The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 07-11-2012EDA MEETING Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Tracy Hinz, Matt Frie, Rod Dragsten and Council members Tom Perrault and Brian Stumpf Staff. Executive Director Megan Barnett- Livgard, Finance Director Tom Kelly 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Meeting Minutes: a) Regular meeting June 20, 2012 b) Special joint City Council and EDA meeting June 20, 2012 c) Special EDA meeting June 28, 2012 3. Consideration of adding agenda items 4. Consideration of recommending the City Council enter into a Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement with PHS/Monticello (Presbyterian Homes) 5. Consideration of revising the Relocation Assistance Policy to include language related to an appeals process for displaced residents or businesses 6. Consideration of authorizing the lowest bidder to complete the MPCA required Limited Site Investigation (LSI) property located at 349 Broadway Street (Fred's Auto Body) 7. Director Report 8. Adj ourn MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Present:' President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Tracy Hinz, Matt Frie, Rod Dragsten and Council Member Tom Perrault Commissioners Absent: Brian Stumpf Staff: Executive Director Megan Barnett - Livgard 1. Call to Order Bill Demeulcs called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. Approve Meeting Minutes a) Regular Meeting May 9, 2012 ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 9, 2012 EDA MINUTES. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. b) Special Joint Meeting May 9, 2012 TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2012 EDA MINUTES. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. 3. Consideration of additional agenda items a) Krutzig Property b) TIF 1 -19 Mississippi Shores 4. Consideration of Adopting the 2012 TIF Management Plan Tammy Omdal from Northland Securities presented a draft of the 2012 TIF Analysis and Management Plan for EDA review. She highlighted the study process and accomplishments made by the EDA since the 2009 report, presented management strategies common to all districts, summarized district - specific strategies and focused on districts with management issues. Since 2009, the EDA has completed a downtown study, purchased property, provided funding for key road projects, taken action to call bonds, used special TIF pooling Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/20/t2 authority, met all annual obligations, and acted to decertify 5 TIF districts. There are fourteen active TIF Districts. The majority of these districts were created for housing and job growth. All districts are governed by four factors: state law when created, current state law, a TIF plan, and the development agreement. The Five Year rule requires that tax increments must be spent or obligated within 5 years of certification. After 5 years, spending is subject to pooling limits which constrains the ability to use funds for new purposes. TIF District decertification takes place when obligations are met. Remaining monies would be sent to the county for redistribution. TIF District 1 -5 and TIF District 1 -6 were created pre -1990 and are not subject to current limitations. TIF District 5 is eligible for decertification this year and TIF District 6 is eligible for decertification next year. There are management issues in three out of the fourteen parcels in districts created post -1990. The Five Year rule limits future use in TIF 1 -22 (Downtown District). The EDA could consider partial decertification to provide a source of excess funds. TIF 1 -35 (Landmark Square 1I) is a single parcel redevelopment in which the site is cleared but the project is not built so no increment is accruing. TIF 1 -36 (Dahlheimer Distributing) is a single parcel Economic Development District in which the internal loan is not projected to be repaid. TIF 1 -39 (Suburban Manufacturing) was certified this month as a new single parcel Economic Development District, Matt Frie asked about past issues with TIF District 1 -38 (Walker In Store), Tom Kelly noted that there was a slight negative ending balance. There was an internal loan for the land purchase. Rod Dragsten asked how the EDA handled that shortfall. Tom Kelly indicated that it became a land write -off. Staff noted that in the past the developer has had to pay the shortfall. Issues are considered on a case -by -case basis. Tammy Umdahl noted that staff and EDA comments and corrections would be reflected in the final report presented. TRACY HINZ MOVED TO ADOPT THE 2012 TIF MANAGEMENT PLAN. MATT FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. 5. Consideration of allocating funds from TIF 1 -5 for a transportation and beautification project Staff reported that the City Council would like the EDA to consider allocating $400,000 of 2 Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/20/12 TIF District 1 -5 funds to complete a transportation and beautification project at the intersection of Highway 25 and 7t' Street East. The project would include constructing a right turn lane from east bound 7th Street to Highway 25; constructing a two tier retaining wall along Highway 25 and a single tier retaining wall along 7th Street adjacent to the cemetery; and adding monument signs. The Embracing Downtown plan had outlined the need to improve the aesthetics along Highway 25 and identified a green plaza at the corner of 6th Street and Highway 25. City Council had allocated $75,000 to improve the appearance of the landscape wall along Highway 25 that abuts the cemetery. TIF District 1 -5 is set to expire at the end of 2012. It is estimated that the fund balance will be approximately $480,000. If the EDA does not allocate funds by that time, the funds will be returned to the County for redistribution. Bill Demcules asked how these improvements would affect 7th and Cedar. Staff indicated that, at this time, the EDA is. just being asked to consider the concept and funding sources. Matt Frie asked if it would be feasible to do the improvement project and where it would go. He also asked if using these funds for this improvement would reduce EDA ability to have funds available for a downtown project. Staff gave a few specifics about the plan and suggested that it would depend on what projects were ready to implement and what funding sources were utilized. He noted his dismay that the EDA would be focusing on aesthetic concerns at this point rather than land purchase. Bill Tapper suggested that the funds be used to purchase right of way for Fallon Avenue. Tom Perrault stated that utilizing excess funds for the purchase of property should be the EDA's priority and suggested waiting until year -end to make a decision about spending. Bill Demeules noted that the EDA must make a decision by September in order to have time to take action by year -end. Tom Kelly indicated that choosing to use excess TIF 1 -5 funds for land acquisition wasn't in the original TIF plan so it would be necessary to do a budget amendment as soon as possible. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO TABLE ALLOCATING SURPLUS TIF FOR TRANSPORTATION AND BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS ALONG HIGHWAY 25 AND EASTBOUND 7TH STREET FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION UNTIL THE AUGUST 8, 2012 EDA MEETING. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/20/12 6. Consideration of Anneal Process This item will be discussed at the next meeting. 7. Director Report Staff received notice from Braun Intertec that Phase lI of the environmental review for Fred's Auto had been completed. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been notified that there is some contamination on the site and will recommend a remediation action plan. It is expected to be a 2 -3 week wait before obtaining clear title status so that the EDA could close on the purchase of the property. Staff will bring a plan forward to the EDA at that time. Staff will also provide the most recent mapping of the Great River Trailways Project for the EDA as noted in the agenda packet. 8. Consideration of items added to the agenda a) Krutzig Property The City Council directed the EDA to determine if the purchase/holding of the 2.7- acre commercial parcel in Jefferson Commons owned by Mike Krutzig would be of interest. Mike Krutzig had originally purchased the property from the City. He asked the City to buy it back from him for a period of 24 months as it had become a financial burden. He is aware of some interest in the parcel. He pointed out that the parcel creates an important first impression of the local entertainment district. Bill DemeuIes shared his concern about depleting the General Fund with no mechanism to replenish it without a levy. Bill Tapper said that other potential purchases had more of an immediate EDA need. Tracy Hinz suggested that the priority must be downtown redevelopment. Tom Perrault questioned if the City should be in the real estate business. Matt Frie agreed that such a purchase would tie up a significant amount of the General Fund. BILL TAPPER MOVED NOT TO UTILIZE EDA GENERAL FUNDS TO PURCHASE THE KRUTZIG PROPERTY. MATT FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. 4 Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/20/12 Megan Barnett - Livgard asked if the EDA would be willing to explore the option of utilizing a 24 -month GMEF loan to purchase the Krutzig property. There was general EDA consensus. b) TIF 1 -19 Mississippi Shores Because the term for obligation of TIF District 1 -19 expired as of February 2012, Mississippi Shores no longer receives TIF payments twice a year. They are asking for EDA assistance in being reclassified as a 4D tax rate so that they would pay about 40% less in taxes for residential property. This would allow them to keep the rents from increasing and continue to provide a balanced mix of residential opportunities throughout the community. Bill Tapper asked why this issue was of concern to the EDA as it has nothing to do with tax rates. Staff indicated that the EDA need be aware of the impact of decertifying a district. Tracy Hinz asked why this situation had happened. Tom Kelly indicated that the property hadn't generated the tax that had been anticipated and the term had ended before the full obligation was realized. Staff reported that the Oakdale EDA has been dealing with same issue. The EDA would have to trade tax dollars to allow the Mississippi Shores to continue to operate low- income rental housing. Rod Dragsten confirmed that Mississippi Shores would become eligible for HUD dollars with the new tax classification. Bill Tapper asked if the TIF District could be extended. EDA attorneys said that extension would not be an option because the obligation was fulfilled. Tom Kelly clarified that the TIF District was eligible for decertification when the obligation was paid in full or by end of term. Excess TIF would be sent to the County and be redistributed at 40 %. Tracy Hinz confirmed that the excess housing funds could be used toward the proposed Podawiltz Development housing project. Megan Barnett Livgard said it could, however it would by no means meet their subsidy requirements. Bill Demeules noted that the EDA had created this TIF district to meet a need in the community and that a resolution of EDA support would help to keep Mississippi Shores functioning as a low income housing development. 5 Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/20/12 BILL TAPPER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH KENNEDY AND GRAVEN TO OBTAIN A LOW INCOME CLASSIFICATION FOR MISSISSIPPI SHORES. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. Staff confirmed that a proposed change in tax status would come before City Council for approval. Representatives from Kennedy & Graven and Mississippi Shores will be invited to attend the next EDA meeting. c) Finance Director Resignation. Tom Kelly will be returning to his previous position as Finance Director at White Bear Township. He thanked the EDA for their support and let them know how much he'd enjoyed working with them. Tom Perrault said that Tom Kelly is top in his field and will be missed. 9. Adiourn MATT FRIE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:28 P.M. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. Recorder: Approved: Attest: Kerry T. Burri �� 6 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING — MONTICELLO EDA AND MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, June 20, 2012 — 4 :30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present - EDA: President Bill Dem.eules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Tracy Hinz, Matt Frie, Rod Dragsten, Tom Perrault (Council rep) Present - Council: Mayor Clint Herbst, Lloyd Hilgart Absent - Council: Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf Others: Megan Barnett Livgard, Tom Kelly, Jeff O'Neill, Charlie Pfeffer, Jim McComb, Steve Johnson, Barry Fluth, Shawn Grady, Sue Swiecichowski 1. Call to Order EDA President Bill Demeules called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. 2. Purpose of Meeting: Review Pfeffer land opportunities and provide ReSTOREing Downtown update Megan Barnett Livgard introduced Charlie Pfeffer and explained that he would like to talk about his company and possible opportunities in Monticello. 3. Review Pfeffer Land Opportunities (EDA Protocol) Charlie Pfeffer explained that his company is out of Maple Grove and has a 20 year presence in Monticello. Charlie Pfeffer displayed a map of Monticello and the locations where they have had a presence in Monticello. The first 2 acquisitions were called Monticello Land Company Inc. and involved a residential development and an industrial component that was acquired through an auction (Monticello Commerce Center). They have provided some land for the new freeway exchange of about 14.4 acres and created a pond in that area. Some of that industrial land is available for sale. A successor company, Ocello LLC, was formed after this and was involved in a 160 -acre residential development along School Boulevard, consisting of both single family and townhomes. Ocello was also involved in the development of Walmart in this area and has several vacant parcels that are available for sale. Another piece of property involved the development of Autumn Ridge townhomes, which is not built out yet. Ocello provided financing for the development of homes south of Autumn Ridge and was also involved in the Groveland Additions which consist of single family homes. Ocello developed the business center where Steele Collision is located. Ocello also owns other vacant land in the southwest portion of the City. Charlie Pfeffer noted that there is a total of over 1000 acres included in all of the land and developments that have involved his company and Ocello. This has generated a huge investment in Monticello in revenues and tax base. Charlie Pfeffer talked about some of Special Joint Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2012 page 1 the collaboration between the City and Ocello, LLC on certain projects that benefited both parties, such as stormwater ponds. Charlie Pfeffer mentioned that they had the opportunity to bring the Albertville Outlet Mall to Monticello but the opportunity was missed by the community. He also discussed efforts to bring Kohl's to Monticello some years ago, but the management of Kohl's decided not to pursue that location. Charlie Pfeffer worked on the Mills Fleet Farm project and is hoping they will decide to build in Monticello soon. Charlie Pfeffer discussed the Interchange project, the contributions made by Ocello as part of that project, and the assessment agreements that resulted from that project. He noted that the Council has been generous in adjusting their assessment agreements to allow a longer payback period. Jeff O'Neill thanked Charlie Pfeffer for his condensed representation of the involvement of his company and Ocello in the City. Charlie Pfeffer complimented the EDA on its Embracing Downtown project. He questioned the role of the City when they receive inquiries from persons interested in developing in the City, Jeff O'Neill commented that the City's goal is to match each person with the best opportunity for them to locate and develop within the City. Charlie Pfeffer stated that his company has not received any inquiries in some time and was wondering if that was normal. Jeff O'Neill noted that the City has received very few inquiries itself. Charlie Pfeffer asked about TIF financing and the EDA's approach to that. Bill Demeules explained that each project is looked at individually and treated equally as far as a package that would be available based on the type of project. There would be no difference if the project was on city -owned land or on private land, The criteria is applied equally to any project that would qualify for TIF. Megan Barnett Livgard summarized the Business Subsidy Policy that addresses how the EDA would look at a project. On a case -by -case basis, they review job creation and tax base without regard to public or private land ownership. Megan Barnett Livgard stated that the City provides contact information for all land companies and developers that inquire on available land. Charlie Pfeffer stated that he would like to have his company included on any contact lists. Megan Barnett Livgard noted that they are the list she maintains. Charlie Pfeffer also commented on the highway si.gnage that is regulated by MnDOT and was concerned about the ability to place signs within certain distance of freeway exits. He felt that the City may want to contact MnDOT regarding this. 4. ReSTOREing Downtown Update (Jim McComb) Megan Barnett Livgard introduced Jim McComb and explained that he would be updating Council and EDA members about the progress that has been made on the Embracing Downtown project. Jim McComb handed out information on financing for the anchor blocks and Block 34. Jim McComb referred participants to the anchor block drawing in the handout. McComb reviewed preliminary development numbers to acquire Special Joint Meeting Minutes —June 20, 2012 page 2 land and construct a parking lot. He further reviewed the increased tax value that would be realized from the improvements. Jim McComb feels that there would be strong interest from certain companies to locate in Monticello. Megan Barnett Livgard summarized that the City would need to subsidize about $1 million to develop an anchor block. Tracy Hinz asked if the subsidy information is new; Jim confirmed that is new. He knew the project would be expensive but needed to finish the study on the parking before he knew the actual costs and revenues. Jeff O'Neill asked what the cost would be to the anchor store. Jim explained that they would pay for the pad site at $S per square foot. Jim McComb talked about the common parking area and how that would be negotiated with an anchor store to pay for costs. Clint Herbst asked if there would be annual maintenance costs charged to users. Jim McComb noted that his estimates were based on one -time construction costs of the common areas. Jeff O'Neill commented that the maintenance of common areas is often revenue - neutral; it doesn't necessarily generate income because there is a cost for the City for upkeep. Jim McComb talked about the complexities of negotiating financing to induce large anchor stores to locate in a community. They expect certain things in exchange for locating in your community. Jim McComb next discussed Block 34 and noted that there is basically one parcel needed to complete the acquisition to redevelop in that block. He summarized what has been accomplished so far in that block. His financial analysis shows this proj ect would require a subsidy to complete the improvements. Lloyd Hilgart asked why Jim McComb did not include some scenarios on possible costs for property acquisition on his handout. Jim explained that there are still some unknowns right now. Jim McComb is assisting in negotiations and is not able to disclose information at this time. Jim McComb talked about an inquiry from a potential interest but could not pair them with a site because there is not an available downtown site for them to negotiate with the City. The City has a plan but not available land sites in the downtown. Megan Barnett Livgard explained further that interested end users expect to come into a community and have sites available. Lloyd Hilgart stated that he thinks that someone that is interested in coming into Monticello will find a place that will work for them. Lloyd Hilgart mentioned that they are having difficulties making things work for Ace Hardware, so how could the City expect to make things work for an anchor block. Clint Herbst concurred with Lloyd Hilgart and expressed his concern at knocking down buildings to make available sites. Clint Herbst would like to see them focus on getting Ace Hardware moved so that they can then look at developing that site. Jim McComb commented on being aware that the City is limited in its ability to condemn property for redevelopment. Clint Herbst noted that Council would not be interested in pursuing condemnation. Shawn Grady commented on his thoughts regarding acquisition of the property that he needs in order to move to Block 34 and the other potential costs Special Joint Meeting Minutes —June 20, 2012 Page 3 involved with relocating his business. Clint Herbst feels that this is still a good project for the City; however it is necessary to do more work to determine the anticipated costs. Lloyd Hilgart commented on his concern that this has been discussed for many months, but they have not seen a site plan to make sure that this project will work on the site. Lloyd Hilgart suggested that it would still be helpful to have numbers inserted in the formula for land acquisition on this given site and recommended using the County value or multiple values. Tracy Hinz asked Jim McComb to talk about the minimum subsidy that they could expect to come up with for Block 34 improvements. Jim McComb reviewed a few different subsidy estimates. Lloyd Hilgart asked where those fiends would come from. Megan Barnett Livgard explained that would be a package that the EDA would put together, based on the needs of the developer /property owner and City. Jim McComb will provide information to Megan Barnett Livgard on what the numbers look like to make this project work in Block 34, 5. Adjournment BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:56 P.M. MATT FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. Recorder: Catherine M. Shuman Approved: July 9, 2012 Attest: Ci inistrator Special Joint Meeting Minutes — June 20, 2012 Page 4 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Thursday, June 28, 2012 — 7:30 a.m. Commissioners Present: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Tracy Hinz, Rod Dragsten, and Council Members Tom Perrault and Brian Stumpf Commissioners Absent: Matt Frie Staff Present: Executive Director Megan Barnett - Livgard, Finance Director Tom Kelly, Jeff O'Neill 1. Call to Order Bill Demeules called the special meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. 2. Purpose The purpose of the special meeting is to consider the option of purchasing commercial property owned by Mike Krutzig using a Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) loan. 3. Consideration of utilizing a GMEF loan to purchase property owned by Mike Krutzi The EDA had at their June 20, 2012 meeting, decided against utilizing the EDA general fund to purchase Mike Krutzig's 2.7 acre commercial parcel located in Jefferson Commons. Mike Krutzig had proposed that the EDA purchase the property, which the City had originally owned, and allow him the opportunity to repurchase it in 24 months or less when the economy turns around. He indicated that he had a lead on a buyer who may be interested in purchasing the parcel this fall for building next spring but that he was unable to continue to carry the cost of owning the property at this time. Megan Barnett - Livgard had suggested researching the option of purchasing this parcel utilizing a GMEF loan. Discussions with the EDA Attorney Kennedy & Graven underlined that such subsidies are to be tied to wage goals and number of jobs created by a business. Purchasing the property with a GMEF loan would provide a business subsidy to a developer with no end user or jobs created. Doing so would be a policy decision that would set a precedent for future GMEF loan requests. Rod Dragsten asked for some background about the GMEF. Although the fund was initially established with liquor store funding in 1988, the $1.2 million currently in the fund is the result of interest income and repayment of loans and grants according to Bill Demeules. Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/28/12 Staff pointed out that GMEF rules allow expenditure of half of the GMEF fund balance for one applicant at one time to be utilized for development or equipment. Bill Demeules was concerned that if the EDA were to purchase the property and structure it with a two -year buyback provision that it could be seen as bridge financing or bailing out a developer. He pointed out that the EDA would be unable to liquidate those funds to replenish the fund should other loan needs arise. Staff is currently aware of two other potential GMEF loan applicants. He indicated that the EDA could make a straight GMEF loan purchase with no buy back and pursue selling the property to recoup the cost. He noted that money from the sale would go toward replenishing the GMEF fiend. Brian Stumpf also wondered if it would be appropriate for the EDA to purchase the property outright and then sell it to someone else within a short time frame. Bill Tapper shared his concern about the policy impact of purchasing a parcel which is not an immediate priority for downtown redevelopment. He was also concerned that the EDA might have to hold the property for some time. Tracy Hinz indicated that she is not in favor of moving forward with a GMEF loan. Rod Dragsten noted that the purchase would run the GMEF balance down and limit future opportunities. He suggested that, although there may be a potential for the EDA to make money by purchasing the property, there hasn't yet been an indication of a lot of economic growth in the area. Mike Krutzig pointed out that he has tried to do his part for development in Monticello by building three strip malls. He hoped that asking the EDA to support him in this effort wouldn't be perceived as a bailout. Jeff O'Neill noted the importance of supporting development throughout the community. Tom Kelly stated that it may not make sense for the EDA to purchase the property but that perhaps the city could purchase the land as it already owns other parcels in Jefferson Commons. He also suggested that the City could consider purchasing the property with the intention of establishing a second liquor store. However he stated that this location may not be the ideal location for another liquor store. There was some consideration of returning the matter to the City Council for further review. BILL TAPPER MOVED THAT THE EDA NOT UTILIZE A GMEF LOAN TO PURCHASE THE PARCEL OWNED BY MIKE KRUTZIG AND RECOMMENDED Economic Development Authority Minutes 06/28/12 THAT THE ISSUE OF. PROPERTY PURCHASE BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FUTHER REVIEW. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 4. Adiournrnent BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 8:03 AM. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. Recorder: Approved: Attest: Kerry T. Burri July 11, 2012 EDA 7.11.12 4. Consideration of recommendine the City Council enter into a Continuine Affordable Senior. Housing Agreement with PHS /Monticello (Presbyterian Homes) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA created TIF District 1 -19 in 1995 for the purpose of establishing an affordable apartment project for senior citizens. The Development Agreement outlines an obligation of $332,129 plus 8% interest rate to be paid through a PAYGO note. The obligation term date expired in February of this year. This means that the developer (Presbyterian Homes) is no longer receiving an annual TIF payment of approximately $27,000. It should also be noted that the TIF obligation was not paid in full before the TIF term expired. According to Ehlers there is about $30,000 dollars that did not get paid to the developer. Unfortunately, valuation in property taxes and legislative changes may have contributed to part of this situation. Due to the fact that Presbyterian Homes is no longer receiving TIF PAYGO payments, they are exploring other options to fill this "gap" in order to continue to keep the units financially affordable for Monticello senior citizens. One opportunity is to apply for a 4D Tax Classification with the MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). The 4D Tax classification would lower the tax rate only on the units that are declared "affordable." In order to apply with MHFA, Presbyterian Homes needs to receive approval from the local government agency. The City of Oakdale has received the same request from Presbyterian Homes. Steve Bubal from Kennedy and Graven has been working with both Monticello and Oakdale to establish acceptable terms and outline the correct process. The attached agreement outlines proposed terms between Monticello and Presbyterian Homes. Basically, Presbyterian Homes will agree to keep at least 20% of the rental units affordable (to date they are at 40% affordable) to seniors and will submit documentation on a yearly basis. The agreement also states that in 10 years the City will review the agreement and determine if they want to continue the lower tax classification. It is estimated that the City would receive approximately 40% less in tax revenue or about $15,800 yearly based on a 4D tax rate versus a standard residential rate. This assumes all 49 units are established as low income and per the contract only 20% of the units will be classified as 4D. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends alternative 91. Mississippi Shores is a well established and respected affordable rental housing option for senior citizens in Monticello. There is typically a waiting list for their units; which reinforces the necessity and demand for affordable senior citizen housing products in Monticello. Currently about 40% of the units are occupied by seniors that are at an income level of 60% or less of the area median gross income. As a point of reference the current Wright County area median income EDA 7.11.12 is just over $66,000 /annually. The developer has provided documentation showing the inability for the project to cash flow without some type of assistance. Receiving a lower tax rate will assist a developer in the ability to keep rents affordable for Monticello senior citizens. Seniors are typically on fixed incomes and will have a difficult time adjusting to an increase in rents. The need to provide affordable life -cycle housing at all levels is a goal stated in the Places to Live section of the comprehensive plan as follows: Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life -cycle with aging, people may desire smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the elderly transition to housing associated with options for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. These factors will influence the housing needs of Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello. This balance may not be achieved solely by market forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City may be needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the market. Lastly, TIF District 1 -19 will be decertified this year. This means the apartment complex will be put back on the general tax roll for the City, County, and school district to realize. The City will still experience a tax net gain even with approving the proposed less than $15,000 decrease in taxes. C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend the City Council enter into the Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement with PHS/Monticello Inc establishing a 4D tax classification. 2. Motion to recommend the City Council deny entering into an agreement with PHS/Monticello establishing a 4D tax classification. 3. Motion to table action for further research and discussion. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement between the City of Monticello and PHS/Monticello Inc. 2 CONTINUING AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND PHSIMONTICELLO, INC. This document drafted by: Janna R. Severance Presbyterian Homes and Services 2845 Hamline Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I ..................................................................................................... ............................... .... 3 Section1.1. Definitions .......................................................................... ............................... 3 ARTICLEII ............................ ............................................................................. ............................... 4 Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City ....................... ............................... 4 Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of the Developer ............. ............................... 4 ARTICLEIII ........................................................................................................ ............................... 5 Section 3.1. Compliance With Low and Moderate Income Requirements ............................. 5 Section3.2. Recordation ........................................................................ ............................... 5 Section3.3. LIRC ................................................................................... ............................... 5 ARTICLE IV ............................................................................. ............................... ... 6 ........................ Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined ................................................... ............................... 6 Section 4.2. Remedies on Default .......................................................... ............................... 6 Section 4.3. No Implied Waiver .............................................................. ............................... 6 Section 4.4. Indemnification of City ........................................................ ............................... 6 ARTICLEV ......................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Section 5.1 The Developer's Option to Terminate .................................. ............................... 7 Section 5.2 Effect of Termination ........................................................... ............................... 7 ARTICLEVI ........................................................................................................ ............................... 8 Section 6.1. Restrictions on Use ............................................................ ............................... 8 Section 6.2. Conflicts of Interest ............................................................. ............................... 8 Section 6.3. Titles of Articles and Sections ............................................. ............................... 8 Section 6.4. Notices and Demands ........................................................ ............................... 8 Section 6.5. Counterparts, ...................................................................... ............................... 8 Section 6.6. Law Governing ................................................................... ............................... 8 Section6.7. Expiration ........................................................................... ............................... 8 Section 6.8. Legal an Administrative Expenses .................................... ............................... 8 Section 6.9. Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration... ................................................ 9 Signatures....................... ....... ............................... ..... .10 -11 Exhibits....................... .................... ..........................12 -13 2 CONTINUING AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the day of , 2012, by and between the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City "), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and PHSIMonticello, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Developer "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer owns and operates a 49 -unit senior housing building (the "Project "), which is located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -19 (the "TIF District "), a housing district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 467.176, subd. 11 and also within Redevelopment Project No. 1 under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.046; and WHEREAS, the City, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "HRA ") and Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc., ( "PHHAL ") previously entered into a Contract for Private Development dated July 1, 1995 (the "TIF Contract "), under which the HRA provided certain tax increment financing assistance to facilitate development of the Project, and the PHHAL agreed to subject a portion of the units in the Project to certain income and rent restrictions in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1761; and WHEREAS, Developer is the successor in interest to the PHHAL with respect to the TIF Contract; and WHEREAS, the TIF Contract has expired, but Developer is willing to ensure that at least 20% of the units in the Project continue to meet certain income and rent limits as described in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, in consideration of Developer's promise to maintain affordable senior rental housing in the City for an extended period after termination of the TIF Contract, the City is willing to facilitate classification of the Project as "qualifying low- income rental housing ( "LIRC ") within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.128 and 273.13, subd. 25(e) (the "Act "), thereby reducing property taxes for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Monticello Economic Development Authority ( °EDA "), as successor to the HRA, has requested that the City enter into this Agreement in order to further the EDA's goals of maintaining the availability of housing for low income elderly persons is vital and in the best interests of the City of Monticello, the health, safety, morals and welfare of residents of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with.the other as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: Act means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.128 and 273.13, subd. 25(e), as amended. Affiliate means "Affiliate" means with respect to the Developer (a) any corporation, partnership, or other business entity or person controlling., controlled by or under common control with the Developer, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words "controlling ", "controlled by" and "under common control with" shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, corporation or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such entity, possession, directly or indirectly, or the power to direct or cause the direction of management policies of such entity, whether ownership of voting securities or by contract or otherwise. Agreement means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended or supplemented; Business Day means any day except a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close; City means the City of Monticello, Minnesota; County means Wright County, Minnesota; Developer means PHSIMonticello, Inc., its successors and assigns; Event of Default means any of the events described in Section 4.1 hereof; Legal and Administrative Expenses means the fees and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the adoption and administration of this Agreement during its term; LIRC means qualifying low- income rental housing classification as further defined in the Act. Project means the 49 unit senior citizen residential rental housing facility currently known as "Mississippi Shores," that is owned by the Developer and located in the City, legally described in Exhibit A; State means the State of Minnesota; ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The City is a municipal corporation and has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (2) The low income housing for seniors contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the EDA's and City's objectives to provide affordable housing, and furthers the requirements previously imposed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1761. Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The Developer has power to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder. (2) The Developer will use its best efforts to obtain, and maintain all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met to operate the Project as senior rental housing the Project may be lawfully constructed. rd (3) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provision of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. ARTICLE III UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY Section 3.1. Compliance With Low and Moderate Income Requirements. The Developer covenants that at least 20% of the residential units in the Project will be occupied by individuals whose income is 50% or less of area median gross income, as determined from time to time by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The rent for any such designated unit shall not exceed 30% of the resident's income. The Developer will establish such monitoring procedures with respect to applicants for and occupants of dwelling units in the Project as the City may reasonably require to ensure compliance with this requirement. On or before July 1 each year during the term of this Agreement, commencing July 1, 2013, the Developer shall submit to the City's Community Development Director: (a) a Compliance Certificate in the form attached as Exhibit B covering the 12 month period preceding the date of the Compliance Certificate certifying that the Project is in compliance with the provisions, and (b) supporting data, in a form provided by the City, showing at a minimum (i) the maximum rent under the 30% of income test for that reporting year; (ii) the actual rent for all units; (iii) the maximum income under the 50% test for that reporting year; and (iv) the actual income for occupants of all units that meet the income test. Upon request from the City at any time, Developer shall make available to the City detailed Project records that evidence the conclusions stated in any Compliance Certificate or supporting data form. Section 3.2. Recordation. This Agreement, or a Memorandum thereof, at the option of the Developer, shall be filed with the Wright County Recorder. Section 3.3 LIRC. Developer is solely responsible to seek and obtain LIRC treatment for the Property in accordance with the Act. The parties agree and understand that Developer will first apply for LIRC treatment in the 2013 levy year, for taxes payable in 2014, and will seek annual renewal through the 2022 levy year, for taxes payable in 2023. Developer shall notify City in writing each year promptly after Developer receives notice of the property tax classification for the Property, confirming whether or not the Property has received LIRC designation for the subject levy year. The City shall co- operate with the Developer in any effort to obtain and annually renew the status of the Project as LIRC treatment under the Act for purposes of property taxation in Minnesota and Wright County. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City makes no warranties or representations that the Property is eligible for, or will receive, LIRC treatment. ARTICLE IV EVENTS OF DEFAULT Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean whenever it is used in this Agreement any one or more of the Project: (a) Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real property taxes assessed with respect to the Project. (b) Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any other covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement. (c) If the Developer shall (A) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar federal or state law; or (B) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or (C) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (D) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer proposing the adjudication of the Developer, as a bankrupt or its reorganization under any present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within sixty (60) days after the filing thereof; or a receiver, trustee or liquidator of the Developer, or of the Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceeding brought against the Developer, and shall not be discharged within sixty (60) days after such appointment, or if the Developer, shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment. Section 4.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 4.1 occurs and is continuing, the City may: (a) cancel and rescind the Agreement, but only after giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the Developer and only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days; (b) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable (including without limitation specific performance) to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement. Section 4.3. No Implied Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder., Section 4.4. Indemnification of City. (1) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that the City, its governing body members, officers, agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, L servants and employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Section, collectively the "Indemnified Parties ") shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Project, provided that the foregoing indemnification shall not be effective for any actions of the Indemnified Parties that are not contemplated by this Agreement. (2) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of the Indemnified Parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from the actions or inactions of the Developer (or if other persons acting on its behalf or under its direction or control) under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Project; provided, that this indemnification shall not apply to the warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City in this Agreement or to any actions undertaken by the City which are not contemplated by this Agreement. (3) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the City, as the case may be. ARTICLE V DEVELOPER'S OPTION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT Section 5.1 The Developer's Option to Terminate. This Agreement may be terminated by the Developer effective upon written notice to the City if no uncured Event of Default under Section 4.1 has occurred and any of the following events has occurred: (1) the City has failed to comply with any material term of this Agreement, and, after written notice by the Developer of such failure, the City has failed to cure such noncompliance within sixty (60) days after the date of such notice, or, if such noncompliance cannot reasonably be cured by the City within said sixty (60) days, the City has not provided assurances, reasonably satisfactory to the Developer, that such noncompliance will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, (ii) the Developer has complied with all requirements under the Act to apply for or renew LIRC classification, but Project has been denied LIRC classification, initially, or upon any renewal, (iii) the Project is taken by exercise of eminent domain, (iv) the Project is destroyed or damaged and the cost to replace or repair is estimated to exceed $1 million, (v) the Developer sells or leases the Project as a whole to any party other than an Affiliate, (vi) the Developer is no longer controlled, directly or indirectly, by Presbyterian Homes and Services, or (vii) the Act is amended to materially alter the eligibility criteria for LIRC such that the Project as administered under this Agreement would not comply; or (viii) the Act is amended to materially increase the LIRC tax rate. Section 5.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Article V, this Agreement shall be from such date forward null and void and of no further effect; provided, however, the termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights of either party to institute any action, claim or demand for damages suffered as a result of breach or default of the terms of this Agreement by the other party, or to recover amounts which had accrued and become due and payable as of the date of such termination. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Article V, the Developer shall be free to operate the Project without regard to the provisions of this Agreement. 7 ARTICLE VI ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 6.1. Restrictions on Use. The Developer agrees that during the term of this Agreement it shall operate, or cause to be operated, the Project as an elderly residential rental housing facility that meets the affordability requirements described in this Agreement. Section 6.2. Conflicts of Interest. No member of the governing body or other official of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such member of the governing body or other official participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested. No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the City in the event of any default or breach by the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Section 6.3. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, articles and sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 6.4. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, and (a) in the case of the Developer is addressed to or delivered personally to: PHSIMonticello, Inc. 2845 Hamline Ave. North Roseville, MN 55113 Attn: CFO (b) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at: City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section. Section 6.5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 6.6. Law Governing. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State. Section 6.7. Expiration. This Agreement shall expire at the end of the tax -levy year ending December 31, 2022, unless earlier terminated or rescinded in accordance with its terms. Section 6.8. Legal and Administrative Expenses. Developer shall pay all City out of pocket Legal and Administrative Expenses, within 10 Business Days after receipt of a written invoice from the City reasonably describing the costs incurred. E-3 Section 6.9. Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration. Section 4.4 shall survive any rescission, termination or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or arising out of any event, occurrence or circumstance existing prior to the date thereof. Further, Developer's obligation to pay any Legal and Administrative Expenses incurred prior to the effective date of termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive under Sections 5.1 or 6.7. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed, and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, on or as of the date first above written. I I. I CEO] 111 0101151* ] 0106 7 211111 011 By Its Mayor By Its City Administrator This is a signature page to the Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement by and between the City of Monticello and PHS /Monticello, Inc. 10 PHSIMONTICELLO, INC. By Its This is a signature page to the Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement by and between the City of Monticello and PHSIMonticello, Inc. 11 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Project Lot 2, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 3, Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital District Campus, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, MN (Abstract Property) 12 EXHIBIT B COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE The undersigned of PHS /Monticello, Inc. does hereby certify that as of the date of this Certificate (i) not less than 20% of the residential units in the housing project as defined in the Continuing Affordable Senior Housing Agreement dated as of , 2012 between PHSIMonticello, Inc. and the City of Monticello (the "Project ") are occupied by Individuals whose income is 50% or less of area median gross income, and (ii) the Project meets all of the requirements of a low- income housing credit under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended. See attached form for detail. Dated this day of , 2012. PHS /MONTICELLO, INC. Is 13 EDA 7.11.12 5. Consideration of revisine the Monticello Relocation Assistance Policy to include an appeal process for displaced residents and businesses A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council and EDA approved a Relocation Assistance Policy in March of 2012. Staff noted at a future meeting a Relocation Assistance Appeal Policy would be brought to the EDA for consideration. Staff contacted Dan Wilson from Wilson Development, reviewed Brooklyn Park's relocation appeal policy, and read through MN State Statutes in an effort to determine the best way to approach the appeals process. The process is well defined in the MN State Statute. It states, if a business or resident being displaced disagrees with the relocation benefits negotiated with the EDA. They have the right to appeal through the Administrative Law Judge process outlined in MN State Statute 117.52 sub 4. section 14.57 — 14.66. The EDA is responsible to pay for the appeal process and furthermore the statue states the Judge's decision is the final decision on the dispute. Due to the fact the process is well defined and addressed in MN State Statue, staff and Dan Wilson are proposing to simply add a paragraph to the existing Monticello Relocation Assistance Policy. The language simply identifies that the EDA will follow MN State Statute for any relocation assistance dispute. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends alternative #1. C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt the Monticello Relocation Policy with revised language stating the EDA will follow MN State Statue to resolve relocation assistance disputes. 2. Motion to deny the revised Monticello Relocation Policy. 3. Motion to table action for further research and discussion. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Monticello Relocation Assistance Policy MONTICELLO RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICY The Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) is committed to actively promoting new development and redevelopment within the City of Monticello. From time to time, development activities may lead to displacement of tenants, homeowners, property owners, and /or businesses. The EDA recognizes the hardship this creates and is committed to minimizing the impact of displacement. If displacement occurs, the EDA will use its best efforts to minimize this hardship guided by this policy. Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.52 to 117.56 (State Relocation Act) shall govern the circumstances in which a person or business is eligible for relocation benefits in connection with acquisition, development, or redevelopment projects involving the City of Monticello. Subject to the terms of the State Relocation ACT the EDA will provide advisory services to any displaced person or business reasonable and necessary to minimize the hardship of displacement. The EDA will provide all services reasonable and necessary to ensure the relocation process does not result in different or separate treatment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 4. The EDA will work in good faith with displaced businesses to facilitate retention of such businesses in the City of Monticello. Replacement housing payments must be used to lease or purchase decent, safe, and sanitary housing. For the purpose of this policy, a person is classified as "low- income" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Survey of Income Limits for the Public Housing and Section 8 Programs. This survey is updated annually and available through the Federal Highway Administration's website at hiip://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/ua/ualic.htm. The EDA will follow State Statute rules if a person entitled to relocation assistance does not accept the relocation benefits offered. The EDA will initiate contested case proceedings under sections 14.57 to 14.66 for a determination of the relocation assistance that must be provided. The administrative law judge's determination of relocation assistance that the EDA must provide constitutes a final decision in the case, as provided in section 14.62, subdivision 4. ADOPTED BY the Monticello Economic Development Authority this 11th day of July, 2012. CITY OF MONTICELLO Bill Demeules, President ATTEST: Megan Barnett Livgard, Executive Director EDA 7.11.12 6. Consideration of authorizing the lowest bidder to complete the MPCA required Limited Site Investigation (LSI) property located at 349 Broadway Street (Fred's Auto Body) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA authorized Braun Intertec to complete a Phase II Environmental Assessment of the property known as Fred's Auto Body. The report indicates the soil and ground water is contaminated. As required by MN State law, Braun Intertec reported the findings to the MPCA within 24 hours. MPCA is requiring the property owner to complete a Limited Site Investigation (LSI). Since the EDA is in the process of purchasing the property it seems most appropriate for the Authority to lead this process. If the EDA desires to seek a grant from the MN Department of Commerce for petroleum clean up, we must obtain two bids to complete the required LSL Staff has obtained a bid from Braun Intertec ($7,611) and Carlson McCain (7,854.19). The lowest bidder is Braun Intertec. Once the MPCA receives the LSI report they will then provide the EDA with their ruling and outline the next set of requirements. Upon receiving MPCA's clean-up requirements and regulations, staff will then apply for a Petro Fund Grant. Staff will work with the property owner to establish a closing date the week of July 16th or July 23rd. It is important for the EDA to understand that the Petro Fund is a 90% reimbursable grant program over $10,000. Staff is seeking clarification on the $10,000 caveat from the MN Department of Commerce. In the event the EDA is not comfortable moving forward with a closing this would be the time to evaluate the decision and provide staff with concrete direction. However, staff is assuming that the EDA does not desire to wait until the LSI report is completed and MPCA has provided their clean up ruling before closing on the subject property. As this process could take 2 -6 months to complete, depending on the results and MPCA ruling. A.1 Budget: Staff is proposing to utilize the EDA general fund for the $7,611 LSI fee. It is anticipated that a portion of this fee is reimbursable through the Petro Fund Grant. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends alternative 91. C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to authorize Braun Intertec to complete an LSI of the property known as Fred's Auto Body. EDA 7.11.12 2. Motion to table action for further research and discussion. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Braun Intertec Proposal Carlson McCain Proposal 0 June 26, 2012 Ms. Megan Barnett - Livgard City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Braun Intertec Corporation 3404 151^ Avenue East Suite 9 Hibbing, MN 55746 Re: Proposal for Standard Scope Limited Site Investigation Fred's Auto Repair 349 Broadway Street West Monticello, MN 55362 MPCA Leak # 18780 Dear Ms. Barnett - Livgard: Proposal SC- 12- 02455A Phone: 218.263.8869 Fax: 218.263.6700 Web: brounintertec.corn Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) is pleased to present the following Proposal for a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) at the referenced property. The proposed scope of work is based on the MPCA requirements for a Standard Scope LSI. If information is available that indicates a different scope of work is required, this Proposal can be revised. The Proposal describes our general approach to the project and outlines our qualifications for the work. Scope of Services We have based our cost estimate on the following scope of work, as outlined in the Standard Scope bid form: 1. Clear underground utilities. 2. Notify the MPCA in advance of field work, notify the MPCA of important investigation findings, and communicate with the applicant regarding scheduling and investigative results. 3. Complete a risk evaluation in accordance with MPCA Fact Sheet 3.20 including a water well, vapor and surface water receptor survey. 4. Advance four push probes to an approximate depth of 25 feet below ground surface and one push probe to an approximate depth of 40 feet below ground surface at the site (or to depth required by MPCA Guidance Document 4 -01). Advance three push probes to an approximate depth of 8 feet below ground surface for collection of a soil gas samples. Determine depth to groundwater in each boring. 5. Collect soil samples continuously from the borings for geologic classification and field screening using a photoionization detector (PID) following MPCA headspace techniques. 6. Collect three soil samples for sieve analysis. 7. Collect six soil samples to be analyzed at the Pace laboratory for diesel range organics (DRO), gasoline range organics (GRO) and benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes /methyl- tertiary- butyl- ether (BETX /MTBE). Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Fred's Auto Repair Proposal SC- 12- 02455A June 26, 2012 Page 2 S. Collect five groundwater samples from push probe borings using temporary wells (if needed), to be analyzed at the Pace laboratory for DRO, GRO and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 9. Collect appropriate QA /QC samples for laboratory analysis including trip blank and duplicate. 10. Conduct a vapor intrusion assessment in accordance with MPCA guidance document 4 -01a. An air sample will be collected from three push probe borings using Summa canisters and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method TO -15 using MPCA recommended methods. 11. Prepare a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Report as required by MPCA. Qualifications Based in Minneapolis, Braun Intertec has completed hundreds of remedial investigations at sites throughout Minnesota and the Midwest. We have provided a variety of environmental consulting and contractual services to hundreds of clients in various industries. Services performed include conducting underground storage tank site assessments, Phase I and Phase II environmental property assessments, contract drilling, laboratory analytical services, remedial investigations, designing and installing remediation systems, site monitoring, conducting system operation, maintenance and monitoring, and obtaining site closures. Braun Intertec also provides other property development related services including asbestos and lead paint testing, geotechnical engineering and building condition assessments. As a turnkey operation providing laboratory and drilling contractor services, Braun Intertec offers flexible response to project needs. When needed, subcontractors are chosen on the basis of our experience with their quality of work, scheduling flexibility, and breadth of services. Investigative and environmental cleanup technologies, which Braun Intertec applies to its projects, range from the standard to the innovative, and are chosen to expedite site closure in the most cost- efficient manner. The choice of a given technology is based on its suitability to the site and the approval of the MPCA and the client. Braun Intertec strives to propose solutions that save time and money, as well as minimize the risk of liability. Petrofund Requirements The Minnesota Department of Commerce Petroleum Release Compensation Fund (Petrofund) provides a means of reimbursing tank owners for up to 90 percent of the costs of investigation and cleanup related to UST releases. We will strive to conduct the work in a manner that will allow you to seek Petrofund reimbursement to the maximum extent possible. At your request, we can provide assistance with Petrofund applications. Cost Estimate Costs for completing the scope of services listed above are listed on the attached Petrofund Limited Site Investigation Proposal and Invoice Form. The total estimated cost for completing the scope of work is $7,611.00. The actual costs may be more or less than the estimate above; however, the total cost will not be exceeded by more than 10 percent without your additional authorization. Costs presented in this Proposal are based on the scope of work and assumptions stated above. If additional work or personnel are required, additional charges will be on a time- and - materials basis following the unit costs proposed. BRAUN NTE RTEC Fred's Auto Repair Proposal SC- 12- 02455A June 26, 2012 Page 3 Costs included in this Proposal are based on the assumption that the Proposal will be authorized within 30 days. If the project is not authorized within 30 days, we reserve the right to resubmit the cost estimate. Terms of payment are due upon receipt of invoice with interest added to unpaid balances, in accordance with the attached General Conditions, which are a part of this proposed contract. Project Schedule We will begin work on this project upon receipt of your written authorization. Based on our current schedule, we anticipate that we could mobilize to the site within approximately two to three weeks after receiving authorization. Laboratory results from the initial sampling should be available two weeks after completion of field work. if site closure is recommended, the LSI Report will be completed in approximately four weeks after the date of our field work. If site closure is not recommended, we will contact you after review of laboratory data to discuss MPCA requirements for additional investigation. General Braun Intertec will contact Gopher State One -Calf to request that they make arrangements for public utility representatives to determine the locations of public underground utilities. Braun Intertec requests that you or your authorized representative notify the Braun Intertec project manager immediately of the presence and location of any underground objects, which are not the responsibility of public utilities. In authorizing this proposed contract, you agree to waive any claim against Braun Intertec and will indemnify and hold Braun Intertec harmless from any claim of liability, injury or loss allegedly arising from the damaging of underground objects not called to our attention prior to beginning the work. We appreciate the opportunity to present this Proposal to you, and look forward to working with you. If you have any questions, please call Andrea Flynn at 320.202.7239. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Andrea R. Flynn Staff Scientist r Ted R. Hubbes, PG, CHMM Senior Scientist Attachments: Petrofund Limited Site Investigation Form —Standard Scope of Services General Conditions (6/15/06) BRAUN INTERTEC Fred's Auto Repair Proposal SC- 12- 02455A June 26, 2012 Page 4 Re; Proposal for Standard Scope Limited Site Investigation Fred's Auto Repair 349 Broadway Street West Monticello, MN 55362 MPCA Leak # 18780 The Proposal is accepted, and you are authorized to proceed. Authorizer's Firm Authorizer's Signature Authorizer's Name (please print or type) Authorizer's Title Date BRAUN INTERTEC rjAr hLNNbSOTA D*&—t axt w con dzgcs Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund Standardized Proposal and Invoice Form Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Standard Scope MPCA Leak # 18780 Applicant Name City of Monticello Address 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Leaksite Name Fred's Auto Repair Site Address 349 Broadwav Street West Monticello, MN Task Description Amount Invoiced for Amount Proposed Proposed Tasks ministrative Tasks Agency status update Applicant status update [drilling] Background review Field work notification and scheduling Health and safety plan Nonspecific administration Sample shipping and transportation nsultant Drilling and Excavation Activities Drilling oversight, field log prep, & soil sampling [25' or shallower boring] Drilling oversight, field log prep, & soil sampling [boring deeper than 25'] Surveying & surveying equipment Utility clearance ad and Receptor Surveys Surface water receptor survey and risk evaluation Vapor receptor survey and risk evaluation Water well receptor survey and risk evaluation mpling Groundwater sampling (other than permanent monitoring well) bmissions to Agency - Investigation report preparation (LSI only) tvel and Per Diem $105 per field work event $572 per drilling event/see rule $616 per leak site $209 per field work event/see rule $275 per leak site $220 per step of services $99 per shipping event $165 per boring $7 per foot $209 per surveying event $220 per utility clearance event $154 per leak site $770 per leaksitelsee rule $828 per leaksitelsee rule $39 per sampling pointlsee rule $3,825/see rule Travel time $77 per hour Vehicle mileage 0.501mile $0.715 a mile Per diem $149 per day per person uipment and Field Supplies Charges (list items included in proposal below) Disposable items = Cost to buy the items Reusable items = Lesser of purchase or rental cost Services Included in this Proposal alytical Services Analysis Type 6 soil samples GRO ($30), DRO ($35), BETXIMTBE $36 $606.00 5 groundwater samples GRO ($30), DRO ($35), VOC $85 see Minn. Rule 2_890.2900 $750.00 3 grain size analysis sieve $50 see Minn. Rule 2890.3000 $150.00 3 soil gas samples EPA Method TO -15, full scan $235 705.00 illing, Direct Push Technology 4 push probes to 25', 1 push probe to 40', 5 push probes to 10' $149 1 hr. < 15,000 lbs. Retraction Force -_< 15,000 lbs. or > 15,000 lbs. (circle one) $2201 hr. > 15,000 lbs. $1,280.00 Push probe sealing $1.10 per ft. $145.00 Mobil izationlde mob] lization (drilling) (0 - 50 miles one way) $275 $ $ Mobil izationMemoblization (drilling) (51- 500 miles one way) $275 plus $6 per mile over 50 $400.00 Mobil izationldemobilization (drilling) (aver 500 miles one way) $2,420 $ Per diem $149 per day 1 per person $ $7,611.00 1$ Amount Invoiced for Proposed Tasks Page 1 of 2 712010 Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund Standardized Proposal and Invoice Form Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Standard Scope INVOICE SUMMARY (to be completed by consultant after the work has been performed) Total amount Invoiced for proposed tasks $ (enter amount from page 1) Total amount invoiced for tasks not proposed $ (enter amount associated with column A of the Change Order form) GRAND TOTAL AMOUNT INVOICED FOR WORK PERFORMED $ CONSULTANT Consultant Providing Above Proposal Braun Intertec Corporation Contact Person Andrea Flynn Phone 320.202.7239 Fax 320.253.3054 E -mail Address afl n p[aunfnteM1eccw I hereby certify that this document accurately reflects the details specified in the RFP dated _June,2011 and the anticipated costs for a limited site investigation, which total $_7,511.00 . I further certify that the hourly rates to be charged for consultant services WILL _X_ WILL NOT exceed the maximum hourly labor rates for consultant services listed in Minn. Rule 2880.1400 [maximum hourly rates are as follows: SLIP = $143, MLP = $105, ELP = $77, FT = $72, DP = $61, WP = $44]. If line is not marked, it is assumed to be "will not." Andrea R. Flynn 3nsuitant Name (please print) APPLICANT (This proposal must be signed and dated by the consultant. ITo accept this proposal, sign and date it in front of a notary public. of applicant indicating acceptance Name (please print) Company In ZZ 2-c, Date 1252 Petrofund Registration Number NOTARIZATION (of applicant signature) Signed or attested before me this of Notary Public My Commission Expires day 20— Page 2 of 2 712010 General Conditions Our agreement ( "Agreement') with you consists of these General Conditions and the accompanying written proposal or authorization. Section 1: Our Responsibilities 1.1 We will provide the services specifically described in our Agreement with you, You agree that we are not responsible for services that are not fairly included in our specific undertaking. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, our findings, opinions, and recommendations will be provided to you in writing. You agree not to rely on oral findings, opinions, or recommendations without our written approval. 1.2 In performing our professional services, we will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same locality. If you direct us to deviate from our recommended procedures, you agree to hold us harmless from claims, damages, and expenses arising out of your direction. 1.3 We will reference our field observations and sampling to available reference points, but we will not survey, set, or check the accuracy of those points unless we accept that duty in writing. Locations of field observations or sampling described in our report or shown on our sketches are based on information provided by others or estimates made by our personnel. You agree that such dimensions, depths, or elevations are approximations unless specifically stated otherwise in the report. You accept the inherent risk that samples or observations may not be representative of things not sampled or seen and, further, that site conditions may change over time. 1.4 Our duties do not include supervising your contractors or commenting on, overseeing, or providing the means and methods of their work, unless we accept such duties in writing. We will not be responsible for the failure of your contractors to perform in accordance with their undertakings, and the providing of our services will not relieve others of their responsibilities to you or to others. 1.5 We will provide a health and safety program for our employees, but we will not be responsible for contractor, job, or site health or safety unless we accept that duty in writing. 1.6 You will provide, at no cost to us, appropriate site safety measures as to work areas to be observed or inspected by us. Our employees are authorized by you to refuse to work under conditions that may be unsafe. 1.7 Estimates of our fees or other project costs will be based on information available to us and on our experience and knowledge. Such estimates are an exercise of our professional judgment and are not guaranteed or warranted, Actual costs may vary. You should allow a contingency in addition to estimated costs. Section 2: Your Responsibilities 2.1 You will provide us with prior geotechnical and other reports, specifications, plans, and information to which you have access about the site. You agree to provide us with all plans, changes in plans, and new information as to site conditions until we have completed our work. 2.2 You will provide access to the site. In the course of our work some site damage is normal even when due care is exercised. We will use reasonable care to minimize damage to the site. We have not included the cost of restoration of normal damage in the estimated charges. 2.3 You agree to provide us, in a timely manner, with information that you have regarding buried objects at the site. We will not be responsible for locating buried objects at the site unless we accept that duty in writing. You agree to hold us harmless from claims, damages, losses, and related expenses involving buried objects of which you had knowledge but did not timely call to our attention or correctly show on the plans you or others on your behalf furnished to us. 2.4 You will notify us of any knowledge or suspicion of the presence of hazardous or dangerous materials in a sample provided to us. You agree to provide us with information in your possession or control relating to contamination at the work site. If we observe or suspect the presence of contaminants not anticipated in our Agreement, we may terminate our work without Iiability to you or to others, and we will be paid for the services we have provided. 2.5 Neither this Agreement nor the providing of services will operate to make us an owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, as amended, or within the meaning of any other law governing the handling, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. You agree to hold us harmless and indemnify us from any such claim or loss. 2.6 Monitoring wells are your property, and you are responsible for their permitting, BRAUN I NTE RTEC maintenance, and abandonment unless we accept that duty in writing. 2.7 You agree to make disclosures required by law. In the event you do not own the site, you acknowledge that it is your duty to inform the owner of the discovery or release of contaminants at the site. You agree to hold us harmless and indemnify us from claims related to disclosures made by us that are required by law and from claims related to the informing or failure to inform the site owner of the discovery of contaminants. Section 3: Reports and Records 3.1 We will furnish reports to you in duplicate. We will retain analytical data for seven years and financial data for three years. 3.2 Our reports, notes, calculations, and other documents and our computer software and data are instruments of our service to you, and they remain our property but are subject to a license to you for your use in the related project for the purposes disclosed to us. You may not transfer our reports to others or use them for a purpose for which they were not prepared without our written approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld. You agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of such a transfer or use. At your request, we will provide endorsements of our reports or letters of reliance, but only if the recipients agree to be bound by the terms of our agreement with you and only if we are paid the administrative fee stated in our then current Schedule of Charges. 3.3 Because electronic documents may be modified intentionally or inadvertently, you agree that we will not be liable for damages resulting from change in an electronic document occurring after we transmit it to you. In case of any difference or ambiguity between an electronic and a paper document, the paper document shall govern, 3.4 If you do not pay for our services in full as agreed, we may retain work not yet delivered to you and you agree to return to us all of our work that is in your possession or under your control. You agree not to use or rely upon our work for any purpose whatsoever until it is paid for in full. 3.5 Samples remaining after tests are conducted and field and laboratory equipment that cannot be adequately cleansed of contaminants are and continue to be your Page I of 2 ` Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 property. They will be discarded or returned to you, at our discretion, unless within 15 days of the report date you give us written direction to store or transfer the materials at your expense. Section 4: Compensation 4.1 You will pay for services as agreed upon or according to our then current Schedule of Charges if there is no other written agreement as to price. An estimated cost is not a firm figure. You agree to pay all sales taxes and other taxes based on your payment of our compensation. Our performance is subject to credit approval and payment of any specified retainer. 4.2 You will notify us of billing disputes within 15 days. You will pay undisputed portions of invoices on receipt. You agree to pay interest on unpaid balances beginning 30 days after invoice dates at the rate of 1.5% per month, or at the maximum rate allowed by law. 4.3 If you direct us to invoice another, we will do so, but you agree to be responsible for our compensation unless you provide us with that person's written acceptance of all terms of our Agreement and we agree to extend credit to that person and to release you. 4.4 You agree to compensate us in accordance with our fee schedule if we are asked or required to respond to legal process arising out of a proceeding related to the project and as to which we are not a party, 4.5 If we are delayed by factors beyond our control, or if project conditions or the scope or amount of work change, or if changed labor union conditions result in increased costs, decreased efficiency, or delays, or if the standards or methods change, we will give you timely notice and we will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation. If you and we do not reach agreement on such compensation within 30 days of our written application, we may terminate without liability to you or others. 4.6 If you fail to pay us within 60 days following invoice date, we may consider the default a total breach of our Agreement and, at our option, terminate our duties without liability to you or to others. 4.7 In consideration of our providing insurance to cover claims made by you, you hereby waive any right of offset as to fees otherwise due us. Section 5: Disputes, Damage, and Risk Allocation 5.1 Each of us will exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes without litigation. Such efforts will include, but not be limited to, a meeting(s) attended by each party's representative(s) empowered to resolve the dispute. Before either of us commences an action against the other, disputes (except collections) will be submitted to mediation. 5.2 Neither of us will be liable for special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, including but not limited to those arising from delay, loss of use, loss of profits or revenue, loss of financing commitments or fees, or the cost of capital. 5.3 We will not be liable for damages unless suit is commenced within two years of the date of injury or loss or within two years of the date of the completion of our services, whichever is earlier. We will not be liable unless you have notified us of the discovery of the claimed breach of contract, negligent act, or omission within 30 days of the date of discovery and unless you have given us an opportunity to investigate and to recommend ways of mitigating damages, 5.4 For you to obtain the benefit of a fee which includes a reasonable allowance for risks, you agree that our aggregate liability will not exceed the fee paid for our services or $50,000, whichever is greater, and you agree to indemnify us from all liability to others in excess of that amount. If you are unwilling to accept this allocation of risk, we will increase our aggregate liability to $100,000 provided that, within 10 days of the date of our Agreement, you provide payment in an amount that will increase our fees by 10 %, but not less than $500, to compensate us for the greater risk undertaken. This increased fee is not the purchase of insurance. 5.5 If you do not pay us within 60 days of invoice date, or if you make a claim against us that is resolved in our favor, you agree to reimburse our expenses, including but not limited to attorney fees, staff time, expert witness fees, and other costs of collection or litigation. 5.6 The law of the state in which our servicing office is located will govern all disputes. Each of us waives trial by jury. No employee acting within the scope of employment shall have individual liability for his or her acts or omissions, and you agree not make a claim against individual employees. Section 6: General Indemnification 6.1 We will indemnify and hold you harmless from and against demands, damages, and expenses to the comparative extent they are caused by our negligent acts or omissions or those negligent acts or omissions of persons for whom we are legally responsible. You will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against demands, damages, and expenses to the comparative extent they are caused by your negligent acts or omissions or those negligent acts or omissions of persons for whom you are legally responsible. 6.2 To the extent it may be necessary to indemnify either of us under Section 6. 1, you and we expressly waive, in favor of the other only, any immunity or exemption from liability that exists under any worker compensation law. 6.3 You agree to indemnify us against losses and costs arising out of claims of patent or copyright infringement as to any process or system that is specified or selected by you or by others on your behalf. Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions 7.1 We will provide a certificate of insurance to you upon request. Any claim as an Additional Insured shall be limited to losses caused by our sole negligence. 7.2 This Agreement is our entire agreement. It supersedes prior agreements. It may be modified only in a writing, making specific reference to the provision modified. 7.3 Neither of us will assign or transfer any interest, any claim, any cause of action, or any right against the other. Neither of us will assign or otherwise transfer or encumber any proceeds or expected proceeds or compensation from the project or project claims to any third person, whether directly or as collateral or otherwise. 7.4 Our Agreement may be terminated early only in writing. We will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation in the event of early termination. Revised 6 -15 -06 Page 2 of 2 Carlson McCain ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING July 2, 2012 City of Monticello Attn: Ms. Megan Barnett - Livgard 505 Walnut Street; Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Proposal and Cost Estimate Standard Scope of Work Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Fred's Auto Repair 349 Broadway Street West Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ms. Barnett - Livgard: Carlson McCain, Inc. (Carlson McCain) is pleased to present to you this proposal and cost estimate to conduct a Standard Scope of Work Limited Site Investigation (LSI) at the above referenced property (the Site). Carlson McCain's proposal is based upon Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standard request to conduct a Standard LSI at the Site subsequent to a petroleum. release notification. The scope of work and cost estimate to conduct this work is provided in the following sections. Scope of Work Receptor Surveys Associated with completing subsurface investigation activities, water well, surface water and vapor surveys will be conducted in accordance with MPCA Guidance Document 4.02 - Potential Receptor Surveys and Risk Evaluation at Petroleum Release Sites. Carlson McCain will also conduct a search of the Minnesota Geological Survey's County Well Index (CWI) to locate existing and abandoned water wells within a one- half mile radius of the Site. The search will provide information on ground water usage, aquifers, and geology in the surrounding area. Based on the results of the investigation, nearby wells within the search radius may need to be sampled to determine if they have been impacted by the release. In addition, a surface water receptor survey and risk evaluation will also be conducted. The surface water receptor survey will be performed by reviewing various sources of information including United States Geological Service (USGS) topographical maps /plat books. While on Site, a vapor risk assessment will be performed to determine whether petroleum vapors have the potential to migrate to site structures and /or along utility lines. If any underground utilities are accessible in the area of the release, an attempt will be made to gain access and obtain vapor readings. A photoionization detector (PID) will be used to screen for the presence of organic vapors. PO Box 429, 5300 Highway 12 • Maple Plain, MN 55359 • Tel 952 -346 -3900 • Fax 952- 346 -3901 • wwwzarlsonmccain.com LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate Subsurface Investigation July 2, 2012 Up to five direct push soil borings will be advanced within and around the contamination source area as an attempt to define the vertical and horizontal extent of soil and /or groundwater contamination associated with the petroleum release. Borings will be advanced using direct push technology by a drilling contractor licensed in the State of Minnesota. The investigation will be conducted in accordance with MPCA Guidance Document 4.01 - Soil and Ground Water Assessments Performed During Site Investigations. According to MPCA guidelines, a boring is required to a depth of 20 feet below the water table or until a confining layer is encountered. The purpose of this boring is to determine the vertical extent of soil impacts and to determine site stratigraphy. The remaining four push probe borings will be completed radially outward from the release area (former tank basin) to depths of up to 25 feet bgs or surficial water table, pending refusal. The four push -probe borings will attempt to define the horizontal extent of soil impacts and evaluate groundwater quality. The location of soil borings will be determined by on -site Carlson McCain personnel, depending upon the location of any underground utilities, property boundaries and /or site structures. Soil samples will be collected continuously from each boring. Soils will be screened for the presence of volatile organic compound (VOC) vapors using a PID. An attempt will also be made to collect a groundwater sample from each boring, if the water table is encountered. Selected soil and all groundwater samples will be submitted to a Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) certified laboratory for chemical analysis. As per MPCA guidelines, analyzed soil samples will be collected at the zone of maximum petroleum'vapor concentrations and at-the water table interface. If the entire boring does not appear to be contaminated based on field screening (i.e. PID readings and /or visual or olfactory observations), only one (1) soil sample will be collected for analysis. The sample will be obtained from the water table interface or end of soil boring. Soil samples will be collected and analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), methyl -tert-butyl -ether (MTBE) and diesel range organics (DRO). An attempt will also be made to collect groundwater samples from each test hole. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Per MPCA guidelines, one duplicate sample will be collected and analyzed for VOCs to satisfy quality assurance /quality control (QA/QC) requirements. In addition, a trip blank will also be analyzed for VOCs. In addition, up to five soil gas samples will be collected from the source area and between surrounding properties/buildings and the contamination source area within a 100 foot radius. Soil gas sampling will be conducted in accordance with MPCA Guidance Document 4 -01a "Vapor Intrusion Assessments Performed during Site Investigations ". Soil gas samples will be submitted to a MPCA certified laboratory for chemical analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) TO -15 method for compounds in the Minnesota Soil Gas List. The collection of soil samples from the saturated zone is required in order to estimate hydraulic conductivity. This will be completed by collecting three soil samples from near the soil /groundwater interface and submitting them to a laboratory for grain size distribution using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D422. The hydraulic conductivity will be obtained from the grain size analysis by applying the Hazen Method and /or Krumbian & Monk Method. Carson McCain, Inc. Page 2 of 7 LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate Delineation /Remedial Action Decision July 2, 2012 Following completion of the above-identified tasks and upon receipt of the analytical testing results, Carlson McCain will prepare a LSI report (MPCA Investigation Report Form - Guidance Document 4- 06) if a Site Closure recommendation is determined. In short, the report will include: • Results of the ground water receptor survey, surface water receptor survey and vapor risk assessment. • A discussion of field methods and results of the subsurface investigation. • Applicable tables, figures and supporting data (i.e. field forms, analytical reports, etc.). * Recommendations as to whether additional work will be necessary at the Site (i.e. Corrective Action Design) or whether a request for file closure can be made. Cost Estimate Our cost estimate to complete the Standard Scope LSI is $7,854.19 (Carlson McCain ''will not charge for subcontractor mark -up to manage their invoices). The Minnesota Department of Commerce allows for reimbursement of up to 90% of the costs through Petrofund. A total of $7,854.19 may be eligible for up to 90% Petrofund reimbursement (please note sub - contractor mark-up is not reimbursable and will not be charged to you). As such, we have also completed the Petrofund LSI Consultant Proposal/Invoice Form and attached it to this proposal. The Petrofund form details Carlson McCain's professional fees, contractor fees, equipment and expenses to complete the prescribed tasks. If additional costs are incurred by completing work outside the scope of this proposal, those costs will be included on a Petrofund Change Order if requested /approved. Carlson McCain will complete initial and supplemental Petrofund reimbursement packages at a lump sum rate of $250 each (these fees are not reimbursable through the Petrofund). Closin Once authorized, Carlson McCain would be able to initiate work immediately and expects to complete the project, as described above within five to six weeks. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and cost estimate. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at (952) 346 -3913 or email at clock @carlsonmccain.com. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on this project for you. Sincerely, Carlson McCain, Inc. Accepted by: Chris Loch Project Manager Signature /Title Carlson McCain, Inc. Page 3 of 7 LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS July 2, 2012 1. STANDARD OF CARE. Services shall be performed by Carlson McCain, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) in accordance with the standard of professional practice ordinarily exercised by the applicable profession at the time and within the locality where the Services are performed. Professional Services are not subject to, and the Company can not provide, any warranty or guarantee, express or implied, including warranties or guarantees contained in any uniform commercial code. Any such warranties or guarantees contained in any purchase orders, requisitions or notices to proceed issued by a client are specifically objected to. 2. CHANGE OF SCOPE. The scope of Services set forth in this Agreement is based on facts known at the rime of execution of this Agreement, including, if applicable, information supplied by Client. For some projects the scope may not be fully definable during the initial phases. As the Project progresses, facts discovered may indicate that scope must be redefined. The Company will promptly provide Client with an amendment to this Agreement to recognize such change, which shall be deemed approved if not objected to within 15 days of receipt by Client. 3. SAFETY. The Company has established and maintains corporate programs and procedures for the safety of its employees. Unless specifically included as a service to be provided as a service under this Agreement, the Company specifically disclaims any authority or responsibility for general job site safety and safety of persons other than the Company employees. 4. DELAYS. If events beyond the control of Client or the Company, including, but not limited to, fire, flood, explosion, riot, strike, war, process shutdown, acts, of God br dhe public enemy, and act or regulation of any government agency, result in delay to any schedule established in this Agreement, such schedule shall be amended to the extent necessary to compensate for such delay. In the event such delay exceeds 90 days, the Company shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in compensation. In the event that the project is delayed by Client and such delay exceeds 30 days, the Company shall be entitled to an extension of time equal to the delay and'an equitable adjustmenCin- compensation: 5. TERMINATION / SUSPENSION. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days written notice to the other party. Client shall pay the Company for all Services, including any expenses, incurred prior to termination. In the event that either party defaults in its obligations under this Agreement (including Clients obligation to make the payments required hereunder), the non - defaulting party may, after 7 days written notice stating its intention to suspend performance under the Agreement if cure of such default is not commenced and diligently continued, and failure of the defaulting party to commence cure within such time limit and diligently continue, suspend performance under this Agreement. 6. OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST. Any opinion of construction costs prepared by the Company is supplied. for the general guidance of the Client only. Since the Company has no control over the competitive bidding or market conditions, the Company cannot guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contract bids or actual costs to client. 7. RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTRACTORS. The Company shall serve as Client's professional representative for the Services, and may make recommendations to Client concerning actions relating to Client's contractors, but the Company specifically disclaims any authority to direct or supervise the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures or construction selected by Client's contractors. S. CONSTRUCTION /CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT. For projects involving construction or contractor oversight, Client acknowledges that under generally accepted professional practice, interpretations of construction documents or field plans in the field are normally required, and that performance of construction- related services by the design professional for the project permits errors or omissions to be identified and corrected at comparatively low cost. Client agrees to hold the Company harmless from any claims resulting from performance of construction- related or contractor oversight services by persons other than the Company. 9. INSURANCE. The Company will maintain insurance coverage for Comprehensive General, Automobile and Workers Compensation in amounts in accordance with legal, and the Company's business requirements. Certificates evidencing such coverage will be provided to Client upon request. Carlson McCain, Inc. Page 4 of 7 LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate July 2, 2012 10. INDEMNITIES. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Company shall indemnify and save harmless Client from and against loss, liability, and damages sustained by Client, its agents, employees, and representatives by reason of injury or death to persons or damage to tangible property to the extent caused directly by the willful misconduct or failure to adhere to the standard of care described in Paragraph 1 above of die Company, its agent or employees. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Client shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the Company, its agents, employees, and representatives from and against loss, liability, and damages (including reasonable litigation costs) arising from or relating to claims for injury or death to persons, damages to tangible property, or other losses, alleged to be caused by any of the following: (a) any substance, condition, element, or material or any combination of the foregoing (i) produced, emitted or released from Project (ii) tested by the Company under this Agreement, or (iii) used or incorporated by the Company in the Services; or (b) operation or management of the Project. Client also agrees to require its construction contractor, if any, to include the Company as an indemnitee under indemnification obligation to Client. 11. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. No employee or agent of the Company shall have individual liability to Client. Client agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Company's liability to Client for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses or damages whatsoever arising out of or in any way related to the Project or this Agreement from any causes including, but not limited to, the Company's negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, or breach of contract shall not exceed the total compensation received by the Company under this Agreement. If Client desires a limit of liability greater than that provided above, Client and the Company shall include in Part III of this Agreement the amount of such limit and the additional compensation to be paid to the Company for assumption of such additional risk. IN NO EVENT AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE TO CLIENT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 12. ACCESS. Client shall provide the Company safe access to any premises necessary for the Company to provide services. 13. REUSE OF PROJECT DELIVERABLES. Reuse of any documents or other deliverables, including electronic media, pertaining to the Project by Client for any purpose other than that for which such documents or deliverables were originally prepared, or alteration of such documents or deliverables without written verification or adaptation by the Company for the specific purpose intended, shall be at the Client's risk. Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Company from all claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable litigation costs), arising out of such reuse or alteration by Client or others acting through Client. 14. AMENDMENT. This Agreement, upon execution by both parties hereto, can be amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties. 15. ASSIGNMENT. Except for assignments (a) to entities which control, or are controlled by, the parties hereto or (b) resulting from operation of law, the rights and obligations of this Agreement cannot be assigned by either party without written permission of the other party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any permitted assigns. 16. STATUTES OF LIMITATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, parties agree that, except for indemnification, the time period for bringing claims under this Agreement shall expire one year after Project completion. 17. PREVAILING PARTY LITIGATION COSTS. In the event any actions are brought to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing parry shall he entitled to collect its litigation costs from the other party. 18. NO WAIVER. No waiver by either party of any default by the other party in the performance of any particular section of this Agreement shall invalidate any other section of this Agreement or operate as a waiver of any future default, whether like or different in character. 19. NO THIRD -PARTY BENEFICIARY. Nothing contained in this Agreement, nor the performance of the parties hereunder, is intended to benefit, nor shall inure to the benefit of, any third party, including Client's contractors, if any. Carlson McCain, Inc. Page 5 of 7 LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate July 2, 2012 20. SEVERABILITY. The various terms, provisions and covenants herein contained shall be deemed to be separate and severable, and the invalidity or unenforceability of any of them shall not affect or impair the validity or enforceability of the remainder. 21. AUTHORITY. The persons signing this Agreement warrant that they have the authority to sign as, or on behalf of, the party for whom they are signing. 22. LIEN RIGHTS. The Company hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Minnesota Stature Chapter 514, and as stated in the contract, it retains the right to file a lien against real property in the event of nonpayment of invoices for engineering, landscape architecture, surveying, planning or environmental services performed with respect to the subject property. The lien will be prepared and filed in accordance with pertinent laws of the State of Minnesota. 23. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. Neither the Company nor the Client will be liable for any indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages (including loss of anticipated profits, business interruption or good will of other economic or commercial loss) relating to the services rendered. 24. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The Company will act solely as an independent contractor of the Client and not as the Client agent for any purpose. Neither the Company nor the Client may enter into any agreement or assume any obligation for the other, and nothing herein may be construed to establish any partnership, joint venture or principal -agent relationship between the Company and the Client. 25. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The Client and 'the Company each binds itself, its successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party with respect to all provisions of the contract/agreement. Neither the Client nor the Company shall assign, set over or transfer his interest in the contracvagreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other, and any act in derogation hereof, shall, at the option of the non - assigning party, render the written contract/agreement terminated. 26. ARBIRTATION. All claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of, or relating to, the contract/agreement or the breach thereof shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration. Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining, unless the parties' mutually agree other wise in writing. This agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law in the State of Minnesota. Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be Oiled in writing with the other party to the contract/agreement arid with the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim; dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event, shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable stature of limitation. Arbitration will not limit the Company's mechanic's lien rights. All arbitrations will be conducted in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court leaving jurisdiction thereof. Arbitration of claims arising from the contract/agreement shall not be consolidated with any other arbitration proceedings except by written consent of the parties. 27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The Client's engagement of the Company to perform work represents the Client's acceptance of the terms and conditions contained herein, which constitute the entire understanding between the Company and the Client and supersede any previous communication, representations or agreements by either party, whether oral or written. The terms and conditions contained herein take precedence over the Client's additional or different terms and conditions that may be contained in any purchase order, work order, invoice, gate pass, acknowledgment form, manifest or other document forwarded by the Client to the Company to which notice of objection is hereby given. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by an officer of the Company, the Clients engagement of the Company is limited to these terms and conditions. The Company's commencement of performance will not be deemed or constructed as acceptance of the Client's additional or different terns and conditions. No change of any of the terms or conditions herein will be valid or binding on either party unless in writing and signed by an owner or an officer of the Client and by an officer of the Company. If any of the provisions hereof are invalid under any applicable statute or rule or law-or law, such provisions re, to that extent, deemed omitted, but the remaining terms and Carlson McCain, Inc. Page 6 of 7 LSI Proposal and Cost Estimate July 2, 2012 conditions of the contract/agreement will remain otherwise in effect. There are no understandings, agreements representations or warranties, express or implied, that are not specified herein respecting the subject hereof. 28. APPLICABLE LAW. The contract/agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 29. EEO /AA. The Company is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirnlative Action Employer. CarLeon McCain, Inc. Page 7 of 7 M COMMERCE Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund Standardized Proposal and Invoice Form Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Standard Scope MPCA Leak # 18780 Applicant Name City of Monticello Address 505 Walnut Street; Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Leaksite Name Fred's Auto Repair Site Address 349 Broadway Street West Monticello, MN 55362 Task Description Amount Proposed I Amount Invoiced for Proposed Tasks dministrative Tasks $169 per leak site Agency status update _ _ _ .. $116 per field work event Applicant status update [drilling] $629 per drilling event/see rule Background review $678 per leak site Field work notification and scheduling $230 per field work event/see rule Health and safety plan $303 per leak site Nonspecific administration $242 per step of services Sample shipping and transportation $109 per shipping event onsultant Drilling and Excavation Activities Drilling oversight, field log prep, & soil sampling [25' or shallower boring] $182 per boring Drilling oversight, field log prep, & soil sampling [boring deeper than 25'] $8 per foot Surveying & surveying equipment $230 per surveying event Utility c'eararlce $242 per utility clearance event laid and Receptor Surveys Surface water receptor survey and risk evaluation $169 per leak site Vapor receptor survey and risk evaluation _ $847 per IeaksiEelsee rule Water well receptor survey and risk evaluation $911 per leaksitelsee rule ampling Groundwater sampling (other than permanent monitoring well) $43 per sampling point/see rule ubmissions to.Agency Investigation report preparation (LSI only) $4,208/see rule ravel and Per Diem Travel time $85 per hour Vehicle mileage (58 miles @ $0.58 per mile) $0.79 a mile Per diem $164 per day per person quipment and Field Supplies Charges (list items included in proposal below) hoto - ionzation Detector (PID) - 1 Day Rental Disposable items = Cost to buy the oil Sampling Supplies ($3.50 per sample) items roundWater Sampling Supplies ($7 per sample) Services Included in this Proposal Analytical Services Analysis Type 7 soil samples FASTM and BTEXIMTBE $50 per sample) 5 groundwater samples and VOCs $83 er sample) 3 grain size analysis ❑422 $65 er sam le soil gas samples Method TO -15, full scan rilling, Direct Push Technology 4 push probes to 25', 1 push probe to 40', 5 push probes to 10' Retraction Force = < 15,000 lbs. or > 15_,000 lbs. (circle one) Push probe sealing Mobilization /demobilization (drilling) (0 - 50 miles one way) Mobilization /demobilization (drilling) (51- 500 miles one way) Mobil izationldemobilization (drilling)_(over 500 miles one way) Per diem Reusable items = Lesser of purchase or rental cost see Minn. Rule 2890.2900 see Minn. Rule 2890.3000 $1641 hr. < 15,000 lbs. $2421 hr. > 15,000 Ib_s_ . $1.21 per ft. $303 $303 plus $7 per mile over 50 $2,662 $164 per day 1 per person 185.00 140.00 00 $7,854.'19 Amount Invoiced forl Page 1 of 2 712011 Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund Standardized Proposal and Invoice Form Limited Site Investigation (LSI) Standard Scope INVOICE SUMMARY (to be completed by consultant after the work has been performed) Total amount invoiced for proposed tasks $ (enter amount from page 1) Total amount invoiced for tasks not proposed $ (enter amount associated with column A of the Change Order form) GRAND TOTAL AMOUNT INVOICED FOR WORK PERFORMED CONSULTANT Consultant Providing Above Proposal Carlson McCain, Inc. Contact Person Mr. Chris Loch Phone 952- 346 -3913 Fax 952 - 346 -3901 E -mail Address .iochd dsonm=nxom I hereby certify that this document accurately reflects the details specified in the RFP dated July 6, 2012 and the anticipated costs for a limited site investigation, which total $7854.19. 1 further certify that the hourly rates to be charged for consultant services WILL X WILL NOT exceed the maximum hourly labor rates for consultant services listed in Minn. Rule 2890.1400 [maximum hourly rates are as follows: SLP = $157, MLP = $116, ELP = $85, FT = $79, OP = $67, WP = $48]. If line is not marked, it is assumed to be "will not." x /GIs Z-C C,-v Consuftant Name (please print) Consultant�Si Date Carlson McCain, Inc Consultant Company APPLICANT 2632 Petrofund Registration Number This proposal must be signed and dated by the consultant. NOTARIZATION (of applicant signature) To accept this proposal, sign and date it in front of a notary public. Signature of applicant indicating acceptance [cant Name (please print) Date Signed or attested before me this _ day of 20 Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 2 of 2 7/2011 7. Economic Development Director Updates: Inquiries: Staff responded to inquires related to companies in the food /distribution, distribution, and manufacturing sectors. Ford Building City staff has confirmed with Chrysler Financial that a new Purchase Agreement is in place for the Ford site. The prospective buyer has not been named at this time. Bertram Grant Update: The City received a confirmation letter from the DNR that the first grant written to support land acquisition for the athletic complex at Bertram was successful. The DNR has awarded the City and Wright County $369,250.00 in funds toward acquisition of Parcel 1, which is the approximately 40 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the acquisition area. A match request for City /County funding will be forthcoming. Bertram Tours: Community Development led two recent tours at the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. The first tour was for City staff and the second included reps from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and Ambassadors. EDA, IEDC and Planning Commissioners were also invited to attend the tours. The weather cooperated and the tour attendees had an opportunity to view the park firsthand and ask questions about progress on the park and future planning. All 496 acres of property owned by the City and Wright County is now open to the public, 7 days a week. A new park access road, public parking area, 3.7 miles of groomed trail and two canoe/kayak launches are available on site. A brochure (attached) is being printed and the City and County websites are being updated to provide the public with this most recent park access information. Monticello Business Center: The wetland delineation report has been completed by WSB for the Monticello Business Center. The full report is attached to this staff report. Overall the report indicates there is less wetlands on the remaining vacant lots than originally anticipated. Staff will start the required process to get the Wetland Delineation Report approved by the local Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). Upcoming Work sessions: Staff would will be working with the IEDC and the Planning Commission this fall to like to discuss goals for industrial land use and zoning as part of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan review. Staff will make sure the EDA is kept up to date and brought forward any recommendations. Krutzig Property: The City Council will be discussing whether or not to purchase Mike Krutzig's property on Monday, July 9, 2012. EDA 7.11.12 June 4, 2012 Wetland Delineation Report Monticello Business Center Wright County, Minnesota WSB Project Number: 1494 -55 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55352 763 -295 -2711 �� WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. 701 XENIA AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 & Associates. Inc. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... ..............................1 A. Project Location ............................................................. ..............................1 B. Project Purpose ............................................. .., ................ ,..... ..... ,............... 1 II. Delineation Procedure ................................................................... ..............................1 A. Base Map Review .......................................................... ..............................I B. Delineation ..................................................................... ..............................I II1. Results and Wetland Information ............................. IV. References .......................................................................................... ..............................7 Appendix A: Figures Wetland Delineation deport Monticello Business Center �/�/ Q WSB Project No. 1494 -55 �A� L� • Figure I — Location Map • Figure 2 — DNR Public Waters Map • Figure 3 — National Wetlands Inventory Map • Figure 4 — Soil Survey of Wright County Map • Figure 5 -- Wetland Delineation Map (Wetland D) Appendix B: Delineation Data Forms Appendix C: Wetland Photos Appendix D: Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Appendix E: WCA Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary Wetland Delineation deport Monticello Business Center �/�/ Q WSB Project No. 1494 -55 �A� L� I. Introduction A. Project Location The wetland delineation site was located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90'x' Street East in the City of Monticello, Hennepin County Section I0, R25W, T121N (Figure 1). B. Project Purpose One wetland was delineated within the project area in an effort to determine the location(s) and extent of wetland(s) within the subject property. 11. Delineation Procedure A. Base Map Review The DNR Public Waters and Wetlands Map, Wright County, MN (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1983) indicated that none of the delineated wetlands were DNR Public Waters (Figure 2). The National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) (US Fish and Wildlife Service) identified the delineated wetland as part of the National Wetlands Inventory (Figure 3). The NWl map classified the delineated wetland as PSS I C. The Soil Survey t?f Wright County, Minnesota (USDA, NRCS 2008) indicated the mapped soils within the project area as Dorset and Markey (Figure 4). B. Delineation The wetland within the project site was delineated using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1987), with additional guidance provided by the Regional Supplement to the Corns of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. The wetland was classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39), USFWS Shaw and Fredine, 1971; Classification of Wetlands and Deeptvater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin, 1979; and Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, Zed, Eggers and Reed, 1997. The wetland type in this report is given by the Circular 39, Cowardin, and Eggers and Reed Classifications. Soil types were researched prior to the on investigation with the assistance of the Soil Survey of Wright County from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil colors were described on -site according to the Munsell Soil Color Charts (2000 Revised Edition) from sample points and test pits in and adjacent to the wetland. Hydric soil indicators were identified using Field Indicators of the Hydric Soils in the United States, v7.0, NRCS. Regional plant identification resources were utilized in the identification of plant species, with indicator status taken from the National List ol'Plant Species That Occur Page I Wetland Delineation Report Monticello Business Center AB wSB Project No. 1494 -55 � A .iiif low. Inn in Wetlands: North Cenral Region (Region 3) (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988). Plant species dominance was estimated based on the absolute percent areal coverage for herbaceous, shrub- sapling, and tree strata if present. Midwest Regional Supplement Routine Wetland Delineation data forms were used to record vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at sample points in and adjacent to the wetland. The data forms for the sample points are found in Appendix B. Sampling transacts were taken along the wetland - upland boundary of the wetland. Wetland delineation flags were placed along the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary was located using a Trimble GeoXH handheld GAS unit with the GPS positions differentially corrected. The approximate delineated wetland boundary is shown in Figure S. III. Results and Wetland Information The wetland delineation data forms (Appendix B) and photos (Appendix C) are attached. A summary of the delineation, which took place on May 10, 2012, is below. Antecedent precipitation conditions indicate the climate conditions were normal (Appendix D). Generally the project area was comprised of undeveloped upland that had previously been farmed or mined and was graded into future lots for development. The southern portion of the project area was actively fanned and the eastern portion was undeveloped upland grassland and shrubland. One wetland was delineated and was situated in a depression in the landscape. Wetland D Circular 39: Type 2, 6 Cowardin: PEMB, PSSIC Eggers and Reed Field Classification: Fresh (wet) meadow, shrub carr Soil mapping unit: Dorset, Markey Wetland D was characterized as a mix of fresh meadow and shrub carr that was generally depressed in the landscape. Two delineation transacts consisting of wetland and upland sample points were completed for this wetland. A transect was not taken along the eastern boundary of the wetland since there was a relatively steep slope from the upland down to the wetland basin. The wetland boundary in this area was generally slightly above the toe of slope. Transect 1: The upland sample point was taken at an elevated position from the wetland. The soil was sandy loam to a depth of seventeen inches. Below seventeen inches the soil was I0YR3 /l sandy loam. The soil did not meet any hydric soil indicators. The vegetation was dominated by Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) saplings in the shrub layer and smooth brome (Bromus inernris) in the herbaceous layer. There was no hydrology in this position. The wetland sample point was taken near the wetland /upland boundary at the edge of the depressional basin. The soil consisted of 10YR3/1 loamy sand to a depth of five inches. From a depth of five inches to twelve inches, the soil was 10RY3/1 loamy sand with ten Page 2 Wetland (Delineation Report Monticello Business Center W% WSB Project No. 1494 -55 �111111L A .4,mWimes 8+r, percent redox concentrations. Below twelve inches, the soil was black sandy clay with ten percent redox. The wetland soil sample met the S5: Sandy Redox hydric soil indicator. The vegetation at the sample point was dominated by meadow willow (Salix petiolaris) and red osier dogwood (Corms sericea) in the shrub layer with reed canary grass (Phalcrris arundinacea) dominant in the herbaceous layer. There was saturation at a depth of ten inches in the soil pit. The A3 primary indicator of hydrology was present at the wetland sample point. The wetland boundary generally followed a change in topography and vegetation between the upland and the wetland. In the area of Transect 1, the boundary was relatively clearly defined by the change in vegetation where Siberian elm dropped out and the dogwood and willow became dominant when moving from the upland to the wetland edge. Transect 2; The upland area in proximity to Transect 2 appeared to have been graded in the past. There was a large spoils pile to the southwest of the wetland. The upland sample point was taken at an elevated position as compared to the wetland. The soil was I OYR 2/2 loam to a depth of nineteen inches. Below seventeen inches the soil was I OYR3 /2 sand. The soil did not meet any hydric soil indicators. The vegetation was dominated by reed canary grass in the herbaceous layer, indicative of the sites past disturbance. There was no hydrology in this position. The wetland sample point was taken near the wetland/upland boundary. The soil consisted of I OYR 1 /1 mucky loam to a depth of five inches. From a depth of five inches to sixteen inches, the soil was 1 ORY2 /1 loam with ten percent redox concentrations. Below sixteen inches, the soil was IOYR2 /1 loam. The wetland soil sample met the F1: Loamy Mucky Mineral and F6: Redox Dark Surface hydric soil indicators. The vegetation at the sample point was dominated by meadow willow (Salix petiolaris) in the shrub layer with reed canary grass (Phalai-is arundinacea) dominant in the herbaceous layer. There was saturation at a depth of six inches in the soil pit. The A3 primary indicator of hydrology was present at the wetland sample point. The soils at the wetland sample point appeared to be compacted since the sample pit was very difficult to dig as compared to other areas on the site. This is consistent with the site development work that occurred in the past. The wetland boundary generally followed a change in topography and vegetation between the upland and the wetland. In the area of Transect 2, the boundary was less defined with the significant presence of reed canary grass; however, there was a change in elevation and a distinct difference in the abundance of the wetland shrubs between the upland and wetland area. Lrvestirated Area C Area C was identified as a potential wetland during the desktop review of the area. Area C appeared to be under saturated conditions in several aerial photos, therefore it was investigated in the field for wetland characteristics. Area C was a large, shallow linear depression in an active agricultural field that sloped considerably from the southwest to the northeast. Where the area tenninated at the edge of the field, the adjacent undisturbed vegetation was dominated by smooth brome, an upland species. The crop Page 3 Weiland Delineation Report Monticello Business Center AB WSB Project No. 1494 -55 & A.uxiuk-.. In,, did not appear to be stressed within the lowest point of Area C. Based on the field observations; Area C was deemed non wetland. All wetland delineations were completed by Jed W. Chesnut, Wetland Delineator Certified 01 168. This delineation report serves as a request for approval of Wetland Type and Boundary of the wetland described herein. The application form is included in Appendix E. IV. References The following sources of information were reviewed to assist in performing the wetland delineation. Literature Sources Cowardin L.M. USFWS. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Carver, D.C. 131 pp. Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota & Wisconsin, Second Edition. United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 263 pp. Fredine, C.G. and S.P. Shaw. 1956. Wetlands of the United States (Circular 39). United States Government Printing Office, Carver, D.C. Hydric Soils of Minnesota. Revised December 15, 1995. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 2000 Revised Edition. Mansell Soil Color Charts. Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands; North Central (Region 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Smith, Welby. 2008. Trees and Shrubs of Minnesota: the complete guide to species identification. University of Minnesota Press. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Nobel. ERDC /EL TR- 08 -27. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Waterways Experiment Station. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, MRCS, in cooperation with the Nation Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Wright County, Minnesota. mn053. http-.//Soi]DataMart.nrcs.usda.gov. Page Q Wetland Delineation Report Monticello Business Center WSB WSB Project No. 1494 -55 APPENDIX A Figures Welland Delineation Report As Monticello Business Center WSB Project No. 1494 -55 m W Cog .10 39 Project Area TI R 15 4A Monticello Business Center Wetland Delineation F—:-- WSB Figure 1: Location Map W + F 0 0.5 S 1 1- Hennepin Counter mmmmwzz:�� Miles s •. � ��. < .. „tits G L ,•ry'� i L. � I' . -. ! ��!l �; ,�. �,� d x +• �� j.5y .�.1e "Jr_� -.Y 1 t ti _��til _ }. 'i * ='. `�!_ -1�1 ,,� + 1 J�`'�4�i `F ''i 0 2 f� .;' �, �, i s, •r S�+�J ki A it ► sT r. 94 e'1 It . t : l x 1 �J • • f hr . _ ��_ it • � - � '� r 1:� A4 Ya ,� i • bL-� Jr • f � 4-# ~ Yr¢y�• rh �� • � a1 :. r f • r r � y►, ay'J. t %' �- _ `�' ��, � �.r � 'r a' w-;.. f,�l.t» 4 �• �� + 4 1 uS.. �F �iA 'r r�.' s' 1f or ;'4L ` • Project Area Wetland Boundary DNR Public Waters ra J+t ti d '7. Legend s Project Area EM Wetland Boundary. NWl Monticello Business Center: Wetland Delineation 1 Figure 3: National Wetland Inventory 14 +' WSB Wi hEWright Couni�/ 0 -1100 S 2.000 W g -- 'n- y - – — - Pea, _. Sandberg Hubbard ;.,'� .� , +.;� ✓: LVer tiubotj�� Sandberg S�nOQ[9 ktA*ard H� bad ! ti '�? - y b r Markey Hubbard Due1m }lubbard ` r Water ' 6y n ~ =ti ` r Water \ 4 Water Markey �, r►ittlt{ t ? r I 4- e_� Sandberg 3 >r 4 1 ' or Dorset {u�b'ard l VHF Dorf Forduni 94 �'� {~% ' 7 . ' board rr Mosford UdPs mments Pits a i '4orse� Uw .• r Oytkn f Dorset i f i tir`; Bygland . \ Dorset ! >. Markey 'Dorset J 1 •, 4 i'. y \� : �� "! Dorset ra AJmOre- AlmoCB Dorset t� k Dorset Dorset ��` ug ' Seelyeville �. �, bQ ot * e Dorset Dorset Dorset Ors ./ a'•A�1� �, ' �' t u 4 *s pgrsel ", Dorset t X`• F'4s Dos Set, Legend Project Area Seetyeville Wetland Boundary corset Ty Markey Dorsel t Hydric Soil � ':Y - + , ,.r :1 s Fk` I% .0.7 -�y. Legend = Project Area a D -�ip Steep slope down to wetland edge Wetland Boundary Bo :.,I If 0 Sample Point Locations MR L.Lp.. Locations Monticello Business Center. Wetland Delineation A Figure 5: Wetland Map WSB 76D 01, Wright County Feel APPENDIX B Delineation Data Sheets Wetland Delineation Report , „�� Monticello Business Center WSB Project No. 1494.55 & A —wiaws hre'. / WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region PmjecUBlta: G9tylCountr: n ^ r Sampling Date: in Appllcanrl0wner. �a - te. pampling P' Int 1 -LAP Investlgalor(s): Cuff fM-OC . BeAon, Township, Range: 49 / I Lendforrn (hlllslops, terraos, Co.): Lc alreRef {ooncave,convex,nonek Slope ( %): LEI: Long; Datum: Sun Map U& dame; NNA classification: Are climdo I hydrologic corddion s on fhe sRe typlosl for thls Ume of year? Yes 2 Na (If no, explain !n Remarks.) Are Va;;;u ion , Sall . or Hydrology sFgnlflcently disturbed? Are "Normal Vroumstenaes' present? Yes No�" Are VageWon . Soil , or Hydrology naturally prablanrello? (If needed, explain anyanswers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —. Attach alto ins'p showing sampling point Iocatlons, transacts, importsk.ftaturee, etc. Hydropnyrlo Vsgetadon Present? Yes No 04 Absolute Dominant Indicator bid cover ,8ng1sa7 .Stabn_ HAdr Sall Present? Ye® No 2L le the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No '< within a Welland? Yes No b� -- ems a: VEC35TATION —Use aclentHia names of plants. DM Stratum (Plot Was: } 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator bid cover ,8ng1sa7 .Stabn_ DotnmanceTastworkehseh Number of Dondnard Species ThatAn30BL, FACW, cr FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across AU Strata: (B) Percent ofpandnent8psc[es That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (Alb) 2. 3 4. --- 6 612lintllt3hrubamum (Pictalze: 1. &/ w, ;/. Total Cover I alt— Provalence Index worksheet: Totst°%CoverOP. _ _R0W1Uy 09t species x 1 FACW species x 2 G ----�� FAG spools$ x 3 FACU species x 4 e UK species x 6 C Column Tciala; _ (A) {B) Prevalence Index c BIA _ 2. 4eC C-Lk. 3. a. &. �Q =Total Cover Hach Stratum (Plot size: _ } 1, s, !,APL 2. 4A / /!i 'r RG 3.. Sa C 6b ee"V A.- -W _. ,La I ne�,t Hydrophyfle Veaetatton lndlostors: _ 1- Rapid Test for HydraphydoVegetaton ,_ 2 - 13ominance Test Is x6133'0 3- Prevalsnoe Index is 53.01 u 4 -.Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting dots In Remerhe or on a separate shoot) ^ PrablemaUc HydrophyU0 Vag stallon'(Explslo 'Irk1betors of hydrlc.soll and welland hydrology must be present, unless diatulbad or problemalln. 4, g, g. 7, 8. 9. 1Q. 41415�1[yyjn@ 8trahim {plot slxa: 1. n Total Cover ) Hydraphytlo Vagatation Pressnt? Yes . No 2, % =Total Cover Remarks: (IncluRe photo numbers here or on a separate s eet) US Army Corps of Enginears Midwe at Region - Version 2.0 8011. Sampling Pofnk'LC./� profile Description: (Deacibe totho depth needed to document the Indicator orcgrtflrm the absence of lndlcators,) Depth Math __ Redox Features `m ,, i °[�_.- Cotar(g(1 �� _T3roa ; —C ' Texture Remarks Primary Indl!algrg (minlrrum of onk Is reouired: check alLib tF Apply) tT e: CeConcentratlon DaDe Ialtan, RMsReduced Matrix, MS -Masked Sand Grains, kocatlon: PLKPone Llnin milmstrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: Mdlnatore for Problematic Hydric Soil$'; _ Ftiatasol (Al) ,,,_, Sandy Olsyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Ale) _ Hlslic Eplpedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (t39) Dark Suface (87) ^ Black 1-116c (A3) — Stripper! Matrix (86) _ iron- Manganeae Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Mucky Minaret (F1) _ Vary Shallow Dark 8urfac a (TF12) _ Stratftled Layers 08) _ LaemyGlsyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain In Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) — Redox Dark Surface (Fe) _ Thick Dark Surface _(Al2) — Depleted Dark Surface (FT) ' Indlcatorsofhydrophyllovagatationand .— Sandy Mucky Mineral (61) _ Redox Depressions (FO) wbtiand hydrology must be present, b cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless dleturbad orprobiemadc. Rostricilve Layer (if observed): — Sedlmant bepoaU (82) Type: _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) Depth (Inches): Hydric $oil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Weiland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indl!algrg (minlrrum of onk Is reouired: check alLib tF Apply) Sgeecondary Indicators fmIdmum of two reauirt d) Surface Water (Al) WatsN8ts`ned Leaves (89) _ surface Sall Cravke (Be) _ High Water Table (A2) AquaUc Fauna (B13) _ Drainage Patteme (1310) _ Saturation (A3) _ TrueAquatioPlants (H14) _ Dry- Season WaterTab!e (02) WalerMarks(81) _ Hydrogen8Ade0dor(C1) _ Crayfsh Burrows (C8) — Sedlmant bepoaU (82) _ Oxidized Rhtrospheres an Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Presonco of Reduced Iron (C4) ` Stunts or Streased Santa (D1) _ Algal Mat or Cruet (134) _ Recent Iron Reducllon in Tilled 801e (09) Geomorphtc Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (88) ` Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC- Neutral Teat 05) — Inundation Vialbls on Aerial Imagery (87) ,,._ Gauge or Well Data (DO) _,,,_ Sparsely Vegetated Ccncave 8urfaco (BB) _ Other (Explain in Remarka) P eld Observe one: �( Surl=3 Water Present? Yoe_ Water Table Present? Yes No ", Depth(Inchea): No Depth — (inches): ICE Saturation Present? Yes _ No Depth pnches): Wetland Hydrology PraseM7 Yes No Includes ca 'll ary hinge) Doscibe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aartal photos, previous Inspections), If available: Remarks: U6 Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Reglon — Version 2.0 t� n� WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Mlttmst IRe tan P*30tisite: A6 rn r7 CtAa I�u st re L �w yrfCoun!y rYrt 1 Sampling Date: /o / Appioantlowner t t etete: _ 8arnplingPcinL (/�% investigatar(s) ;� ( a AC S o C , Sect,on, Township, Range, _ Lendform (hliislape, terrace, etc.): Laaal relief (concave, convex, none): - °—uC{VIE�- Slope ( %): Let Long: Datum: Sall Map Unit Name: o NN classification:. Are olimatic I hydrologlo condrdona on the ette typlcal for this &ne of year? Yas No (fC no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Sall or Hydrology elgnHfcanliy disturbed? Ara "Normal Clrcumateneae present? Yea IC No Are Vegetation . $all or Hydrology naturally problematlo? (If needed, explain any anawera In Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing eampling point tomflons, trensects, Important features, etc. HydrOhYIcVegetation Present? Yee No Hydric Boll Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wattand Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Welland? Yes No VEGETATION w Use sclentifto names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot elze: ) 1. Absolute °y/ Cover Dominant Indicator Ala - Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant6peclas That Are 09L, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Acmas All Strata: (e) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A16) _ a 2. 3. 4. 5 SaptlnalShrub Straluirr (Plot aza: 1. I hi ) =Total CoveT 7 F7PT-- i Prevalence Index workshaet: Total °/Q Cover or., -_ MuRinly bq• m species x 7 FACW species x 2 = . FAC species x 3 a _ FACU species x A = UPL species x 5 Column Totals: (A) ig) Prevalence Index - 91A - A70 3. /,,sue a Al IF� r i 4: 8. i v a Total Cover Herb 5 m (Plot size: s ) 1. 2, 3. Hydrophytio Vegetation Indicators: 1 -Rapid Teat for Hydrophytlo Vegetation Y�12 - Dominance Test is >b0 °A _ 3 - Prevelence index is 0,0' A data In R marl+edorpon a separatetheet�porHng _ Problematy Hydrophytlo Vegetation° (Cxplaln) 'Indicatora of hyd& soil and wnlfand hydrotog must he praserrt, unless disturbed or prnb;ematic, 4, g, g. 7. 0. 8 8, td. jNoodv Vine �tratiim (Plot aixe: 1 ) a Total Cover Hydroptlyuc Vegetation Pressni? Yea No_ 2. e Total Cover Remarks; include photo numb" here or on a aeparate sheet) LIS Army Corps of Englnesra Midwest Regtcn - Version 2.0 SOIL sampling Point; ZI=l -jer p>FOffe CeacdpBon: (Describe 10 the depth needed to document the fnd(cator or confirm the &beenos of lndlcators.) Depth _Marc T__ Rodog Features I ran (mlnhum ofgna Is raaMlrAd: rr" Odor (molall Oofos(molstl __ Rernarka fJ oY Surrece Svll Cracks (88) lmaati� �0' r y Te. ya True Aquallo Plenty (1314) Dry- Season Water Table (02) 1TvVV. Coco lion DaDe ration AM-Reduced Matrix MSoMeaked Send drains. slocatton: PL =Pore Llnlna. MoMatrix, F}ydria 9pil l rs: _ Sediment Dspasks (92) Indloatore f6rProblemaf3o Hydrio Solle: ; -� "" Sandy Q1eyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast PraAe Redox (A18) (B Sandy Redox (86) Vork Surfsaa (67) _r&,Geornorphlc Position (62) piled Me* (66) _ lron-Ma,t :anew Masses (F12) Hydia - Sullida (A4) _ Loamy Musky Mineral (F1) _ Very Shallow Dark awfara (TF12) ,_,_, SVatlfted Layars (Ail) _ loamy Gleyed Maufx (F2) _ other(l:xptaln In Remarks) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) _ Depleted Metrlx (F3) Depleted Below Dsrk Surface (Ai 1) _ Redox Dark Surface (Fd) No Depth (Inches): _ Thick Dark Surraca -(Al2) — 'Depleted Dark Surface (F7) alndicators ofhydrophoo vegetation and =r Sandy Muctry Mineral (61) _ Radox Depressions (F@) wWand hydrolo jY must be present, .J5 om Mucky Peat Cr peal (53) unless diehrrbad or problematic. rte%blctiva Layer (Ir observed): . Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitottng well, aerial photos, previous Inspeoticns), If availebte: Remarks: Type. 'L�'Ho Depth (Inchesk Hydric Boll Present? Yu, Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: I ran (mlnhum ofgna Is raaMlrAd: check Secossdary Indlcalare rminlmum of two renulradl _ Surface Water (Al) , Water-Stained Leaves (e8) Surrece Svll Cracks (88) High Water Table (Al) Aquattc Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (Bi0) Saturation (A3) True Aquallo Plenty (1314) Dry- Season Water Table (02) ..,., Water Nlerks (B1) _ Hydrogen Sutgde Odor (C1) _ Cmyflsh Burrcwa (C8) _ Sediment Dspasks (92) _ Oxidized Rhirosphares on I.Iving Rocts (C3) _ Saturation Visible Cn Asrlal Imagery (Cg) — Drift Deposlre (83) _ Pmae nee or Reduced Iroti (Cd) r, Stunted cr Stressed Plante (D1) — Algal Mat or Cruat (54) _ Recent Iron Reduction in T111ed bolls (C6) _r&,Geornorphlc Position (62) _ Iron Depoalts (DO) 'Thin Muck Surface (C7) AI FAC Neutral Teat (D6) _ Inundation Visible on Aortal imagary (B7) _ Gauga or Well Date (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _. Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Obseivaltone: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yee No Depth (Inches): Saturgtlon prsasat7 Yas x-- Me Depth (Inchon): _ Wadand Hydrolagy Prenent? Yes Ho Includes cavillery cavil frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitottng well, aerial photos, previous Inspeoticns), If availebte: Remarks: US Army Corpa of Englnowe Mldwast Region- Varalon 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Mldvt ed Region Pmeav/$tte: af7Ca_l(a ��/lf !f _ CltyiCoun(y; / Bempling Pala:-�55, /d Z Appricant/cwror. sA—r State: Sampling Poir(1: Invoatlgatar(s): C ' Lil/S y Sadon, Township, Rang a:_.. _ /p /'L ... zSf I.endforrn (bntstope, terrane, 610 local relief (concave, convex, mane}: slope (4b }: Lai: Long: Datum, soil Map Unit Name: - 'S�P (2 il0;f— Are climatic ) hydrologic owdhone on the sftelyrical forthla lime ofyenr? Yes iz: No (H no, exptaln In Rama*o ) Are Vegetation ,,Soft , or Hydrology elgntflcantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circurnetencee° present? Yea No Are Vegetation ': Sell , or Hydrology nehurally problematic? (If needed, explain any gnawers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OK ; FINDINGS — Mach site prep showing Hempling point Imtlons, transacts, important featuretes, ate, HydroPhVlIc Vegemt[ort Present? Yee _�(� No MU14101y hw Hydrio Sell PrmrLt? Yea No _ Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea No W"In 6Wetland? Yea No Rarnarkpp: (�vssrl.,� qt l'a.GQ2C� C�f�.�� K't $ fG✓�(.� ..��iC,i�.0 �' C-,,. x 3 m — VEGETAIION — Use sclantiflc namras of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: } Co' a &neolea7 . status ti. 2. 9, 4. 8. = Total Cover Saollnal9hnlbSMpn (Piatslze: ) t. 2. 3. 4, -- -- R TVI%4 Cover (Plot size: ) y 2. 3. 4. U. s. 7. a. 10. Wooe#y VIrLe etretrim (Plot size: 1. 2. _ d Totat Cover Number of Dominant Species ThatArs OBL, FACW, or FAO: (A) Total Number of Dominent Species Across All Strata: (t9} Percent ofDominantBpecles That Are OBL, VACW, or FAO: ( (AIB) Total % Cover of MU14101y hw CBI. spool$& x t FACW epeclea x 2 FAPj spades x 3 m — FT(CU &peales x 4 UPL &peclas x g Column Totals: (A) (g) Prevalence Index a BIA G 9 - Rapid Test for HydrophyticVegatsdon ,,,�,/2 - Dominence Testis >60% _ 3- Provalanee Index is .53.01 4 - MorphologicalAdsptetlona` (Provide supporting data In Remarks oron a separate rslreet) _ Prohferrratto Hydrophytio Vagetatfonr (ExpWo) tlndicstors of hydric sail and wationd hydrology must be prasarrt, unless dlsturbad or preblemAlc. Wooptlytto Veyataitlon at Total Cover Pra9ore? or cn a eo"We sheet) , Yes No US Army Corps of Enginecra Midwest Region - Version 2.0 BOIL 6ampling Point_ 2�t ProRie Descriplion: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth hlatrtx Redox Features Primary Ind!l (minimum ofene Is reeulred: @�L,• iY��_ °/, Coiorlmoiatl �3'a� Tvos— �,_L9,Q� t�a - Rem rks /, r�� Surface So3 Cracks (BB) !3= R s _ Aquatic Fauna (613) ` 1 e: C- Concentration, D =De latlon, RM= Reduced Matrix h1914Masked $and Oratns, Location; PL =Pore LlnIn M=Matrix• Hydrio Sail Indioators: _ Water Marks (81) Indicators for Probtematle Hydric Salle : Hlelosol (Al) — Sandy Gleyed fitstr6r (94) _ Coast Pralde Radom (A18) Htstlo Epipedon (A8) — Sandy RedVDt (66) Dark Maca (81) Buck Mello (A3) _„_, Stripped Met& (88) _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sut@da (A4) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Svrfece (TF12) Stratified Layers (A8) — Loamy Glayed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) " Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ _ Redox Dark Surface (F8) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ DeplaW Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytio vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (61) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ b cm Musky Peat or Peal (83) Depth (inches): Depth ( Inches): unless dleturbed or problematic. Reatrictiva Layer (if observed): Type: coIlia Deacttbe Rerded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspecilone), If avatlaVe: Remarks: Depth (Igchas): Hydric Hot! Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY etiand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Ind!l (minimum ofene Is reeulred: ch rksII thataooiv) uexriftt Indicaicra (minimum of two reaulredl _ Surface Water (At) _ Waler-Stalned Leaves (69) Surface So3 Cracks (BB) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) _ Drainage Patterns' (Bic) Saturation (A3) TrueAquatio Plants (814) _ Dry8eaacn WateriaVa (02) _ Water Marks (81) _ Hydrogen Sulfide, Odor (C1) _Crayfsh Burrows (Ce) . Sediment Deposits (B2) ^_ _ Oxidized Rhlzosphems on Living Roota (C3) ^ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) Drift Deposits (83) _ _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) . _ Stuntad or Stressed Plante (D1) _ Aigetl Mal or Cruet (134) — Recent iron Reductlan In Tilled Solis (08) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) iron Daposite (Bfi) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAG Neutral Teat (DS) _ inundation Vlslble on Aedol Imagery (137) _ Gnugo or Well Data (09) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Feld Observations; Surfsoa Water Present? Yes— No Depth (Inches); Weser Tabla Present? Yes ___r_ No SaturattonPfeaent? Yes,�,_ ,,, No Depth (inches): Depth ( Inches): ^ WetlandHydroIMProsant7 Yes Ho K Includes ca frin e coIlia Deacttbe Rerded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspecilone), If avatlaVe: Remarks: US Army Corps of F_nglneom Midwest Region -- Version 2.0 WETI.AIND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Mldwast Region prolsctl8ita: �,a S 01tylCourtty: 1gkje(l. BamplmgDate: Q Z Appllcanl/Owner, state :- M/V ^ BamphaF6lntDD 3- h o �. Godon, Township, Rana ld 1 Z r Inveetigatar(e): Ip, g Wdiform (hWaiops, terraoe, sic.): Local relief(conoave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lit, Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: 4�/- _ , _ WWI elaeal loation: Are dllmerHa I hydrolaglo condtllons on VQH, typlcal for We Ilme of year? Yea � No (If no, explain In Re marha.) Are VegetsNon , Boll , ar Fgdrotogy WgnIff=VV dlsturbed7 Are'Normal Circumstances' presenI Yea ()< No Are Veg"on . Soil , or Hydrolagy naturally probtamatle? (!f needed, axplalrt any anaxara In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attaoh sfte map showing sampling point locations, travi ects, Important features, eta. Hydrophyltc Vegetaport Preeam? Yes No OBI. speolas Hyddo 8011 PaWnt7 Yes No loth* Sampled Ar4a a wellend4 Yee No Wetland hydrology Present? Yea No within Remy a: UPL epeolaa VEGtTATION — Pse ecientilic names of planta. Tray Strelum {Plat slr6: ) 1. 2, 8. 4. 6. % cover BMW Stews I Number of Dominant Species Z That Are 08L, FACW, or PAC. (A) a ![ b to tt (PIolsExe: /� =Total Cover 2. 8. Q. ai (Piot slave: S —' Total Cover 4. ) 2. 9. 6. 6. 7. 6, B. 10. n Total Cover 7�f_aodvVine 9tretutn (Plot si><a: ) 1. 2. c Total Cover j Total dumber of Dominant l Speeiea Across At Strata: (8) Percent of Dominant Speclea ThatAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: %dCD (Af8) , L01 % 00ar oi: Muitfniv bv: OBI. speolas x 1 = _ FACW species x 2 = FAC spades x 3 a FACU speales x 4 UPL epeolaa x 6 a _ Column Towle: (A) (8) PrevalencsIndex aB1A- 1 -Rapid Teat for Hydrophytlo Vegetation 2 - Dorm nonce Teat Is �504b _ 3. Prevalence Index IsQb' _,_„ 4 - Morphol ogleal Adaptallo nal (Provid(i supporting dale In Rernarks or on a separate ahest) ,r, Problemabo Hydrophytic Vegetation' (F-xpWn) 11nd)cators of hydric.eoii and wetland hydrology rnuat be presant, unless dtsturbed or proNimWim hydrophytic Vagetatlon pre"A" Yee No�� US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region- Verstan 2.0 t�IYORQL' 0 ©Y 601L t3ampting PoInL•�� t,rq�}•- Proflle Description: (I7eseribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix _ Redox Features Primary lndkalore fm1abjoLgf one Is reaulr9d: check jUjQhjM_ Color e 4a Co1ar(mclsti _°� . TvneI—Loo Texture Ci -I. z QRemadks 14M 41 /MLf`,,L Z io w 1 Lta �{ k1 L6 -aa� -�-8ahiratlon (A3) 'i a. C- Concentration D =Da lotion, RM =Rsduoad Matrix N1SaMar;ked Sand Graine. k cation: PL =Pore Lh M ■Matrix. Hydric Beil Indicators: — Cra&heurrowa(Ce) IndfeAtars for ProblentatieHydric Salle l. ,_,,, Oxidized Rhirosphsrea on Living Roots (0) Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A18) Hlstfc Eplpedon (A2) — Sandy Redox (tab) _ Dark Surface (57) . t3lack HlsLc (A3) _ Stripped Mally (80) _ Iron - Manganese Menses (F12) — Hydrogen Sdflds (A4) IL Amamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) -, Very Shallow Dark Surface (T712) StmURed Layers (AS) _ Loamy Glayed Matrix (F2) Other(Explaln In Re parka) 2 cm Muck (A1r7) _ Depleted Alatrlx (F3) Field bservations: Depleted below Dark Surface (At t) J. Redox Dark Surface (FB) 'Thick Dark Surface. (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophydo vegetation and Bendy Mucky Mineral (61) T Redox Depreaslons (F8) wWand hydrology must be present, _ b cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Saturation Present? Yea No unless disturbed or problemalfc. Raatrtctive layer (tf observed): Hydrology present? Yes No Includes capillary trim a �1'ae: Depth (,nehea): Hydrlc SoA Present? Yes _ No Remarks:o Watlarid y rclogy Indicators: Primary lndkalore fm1abjoLgf one Is reaulr9d: check all that eoRly� Secondav Indicators (minimum of w reagirem Surface Water (Al) _ Water - Stalned Leaves (BB) _ Surface 5011 Cracks (B0) ..High Water Table (A2) Actuatio Fauna (B13) Drainage Panams (1310) -�-8ahiratlon (A3) ,-_• True Aquatic Plante (514) _ Dry-Season Ulster Table (C2) _ Water Marka(S1) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7) — Cra&heurrowa(Ce) _ Sediment Deposits (62) ,_,,, Oxidized Rhirosphsrea on Living Roots (0) _ Saturation Mslhle an Aerial Imagery (Cg) �. Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plante (D1) _ Algal Met or Crust (04) Recent Iron Reducllcn In Tllled Bolls (CB) �eomorph!c Peaition (02) Iron Deposits (80) Thin Muck Surface (C7) AC- Neutral Toot (DB) • _ Inundation Vieibie on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Caugo or Woll Date (Dg) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) _ Other (Explaln In Remarka) Field bservations: Surfaco Water Present? Yee__,__ No � Depth (inches): Water TaVB Present? Yea _ _ No Depth (inchoa): Saturation Present? Yea No Depth (Inches) :.�� Wetland Hydrology present? Yes No Includes capillary trim a Describe Recorded Data (etteam gauge, monitoring }yell, aerial photos, pravlous Inspections), if avallabio: Remarks: de'(00 �+x 5ar at �L4DI gat Ikea S� L (Ln US Army Corps of Engineers Mldweat Roglon - Verelon 2.4 APPENDIX C Wetland Photos Welland Delineation Report rw' Monticello Business Center WSB WSB Project No. 1494 -55 & : h rr+aerrlcr lnr.. Wetland D at sample point 1 looking cast Wetland D — southeast corner looking northwest Wetland D at sample point 2 looking south. Upland area to right appeared to be graded in the past. i r _ Y Area C — large linear depression in field. No indicators of wetland. -. �l Terminus of Area C. Undisturbed vegetation adjacent to the Held was dominated by smooth brotne and the crop did not exhibit signs of stress due to saturation or inundation. APPENDIX D Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Wetland Delimplion Report Monticello Business Center WSB W513 Project No. 1444 -55 .F .k,ue iur.Yr lnr. NRCS method - Rainfall Documentation Worksheet Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination NRCS EnQineerinp- Field Handbook Chapter 19 Date 5/17/2012 Landowner /Project Monticello Business Center Weather Station High Density Network State MN County Wright Growing Season Spring 2012 Photo lobs Date 10-May-1121 Soil Name Dorset, Markey shaded cells are locked or calculated 1st Prior Month* 2nd Prior Month* 3rd Prior I1lonth* Long -term rainfall statistics (from WETS table or State Climatology Office) 30% 30% Condition Month Product of chance chance Dry, Wet, Condition Weight Previous 2 Month < > Precip Normal Value Value Columns April 1.44 2.85 2.51 N 2 3 6 March 1 1.04 1.87 1.55,N 2 2 4 February 1 0.301 0.781 1.201W 31 11 3 *compared to photo /observation date Sum 13 Note: If sum is G - 9 prior period has been drier Condition value: than normal Dry =I 10-14 prior period has been normal Normal =2 Wet =3 _ _ 15 - 18 prior period has been wetter than normal Conclusions: prior period has been normal APPENDIX E Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary Wetland Delineation Report rw/ AL Monticello Business Center 1Vi►SB WSR Project No. 1494 -55 � A.,. "W1 rr. Inc. 1. Project/Site Information Project/Site Name: Monticello Business Center Local Government Unit: City of Monticello Location (address and/or T, R, Sec.): T121 N, R25W, Section 10 2. Applicant Information Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Bruce Westby Address: 505 Walnut Street City, State, Zip: Monticello, MN 55362 E -mail: bruce,westby @ci.monticello.mn.us Phone: 763- 271 -3236 3. AgentlConsultant Information Company Name (if applicable). WSB & Associates Contact Person: Jed Chesnut Address: 701 Xenia Ave So, Suite 300 City, State, Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55416 E -mail: jchesnut@wsbeng,com Phone: 763 -231 -4854 4. Description of Request Check all that apply: ✓ Wetland Boundary (must attach wetland delineation report) ✓ Wetland Type (Eggers & Reed and/or Circular 39 type) 5. Signature By signature below, the applicant requests a determination from the Local Government Unit under Minnesota Rules 8420.0225 on the submitted wetland boundary and type information in this application The applicant also affirms that they are the owner of the subject property or have permission from the landowner to pursue this delpohination. or Authorized Agent Signature 17 It— Date Important Notes: • The applicant may be required to submit multiple copies of the report/information to the LGU. The LGU may require the applicant to submit copies directly to Technical Evaluation Panel Members. Check with your LGU regarding their submittal requirements, • The LGU decision must be made in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99. For LGU use only Date Received: Page 1 of 1 SWSR Wetland BoundaryfType Application Form 11/10/08