this entire Section (34-45) shall become null and void. (b)In the event any provision of this Section (34-45)is preempted by executive order of State of Minnesota Governor Timothy Walz, those provisions of Section (34-45) shall become null and void. Section 2.That pursuant to the Duluth City Charter Chapter III,this emergency ordinance shall require one reading by council and shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the council.. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:This is an emergency ordinance prohibiting Space of Public Accommodations from allowing a person to enter or remain indoors their Space of Public Accommodation without wearing a City of Duluth Printed on 7/14/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-044-O,Version:1 from allowing a person to enter or remain indoors their Space of Public Accommodation without wearing a Face Covering.The City Attorney confirms that this is an emergency ordinance filed under the authority of Chapter III of the Duluth City Charter.It does not require two readings and shall take effect immediately upon passage of the City Council. Face coverings are recommended by the US Center of Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the face covering coughs,sneezes,talks,or raises their voice.This is called source control.The CDC’s recommendation is based on what is known about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19,paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth.COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet),so the use of face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain. City of Duluth Printed on 7/14/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: July 16, 2020 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has applied for a preliminary plat to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting and recommended approval, conditioned upon the plan incorporating the final Tamarack Drive study information. The item is tentatively scheduled to be presented to Council on August 4. B) Ditter Subdivision – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter have requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit to replat their existing four lots into five lots. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to the Planning Commission for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the August 12 meeting. C) Brugger Home Occupation CUP – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Kayla Brugger has requested a CUP to offer fitness instruction out of her home, in addition to sessions offered in client homes or virtually. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to the Planning Commission for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the August 12 meeting. D) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12 and recommended approval. The City Council granted preliminary plat approval on June 16. Staff will await an application for final plat. E) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. F) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested final plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addn. The City Council granted final plat approval on June 16. The applicant has begun site work and applied for a building permit. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval to allow issuance of the permit. G) Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single- family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Council adopted a resolution granting conditional approval and authorizing submission to the Met Council. The Met Council has authorized the City to put the amendment into effect. Staff will await a preliminary plat application. H) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 and March 10 meetings and recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17. I) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. J) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Tamarack Drive study – The Council reviewed public engagement and the draft concepts at the May 19 council meeting and directed staff to finalize the report. Staff has prepared a draft of the report and provided it to affected property owners and has had discussions with many of them. Staff intends to present the report to the Council on July 21. B) Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment – Scott and I met with representatives from Minnehaha Creek related to the draft findings of the subwatershed assessment. The discussion mainly related to implementation of the plan, potential projects that showed good cost/benefit. C) City Hall Septic – staff has requested quotes for the construction this fall. D) Administration Assistant interviews – the City received over 120 applications for the Administrative Assistant position. Steve, Jodi, and I have reviewed applications and are conducting interviews this week. TO: City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: July 17, 2020 RE: Police Department Update Since I took over as Public Safety Director, there have been several things that have occurred that have really consumed my time, which has made it hard to investigate other aspects of the police department. I am happy to report that things have slowed down somewhat, and we have all been able to take a deep breath and do a reset. I was out of the office and worked from home the end of last week due to my son’s surgery, who had all the hardware removed from his accident last fall. We have been very busy on the street with typical summertime calls for service. Anne has been extremely busy with processing gun permit to purchase requests. We have processed over 100% more than this time last year. We also have been mandated by the state to comply with National Incident Based Reporting Systems (NIBRS), which is an entirely different process from what we did in the past and there is a lot more data that is requested to be entered before things are sent to the court. Anne has been training and working with other area Administrative Assistants on finetuning our processes to ensure that we are gathering and entering all the data that is needed in a timely manner. I continue to work on allocating additional personal protective equipment (PPE) to be purchased with CARES Act funds from the state. With the potential of COVID coming back in the fall and beyond, we are trying to stockpile as is every other police, fire and EMS agency. Our agency recently purchased a Clorox Electrostatic Sprayer to be shipped hopefully in the next 60-90 days. This will allow us to clean large office spaces, jail and booking areas in a quick manner with very little down time. This is a unit that is portable and can be used at all our city buildings, fire departments, etc. These units are in high demand thus the 60-90 day wait period. Two weeks ago, the emergency weather sirens project was completed. We have replaced sirens at Holy Name, Morningside, and moved the one in Hamel from behind the fire department to Hamel Legion Park near the sliding hill. These sirens should serve the city for the next 30-40 years if they last as long as the previous ones. MEMORANDUM Sergeant Boecker is in the final stages of completing the background on our potential police officer candidate. This should be completed by the end of next week. A phycological test and physical will follow before a conditional offer is given. This will come back to the council at the first meeting in August for final approval. Patrol: Patrol Updates 07/01/2020 through 07/14/2020 Patrol Activities – Between the dates of July 1, 2020 through July 14, 2020 our officers issued 32 citations and 71 warnings for various traffic violations. There were 4 property damage accidents reported, 0 personal injury accident, 8 medicals, 1 business alarm, 13 residential alarms, 4 suspicious calls, and 15 assists to other agencies. On 07/02 Officer responded to Target to take a fraud report. Victim was found to be at Target to purchase $2000 in gift cards and was going to forward the money to someone who had called her at home stating they were with the Social Security Administration. Victim purchased $2000 from the Buffalo Target and was told to purchase additional cards at the Medina Target. An alert cashier notified victim that she was being scammed and the police were called. Victim had no loss in Medina and was advised to contact Wright County Sheriff’s Office to report the loss from that jurisdiction for the original $2000 that was purchased. On 07/03 Resident reported suspicious solicitors in the area of Comanche Trail that appeared to be driving vehicles with no license plates. Officers were able to locate two individuals who were going door-to-door selling pest control products and did not obtain a solicitor permit. The two were identified and warned to stop soliciting until a permit was obtained. On 07/04 Officers took multiple fireworks complaints throughout the city. Officers observed numerous illegal fireworks being set off throughout the city in residential neighborhoods. The large number is possibly tied to the fact of no local fireworks being displayed. Numerous residents were warned of the illegal fireworks. On 07/04 Officers were dispatched to a welfare check on two females who reported they had been at a house in Medina when the homeowner agreed to give them a tour of his house. The male brought the two females to an upstairs bedroom where the male then dropped his pants and underwear. The two females ran downstairs and eventually out of the house. They were unable to get an Uber or Lyft driver to pick them up and their phone was going dead, so they called 911. Neither women wanted to pursue any charges and were provided a ride to their residence in Minnetonka. On 07/04 Officer was dispatched to a suspicious person at the Wealshire of Medina reportedly trying to get into the facility by punching in numbers on the keypad. Upon arrival, Officer met with the male who was in the vestibule of the business. Male said he got into a fight with a female friend and she had kicked him out. He reported he had been walking for several hours and the mosquitoes began attacking him, so he went into the lobby to try to get away from the mosquitoes. The male was given a ride to an open business and advised to charge his phone and find someone to come pick him up. On 07/06 Officer was dispatched to found property that was located in the area of Highway 55 and Willow Drive. Officer recovered a purse and wallet which was later found to have been stolen from a home in Delano during an overnight burglary. Wright County Sheriff’s Office was notified, and the property owner was notified to pick up her belongings. On 07/07 at 0102 hours Officer stopped a vehicle for driving 92 mph in the posted 55 mph zone on Highway 55. Driver was found to be a 14-year-old who did not have a driver’s license and admitted he had snuck out with the car while his parents slept. Several citations were issued to the driver and other juvenile passengers. Parents were called to pick up the juveniles. On 07/08 Officer was called to a suspicious vehicle driving in the 300 block of Lythrum Lane. The vehicle was located and found that the male and female occupants were a husband and wife and the wife had just received her instructional permit and was practicing driving. On 07/08 victim arrived at the Medina Police Department to make a fraud report. Victim received a phone call in the morning from someone claiming to be with the Social Security Administration. Victim was convinced to go to his bank and withdraw $6500 and to then go to Lowes, Home Depot, and Best Buy to purchase gift cards. Victim did what was asked and eventually realized it was a scam and went to police. With help from police, victim was able to determine that the Best Buy cards had not yet been spent and victim was able to call Best Buy and freeze the cards. The money had already been spent on the other cards. The case was forwarded to investigations. On 07/09 several thefts were reported of political signs along Willow Drive, County Road 24, and Hamel Road. Thefts were reported in other jurisdictions as well. Investigations: Investigating the fraudulent use of a credit card at a business. Two suspects used the victim’s credit and debit cards to purchase several Visa gift cards. The victim suffered a total financial loss of over $2,000. A crime alert has been sent out to identify the suspects. Investigating a vandalism / burglary complaint at the Loretto Ball fields. A controller for the scoreboard was stolen. Information about the controller was placed on the department’s Facebook page. While executing a search warrant on a cell phone related to an ongoing case involving counterfeit currency, I located several videos of child pornography. A second search warrant was drafted, and those videos will be removed from the phone and sent to ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children) for analysis. Investigation is ongoing. Drafted a search warrant for a bank in Maryland in order to obtain information on an account related to fraud. Currently 10 cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: July 16, 2020 MEETING: July 21, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Public works has been actively patching asphalt on Tamarack North of Medina Rd. It is clearly a candidate for an overlay in the next year or so. • I have been spending a lot of time in visioning meetings for future Tamarack and Hackamore projects. At some point we will have to address the Hackamore road project and we will have to decide how much we are willing to participate in the planning, and the financing of the project, as I said the east end is falling into disrepair. • Public works has been mowing the roadsides with the dich mower where the ROW is not maintained by the residents. This allows for much better visibility and establishes statutory use for the places we do not have actual ROW. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works and Badger State inspections are making the final inspections to address any warranty issues with the water tower rehab project. There are a few items on the list to be cleaned up. • Inflow and infiltration meters have been installed and are currently being monitored in the trunk line running from HWY 55 up to the Foxberry and Toll Brothers additions. We are just not seeing any issues with that area and likely will not with the dry weather we are experiencing. • Public Works did an emergency culvert repair on Hunter Drive south of County 24. The roadway began to cave in because of a rotting culvert below the surface. It has been replaced and the pavement will be replaced soon. PARKS/TRAILS • The curb was replaced at the Morningside Playground and looks it great. The project came in way under budget. • We also installed the concrete under the bleachers at the Legion park lighted field. PERSONNEL • We have received over 120 applications for the administrative assistant vacancy for planning and public works. Interviews have been completed and we plan to make a recommendation at the August 4th Council Meeting. • At this point we are just going to wait on the open Public Works Maintenance position, if someone interesting becomes available we may change that. We ae hoping Ivan will help again this winter and we may try to find a part time person to also help with snow removal. ORDER CHECKS JULY 7, 2020 – JULY 21, 2020 050409 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO., INC ............................................... $135.16 050410 FIVE STAR ENTERPRISES ........................................................ $69.43 050411 HOLIDAY FLEET ....................................................................... $141.08 050412 MORRIS ELECTRONICS INC. .................................................. $180.00 050413 WYHA TEAM #40 ...................................................................... $500.00 050414 BURNET TITLE ........................................................................... $31.89 050415 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ............................................... $6,575.52 050416 FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $700.00 050417 SAJJAD, ZAHRA .................................................................... $1,200.00 050418 SINGH, ASHWANI ..................................................................... $700.00 050419 A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC ....................................................... $48.98 050420 ANDRES, STEVE ................................................................... $5,545.50 050421 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE ..................................................... $610.54 050422 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $29,817.96 050423 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC ....................................................... $93.76 050424 DEERE & COMPANY ........................................................... $93,878.24 050425 DIAMOND MOWERS INC............................................................ $77.63 050426 DPC INDUSTRIES INC ................................................................ $74.37 050427 ECM PUBLISHERS INC .............................................................. $79.15 050428 EULL S MANUFACTURING CO. ............................................... $101.64 050429 FEHN COMPANIES INC ......................................................... $7,639.86 050430 GO 2 HAMEL LLC ..................................................................... $460.00 050431 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC ............................................. $616.95 050432 GRAINGER................................................................................ $327.66 050433 HACH COMPANY ...................................................................... $516.20 050434 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER ..................................................... $113.37 050435 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ................................................................ $548.35 050436 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ....................................... $85,387.50 050437 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH .................................................. $2,143.07 050438 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF......................................................... $150.00 050439 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MN INC ............................................. $359.06 050440 JEREDS LAWN CARE INC ................................................... $10,500.00 050441 JIMMYS JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $825.00 050442 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC ........................................ $1,650.10 050443 KELLYS WRECKER SERVICE INC ........................................... $317.50 050444 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES ............................... $496.00 050445 LEXISNEXIS ................................................................................ $49.50 050446 LONG LAKE, CITY OF ............................................................ $6,265.25 050447 MAPLE PLAIN, CITY OF ........................................................ $3,973.29 050448 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP .......................................... $10,400.00 050449 MEDTOX LABS ........................................................................... $50.33 050450 MET COUNCIL (WASTEWATER SVC) ................................ $30,736.53 050451 METRO ELEVATOR INC ........................................................... $190.00 050452 MILLER TRUCKING & LANDSCAPE ......................................... $161.84 050453 MINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ......................... $301,655.37 050454 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $89.57 050455 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC ............................................. $107,931.74 SEE NOTES BELOW 050456 OFFICE DEPOT .......................................................................... $76.51 050457 ORONO, CITY OF .................................................................. $6,507.05 050458 READY WATT ELECTRIC .................................................... $37,980.00 050459 RUSTY OLSONS SOIL AND PERCOLAT.................................. $850.00 050460 SCHMIDT CURB CO INC ..................................................... $10,000.00 050461 STREICHERS INC ..................................................................... $499.98 050462 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ........................................ $297.98 050463 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,474.84 050464 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $254.50 050465 TRUE CARE AUTO REPAIR, INC ............................................... $79.95 050466 US SOLAR BUSINESS - 1 ...................................................... $5,368.92 050467 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE .................................................. $40.00 Total Checks $778,544.62 NOTES: NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC #053089 $104,183.74 7/7/2020 – VOIDED & REISSUED #050455 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS JULY 7, 2020 – JULY 21, 2020 005573E PR PERA .............................................................................. $15,890.73 005574E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,267.61 005575E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00 005576E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,597.76 005577E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $20.00 005578E FURTHER ............................................................................ $30,074.07 005579E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $2,262.89 005580E FURTHER ................................................................................... $81.54 005581E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00 005582E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $234.10 005583E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $6,564.49 005584E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $33.70 005585E FURTHER ................................................................................. $365.87 005586E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $817.14 005587E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC .................................... $1,051.36 005588E PR FED/FICA .............................................................................. $29.40 005589E VERIZON WIRELESS ............................................................. $1,318.26 005590E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $56.85 005591E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $324.66 Total Electronic Checks $81,780.43 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT JUNE 24, 2020 0510348 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ............................................................ $628.35 0510349 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $583.41 0510350 ALBERS, TODD M. .................................................................... $230.87 0510351 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,521.00 0510352 ANDERSON, JOHN G. .............................................................. $230.87 0510353 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,514.01 0510354 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,815.71 0510355 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,121.33 0510356 DESLAURIES, DEAN ................................................................ $230.87 0510357 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,880.14 0510358 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,004.11 0510359 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,650.69 0510360 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,119.18 0510361 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,137.58 0510362 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,141.67 0510363 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,135.32 0510364 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,367.01 0510365 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $905.48 0510366 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,472.91 0510367 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,286.94 0510368 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.39 0510369 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $1,857.77 0510370 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M ............................................................ $327.07 0510371 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,505.33 0510372 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,014.46 0510373 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,531.59 0510374 PEDERSON, JEFF .................................................................... $230.87 0510375 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $1,927.94 0510376 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $1,882.65 0510377 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,372.90 0510378 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN .......................................................... $717.81 0510379 DINGMANN, NATHAN ............................................................... $944.48 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $51,717.71