Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.07.24 Council Packet Meeting Location: Farmington City Hall, Council Chambers 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday, October 7, 2024 7:00 PM Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZENS COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (This time is reserved for citizen comments regarding non-agenda items. No official action can be taken on these items. Speakers are limited to five minutes to address the city council during citizen comment time.) 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.1. Agreement for Legal Services Between the City of Farmington and Campbell Knutson. Agenda Item: Agreement for Legal Services Between the City of Farmington and Campbell Knutson. - Pdf 5 - 10 7.2. Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the 2024 Election Cycle Agenda Item: Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the 2024 Election Cycle - Pdf 11 - 12 7.3. Gambling Exempt Permit Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 Agenda Item: Gambling Exempt Permit Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 - Pdf 13 - 16 7.4. Gambling Exempt Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 Agenda Item: Gambling Exempt Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 - Pdf 17 - 20 7.5. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 21 - 22 Page 1 of 635 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 Agenda Item: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 - Pdf 7.6. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 Agenda Item: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 - Pdf 23 - 24 7.7. Development Contract - Vermillion Commons 4th Addition - Community Development Agenda Item: Development Contract - Vermillion Commons 4th Addition - Community Development - Pdf 25 - 43 7.8. Payment of Claims Agenda Item: Payment of Claims - Pdf 44 - 45 Payment of Claims 7.9. Resolution Declaring Surplus Property-Fire Agenda Item: Resolution Declaring Surplus Property-Fire - Pdf 46 - 57 7.10. Staff Changes and Recommendations Agenda Item: Staff Changes and Recommendations - Pdf 58 7.11. Direct 10Gbps Connection with LOGIS via a Cross-Connection Service at the Minnesota Technology Center Agenda Item: Direct 10Gbps connection with LOGIS via a cross- connection service at the Minnesota Technology Center. - Pdf 59 - 73 7.12. 2024-2025 Farmington High School Hockey Game Facility Use Agreement Agenda Item: 2024-2025 Farmington High School Hockey Game Facility Use Agreement - Pdf 74 - 77 7.13. Donation from Gerri Jolley to the Rambling River Center Agenda Item: Donation from Gerri Jolley to the Rambling River Center - Pdf 78 - 79 7.14. Donation from Marilyn Walton to the Rambling River Center Agenda Item: Accepting a Donation from Marilyn Walton to the Rambling River Center - Pdf 80 - 81 7.15. Resolution Authorizing Solicitation of Contributions to Fund Events That Foster Positive Relationships Between Law Enforcement and the Community Agenda Item: Resolution Authorizing Solicitation of Contributions to Fund Events That Foster Positive Relationships Between Law Enforcement and the Co - Pdf 82 - 83 7.16. 2024 Mill & Overlay - Change Order No. 1 Agenda Item: 2024 Mill & Overlay - Change Order No. 1 - Pdf 84 - 88 7.17. Memorandum of Understanding-Existing Easement Vacation and 89 - 102 Page 2 of 635 Creation of New Easement Agenda Item: Memorandum of Understanding-Existing Easement Vacation and Creation of New Easement - Pdf 7.18. Receive Quote and Award a Contract for the Fall 2024 Boulevard Stump Removals Agenda Item: Receive Quote and Award a Contract for the Fall 2024 Boulevard Stump Removals - Pdf 103 - 119 7.19. Resolution Declaring Surplus Equipment-Public Works Agenda Item: Resolution Declaring Surplus Equipment-Public Works - Pdf 120 - 121 7.20. Lawful Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Fire Relief Association November 1, 2024 Agenda Item: Lawful Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Fire Relief Association November 1, 2024 - Pdf 122 - 123 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.1. Resolution 2024-83 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project As the RGU, the City Council is asked to consider Resolution 2024-83 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project. Agenda Item: Resolution 2024-83 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project - Pdf 124 - 600 12.2. Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Advertisement for bids for the Rambling River Center Project Approve Plans and Specifications and authorize the Advertisements for Bids for the Rambling River Center Project. Agenda Item: Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Advertisement for bids for the Rambling River Center Project - Pdf 601 - 635 13. CITY COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Page 3 of 635 14. ADJOURN Page 4 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Lynn Gorski, City Administrator Department: Administration Subject: Agreement for Legal Services Between the City of Farmington and Campbell Knutson. Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The City of Farmington has a longstanding relationship with Campbell Knutson, P.A., a law firm that has provided comprehensive legal services to the City. Their expertise in municipal law has been invaluable in navigating the legal complexities faced by Farmington. The current contract for legal services is up for renewal, and it is essential to continue this partnership to ensure ongoing legal support for the City's operations and initiatives. DISCUSSION: The proposed contract with Campbell Knutson, P.A. covers a range of legal services including, but not limited to, general legal counsel, litigation support, and specialized legal advice on matters such as land use, zoning, and criminal prosecution. The contract terms have been reviewed and negotiated to ensure they align with the City's budget and legal service requirements. BUDGET IMPACT: The financial impact of this contract has been accounted for in the City's legal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The proposed contract amount is consistent with previous years and aligns with the City's financial planning and resource allocation. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the contract between Campbell Knutson, P.A. and the City of Farmington. Authorization for the City Clerk and Mayor to execute the contract on behalf of the City. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement for Legal Services Civil and Criminal 2025 Page 5 of 635 231572v2 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association THIS AGREEMENT, effective January 1, 2025, is by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association, a Minnesota corporation (“Attorney”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES AND RELATIONSHIP. A. The Attorney shall furnish and perform general civil municipal and criminal prosecution legal services for the City. B. The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities. 2. TERM. A. The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and this Agreement may be terminated without cause by action of the City Council. B. The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney shall give the City ninety (90) days written notice before the termination becomes effective. 3. FEES. A. Civil Municipal. Campbell Knutson will provide civil municipal legal services, including code enforcement, to the City, billed at the following hourly rates with a minimum increment of two-tenths of an hour: Page 6 of 635 231572v2 Civil Municipal 2025 Attorneys $185.00 Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $108.00 B. Litigation. For legal services which constitute active representation of the City in agency or legislative proceedings, grievance or interest arbitration, pre-litigation, litigation and appellate matters, excluding code enforcement, the following rates will apply: Litigation 2025 Attorneys $230/per hour Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $120 /per hour C. Prosecution: Campbell Knutson will provide criminal prosecution legal services to the City, billed at the following hourly rates: Prosecution 2025 Attorneys $175.00 Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $103.00 D. Pass Through: Land use and development projects require specialized knowledge and experience, and oftentimes involve extensive interaction with developer’s attorneys. For these projects, the City generally passes through its costs for legal and other consulting services to the developer or applicant. For legal services that are to be passed through to third parties according to the City's policies, the customary hourly rate of the attorney or legal assistant doing the work will be used for billing these passthrough services. Current Campbell Knutson pass-through rates range from $200.00 to $400.00 per hour for attorneys and from $125.00 to $150.00 per hour for legal assistants. E. Costs: Out-of-pocket costs without mark-up. Costs include: • Lexis/Nexis research • Recording/filing fees • Title company and property appraisal services when directed by the City Page 7 of 635 231572v2 • Postage of 50¢ or more • Photocopies at 20¢ per copy • Color copies at 40¢ per copy • Miscellaneous litigation expenses, such as for expert witnesses, when approved by the City F. Payments for legal services provided the City shall be made in the manner provided by law. The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement for services rendered. G. Beginning in January 2026 and annually thereafter, the hourly rates listed in sections 3(A), 3(B) and 3(C) shall be adjusted annually in an amount equivalent to the cost of living adjustment given to non-union employees, except pass-through rates that are adjusted by the Attorney, at the Attorney’s discretion, but no more than annually each year. 4. INSURANCE. The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against claims for legal malpractice. 5. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. B. Assignment: The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be performed hereunder without the written consent of the Farmington City Council. C. Conflicts: Attorney shall not accept representation of a new client that constitutes a conflict of interest with the City. The Attorney shall handle any conflict that arises with the City in the same manner as the Attorney handles conflicts with any other public client. If a conflict develops between an existing public client of Attorney and the City, such that Attorney has an ethical conflict of interest, Attorney shall inform the City of the conflict. Attorney may: Page 8 of 635 231572v2 i) withdraw from representation of both parties; ii) represent both parties with the informed consent of both parties; or iii) represent one client and withdraw from representation of the other client, with the informed consent of that client. D. Effective Date: This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by the City and the Attorney, and the new rates will take effect on January 1 of each respective year. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without the approval in writing of the Farmington City Council. Signature page follows. Page 9 of 635 231572v2 Dated: ______________, 2024. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: _________________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor By: _________________________________ Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Dated: ______________, 2024. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Elliott B. Knetsch, Vice President Page 10 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the 2024 Election Cycle Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: For Council approval is a resolution appointing additional Election Judges for the November 5, 2024 General Election. DISCUSSION: Per Minnesota Statutes 204B.21, "Election Judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality. Appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve, except that the appointing authority may pass a resolution authorizing the appointment of additional election judges within the 25 days before the election if the appointing authority determines that additional election judges will be required." Additional Election Judges are needed to serve our voters in the city of Farmington during the 2024 General Election. Staff is requesting that Council adopt Resolution 2024-85 approving the hiring of the following person(s) to serve voters at the November 5, 2024 General Election: Elizabeth Acker, James Banks, Suzette Banks, Abigail Carey, Janet Grohoski, Robert Hawksford, Mary Joseph, Debra Kosch, Jan Markison, Keather McLoone, Colin Moening, John Moore, Jerilyn Stoa, and Linda Tittle. Thank you to all of our judges for choosing to join Team Farmington! BUDGET IMPACT: Costs included in the City's 2024 budget. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-85 Appointing Additional Election Judges for the November 5, 2024 General Election. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-85 Appointing Election Judges Page 11 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-85 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 204B.21, Subdivision 2, the City Council must appoint Election Judges to serve in upcoming elections at least 25 days prior to the election, with the exception of appointing additional Election Judges within the 25 days before the election if it is determined that additional Election Judges will be required; and WHEREAS, the Election Judges listed below are needed to serve voters in the city of Farmington at the November 5th General Election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Farmington City Council hereby appoints the following person(s) to serve in positions of Head Judge, Election Judge, Health Care Facility Judge, and Student Judge at any and all elections, in the capacity given by the City Clerk and conducted by the City of Farmington, subject to change as needed in order to maintain major political party balance, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 204B.19, subdivision 5: Elizabeth Acker James Banks Suzette Banks Abigail Carey Janet Grohoski Robert Hawksford Mary Joseph Debra Kosch Jan Markison Keather McLoone Colin Moening John Moore Jerilyn Stoa Linda Tittle BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to assign Election Judges to specific precincts, in accordance with statutory requirements, and to make substitutions or additions as deemed necessary in order to fill vacancies. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 12 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Gambling Exempt Permit Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington have applied for a Gambling Exempt Permit for November 23, 2024. DISCUSSION: Per State Statute and City Code, gambling permit applications must first be approved by the City before the applicant may submit their application to the Gambling Control Board. The Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington will be having bingo on Saturday, November 23, 2024 at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. Adoption of a resolution approving the Gambling Exempt Permit is required as part of their application to the Gambling Control Board. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-86 Concurring with the Issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: Gambling App, Knights of Columbus 11.23.24 2024-86 Gambling Event Permit, Knights of Columbus 11.23.24 Page 13 of 635 Ty p e of No n p r o ? t Or g a n i z a t i o n (c h e c k on e ) : I: Fr a t e r n a l [: I Re l i g i o u s El Ve t e r a n s Bo w e r No n p r o ? t Or g a n i z a t i o n (D O NO T at t a c h a sa l e s ta x ex e m p t st a t u s or fe d e r a l em p l o y e r ID nu m b e r , as th e y ar e no t pr o o f of no n p r o f i t st a t u s . ) Cu r r e n t ca l e n d a r ye a r Ce r t i ? c a t e of Go o d St a n d i n g Do n ’ t ha v e a co p y ? Th i s ce r t i ? c a t e mu s t be ob t a i n e d ea c h ye a r fr o m : MN Se c r e t a r y of St a t e , Bu s i n e s s Se r v i c e s Di v i s i o n Se c r e t a r y Of St a t e W8 b 5 ' t e , Ph O n e nu m b e r s : 60 Em p i r e Dr i v e , Su i t e 10 0 ww w . s o s . s t a t e . m n . u s St . Pa u l , MN 55 1 0 3 65 1 - 2 9 6 - 2 8 0 3 , or to l l fr e e 1- 8 7 7 - 5 5 1 - 6 7 5 7 D In t e r n a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e - I R S in c o m e ta x ex e m p t i o n 50 1 ( c ) le t t e r in yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e Do n ' t ha v e a co p y ? Ob t a i n a co p y of yo u r fe d e r a l in c o m e ta x ex e m p t le t t e r by ha v i n g an or g a n i z a t i o n of ? c e r co n t a c t th e IR S at 87 7 - 8 2 9 - 5 5 0 0 . In t e r n a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e — A f ? l i a t e of na t i o n a l , st a t e w i d e , or in t e r n a t i o n a l pa r e n t no n p r o f i t or g a n i z a t i o n (c h a r t e r ) If yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n fa l l s un d e r a pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n , at t a c h co p i e s of m of th e fo l l o w i n g : 1. IR S le t t e r sh o w i n g yo u r pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n is a no n p r o ? t 50 1 ( c ) or g a n i z a t i o n wi t h a gr o u p ru l i n g ; an d 2. th e ch a r t e r or le t t e r fr o m yo u r pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n re c o g n i z i n g yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n as a su b o r d i n a t e . Ha s yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n he l d a bi n g o ev e n t in th e cu r r e n t ca l e n d a r ye a r ? 2 Ye s D No If ye s , li s t th e da t e s wh e n bi n g o wa s co n d u c t e d : Wa n g , '2 i 2. 7 . y Th e pr o p o s e d bi n g o ev e n t wi l l be : go n e of fo u r or fe w e r bi n g o ev e n t s he l d th i s ye a r . Da t e s : MW -O R - El co n d u c t e d on up to 12 co n s e c u t i v e da y s in co n n e c t i o n wi t h a: I: co u n t y fa i r Da t e s : D ci v i c ce l e b r a t i o n Da t e s : DM i n n e s o t a St a t e Fa i r Da t e s : Pe r s o n in ch a r g e of bi n g o ev e n t : D5 4 1 1 ; ; MA J t 49 4 Da y t i m e Ph o n e : ‘/ 2 — Ba , 52 23 Na m e of pr e m i s e s wh e r e bi n g o wi l l be co n d u c t e d : 6& 4 5 3 5E ST ; mt ? d ‘ ? é Ci t y : If to w n s h i p , to w n s h i p na m e : ‘ Co u n t y : MI N N E S O T A LA W F U L GA M B L I N G LG Z 4 O B Ap p l i c a t i o n to Co n d u c t Ex c l u d e d No Fe e OR G A N I Z A T I O N IN F O R M A T I O N Or g a n i z a t i o n Pr e v i o u s Ga m b l i n g Na m e : Pe r m i t Nu m b e r : Mi n n e s o t a Ta x lD Em p l o y e r ID Nu m b e r , if an y : (F E I N ) , Ifan y : Ma l l i n g Ad d r e s s : Ci t y : St a t e : Zi p : Co u n t y : Na m e of Ch i e f Ex e c u t i v e Of ? c e r (C E O ) : CE O Da y t i m e Ph o n e : Em a i l pe r m i t to (i f ot h e r t NO N P R O F At t a c h a co p CE O Em a l l : (p e r m i t wl l l beem a i l e d toth i s em a i l ad d r e s s un l e s s ot h e m i s e In d i c a t e d be l o w ) ha n th e CE O) : IT ST A T U S y of at le a s t on e of th e f o l l osh o w i n g pr o o f ofno n p r o ? t st a t u s : FA W W 96 E X C L U D E D BI N G O AC T I V I T Y (li f t -l 1 1 /1 Pa g e 1of2 14 “ : A’ A A . I' Page 14 of 635 CI T Y AP P R O V A L fo r a ga m b l i n g pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n ci t y li m i t s CO U N T Y AP P R O V A L fo r a ga m b l i n g pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d in a to w n s h i p On be h a l f of th e ci t y , 1 ap p r o v e th i s ap p l i c a t i o n fo r ex c l u d e d bi n g o ac t i v i t y at th e pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n th e ci t y ’ s ju r i s d i c t i o n . Pr i n t Ci t y Na m e : ij 0" %\ M M § W ) Si g r of Ci t y Pe r s o n n e l : On be h a l f of th e co u n t y , I ap p r o v e th i s ap p l i c a t i o n fo r ex c l u d e d bi n g o ac t i v i t y at th e pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n th e co u n t y ' s ju r i s d i c t i o n . Pr i n t Co u n t y Na m e : Si g n a t u r e of Co u n t y Pe r s o n n e l : Ti t l e : Da t e : TO W N S H I P (i f re q u i r e d by th e co u n t y ) On be h a l f of th e to w n s h i p , I ac k n o w l e d g e th a t th e or g a n i z a t i o n is ap p l y i n g fo r ex c l u d e d bi n g o ac t i v i t y wi t h i n th e to w n s h i p li m i t s . (A to w n s h i p ha s no st a t u t o r y au t h o r i t y to ap p r o v e or de n y an ap p l i c a t i o n , pe r Mi n n e s o t a St a t u t e s , Se c t i o n 34 9 . 2 1 3 . ) Th e ci t y or co u n t y mu s t si g n be f o r e su b m i t t i n g ap p l i c a t i o n to th e Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d . Pr i n t To w n s h i p Na m e : Si g n a t u r e of To w n s h i p Of f i c e r : Ti t l e : Th e in f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d in th i s ap p l i c a t i o n is co m p l e t e an d ac c u r a t e to th e be s t of my kn o w l e d g e . Ch i e f Ex e c u t i v e Of ? c e r ' s Si g n a t u r e : ?a b /~ = ’ V ’ / Da t e : 78 / 1 7 (S i g n a t u r e mu s t be CE O ' s si g n a t u r e ; de s i g n e e ma y no t si g n ) ?? ¥ P r t k EV A / s Pr i n t Na m e : Ma i l or fa x ap p l i c a t i o n an d a co p y of yo u r pr o o f of no n p r o ? t st a t u s to : Mi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d 17 1 1 We s t Co u n t y Ro a d B, Su i t e 30 0 So u t h Ro s e v i l l e , MN 55 1 1 3 Fa x : 65 1 - 6 3 9 - 4 0 3 2 An ex c l u d e d bi n g o pe r m i t wi l l be ma i l e d to yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n mu s t ke e p it s bi n g o re c o r d s fo r 3- 1 / 2 ye a r s . Bi n g o ha r d ca r d s an d bi n g o nu m b e r se l e c t i o n de v i c e s ma y be bo r r o w e d fr o m an o t h e r or g a n i z a t i o n au t h o r i z e d to co n d u c t bi n g o . Ot h e r w i s e , bi n g o ha r d ca r d s , bi n g o pa p e r , an d bi n g o nu m b e r se l e c t i o n de v i c e s mu s t be ob t a i n e d fr o m a di s t r i b u t o r li c e n s e d by th e Mi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d . To ?n d a li c e n s e d di s t r i b u t o r , go to ww w . m n . g o v / g c b an d cl i c k on Di s t r l b u t o r s un d e r th e LI S T OF LI C E N S E E S ta b , or ca l l 65 1 - 5 3 9 - 1 9 0 0 . Qu e s t i o n s ? Ca l l a Li c e n s i n g Sp e c i a l i s t at 65 1 - 5 3 9 - 1 9 0 0 . Th i s fo r m wi l l be ma d e av a i l a b l e in al t e r n a t i v e fo r m a t (i . e . la r g e pr i n t , br a i l l e ) up o n re q u e s t . LG 2 4 O B Ap p l i c a t i o n to Co n d u c t Ex c l u d e d Bi n g o LO C A L UN I T OF GO V E R N M E N T AC K N O W L E D G M E N T (r e q u i r e d be f o r e su b m i t t i n g ap p l i c a t i o n to th e Mi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d ) CH I E F EX E C U T I V E OF F I C E R ' S SI G N A T U R E (r e q u i r e d ) MA I L OR FA X AP P L I C A T I O N & AT T A C H M E N T S Da t a pr i v a c y no t i c e . Th e In f o r m a t i o n re q u e s t e d on th i s fo r m (a n d an y at t a hm e n t s ) wi l l be us e d by th e Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d (B o a r d ) to de t e r - mi n e yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ' s qu a l i ? c a t i o n s to be In - vo l v e d In la w f u l ga m b l i n g ac t i v i t i e s In Mi n n e s o t a . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ha s th e ri g h t to re f u s e to su p - pl y th e in f o r m a t i o n ; ho w e v e r , If yo u r or g a n i z a - ti o n re f u s e s to su p p l y th i s In f o r m a t i o n , th e Bo a r d ma y no t be ab l e to de t e r m i n e yo u r or g a n i z a - ti o n ’ s qu a l i ? c a t i o n s an d , as a co n s e q u e n c e , ma y re f u s e to Is s u e a pe r m i t . If yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n su p p l i e s th e In f o r m a t i o n re q u e s t e d , th e Bo a r d wi l l be ab l e to pr o c e s s th e ap p l i c a t i o n . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e an d ad d r e s s wi l l be pu b l i c In f o r m a t i o n wh e n re c e i v e d by th e Bo a r d . Al l ot h e r In f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d wi l l be pr i v a t e da t a ab o u t yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n un t i l th e Bo a r d is s u e s th e pe r m i t . Wh e n th e Bo a r d Is s u e s th e pe r m i t , al l In f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d wi l l be c o m e pu b l i c . If th e Bo a r d do e s no t Is s u e a pe r m i t , al l In f o r - ma t i o n pr o v i d e d re m a i n s pr i v a t e , wi t h th e ex - ce p t i o n of yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e an d ad d r e s s wh i c h wi l l re m a i n pu b l i c . Pr i v a t e da t a ab o u t yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ar e av a i l a b l e to Bo a r d An eq u a l op p o r t u n l t y em p l o y e r 11 / 1 7 Pa g e 2 of 2 me m b e r s , Bo a r d st a f f wh o s e wo r k re q u i r e s ac c e s s to th e In f o r m a t i o n ; Mi n n e s o t a ' s De p a r t - me n t of Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ; At t o r n e y Ge n e r a l ; Co m - mi s s i o n e r s of Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n , Mi n n e s o t a Ma n a g e - me n t & Bu d g e t , an d Re v e n u e ; Le g i s l a t i v e Au d i - to r , na t i o n a l an d In t e r n a t i o n a l ga m b l i n g re g u l a - to r y ag e n c i e s ; an y o n e pu r s u a n t to co u r t or d e r ; ot h e r In d i v i d u a l s an d ag e n c i e s sp e c i ? c a l l y au t h o r i z e d by st a t e or fe d e r a l la w to ha v e ac c e s s to th e in f o r m a t i o n ; In d i v i d u a l s an d ag e n c i e s fo r wh i c h la w or le g a l or d e r au t h o r i z e s a ne w us e or sh a r i n g of In f o r m a t i o n af t e r th i s no t i c e wa s gi v e n ; an d an y o n e wi t h yo u r wr i t t e n co n s e n t . Page 15 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-86 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPT PERMIT TO CONDUCT EXCLUDED BINGO – KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 2400 FARMINGTON, NOVEMBER 23, 2024 WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington have made application for a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to the Gambling Control Board to conduct excluded bingo on November 23, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has no objections to the said activity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby concur with the issuance of a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit by the Gambling Control Board to the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event on November 23, 2024 to be conducted at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 16 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Gambling Exempt Application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington have applied for a Gambling Exempt Permit for February 22, 2025. DISCUSSION: Per State Statute and City Code, gambling permit applications must first be approved by the City before the applicant may submit their application to the Gambling Control Board. The Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington will be having bingo on Saturday, February 22, 2025 at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. Adoption of a resolution approving the Gambling Exempt Permit is required as part of their application to the Gambling Control Board. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-87 Concurring with the Issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025. ATTACHMENTS: Gambling App, Knights of Columbus 2.22.25 2024-87 Gambling Exempt Permit, Knights of Columbus 02.22.25 Page 17 of 635 Or g a n i z a t i o n Pr e v i o u s Ga m b l l n g Na m e d é d g m aE ( in c o m e ; (. 2 5 1 1 . 1: 3 1 . “ . me e r m i t Nu m b e r : m- S Z E Z I - Z ? v - 42 . 2 Mi n n e s o t a Ta x ID Fe d e r a l Em p l o y e r ID Nu m b e r , if an y : ‘0 ‘1 :0 “ Nu m b e r (F E I N ) , if an y : Ma i l i n g Ad d r e s s : W W‘ — .— Ci t y : MA W — — St a t e : ML Zi p : S 3vi i Co u n t y : Em Na m e of Ch i e f Ex e c u t i v e Of ? c e r (C E O ) : Ml ‘ g 6. Eg g CE O Da y t i m e Ph o n e : 52 2 - ‘8 6 - ‘ 5 3 Z CE O Em a i l : Em a i l pe r m i t to (I f ot h e r th a n th e CE O ) : b Ty p e of No n p r o ? t Or g a n i z a t i o n (c h e c k on e ) : D Fr a t e r n a l D Re l i g i o u s Et h e r No n p r o ? t Or g a n i z a t i o n (D O NO T at t a c h a sa l e s ta x ex e m p t st a t u s or fe d e r a l em p l o y e r ID nu m b e r , as th e y ar e no t pr o o f of no n p r o ? t st a t u s . ) Cu r r e n t ca l e n d a r ye a r Ce r t i ? c a t e of Go o d St a n d i n g Do n ' t ha v e a co p y ? Th i s ce r t i ? c a t e mu s t be ob t a i n e d ea c h ye a r fr o m : MN Se c r e t a r y of St a t e , Bu s i n e s s Se r v i c e s Di v i s i o n Se c r e t a r y of St a t e we b s i t e . ph o n e nu m b e r s : 60 Em p i r e Dr i v e , Su i t e 10 0 ww w . s o s . s t a t e . m n . u s St . Pa u l , MN 55 1 0 3 65 1 - 2 9 6 - 2 8 0 3 , or to l l fr e e 1- 8 7 7 - 5 5 1 - 6 7 6 7 |: | In t e r n a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e - I R S in c o m e ta x ex e m p t i o n 50 1 ( c ) le t t e r in yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e Do n ’ t ha v e a co p y ? Ob t a i n a co p y of yo u r fe d e r a l in c o m e ta x ex e m p t le t t e r by ha v i n g an or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r co n t a c t th e IR S at 87 7 - 8 2 9 - 5 5 0 0 . In t e r n a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e - A f ? l i a t e of na t i o n a l , st a t e w i d e , or in t e r n a t i o n a l pa r e n t no n p r o ? t or g a n i z a t i o n (c h a r t e r ) If yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n fa l l s un d e r a pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n , at t a c h co p i e s of m of th e fo l l o w i n g : 1. IR S le t t e r sh o w i n g yo u r pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n is a no n p r o ? t 50 1 ( c ) or g a n i z a t i o n wi t h a gr o u p ru l i n g ; an d 2. th e ch a r t e r or le t t e r fr o m yo u r pa r e n t or g a n i z a t i o n re c o g n i z i n g yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n as a su b o r d i n a t e . Ha s yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n he l d a bi n g o ev e n t In th e cu r r e n t ca l e n d a r ye a r ? ge s IZ N O If ye s , li s t th e da t e s wh e n bi n g o wa s co n d u c t e d : W Th e pr o p o s e d bi n g o ev e n t wi l l be : M on e of fo u r or fe w e r bi n g o ev e n t s he l d th i s ye a r . Da t e s : 2 lL L / 2 n 3- 5 -O R - co u n t y fa i r Da t e s : D ci v i c ce l e b r a t i o n Da t e s : D Mi n n e s o t a St a t e Fa i r Da t e s : Pe r s o n in ch a r g e of bi n g o ev e n t : W WW Ac Ci t y : EMm r g ‘ m é If to w n s h i p , to w n s h i p na m e : MI N N E S O T A LA W F U L GA M B L I N G n17 LG Z 4 O B Ap p l i c a t i o n to Co n d u c t Ex c l u d e d Bi n g o No Fe e Pa g e 10l e OR G A N I Z A T I O N IN F O R M A T I O N NO N P R O F I T ST A T U S At t a c h a co p y of at le a s t $3 of th e fo l l o w i n g sh o w l n g pr o o f of no n p r o f i t st a t u s : EX C L U D E D BI N G O AC T I V I T Y Page 18 of 635 Th e In f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d in th i s ap p l i c a t i o n is co m pl ec hu ra te toth e be s t ofmy kn o w l e d g e . Ch i e f Ex e c u t i v e Of ? c e r ' s Si g n a t u r e : ?A /V Da t e : ‘1 / & / 2 7 (S i g n a t u r e mu s t be si g n a t u re ; de s i g n e e ma y no t si g n ) + - / Pr i n t N a m e : [) 0 “( I d f/ ‘ R A k Ma i l or fa x ap p l i c a t i o n an d a co p y of yo u r pr o o f of no np ro f it st a t u s to : Mi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d 17 1 1 We s t Co u n t y Ro a d B, Su i t e 30 0 So u t h Ro s e v i l l e , MN 55 1 1 3 Fa x : 65 1 - 6 3 9 - 4 0 3 2 An ex c l u d e d bi n g o pe r m i t wi l l be ma i l e d to yo u r or g a ni z a t io n . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n mu s t ke e p it s bi n g o re c o r d s fo r 3-1/2 ye a rs . Qu e s t i o n s ? Ca l l a Li c e n s i n g Sp e c i a l i s t at 65 1 - 5 3 9 - 1 9 0 0 . Bi n g o ha r d ca r d s an d bi n g o nu m b e r se l e c t i o n de v i c e s ma y bebo r r o w e d fr o m an o t h e r or g a n i z a t i o n au t h o r i z e d toco n d u c t bi n g o . Ot h e r w i s e , bi n g o ha r d ca r d s , bi n g o pa p e r , an d bi n g o nu m b e r se l e c t i o n de v i c e s mu s t beob t a i n e d fr o m adi s t r i b u t o r li c e n s e d by th eMi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d . To?n d ali c e n s e d di s t r i b u t o r , go toww w . m n . g o v / g c b an d cl i c k onDl s t r i b u t o r s un d e r th e LI S T OF LI C E N S E E S ta b , orca l l 65 1 - 5 3 9 - 1 9 0 0 . Th i s fo r m wi l l bema d e av a i l a b l e inal t e r n a t i v e fo r m a t (i . e . la r g e pr i n t , br a i l l e ) up o n re q u e s t . it i e : Da t : OW N S H I P (i f re q u i r e d by th e co u n t y ) n be h if of th e to w n s h i p , I ac k n o w l e d g e th a th is ap p l y ng fo r ex c l u d e d bi n g o ac t w u t y wu t h i n th e t w (A to w n s h i p ha s no st a t u t o r y au t h o r ty to ap p r ve ap p l l c a t l o n , pe r Mi n n e s o t a St a t u t e s , Se c t on 34 9 21 Pr i n t To w n s h i p Na m e : Si g n a t u r e of To w n s h i p Of f i c e r . Ti t l e : HI E F EX E C U T I V E OF F I C E R ' S SI G N A T U R E (r e q u t r e d ) MA I L OR FA X AP P L I C A T I O N & A AC H M E N T S Da t a pr i v a c y no t i c e : Th e in f o r m a t i o n re q u e s t e d on th i s fo r m (a n d an y at t a c h m e n t s ) wi l l be us e d by th e Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo a r d (B o a r d ) to de t e r - mi n e yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s qu a l i f i c a t i o n s to be in - vo l v e d In la w f u l ga m b l i n g ac t i v i t i e s In Mi n n e s o t a . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ha s th e ri g h t to re f u s e to su p - pl y th e in f o r m a t i o n ; ho w e v e r , If yo u r or g a n i z a - ti o n re f u s e s to su p p l y th i s in f o r m a t i o n , th e Bo a r d ma y no t be ab l e to de t e r m i n e yo u r or g a n i z a - tl o n ' s qu a l i f i c a t i o n s an d , as a co n s e q u e n c e , ma y re f u s e to is s u e a pe r m i t . if yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n su p p l i e s th e in f o n n a t l o n re q u e s t e d , th e Bo a r d wi l l be ab l e to pr o c e s s th e ap p l i c a t i o n . Yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e an d ad d r e s s wi l l be pu b l i c In f o r m a t i o n wh e n re c e i v e d by th e Bo a r d . Al l ot h e r in f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d wi l l be pr i v a t e da t a ab o u t yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n un t i l th e Bo a r d is s u e s th e pe r m i t . Wh e n th e Bo a r d is s u e s th e pe r m i t , al l in f o r m a t i o n pr o v i d e d wi l l be c o m e pu b l i c . if th e Bo a r d do e s no t is s u e a pe r m i t , al l in f o r - ma t i o n pr o v i d e d re m a i n s pr i v a t e , wi t h th e ex - ce p t i o n of yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ’ s na m e an d ad d r e s s wh i c h wi l l re m a i n pu b l i c . Pr i v a t e da t a ab o u t yo u r or g a n i z a t i o n ar e av a i l a b l e to Bo a r d An eq u a l op p o r t u n i t y em p l o y e r Da t . me m b e r s , Bo a r d st a f f wh o s e wo r k re q ui re s ac c e s s to th e In f o r m a t on ; M nn e s o t a ’ s De pa r t- me n t of Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ; At t o r n e y Ge n er a l ; Co m - mi s s i o n e r s of Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n , Mi n n e s ot a Ma n ag e - me n t & Bu d g e t , an d Re v e n u e ; Le g i s l at i v e Au d i - to r , na t i o n a i an d in t e r n a t i o n a l ga m b l i ng re g u la - to r y ag e n c i e s ; an y o n e pu r s u a n t to c o u rt or d e r ; ot h e r In d i v i d u a l s an d ag e n c i e s sp e c i ? ca l l y au t h o r i z e d by st a t e or fe d e r a l la w to ac c e s s to th e In f o r m a t i o n ; In d i v i d u a l s an d a g e n c i e s fo r wh i c h la w or le g a l or d e r au t h o r i z e s us e or sh a r i n g of in f o r m a t i o n a? e r th i s no t i ce wa s gi v e n ; an d an y o n e wi t h yo u r wr i t t e n 11 / 1 7 LG 2 4 O B Ap p l i c a t i o n to Co n d u c t Bi n g o Pa g e Z o n LO C A L UN I T OF GO V E R N M E N T AC K NO W LE D GM E NT (r e q u i r e d be f o r e su b m i t t i n g ap p l i c a t i o n to th e Mi n n e s o t a Ga m b l i n g Co n t r o l Bo ar d ) CI T Y AP P R O V A L CO U N T Y AP P R O V A L fo r a ga m b l i n g pr e m i s e s fo r aga m b l i n g pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n ci t y li m i t s lo c a t e d inato w n s h i p On be h a l f of th e ci t y , I ap p r o v e th i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o r e x cl u d e dOn be h a l f of th e co u n t y , Iap p r o v e th i s ap p l i c a t i o n fo r ex c l u d e d bi n g o ac t i v i t y at th e pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n th e bi n g o ac t i v i t y at th e pr e m i s e s lo c a t e d wi t h i n th e co u n t y ' s ju r i s d i c t i o n . ju r i s d l tl o n . Pr i n t Ci t y Na m e : 5f “ % Ml Pr i n t Co u n t y Na m e : Si g n r fC i t y Pe r on n : Si g n a t u r e ofCo u n t y Pe r s o n n e l : Th e ci t y o rco u nt g ir n i uw st si g n be f o r e 1 su b mi t t i ng ap p l i c a t i o ntoth e 1 G a m bl in g Co n t r o l Bo a r d . Ti t l e : C) D at e z q ‘ ‘7 ’ 262” Te T Oateor g a n i z a t i o n i''''ons h i p li m i t s . i0orde n y an I.3. ) Page 19 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-87 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPT PERMIT TO CONDUCT EXCLUDED BINGO – KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 2400 FARMINGTON, FEBRUARY 22, 2025 WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington have made application for a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to the Gambling Control Board to conduct excluded bingo on February 22, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has no objections to the said activity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby concur with the issuance of a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit by the Gambling Control Board to the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event on February 22, 2025 to be conducted at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 20 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, November 23, 2024 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: For Council approval is a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event to be held on November 23, 2024. DISCUSSION: The Knights of Columbus are hosting an event on November 23, 2024 and are requesting approval of a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. This event will be held in the Social Hall at Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event to be held on November 23, 2024 at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. ATTACHMENTS: Temp On-Sale, Knights of Columbus 11.23.24 Page 21 of 635 d Mi n n e s o t a De p a r t m e n t of Pu b l i c Sa f e t y Al c o h o l an d Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e m e n t Di v i s i o n ® 44 5 Mi n n e s o t a St r e e t , Su i t e 16 0 0 , St . Pa u l , MN 55 1 0 1 65 1 - 2 0 1 - 7 5 0 7 IT Y 65 1 - 2 8 2 - 6 5 5 5 AP P L I C A T I O N AN D PE R M I T FO R A I DA Y TO 4 DA Y TE M P O R A R Y ON - S A L E LI Q U O R LI C E N S E Al c o h o l & Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e m e n t Na m e of or g a n i z a t i o n Da t e Of or g a n i z a t i o n Ta x ex e m p t nu m b e r lg i u r g g s In : ga m m a . “ aw n / L u’ m WW W Ha : 4: 7 9 5 : 4 7 n ‘1 0 IL5 0 4 53 5 7 l Or g a m z a t i o n Ad d r e s s (N o PO Bo x e s ) Ci t y St a t e pC o d e Na m e of pe r s o n ma k i n g ap p l i c a t i o n #B u s i n e s s ph o n e Ho m e ph o n e lb w / A 1 17 4 w . ”M II5/ 2 - 8 6 0 — 5 9 5 H/L 75 5 . ”. 7 ; I Da t e I s ) of ev e n t Ty p e of or g a n i z a t i o n E] Mi c r o d i s t i l l e r y C] Sm a l l Br e w e r 2d 2- 7 I: Cl u b E] Ch a r i t a b l e El Re l i g i o u s @O t h e r Z no n - pr o f i t Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ’ s na m e Ci t y St a t e pC o d e [M m / w — Ea m g , MM ww w l _ -— Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ' s na m e Ci t y St a t e pC o d e Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ' s na m e / St a t e pC o d e Lo c a t i o n wh e r e pe r m i t wi l l beus e d If an ou t d o o r ar e a , de s c r i b e (L I / l i m i t e r a ma n i l a an MA (3 & q u go a a l i l c u i m If th e ap p l i c a n t wi l l co n t r a c t fo r in t o x i c a t i n g li q u o r se r v i c e gi v e th e na m e an d ad d r e s s of th e li q u o r li c e n s e pr o v i d i n g th e se r v i c e . MA If th eat F i c a n t wi l l ca r r y li q u o r li a b i l i t y In s u r a n c e pl e a s e pr o v i d e th e ca r r i e r ' s na e an d am o u n t of co v e r a g e im a m (O C C i C h w c h at Si NV U / l I AP P R O V A L 0 AP P L I C A T I O N MU S T BE AP P R O V E D BY CI T Y OR CO U N T Y BE F O R E SU B M I T T I N G TO AL C O H O L AN D GA M B L I N G EN F O R C E M E N T “5 0 0C W’ L M ? h m i0 07 24 Ci t y or un t y ap p r o v i n g th e li c e Da t e Ap p r o v e d m ll 73 > 2. 5 L Fe e Am o u n t Pe r m i t Da t e Ev e n t in co n j u n c t i o n wi t h a co m m u n i t y fe s t i v a l |: ] Ye s —] No Q UL C Ti m N po p u l a t i o n of ci t y «B u c d é s i o z Pl e a s e Pr i n t am e of Ci t y Cl e r k or Co u n t y Of f i c i a CL E R K S NO T I C E : Su b m i i th i s fa r m Io Al c o h o l an d Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e I Di v i s i o n 30 da y s pr i o r to ev e n i No Te m p Ap p l i c a t i o n s fa x e d or ma i l e d . On l y em a i l e d . ON E SU B M I S S I O N PE R EM A I L AP P L I C A T I O N ON L Y . PL E A S E PR O V I D E A VA L I D E- M A I L AD D R E S S FO R TH E CI T Y / C O U N T Y AS AL L TE M P O R A R Y PE R M I T AP P R O V A L S WI L L BE SE N T BA C K VI A EM A I L . E- M A I L TH E A P P L I C A T I O N SI G N E D BY CI T Y / C O U N T Y T0 AG E . TE M P O R A R Y A P P L I C A T I O N Q S T A TE . MN . US MI N N E S O T A DE F A R ' M E N I OF PU B L I C SA F E Y Y '. ' '- ' . ~ ' '~ 2 - ~ Page 22 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington, February 22, 2025 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: For Council approval is a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License application from the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event to be held on February 22, 2025. DISCUSSION: The Knights of Columbus are hosting an event on February 22, 2025 and are requesting approval of a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. This event will be held in the Social Hall at Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Knights of Columbus Council 2400 Farmington for an event to be held on February 22, 2025 at the Church of St. Michael, 22120 Denmark Avenue, Farmington. ATTACHMENTS: Temp On-Sale, Knights of Columbus 2.22.25 Page 23 of 635 W. (m Mi n n e s o t a De p a r t m e n t of Pu b l i c Sa f e t y Al c o h o l an d Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e m e n t Di v i s i o n 44 5 Mi n n e s o t a St r e e t , Su i t e 16 0 0 , St . Pa u l , MN 55 1 0 1 65 1 - 2 0 1 - 7 5 0 7 TT Y 65 1 - 2 8 2 - 6 5 5 5 AP P L I C A T I O N AN D PE R M I T FO R A 1 DA Y TO 4 DA Y TE M P O R A R Y ON - S A L E LI Q U O R LI C E N S E Al c o h o l & Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e m e n t Na m e of or g a n i z a t i o n Da t e of or g a n i z a t i o n Ta xex e m p t nu m b e r 4& 1 ! — ma mm , ” M“ 60 4 5 3 7 Or g a n i z a t i o n Ad d r e s s (N o PO Bo x e s ) Ci t y St a t e Zi p Co d e '1 . Z7 . I? 0 Di d / W Mi IIay z ? — M M IIM i n n e s o t a II53 3 1 7 I Na m e of pe r s o n ma k i n g ap p l i c a t i o n Bu s i n e s s ph o n e Ho m e ph o n e ID ? / M 11 / a n II é/ z - ?é a — g a s Hé / L 75 2 m g ; I Da t e ( s ) of ev e n t Ty p e of or g a n i z a t i o n D Mi c r o d i s t i l l e r y [3 Sm a l l Br e w e r Z, Z 20 2 , 5 7 I: Cl u b E] Ch a r i t a b l e D Re l i g i o u s EO t h e r no n - pr o f i t Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ' s na m e St a t e Zi p Co d e _e r I— ? F2 3 “ Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ' s na m e Ci t y St a t e pC o d e my ; a 2; ms . . . WF — ? r' — — I s § _ w Or g a n i z a t i o n of f i c e r ' s na m e Ci t y St a t e Zi p Co d e IT D ’ I ' U I D SC W T ? IE — — — I I M i n n e s o t a II ma y I Lo g ? o n wh e r e 03 m m wi l l b su e d . If an ou t d o o r ar e a , de s c r i b e Zh a r h z z m o De m v m w w ,WW I im - Q o a a l Il a l l If th e ap p l i c a n t wi l l co n t r a c t fo r in t o x i c a t i n g li q u o r se r v i c e gi v e th e na m e an d ad d r e s s of th e li q u o r li c e n s e pr o v i d i n g th e se r v i c e . NA If th e ap li c a n t wi l l ca r r y li q u o r li a b i l i t y In s u r a n c e pl e a s e pr o v i d e th e ca r r i e r ' s na m e an d am o u n t of co v e r a g e . ga l rl n e u r t d (K a l e &Ch u n k 5t h MI (. 1 ) AP P R O V A L AP P Ll C A T I MU S T BE AP P R O V E D BY CI T Y OR CO U N T Y BE F O R E SU B M I T T I N G T0 AL C O H O L AN D GA M B L I N G EN F O R C E M E N T 01 1 3 0 ; } "3 . 0 1 1 4 or Co u n t y ap p r o v i n g t li c e n s e Da t e Ap p r o v e d W NA 2- 2 2 . 1 6 Fe e Am o u n t P rm i t Da t e Ev e n t in co n j u n c t i o n wi t h ac o m m u n i t y fe s t i v a l D Ye s [" I No %U C “ SI C / ( I a g5 I @ po p u l a t i o n of ci t y (1 3 1 4 Cl u b Pl e a s e Pr i n t N e of Ci t y Cl e r k or Co u n t y Of f I C I a l Si g n a t u r e C un Of f i c i a l CL E R K S NO T I C E : Su b m l i th i s fo r m lo Al c o h o l an d Ga m b l i n g En f o r c e m e n Di v i s i o n 30 da y s pr i o r to ev e n t No Te m p Ap p l i c a t i o n s fa x e d or ma i l e d . On l y em a i l e d . ON E SU B M I S S I O N PE R EM A I L AP P L I C A T I O N ON L Y . PL E A S E PR O V I D E A VA L I D E- M A I L AD D R E S S FO R TH E CI T Y / C O U N T Y AS AL L TE M P O R A R Y PE R M I T AP P R O V A L S WI L L BE SE N T BA C K VI A EM A I L . E- M A I L TH E A P P L I C A T I O N SI G N E D BY CI T Y / C O U N T Y TO AG E . TE M P O R A R Y A P P L I C A T I O N Q S T A TE . MN . US n. 1 I H N L 3 L H A nu m m M E u v uF Pu n u c SM E Y Y « n- e . ; Page 24 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager Department: Community Development Subject: Development Contract - Vermillion Commons 4th Addition - Community Development Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The City Council approved the final plat for Vermillion Commons 4th Addition on September 16, 2024. A condition of approval was that a Development Contract between the Developer and City of Farmington must be executed, security fees and costs must be paid. DISCUSSION: Attached for Council's consideration and approval is the Development Contract for Vermillion Commons 4th Addition. The attached contract is a standard Development Contract that spells out the requirements for development of the land including timelines to complete platting process, defining development charges and fees, and addressing construction of the public infrastructure required to serve the development together with the associated sureties. The Developer has reviewed the attached contract and finds it acceptable. BUDGET IMPACT: The fees that will be collected as part of the Development Contract are as follows:  Surface Water Quality Management Fee: $1,482  Surface Water Management Fee: $124,636  Watermain Trunk Area Charge: $61,627  Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge: $33,036  Park Dedication (cash in lieu): $8,484  Sealcoating: $14,440 ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached Development Contract and authorize its execution. ATTACHMENTS: Vermillion Commons 4th DC Page 25 of 635 I? : I- I — - uf l - ‘ — I - u- I I - I f u ' u- ? l ? - ‘ ? ‘ I l I - I ' - -: - — I - — - - ? - § l— I - u I' l l - - -= _ = i ' f ; I . - i t ' m ¢ E . 1 1 - r ' m w l w "1 : 3 1 . : II ' I E E - ‘ J ' I - I - Ii i - 3 1 m : -' - -I ' - l ‘ t " l ' : = | ' “" "m a m a ? ! .' I . | - f . . l . ' - . I _ . J . = | . = : " ' "' : 1 = " ' . - ' - I ' _ . I I - ' : 51 ' » ; 3- 3 . “ .5 . 1. . _. . - J . .. I“ : I . . .‘ :" ' - . l — .. . . . __ _ _ - l _ r II I I. ?l l “ I - - '1 “ -F ' '- ' - I .- ' I _ . . -. . -. . -. - . _ . rI _ I .. __ . . . -_ _ . - _ l _ h- 'I j l ' . " ‘ _ - _ '. a : - -' . .' - ' ". - . : E " - ' .- . - . - : = TL _ II I - J I _ - . .I - _ ._ . ? . . ‘ .. . . -. -' -- : . - . - ' . - 1 - ' ' If : -— - — - - -I - I - I. '' _ " -_ l r I" _ .\ . .. - - -. ' _ . . ._ . “I . DE V E L O P M E N T CO N T R A C T AG R E E M E N T da t e d th i s of Oc t o b e r 20 2 4 by , be t w e e n , an d am o n g th e CI T Y OF FA R M I N G T O N , a Mi n n e s o t a mu n i c i p al co r p o r a t i o n (C I T Y ) an d US HO M E S , LL C , a De l a w a r e Li m i t e d Li a b i l i t y Co m p a n y (D E V E L O P E R ) . 1. Re g u e s t fo r Pl a t Ap p r o v a l . Th e De v e l o p e r ha s as k e d th e Ci t y to ap p r o v e a pl a t fo r VE R M I L L I O N CO M M O N S 4' " AD D I T I O N (a l s o re f e r r e d to in th i s De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t as th e PL A T ) . Th e la n d is si t u a t e d in th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n , Co u n t y Da k o t a , St a t e of Mi n n e s o t a , an d is le g a l l y de s c r i b e d on th e at t a c h e d Ex h i b i t A (t h e ”D e v e l o p m e n t Pr o p e r t y ” ) . 2. Co n d i t i o n s of Ap p r o v a l . Th e Ci t y he r e b y ap p r o v e s th e Pl a t on th e co n d i t i o n s th a t : a) Th e De v e l o p e r en t e r in t o th i s Ag r e e m e n t ; an d b) Th e De v e l o p e r pr o v i d e th e ne c e s s a r y se c u r i t y in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t ; an d c) Th e De v e l o p e r sa t i s f y th e Ca s h Re q u i r e m e n t s in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t ; an d d) Al l en g i n e e r i n g is s u e s mu s t be ad d r e s s e d an d en g i n e e r i n g de p a r t m e n t ap p r o v a l of th e co n s t r u c t i o n pl a n s ; an d e) Ou t l o t s A an d B sh a l l be de e d e d to th e Ci t y . Th e de e d sh a l l be re c o r d e d wi t h Da k o t a Co u n t y Re c o r d e r wi t h th e pl at my l a r s ; an d f) A te m p o r a r y ro a d w a y , dr a i n a g e an d ut i l i t y ea s e m e n t mu s t be pr o v i d e d fo r Ou t l o t C to co v e r th e te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s an d su r f a c e dr a i n a g e ; an d g) Th e De v e l o p e r re c o r d s th e Pl a t wi t h th e Co u n t y Re c o r d e r or Re g i s t r a r of Ti t l e s wi t h i n si x mo n t h s of al l si g n a t o r i e s ' si g n a t u r e s on th e fi n a l pl a t , as re q u i r e d by Mi n n e s o t a la w . 3. Ri g h t to Pr o c e e d . Wi t h i n th e Pl a t or la n d to be pl a t t e d , th e De v e l o p e r ma y no t gr a d e or ot h e r w i s e di s t u r b th e ea r t h re m o v e tr e e s , un l e s s a gr a d i n g ha s be e n au t h o r i z e d in wr i t i n g by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r fo l l o w i n g ap p r o v a l of a pr e l i m i n a r y pl at by th e Ci t y Co u n c i l , co n s t r u c t se w e r li n e s , wa t e r li n e s , st r e e t s , ut i l i t i e s pu b l i c or pr i v a t e im p r o v e m e n t s or an y bu i l d i n g un t il al l of th e fo l l o w i n g co n d i t i o n s ha v e be e n sa t i s f i e d : a) Th i s Ag r e e m e n t ha s be e n fu l l y ex e c u t e d by bo t h pa r t i e s an d su b m i t t e d fo r re c o r d i n g wi t h th e Da k o t a Co u n t y Re c o r d e r ’ s Of f i c e ; an d b) Th e ne c e s s a r y se c u r i t y ha s be e n re c e i v e d by th e Ci t y ; an d c) Th e ne c e s s a r y in s u r a n c e fo r th e De v e l o p e r an d it s co n s t r u c t i o n co n t r a c t o r s ha s be e n re c e i v e d by th e Ci t y ; an d d) Th e Pl a t ha s be e n su b m i t t e d fo r re c o r d i n g wi t h th e Da k o t a Co u n t y Re c o r d e r ’ s Of f i c e ; an d e) A de e d sh a l l be pr o v i d e d fo r Ou t l o t s A an d B an d be su b m i t t e d fo r re c o r d i n g wi t h th e pl a t my l a r s ; an d f) A te m p o r a r y ro a d w a y , dr a i n a g e an d ut i l i t y ea s e m e n t mu s t be pr o v i d e d fo r Ou t l o t C to co v e r th e te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s an d su r f a c e dr a i n a g e ; an d g) A co p y of pe r m i t s re q u i r e d fo r co n s t r u c t i o n ha v e be e n pr o v i d e d ; an d h) Th e Ci t y Cl e r k or En g i n e e r ha s is s u e d a No t i c e to Pr o c e e d st a t i n g th a t al l co n d i t i o n s ha v e be e n sa t i s f i e d an d th a t th e De v e l o p e r ma y pr o c e e d , wh i c h sh a l l be pr o m p t l y de l i v e r e d to th e De v e l o p e r up o n sa t i s f a c t i o n of th e co n d i t i o n s . 4. Ph a s e d De v e l o p m e n t . Th e Pl a t wi l l be de v e l o p e d in mu l t i p l e ph a s e s an d wi l l be de v e l o p e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h Pl a n s A C. Su b j e c t to th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , th i s De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t co n s t i t u t e s ap p r o v a l to de v e l o p th e Pl a t . P a g e 1of13 Page 26 of 635 h. - .? - I -- .. . - u I- .- I- E, 5. : ..94 $ “ ? ? ? _ dq . ?. . l . I” . ha m — . . . . .. . . . . r . l . . . l . | m _ _ l 1 . ‘ . . . l . . Wu a h . . . _ . w. . . u . u . _ m u . m . . . | .. I ” . | _ u _ . . “ _ . . I. . _ . . if n. . . .1 . . . u. . . .. .. . mu ._ “ . , 1 n . H. .. . P .m m L — r r n z T h : . . . 35 $ _. ”r i m .. . “ - . . q . W2 1 3 : in . “ ' ?. ‘ .' -_ t : ' -. - ; I. -. | . l - | - I 1 I . :J - .- I -. | _ -. . I .I i ' n l : I' . " I l- -d - . ' I 10 . Ch a n g e s in Of ? c i a l Co n t r o l s . Fo r fo u r (4 ) ye a r s fr o m th e da t e of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , no am e n d m e n t s to th e Ci t y ' s Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n , ex c e p t am e n d m e n t pl a c i n g th i s pl a t in th e cu r r e n t ur b a n se r v i c e ar e a , or re m o v i n g an y pa r t th e r e o f wh i c h ha s no t be e n fi n a l pl a t t e d , or of f i c i a l co n t r o l s , sh a l l ap p l y to of af f e c t th e us e , de v e l o p m e n t de n s i t y , lo t si z e , lo t la y o u t or de d i c a t i o n s or pl a t t i n g re q u i r e d or pe r m i t t e d by th e ap p r o v e d pr e l i m i n a r y pl a t un l e s s re q u i r e d by St a t e or Fe d e r a l la w or ag r e e d to in wr i t i n g by th e Ci t y an d De v e l o p e r . Th e r e a f t e r , no t w i t h s t a n d i n g an y t h i n g in th i s Ag r e e m e n t to th e co n t r a r y , to th e fu l l ex t e n t pe r m i t t e d by St a t e la w , th e Ci t y ma y re q u i r e co m p l i a n c e wi t h an y am e n d m e n t s to th e Ci t y ’ s Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n (i n c l u d i n g re m o v i n g un p l a t t e d pr o p e r t y fr o m ur b a n se r v i c e ar e a ) , of f i c i a l co n t r o l s , pl a t t i n g or de d i c a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t s en a c t e d af t e r th e da t e of th i s Ag r e e m e n t an d ma y re q u i r e su b m i s s i o n of a ne w pl a t . Sa l e s Of f i c e Re g u i r e m e n t s . At an y lo c a t i o n wi t h i n th e pl a t wh e r e lo t s an d / o r ho m e s ar e so l d wh i c h ar e pa r t of th i s su b d i v i s i o n , th e De v e l o p e r ag r e e s to in s t a l l a sa l e s bo a r d on wh i c h a co p y of th e ap p r o v e d pl a t , fi n a l ut i l i t y pl a n an d a zo n i n g ma p or pl a n n e d un i t de v e l o p m e n t pl a n ar e di s p l a y e d , sh o w i n g th e re l a t i o n s h i p be t w e e n th i s su b d i v i s i o n an d th e ad j o i n i n g ne i g h b o r h o o d . Th e zo n i n g an d la n d us e cl a s s i f i c a t i o n of al l la n d an d ne t w o r k of ma j o r st r e e t s wi t h i n 35 0 fe e t of th e pl a t sh a l l be in c l u d e d . Zo n i n g l o e v e l o p m e n t Ma p . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pr o v i d e an 8 1/ 2 ” x 14 " sc a l e d ma p of th e pl a t an d la n d wi t h i n 35 0 ’ of th e Pl a t co n t a i n i n g th e fo l l o w i n g in f o r m a t i o n : a) pl a t t e d pr o p e r t y ; b) ex i s t i n g an d fu t u r e ro a d s ; c) ex i s t i n g an d pr o p o s e d la n d us e s ; an d d) an y po n d s . De v e l o p m e n t Pl a n s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l de v e l o p th e Pl a t in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e fo l l o w i n g pl a n s (t h e ”P l a n s ” ) . Th e Pl a n s sh a l l no t be at t a c h e d to th i s Ag r e e m e n t . Th e Pl a n s ma y be pr e p a r e d by th e De v e l o p e r , su b j e c t to Ci t y ap p r o v a l , af t e r en t e r i n g in t o th i s Ag r e e m e n t bu t be f o r e co m m e n c e m e n t of an y wo r k in th e Pl a t . If th e Pl a n s va r y fr o m th e wr i t t e n te r m s of th i s Co n t r a c t th e Pl a n s sh a l l co n t r o l . Th e re q u i r e d Pl a n s ar e : Pl a n A — Fi n a l Pl a t (A p p r o v e d Se p t e m b e r 16 , 20 2 4 ) Pl a n B - Fi n a l Co n s t r u c t i o n Pl a n s an d Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s (I n c l u d i n g So i l Er o s i o n an d Se d i m e n t Co n t r o l , Gr a d i n g Pl a n s an d La n d s c a p e Pl a n s ) Pl a n C — Zo n i n g / D e v e l o p m e n t Ma p Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l us e it s be s t ef f o r t s to as s u r e ti m e l y ap p l i c a t i o n to th e ut i l i t y co m p a n i e s fo r th e fo l l o w i n g ut i l i t i e s : un d e r g r o u n d na t u r a l ga s , el e c t r i c a l , ca b l e te l e v i s i o n , an d te l e p h o n e . Th e in s t a l l a t i o n of th e s e ut i l i t i e s sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d wi t h i n pu b l i c ri g h t s - o f - w a y or pu b l i c dr a i n a g e an d ut i l i t y ea s e m e n t s co n s i s t e n t wi t h th e Ci t y ' s en g i n e e r i n g gu i d e l i n e s an d st a n d a r d de t a i l pl a t e s . Ea s e m e n t s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l fu r n i s h th e Ci t y at th e ti m e of ex e c u t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t wi t h th e ea s e m e n t s de s i g n a t e d on th e Pl a t . A lo n g - t e r m ma i n t e n a n c e ag r e e m e n t wi l l be re q u i r e d fo r al l st r u c t u r a l st o r m w a t e r pr a c t i c e s th a t ar e no t ow n e d or op e r a t e d by th e ci t y bu t th a t ar e di r e c t l y co n n e c t e d to th e ci t y ' s mu n i c i p a l se p a r a t e st o r m se w e r sy s t e m (M 5 4 ) an d wi t h i n th e ci t y ' s ju r i s d i c t i o n . Re g u i r e d Pu b l i c Im p r o v e m e n t s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l in s t a l l an d pa y fo r th e fo l l o w i n g : 3) Sa n i t a r y Se w e r Sy s t e m (t r u n k an d la t e r a l ) b) Wa t e r Sy s t e m (t r u n k an d la t e r a l ) c) St o r m Se w e r Sy s t e m d) St r e e t s e) Co n c r e t e Cu r b an d Gu t t e r f) St r e e t Li g h t s g) Er o s i o n an d Se d i m e n t Co n t r o l , Si t e Gr a d i n g an d St o r m w a t e r Tr e a t m e n t h) Un d e r g r o u n d Ut i l i t i e s i) Se t t i n g Ir o n Mo n u m e n t s j) Su r v e y i n g an d St a k i n g k) Si d e w a l k s an d Tr a i l s Pa g e 2 of 13 Page 27 of 635 11 . 12 . 13 . I) La n d s c a p i n g an d Sc r e e n i n g co l l e c t i v e l y th e ”I m p r o v e m e n t s ” . Th e Im p r o v e m e n t s sh a l l be in s t a l l e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e Pl a n s , an d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h al l ap p l i c a b l e la w s , Ci t y St a n d a r d s , En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s , Or d i n a n c e s an d Pl a n s (a n d sp e c i f i c a t i o n s ) wh i c h ha v e be e n pr e p a r e d by a co m p e t e n t re g i s t e r e d pr o f e s s i o n a l en g i n e e r fu r n i s h e d to th e Ci t y an d re v i e w e d by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r . Wo r k do n e no t in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e fi n a l Pl a n s (a n d sp e c i f i c a t i o n s ) , wi t h o u t pr i o r au t h o r i z a t i o n of th e Ci t y En g i n e e r , sh a l l be co n s i d e r e d a vi o l a t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t an d a De f a u l t of th e Co n t r a c t . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l ob t a i n al l ne c e s s a r y pe r m i t s fr o m th e Me t r o p o l i t a n Co u n c i l an d ot h e r ag e n c i e s be f o r e pr o c e e d i n g wi t h co n s t r u c t i o n . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l in s t r u c t it s en g i n e e r to pr o v i d e ad e q u a t e fi e l d in s p e c t i o n pe r s o n n e l to as s u r e an ac c e p t a b l e le v e l of qu a l i t y co n t r o l to th e ex t e n t th a t th e De v e l o p e r ’ s en g i n e e r wi l l be ab l e to ce r t i f y th a t th e co n s t r u c t i o n wo r k is co n s i s t e n t wi t h th e ap p r o v e d Pl a n s an d me e t s th e ap p r o v e d Ci t y st a n d a r d s as a co n d i t i o n of Ci t y ac c e p t a n c e . In ad d i t i o n , th e Ci t y ma y , at th e Ci t y ’ s di s c r e t i o n an d at th e De v e l o p e r ’ s ex p e n s e , ha v e on e or mo r e Ci t y in s p e c t o r ( s ) an d a so i l en g i n e e r in s p e c t th e Wo r k on an as - n e e d e d ba s i s . Th e De v e l o p e r , it s co n t r a c t o r s an d su b c o n t r a c t o r s , sh a l l fo l l o w al l in s t r u c t i o n s re c e i v e d fr o m th e Ci t y ’ s in s p e c t o r s . Th e De v e l o p e r ’ s en g i n e e r sh a l l pr o v i d e fo r on - s i t e pr o j e c t ma n a g e m e n t . Th e De v e l o p e r ’ s en g i n e e r is re s p o n s i b l e fo r de s i g n ch a n g e s an d co n t r a c t ad m i n i s t r a t i o n be t w e e n th e De v e l o p e r an d th e De v e l o p e r ’ s co n t r a c t o r . Th e De v e l o p e r or it s en g i n e e r sh a l l sc h e d u l e a pr e - c o n s t r u c t i o n me e t i n g at a mu t u a l l y ag r e e a b l e ti m e at Ci t y Ha l l wi t h al l pa r t i e s co n c e r n e d , in c l u d i n g th e Ci t y st a f f , to re v i e w th e pr o g r a m fo r th e Im p r o v e m e n t s . Wi t h i n si x t y (6 0 ) da y s af t e r th e co m p l e t i o n of th e Im p r o v e m e n t s an d be f o r e th e se c u r i t y is re l e a s e d , th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l su p p l y th e Ci t y wi t h a co m p l e t e se t of ”A s Bu i l t ” pl a n s in an Au t o C A D .D W G fi l e or a .D X F fi l e , al l pr e p a r e d in ac c o r d a n c e to th e Ci t y ’ s En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s . If th e De v e l o p e r do e s no t pr o v i d e su c h in f o r m a t i o n , th e Ci t y wi l l pr o d u c e th e as — b u i l t dr a w i n g s an d al l co s t s as s o c i a t e d wi t h pr o d u c i n g th e as - b u i l t dr a w i n g s wi l l be th e re s p o n s i b i l i t y of th e De v e l o p e r . Be f o r e th e se c u r i t y fo r th e co m p l e t i o n of th e ut i l i t i e s is re l e a s e d , ir o n mo n u m e n t s mu s t be in s t a l l e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h M. S . §5 0 5 . 0 2 1 . Th e De v e l o p e r ’ s su r v e y o r sh a l l su b m i t a wr i t t e n no t i c e to th e Ci t y ce r t i f y i n g th a t th e mo n u m e n t s ha v e be e n in s t a l l e d . Pe r m i t s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l ob t a i n or re q u i r e it s co n t r a c t o r s an d su b c o n t r a c t o r s to ob t a i n al l ne c e s s a r y pe r m i t s , wh i c h ma y in c l u d e bu t ar e no t li m i t e d to : Da k o t a Co u n t y fo r Co u n t y Ro a d Ac c e s s an d Wo r k in Co u n t y Ri g h t s - o f - W a y Mn D O T fo r St a t e Hi g h w a y Ac c e s s an d Wo r k in St a t e Ri g h t s of Wa y Mi n n e s o t a De p a r t m e n t of He a l t h fo r Wa t e r m a i n s MP C A NP D E S Pe r m i t fo r Co n s t r u c t i o n Ac t i v i t y MP C A fo r Sa n i t a r y Se w e r an d Ha z a r d o u s Ma t e r i a l Re m o v a l an d Di s p o s a l Mn D N R fo r De w a t e r i n g Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n fo r Bu i l d i n g Pe r m i t s MC E S fo r Sa n i t a r y Se w e r Co n n e c t i o n s Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n fo r Re t a i n i n g Wa l l s :Q T W P D P ’ ? De w a t e r i n g . Du e to th e va r i a b l e na t u r e of gr o u n d w a t e r le v e l s an d st o r m w a t e r fl o w s , it wi l l be th e De v e l o p e r ’ s an d th e De v e l o p e r ' s co n t r a c t o r s ’ an d su b c o n t r a c t o r s ’ re s p o n s i b i l i t y to sa t i s f y th e m s e l v e s wi t h re g a r d to th e el e v a t i o n of de w a t e r i n g sh a l l be in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h co u n t y , st a t e fe d e r a l ru l e s DN R re g u l a t i o n s re g a r d i n g ap p r o p r i a t i o n s pe r m i t s sh a l l al s o be st r i c t l y fo l l o w e d . Gr a d i n g Pl a n . Th e Pl a t sh a l l be gr a d e d an d dr a i n a g e pr o v i d e d by th e De v e l o p e r in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e ap p r o v e d Er o s i o n an d Se d i m e n t Co n t r o l Pl a n an d Gr a d i n g Pl a n , in c l u d e d in Pl a n B. Th e pl a n sh a l l co n f o r m to th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s . Wi t h i n th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s af t e r co m p l e t i o n of th e gr a d i n g an d be f o r e th e Ci t y ap p r o v e s in d i v i d u a l bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pr o v i d e th e Ci t y wi t h an "a s - b u i l t ” gr a d i n g pl a n ce r t i f i e d by a re g i s t e r e d la n d su r v e y o r or en g i n e e r th a t al l st o r m w a t e r tr e a t m e n t / i n f i l t r a t i o n ba s i n s , an d sw a l e s , ha v e be e n co n s t r u c t e d on pu b l i c ea s e m e n t s or la n d ow n e d by th e Ci t y . Th e ”a s - b u i l t ” pl a n sh a l l in c l u d e fi e l d ve r i f i e d el e v a t i o n s of th e fo l l o w i n g : A) cr o s s se c t i o n s of st o r m w a t e r tr e a t m e n t / i n f i l t r a t i o n ba s i n s ; b) lo c a t i o n an d el e v a t i o n s al o n g al l sw a l e s , we t l a n d s , we t l a n d mi t i g a t i o n ar e a s if an y , lo c a t i o n s an d di m e n s i o n s of bo r r o w ar e a s / s t o c k p i l e s , an d in s t a l l e d ”c o n s e r v a t i o n ar e a ” : po s t s ; an d c) lo t co r n e r el e v a t i o n s an d ho u s e pa d s , an d al l ot h e r it e m s li s t e d in Ci t y Co d e . Th e Ci t y wi l l wi t h h o l d is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s un t i l Pa g e 3 of 13 Page 28 of 635 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . th e ap p r o v e d ce r t i f i e d gr a d i n g pl a n is on fi l e wi t h th e Ci t y an d al l er o s i o n co n t r o l me a s u r e s ar e in pl a c e as de t e r m i n e d by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r . No t w i t h s t a n d i n g an y ot h e r pr o v i s i o n s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , th e De v e l o p e r ma y st a r t ro u g h gr a d i n g th e pr o p e r t y su b j e c t to th e Pl a t wi t h i n th e st o c k p i l e an d ea s e m e n t ar e a s in co n f o r m a n c e wi t h Pl a n B be f o r e th e Pl a t is fi l e d if al l fe e s ha v e be e n pa i d , a MP C A Co n s t r u c t i o n St o r m Wa t e r Pe r m i t ha s be e n is s u e d , an d th e Ci t y ha s be e n fu r n i s h e d th e re q u i r e d se c u r i t y . Ad d i t i o n a l ro u g h gr a d i n g ma y be al l o w e d up o n ob t a i n i n g wr i t t e n au t h o r i z a t i o n fr o m th e Ci t y En g i n e e r . If th e De v e l o p e r ne e d s to ch a n g e gr a d i n g af f e c t i n g dr a i n a g e th e ch a n g e s ca n n o t ta k e pl a c e un t i l th e Ci t y En g i n e e r ha s ap p r o v e d th e pr o p o s e d gr a d i n g ch a n g e s . A MP C A Co n s t r u c t i o n St o r m Wa t e r Pe r m i t mu s t be ob t a i n e d be f o r e an y gr a d i n g ca n co m m e n c e on th e si t e . Er o s i o n an d Se d i m e n t Co n t r o l . Pr i o r to in i t i a t i n g si t e gr a d i n g , th e er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t co n t r o l pl a n , in c l u d e d in Pl a n B, sh a l l be im p l e m e n t e d by th e De v e l o p e r an d in s p e c t e d an d ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y . Th e Ci t y ma y im p o s e ad d i t i o n a l er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t co n t r o l re q u i r e m e n t s if it is de t e r m i n e d th a t th e me t h o d s im p l e m e n t e d ar e in s u f f i c i e n t to pr o p e r l y co n t r o l er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t a t i o n . Al l ar e a s di s t u r b e d by th e gr a d i n g op e r a t i o n s sh a l l be st a b i l i z e d pe r th e MP C A St o r m w a t e r Pe r m i t fo r Co n s t r u c t i o n Ac t i v i t y . Se e d sh a l l be in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e Ci t y ’ s cu r r e n t se e d i n g sp e c i f i c a t i o n wh i c h ma y in c l u d e te m p o r a r y se e d to pr o v i d e gr o u n d co v e r as ra p i d l y as po s s i b l e . Al l se e d e d ar e a s sh a l l be fe r t i l i z e d , mu l c h e d an d di s c an c h o r e d as ne c e s s a r y fo r se e d re t e n t i o n . Th e pa r t i e s re c o g n i z e th a t ti m e is of th e es s e n c e in co n t r o l l i n g er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t a t i o n . if th e De v e l o p e r do e s no t co m p l y wi t h th e MP C A St o r m w a t e r Pe r m i t fo r Co n s t r u c t i o n Ac t i v i t y or wi t h th e er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t co n t r o l pl a n an d sc h e d u l e , or su p p l e m e n t a r y in s t r u c t i o n s re c e i v e d fr o m th e Ci t y , or in an em e r g e n c y de t e r m i n e d at th e so l e di s c r e t i o n of th e Ci t y , th e Ci t y ma y ta k e su c h ac t i o n as it de e m s ap p r o p r i a t e to co n t r o l er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t a t i o n im m e d i a t e l y , wi t h o u t no t i c e to th e De v e l o p e r . Ch a r g e s fo r co r r e c t i v e ac t i o n s ta k e n by th e Ci t y or th e i r co n t r a c t o r , wi l l be ch a r g e d to th e SW P P P co m p l i a n c e es c r o w ; th e de v e l o p e r is re s p o n s i b l e fo r ma i n t a i n i n g a ba l a n c e of $2 5 , 0 0 0 in th i s es c r o w . Th i s ap p l i e s to al l pr o p e r t i e s wi t h i n th e de v e l o p m e n t , wh e t h e r ow n e d by th e de v e l o p e r or a bu i l d e r . Th e Ci t y wi l l en d e a v o r to no t i f y th e De v e l o p e r in ad v a n c e of an y pr o p o s e d ac t i o n , bu t fa i l u r e of th e Ci t y to do so wi l l no t af f e c t th e De v e l o p e r ’ s an d th e Ci t y ’ s ri g h t s or ob l i g a t i o n s he r e u n d e r . If th e De v e l o p e r do e s no t re i m b u r s e th e Ci t y fo r an y co s t s th e Ci t y in c u r r e d fo r su c h wo r k wi t h i n th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s , th e Ci t y ma y dr a w do w n th e se c u r i t y to pa y su c h co s t s . No de v e l o p m e n t , ut i l i t y or st r e e t co n s t r u c t i o n wi l l be al l o w e d an d no bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s wi l l be is s u e d un l e s s th e Pl a t is in fu l l co m p l i a n c e wi t h th e er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t co n t r o l re q u i r e m e n t s . We t l a n d Na t u r a l Ar e a Si g n s . Th e De v e l o p e r is re s p o n s i b l e fo r in s t a l l i n g Ci t y Na t u r a l Ar e a s si g n s ar o u n d al l we t l a n d an d pe n d i n g ar e a s , in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e Ci t y ’ s En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s an d Ci t y de t a i l pl a t e s . We t l a n d Bu f f e r li n e li m i t s an d Na t u r a l Ar e a si g n lo c a t i o n s mu s t be in d i c a t e d on in d i v i d u a l lo t su r v e y s pr i o r to th e is s u a n c e of a bu i l d i n g pe r m i t fo r th a t lo t . Pa r k De d i c a t i o n an d Tr a i l s . Th e De v e l o p e r is re q u i r e d to de d i c a t e a to t a l of 1. 6 1 ac r e s of la n d fo r pa r k pu r p o s e s fo r th e en t i r e de v e l o p m e n t . Th e De v e l o p e r wi l l de d i c a t e 1. 5 ac r e s of la n d fo r pa r k pu r p o s e s wi t h th i s fi n a l pl a t (O u t l o t A) . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y ca s h - i n — l i e u of la n d in sa t i s f a c t i o n of th e re m a i n i n g 0. 1 1 ac r e s of la n d re q u i r e d to me e t th e Ci t y ’ s pa r k de d i c a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t as sh o w n in Ex h i b i t B. St r e e t s . Th e de v e l o p e r wi l l be re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e in s t a l l a t i o n of al l st r e e t s wi t h i n th e pl a t an d as sh o w n on he co n s t r u c t i o n ma d e to th e ea s t of th e pl a t , a te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s sh a l l be pr o v i d e d th a t fr o m te r m i n u s Ro s e Dr i v e so u t h to 22 0 t h St r e e t W. Th i s em e r g e n c y ac c e s s wo u l d ha v e to be re m o v e d up o n th e co n n e c t i o n to 21 8 " 1 St r e e t to th e ea s t of th e pl a t wi t h a pe r m a n e n t ro a d w a y . Th i s te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s mu s t be pa v e d wi t h bi t u m i n o u s an d be of a su i t a b l e wi d t h ac c e p t a b l e to th e Ci t y . Si g n a g e an d ba r r i c a d e s mu s t be pr o v i d e d at bo t h en d s of th e te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s to co n t r o l un a u t h o r i z e d ac c e s s . Th e co n n e c t i o n of th e te m p o r a r y em e r g e n c y ac c e s s to 22 0 t h St r e e t W wi l l ha v e to be ap p r o v e d by Da k o t a Co u n t y . La n d s c a p i n g . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l la n d s c a p e th e Pl a t in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h Pl a n B. Th e la n d s c a p i n g sh a l l be ac c o m p l i s h e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h a ti m e sc h e d u l e ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y . A. Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l be so l e l y re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e in s t a l l a t i o n of al l pr o j e c t la n d s c a p i n g . B. Al l gr a d e d ar e a s , in c l u d i n g fi n i s h gr a d e on lo t s , wi l l re q u i r e a mi n i m u m of 6” of bl a c k di r t / t o p s o i l . Pa ge 4of 13 Page 29 of 635 g1 “? ? w :I ' : - I . ?- . I . _ _ I ' _ + __ {I t ‘ d — l ’7 " :— -. .= : . : : Em a — 1 7 : . - “ gi g } ; ‘1 ‘ " EL E M 15 3 E _ .. _. . . - . I . h .. . - - .- - — - .I I l f H -I - - - . - . - - - - I— l r - - '; I - : - l - - ' - ' - - 1 - '— : I ' J : ' ”: 5 ?é — ? i ? h ? i ? i ? ? ? ma ? -- — - . . - - __ . . -I — u— - .- ." u - 1— 1 , “ . . _ _. -_ . .- - . _ _ _ ; _ . ' . | " ‘. 'I ' J ' i l ' a I- I l “ -I II . - - . - rI - I _ - - I I I : I- I - I — - . - —— I - — - I I_ . : _ - _ _ - I _ I _ . I . I .: - Ir I I I r I I I I I - T - 35% Fr " _. :J ' i ' f 7" : H _ "1 ' b __ . - : 3 . 33 1 : » . *3 r’ a ? i ? ' ? EE G — k W — u- —I ' - u— I l - I l — n - I - F - J - I - I f - ‘ I — I - I - f _ _ -- - r I - __ . : E r — - __ . .I . — .- ._ .- .I I I . . . _ I. _ _ . I . . . . . . I _ - - -. I _ I I _ . - _ -. I _ I . I __ - _I _ _ ' I- w - . . ' . - .- - _ I . "I - ‘ l ' -. ' -- . ' __ . II I - - — ' I - _ - - I I I -. I . -J . . - . .1 : — - I- a 1- " - -. . -I . I . . -I - L ' - I I I -_ - I .I I _ . - - .. - _ “_ I -. I . - . _ I _ . I? ? - I F I . II - t '- * — I ll - —- — —- -- I —- - -I . I . _ .I . — . . I _- - . _ _- I _ . . - _ - - _ 'r ' I 'u ' .I .I - ._ -- _ - .. - - _ I - I _ _a . .- - .- I I- _ I I - . . . " r .' - -- - ' .- '- “3 - - __ I . .. - _ I - . I . . . II .- I I _I I I - - I , - 19 . 22 . 23 . Cl e a n Up . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l , wi t h i n tw e n t y fo u r (2 4 ) ho u r s , cl e a r fr o m th e pu b l i c st r e e t s an y so i l , ea r t h or de b r i s re s u l t i n g fr o m co n s t r u c t i o n wo r k by th e De v e l o p e r or it s ag e n t s or as s i g n s . An y so i l , ea r t h or de b r i s re s u l t i n g fr o m co n s t r u c t i o n wo r k by th e De v e l o p e r or it s ag e n t s or as s i g n s on ot h e r pr o p e r t y sh a l l be re m o v e d we e k l y or mo r e of t e n if re q u i r e d by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r . Al l de b r i s , in c l u d i n g br u s h , ve g e t a t i o n , tr e e s an d de m o l i t i o n ma t e r i a l s , sh a l l be di s p o s e d of of f si t e . Bu r n i n g of tr e e s an d st r u c t u r e s sh a l l be pr o h i b i t e d , ex c e p t fo r fi r e tr a i n i n g on l y . Th e Ci t y wi l l ha v e th e ri g h t to cl e a n th e st r e e t s as ou t l i n e d in cu r r e n t Ci t y po l i c y . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pr o m p t l y re i m b u r s e th e Ci t y fo r st r e e t cl e a n i n g co s t s . Li c e n s e . Th e De v e l o p e r he r e b y gr a n t s th e Ci t y , it s ag e n t s , em p l o y e e s , of f i c e r s an d co n t r a c t o r s , a li c e n s e to en t e r th e Pl a t to pe r f o r m al l ne c e s s a r y wo r k an d / o r in s p e c t i o n s de e m e d ap p r o p r i a t e by th e Ci t y du r i n g th e in s t a l l a t i o n of pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s by th e Ci t y . Th e li c e n s e sh a l l ex p i r e af t e r th e pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s in s t a l l e d pu r s u a n t to th e De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t ha v e be e n in s t a l l e d an d ac c e p t e d by th e Ci t y . . Ti m e of Pe r f o r m a n c e . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l in s t a l l al l re q u i r e d pu b l i c ut i l i t i e s by Oc t o b e r 31 , 20 2 5 . Th e fi n a l we a r co u r s e on st r e e t s sh a l l be in s t a l l e d th e fi r s t su m m e r af t e r th e ba s e la y e r of as p h a l t ha s be e n in pl a c e on e fr e e z e th a w cy c l e . Th e De v e l o p e r ma y , ho w e v e r , re q u e s t an ex t e n s i o n of ti m e fr o m th e Ci t y , wh i c h th e Ci t y wi l l no t un r e a s o n a b l y wi t h h o l d . If an ex t e n s i o n is gr a n t e d , it sh a l l be co n d i t i o n e d up o n up d a t i n g th e se c u r i t y po s t e d by th e De v e l o p e r to re f l e c t co s t in c r e a s e s . An ex t e n s i o n of th e se c u r i t y sh a l l be co n s i d e r e d an ex t e n s i o n of th i s Co n t r a c t an d th e ex t e n s i o n of th e Co n t r a c t wi l l co i n c i d e wi t h th e da t e of th e ex t e n s i o n of th e se c u r i t y . Ow n e r s h i p of Im p r o v e m e n t s . Up o n th e co m p l e t i o n of th e Im p r o v e m e n t s an d wr i t t e n ac c e p t a n c e by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r , th e Im p r o v e m e n t s ly i n g wi t h i n pu b l i c ea s e m e n t s sh a l l be c o m e Ci t y pr o p e r t y , ex c e p t fo r ca b l e TV , el e c t r i c a l , ga s , an d te l e p h o n e , wi t h o u t fu r t h e r no t i c e or ac t i o n . Bu i l d i n g Pe r m i t s . Bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s sh a l l no t be is s u e d pr i o r to co m p l e t i o n of si t e gr a d i n g , su b m i t t a l of as - b u i l t gr a d i n g pl a n , pu b l i c an d pr i v a t e ut i l i t y in s t a l l a t i o n , cu r b an d gu t t e r , si d e w a l k , tr a i l s , in s t a l l a t i o n of er o s i o n co n t r o l de v i c e s , in s t a l l a t i o n of pe r m a n e n t st r e e t si g n s an d na t u r a l ar e a si g n s , pa v i n g wi t h a bi t u m i n o u s su r f a c e , re t a i n i n g wa l l s if an y , si t e se e d i n g , mu l c h i n g , di s k an c h o r i n g an d su b m i t t a l of a su r v e y o r ’ s ce r t i f i c a t e de n o t i n g al l ap p r o p r i a t e mo n u m e n t s ha v e be e n in s t a l l e d . A. Be f o r e a bu i l d i n g pe r m i t is is s u e d , a ca s h es c r o w of $3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 pe r bu i l d i n g sh a l l be fu r n i s h e d to th e Ci t y to gu a r a n t e e co m p l i a n c e wi t h th e er o s i o n co n t r o l , gr a d i n g , an d la n d s c a p i n g re q u i r e m e n t s an d th e su b m i t t a l of an as - b u i l t ce r t i f i c a t e of su r v e y . Pr i o r to th e re l e a s e of th e re q u i r e d in d i v i d u a l lo t gr a d i n g an d er o s i o n co n t r o l se c u r i t y th a t is su b m i t t e d wi t h th e bu i l d i n g pe r m i t , an as - b u i l t ce r t i f i c a t e of su r v e y fo r si n g l e fa m i l y lo t s mu s t be su b m i t t e d to ve r i f y th a t th e fi n a l as bu i l t gr a d e s an d el e v a t i o n s of th e sp e c i f i c lo t an d al l bu i l d i n g se t b a c k s ar e co n s i s t e n t wi t h th e ap p r o v e d gr a d i n g pl a n fo r th e de v e l o p m e n t , an d am e n d m e n t s th e r e t o as ap p r o v e d by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r , th e si t e ha s be e n st a b i l i z e d in c l u d i n g me e t i n g th e so d re q u i r e m e n t s of Ci t y Co d e se c t i o n 10 - 6 - 2 7 ( 1 1 ) an d th a t al l re q u i r e d la n d s c a p i n g an d pr o p e r t y mo n u m e n t s ar e in pl a c e . If th e fi n a l gr a d i n g , er o s i o n co n t r o l an d as - b u i l t su r v e y is no t ti m e l y co m p l e t e d , th e Ci t y ma y en t e r th e lo t , pe r f o r m th e wo r k , an d ap p l y th e ca s h es c r o w to w a r d th e co s t . Up o n sa t i s f a c t o r y co m p l e t i o n of th e gr a d i n g , er o s i o n co n t r o l an d as - b u i l t su r v e y , th e es c r o w fu n d s , wi t h o u t in t e r e s t , le s s an y dr a w ma d e by th e Ci t y , sh a l l be re t u r n e d to th e pe r s o n wh o de p o s i t e d th e fu n d s wi t h th e Ci t y . B. Th e De v e l o p e r ce r t i f i e s to th e Ci t y th a t al l lo t s wi t h ho u s e fo o t i n g s pl a c e on fi l l ha v e be e n mo n i t o r e d an d co n s t r u c t e d de v e l o p m e n t ph a s e s an d lo t de s c r i p t i o n s , sh a l l be su b m i t t e d to th e Bu i l d i n g Of f i c i a l fo r re v i e w pr i o r to th e is s u a n c e of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s . C. No r m a l pr o c e d u r e re q u i r e s th a t st r e e t s ne e d e d fo r ac c e s s to ap p r o v e d us e s sh a l l be pa v e d wi t h a bi t u m i n o u s su r f a c e be f o r e bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s ma y be is s u e d . Ho w e v e r , th e Ci t y En g i n e e r is au t h o r i z e d to wa i v e th i s re q u i r e m e n t wh e n we a t h e r re l a t e d ci r c u m s t a n c e s pr e v e n t co m p l e t i o n of st r e e t pr o j e c t s be f o r e th e en d of th e co n s t r u c t i o n se a s o n . Th e De v e l o p e r is re s p o n s i b l e fo r ma i n t a i n i n g sa i d st r e e t s in a co n d i t i o n th a t wi l l as s u r e th e ac c e s s of em e r g e n c y ve h i c l e s at al l ti m e s wh e n su c h a wa i v e r is gr a n t e d . D. If pe r m i t s ar e is s u e d pr i o r to th e co m p l e t i o n an d ac c e p t a n c e of pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s , th e De v e l o p e r as s u m e s al l li a b i l i t y an d co s t s re s u l t i n g in de l a y s in co m p l e t i o n of pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s an d da m a g e to pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s ca u s e d by th e Ci t y , De v e l o p e r , it s co n t r a c t o r s , su b c o n t r a c t o r s , ma t e r i a l m e n , em p l o y e e s , ag e n t s or th i r d pa r t i e s . Pa g e 5 of 13 Page 30 of 635 E. Re t a i n i n g wa l l s th a t re q u i r e a bu i l d i n g pe r m i t sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h pl a n s an d sp e c i f i c a t i o n s pr e p a r e d by a st r u c t u r a l or ge o t e c h n i c a l en g i n e e r li c e n s e d in th e St a t e of Mi n n e s o t a . Fo l l o w i n g co n s t r u c t i o n , a ce r t i f i c a t i o n si g n e d by th e de s i g n en g i n e e r sh a l l be fi l e d wi t h th e bu i l d i n g of f i c i a l ev i d e n c i n g th a t th e re t a i n i n g wa l l wa s co n s t r u c t e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e ap p r o v e d pl a n s an d sp e c i f i c a t i o n s . Al l re t a i n i n g wa l l s id e n t i f i e d on th e de v e l o p m e n t pl a n s an d by sp e c i a l co n d i t i o n s re f e r r e d to in th i s co n t r a c t sh a l l be co n s t r u c t e d be f o r e an y ot h e r bu i l d i n g pe r m i t is is s u e d fo r a lo t on wh i c h a re t a i n i n g wa l l is re q u i r e d to be bu i l t . 24 . In s u r a n c e . Pr i o r to ex e c u t i o n of th e fi n a l pl a t , De v e l o p e r an d it s ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r sh a l l fu r n i s h to th e Ci t y a ce r t i f i c a t e of in s u r a n c e sh o w i n g pr o o f of th e re q u i r e d in s u r a n c e re q u i r e d un d e r th i s pa r a g r a p h . De v e l o p e r an d it s ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r sh a l l ta k e ou t an d ma i n t a i n or ca u s e to be ta k e n ou t an d ma i n t a i n e d un t i l si x (6 ) mo n t h s af t e r th e Ci t y ha s ac c e p t e d th e pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s , su c h in s u r a n c e as sh a l l pr o t e c t De v e l o p e r an d it s ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r an d th e Ci t y fo r wo r k co v e r e d by th e Co n t r a c t in c l u d i n g wo r k e r s ’ co m p e n s a t i o n cl a i m s an d pr o p e r t y da m a g e , bo d i l y an d pe r s o n a l in j u r y wh i c h ma y ar i s e fr o m op e r a t i o n s un d e r th i s Co n t r a c t , wh e t h e r su c h op e r a t i o n s ar e by De v e l o p e r an d it s ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r or an y o n e di r e c t l y or in d i r e c t l y em p l o y e d by ei t h e r of th e m . Th e mi n i m u m am o u n t s of in s u r a n c e sh a l l be as fo l l o w s : Co m m e r c i a l Ge n e r a l Li a b i l i t y (o r in co m b i n a t i o n wi t h an um b r e l l a po l i c y ) $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ea c h Oc c u r r e n c e $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Pr o d u c t s / C o m p l e t e d Op e r a t i o n s Ag g r e g a t e $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 An n u a l Ag g r e g a t e Th e fo l l o w i n g co v e r a g e s sh a l l be in c l u d e d : Pr e m i s e s an d Op e r a t i o n s Bo d i l y In j u r y an d Pr o p e r t y Da m a g e Pe r s o n a l an d Ad v e r t i s i n g In j u r y Bl a n k e t Co n t r a c t u a l Li a b i l i t y Pr o d u c t s an d Co m p l e t e d Op e r a t i o n s Li a b i l i t y Au t o m o b i l e Li a b i l i t y $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Co m b i n e d Si n g l e Li m i t — Bo d i l y In j u r y & Pr o p e r t y Da m a g e In c l u d i n g Ow n e d , Hi r e d & No n - O w n e d Au t o m o b i l e s Wo r k e r s Co m p e n s a t i o n Wo r k e r s Co m p e n s a t i o n in s u r a n c e in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e st a t u t o r y re q u i r e m e n t s of th e St a t e of Mi n n e s o t a , in c l u d i n g Em p l o y e r ’ s Li a b i l i t y wi t h mi n i m u m li m i t s ar e as fo l l o w s : $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 — Bo d i l y In j u r y by Di s e a s e pe r em p l o y e e $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 — Bo d i l y In j u r y by Di s e a s e ag g r e g a t e $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 — Bo d i l y In j u r y by Ac c i d e n t Th e De v e l o p e r ’ s an d ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r ’ s in s u r a n c e mu s t be ”P r i m a r y an d No n - C o n t r i b u t o r y . ” Al l in s u r a n c e po l i c i e s (o r ri d e r s ) re q u i r e d by th i s Co n t r a c t sh a l l be (i ) ta k e n ou t by an d ma i n t a i n e d wi t h re s p o n s i b l e in s u r a n c e co m p a n i e s or g a n i z e d un d e r th e la w s of on e of th e st a t e s of th e Un i t e d St a t e s an d qu a l i f i e d to do bu s i n e s s in th e en d o r s e m e n t wh i c h sh a l l be fi l e d wi t h th e Ci t y . A co p y of th e en d o r s e m e n t mu s t be su b m i t t e d wi t h th e ce r t i f i c a t e of in s u r a n c e . De v e l o p e r ’ s an d ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r ’ s po l i c i e s an d Ce r t i f i c a t e of In s u r a n c e sh a l l co n t a i n a pr o v i s i o n th a t co v e r a g e af f o r d e d un d e r th e po l i c i e s sh a l l no t be ca n c e l l e d wi t h o u t at le a s t th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s ’ ad v a n c e d wr i t t e n no t i c e to th e Ci t y , or te n (1 0 ) da y s ’ no t i c e fo r no n pa y m e n t of pr e m i u m . An Um b r e l l a or Ex c e s s Li a b i l i t y in s u r a n c e po l i c y ma y be us e d to su p p l e m e n t De v e l o p e r ’ s or ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r ’ s po l i c y li m i t s on a fo l l o w fo r m ba s i s to sa t i s f y th e fu l l po l i c y li m i t s re q u i r e d by th i s Co n t r a c t . Pa ge 6of13 Page 31 of 635 x= = . = ; — ; : f ; e - g £ 3 : 3. 1 3 . : '3 ‘ 1: a? ? £ i " } _ - ‘ I I ' 11 - M a r - 1 1 : h‘ ? l l ' ? i ri m - m a m {I 1 3 - . .. . . . _ ' . _ _. _ - - _ - .- . . . ?? ? ; 1- 1 2 1 1 ; -- — — - ?' I I - - - "I I- ' - ' {I ' l l - ' 1 ' . " :I E H T - i - - :s z ? : 'I I I L ' " '. . ‘ I J - :' 2 " _ ' . ! Z . " ' . " ' a “@ _ w 1 ? 3 ? : Wk } : ~: -4? '. - -' -: ' . ' ; ; : ‘ . . ' : : '. ' _ ; : : ' . . ' . ' : : . - ' ." . ; ' . ' _ ' . ' . ' _ ' . ' . : 'g ' " _ _' . _ . - = ‘ .- .- a I- . a - - . - I . - I .. .- . _ . - I - I - . . - 1i " :n - I L J - ‘ I ' J -- 'J " -. - I .q ' . - . I . I . _ ‘ J . - _ : - Ir hr - 2" : - if : ._ _ -| : . - . .- -. - f . #1 1 1 4 1 . "a l l : 3' . '3 5 " . - . . '. . EF - I ' I. . -_ . -. - _ | - I - Il a — ‘ 1 ' ] - .. _. _ . . - l _I - ’- . . ._ - _. .I ' -_ . _. I -; _ . . I 1 -. _ __ _ . . _ - - .1 2 5 .5 ? '; : ' . ' . ; : - = 13 1 - . ' . . ‘- .- ' ii i ." ' .' ' - '- :: . -’ _ _ - _ - ;_ . ; . - . . :‘ - '= . II . . __ . . .‘ _ _ . . _ '. - 28 . 29 . . Re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r Co s t s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y al l co s t s in c u r r e d by it or th e Ci t y in co n j u n c t i o n wi t h th e de v e l o p m e n t of th e Pl a t , in c l u d i n g bu t no t li m i t e d to , So i l an d Wa t e r Co n s e r v a t i o n Di s t r i c t ch a r g e s , le g a l , pl a n n i n g , ad m i n i s t r a t i v e , co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s , en g i n e e r i n g , ea s e m e n t s , in s p e c t i o n an d ut i l i t y te s t i n g ex p e n s e s in c u r r e d in co n n e c t i o n wi t h ap p r o v a l , ac c e p t a n c e an d de v e l o p m e n t of th e Pl a t , th e pr e p a r a t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , an d al l re a s o n a b l e co s t s an d ex p e n s e s In c u r r e d by th e Ci t y In mo n i t o r i n g an d in s p e c t i n g th e co n s t r u c t i o n fo r th e de v e l o p m e n t of th e Pl a t . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y in fu l l al l bi l l s su b m i t t e d to it by th e Ci t y wi t h i n th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s af t e r re c e i p t . If th e bi l l s ar e no t pa i d on ti m e , th e Ci t y ma y ha l t al l pl a t de v e l o p m e n t wo r k un t i l th e bi l l s ar e pa i d in fu l l . Bi l l s no t pa i d wi t h i n th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s sh a l l ac c r u e in t e r e s t at th e ra t e of fi v e pe r c e n t (5 % ) pe r an n u m . If th e bi l l s ar e no t pa i d wi t h i n si x t y (6 0 ) da y s , th e Ci t y ha s th e ri g h t to dr a w fr o m th e De v e l o p e r ’ s Se c u r i t y to pa y th e bi l l s . . De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y a fe e fo r in - h o u s e ad m i n i s t r a t i o n of th e de v e l o p m e n t co n t r a c t in c l u d i n g mo n i t o r i n g of co n s t r u c t i o n ob s e r v a t i o n , co n s u l t a t i o n wi t h th e De v e l o p e r an d it s en g i n e e r on th e st a t u s of or pr o b l e m s re g a r d i n g th e pr o j e c t , co o r d i n a t i o n fo r fi n a l in s p e c t i o n an d ac c e p t a n c e , pr o j e c t mo n i t o r i n g du r i n g th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d , an d pr o c e s s i n g of re q u e s t s fo r re d u c t i o n in se c u r i t y . Th e fe e fo r th i s se r v i c e sh a l l be th r e e pe r c e n t (3 % ) of co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s an d pa i d at th e ti m e of th e ex e c u t i o n of th i s ag r e e m e n t . . Co n s t r u c t i o n Ob s e r v a t i o n . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l in s t r u c t it s en g i n e e r to pr o v i d e ad e q u a t e fi e l d in s p e c t i o n pe r s o n n e l to as s u r e an ac c e p t a b l e le v e l of qu a l i t y co n t r o l to th e ex t e n t th a t th e De v e l o p e r ’ s en g i n e e r wi l l be ab l e to ce r t i f y th a t al l im p r o v e m e n t s ar e co n s i s t e n t wi t h th e ap p r o v e d Pl a n s an d me e t s th e ap p r o v e d Ci t y st a n d a r d s as a co n d i t i o n of Ci t y ac c e p t a n c e . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y fo r co n s t r u c t i o n ob s e r v a t i o n pe r f o r m e d by th e Ci t y ’ s in - h o u s e st a f f or co n s u l t a n t . As ne e d e d , co n s t r u c t i o n ob s e r v a t i o n sh a l l in c l u d e pa r t or fu l l ti m e in s p e c t i o n of th e im p r o v e m e n t s , in c l u d i n g er o s i o n an d se d i m e n t co n t r o l in s p e c t i o n s an d wi l l be bi l l e d on ho u r l y ra t e s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pr o v i d e a ca s h es c r o w fo r th e s e se r v i c e s es t i m a t e d to be fi v e pe r c e n t (5 % ) of th e es t i m a t e d co n s t r u c t i o n co s t . Th e de v e l o p e r sh a l l al s o pr o v i d e a $2 5 , 0 0 0 es c r o w fo r SW P P P Co m p l i a n c e . De v e l o p m e n t Fe e s . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pa y ar e a ch a r g e s as de f i n e d on th e Ci t y ’ s mo s t cu r r e n t fe e sc h e d u l e th a t in c l u d e : a) Su r f a c e Wa t e r Qu a l i t y Ma n a g e m e n t Fe e b) Su r f a c e Wa t e r Ma n a g e m e n t Fe e c) Wa t e r m a i n Tr u n k Ar e a Ch a r g e d) Sa n i t a r y Se w e r Tr u n k Ar e a Ch a r g e e) Pa r k De d i c a t i o n f) Se a l c o a t i n g A su m m a r y of th e ca s h re q u i r e m e n t s un d e r th i s co n t r a c t wh i c h mu s t be fu r n i s h e d to th e Ci t y pr i o r to th e Ci t y Co u n c i l si g n i n g th e fi n a l pl a t is sh o w n on Ex h i b i t B. Ar e a ch a r g e s fo r su b s e q u e n t ph a s e s sh a l l be ca l c u l a t e d an d pa i d ba s e d up o n re q u i r e m e n t s in ef f e c t at th e ti m e th e De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t s fo r th o s e ph a s e s ar e en t e r e d in t o . Pa r k De d i c a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t s ar e ca l c u l a t e d at th e ti m e of th e pr e l i m i n a r y pl a t fo r th e ov e r a l l de v e l o p m e n t an d co l l e c t e d wi t h th e De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t . Se c u r i t y . To gu a r a n t e e co m p l i a n c e wi t h th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , pa y m e n t of re a l es t a t e ta x e s in c l u d i n g in t e r e s t an d of al l pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s in th e Pl a t , th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l fu r n i s h th e Ci t y wi t h a ca s h es c r o w , ir r e v o c a b l e le t t e r of cr e d i t , or al t e r n a t i v e se c u r i t y ac c e p t a b l e to th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r , fr o m a ba n k (t h e ”S e c u r i t y ” ) fo r $2 , 1 6 5 , 2 8 9 . Th e am o u n t of th e se c u r i t y is ba s e d on 12 5 % of th e es t i m a t e d co n s t r u c t i o n co s t s as sh o w n in Ex h i b i t B. Th i s br e a k d o w n is fo r hi s t o r i c a l re f e r e n c e ; it is no t a re s t r i c t i o n on th e us e of th e Se c u r i t y . Th e ba n k an d fo r m of th e se c u r i t y sh a l l be su b j e c t to th e ap p r o v a l of th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r . Le t t e r s of Cr e d i t sh a l l be in th e fo r m a t an d wo r d i n g ex a c t l y as sh o w n on th e at t a c h e d Le t t e r of Cr e d i t fo r m (E x h i b i t C) . Th e Se c u r i t y sh a l l be au t o m a t i c a l l y re n e w i n g . Th e te r m of th e Se c u r i t y ma y be ex t e n d e d fr o m ti m e to ti m e if th e ex t e n s i o n is fu r n i s h e d to th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r at le a s t fo r t y - f i v e (4 5 ) da y s pr i o r to th e st a t e d ex p i r a t i o n da t e of th e Se c u r i t y . If th e re q u i r e d pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s ar e no t co m p l e t e d , or te r m s of th e Ag r e e m e n t ar e no t sa t i s f i e d , at le a s t th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s pr i o r to th e ex p i r a t i o n of a le t t e r of cr e d i t , th e Ci t y ma y dr a w do w n th e le t t e r of cr e d i t . Th e Ci t y ma y dr a w do w n th e Se c u r i t y , wi t h o u t pr i o r no t i c e , fo r an y vi o l a t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t or De f a u l t of th e Co n t r a c t fo l l o w i n g ap p l i c a b l e cu r e pe r i o d s . Pa g e 7 of 13 Page 32 of 635 5% .J . - _ _ I. .I . l Ju — - I . i. . . ._ -_ _- - . f. ._ . . : . : . . . . : : I _ . . , . . . . . . . _ . . _- . -. .- " _ ' - I .J . -— r - I. . - .— — . - — _ - - I . . - — "_ 1 : . . ' ." ' . I " . _. . _ _ - H" . . . 1— . - _ .. . . I _ .. . . . . . . . z -- __ . _ . . . ' .- . - 'E h a e " " _ - i w - J I I . T + F : ' F . " ,, ' “W ’ i' 1 ll l l l l l J* — l l — — l l -- - - I — In . I - - -— - -_ - a _ F - . - . _ .. . - i . . - _ . _ " _ l . _ . . - . _- - -- ' - _ ‘ H _ I - - r l . - - : I I I I 1 J I - - I _. _ ' . _ I _ _ _ g. : 5 ' . - . r _ 1 - ' - ' : . = . - —. ; + . I . - : _ : . - F 'r I - E - I - .m - { W FT " I' - - - ' - ' - f - ' .. - .E? . M' T j ' n HI E - 1 : 5 . I- r ' i r : '- . . - ‘ - " : - . - . ' . HE “ . . .. - .- . .. _. - . . _. - . . : . _ .”. I .1 1 . . -_ . -. ._ . -. - _ " : - . . - 1. 1 3 . 5 - -‘ - - -- +. _ - -. ” I - J . . ' .' | 1 ' . i . ' l . : . l : " . " : ; i 1 . _ ; - -. - ' -. - - : . I . - _ ' — : ' i. - '; - '1 '. : ' : . ' . _ - '. - ‘. " -- :I I - - I _E - - -r _ _ - - £2 ! - -. I. - - '- . -: 31 . 32 . Up o n re c e i p t of pr o o f sa t i s f a c t o r y by th e De v e l o p e r ' s En g i n e e r , an En g i n e e r li c e n s e d in Mi n n e s o t a , to th e Ci t y En g i n e e r th a t wo r k ha s be e n co m p l e t e d in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h th e Pl a n s (a n d sp e c i f i c a t i o n s ) , an d te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , an d th a t al l fi n a n c i a l ob l i g a t i o n s to th e Ci t y , su b c o n t r a c t o r s , or ot h e r pe r s o n s ha v e be e n sa t i s f i e d , th e Ci t y En g i n e e r ma y ap p r o v e re d u c t i o n s in th e Se c u r i t y pr o v i d e d by th e De v e l o p e r un d e r th i s pa r a g r a p h fr o m ti m e to ti m e by ni n e t y pe r c e n t (9 0 % ) of th e fi n a n c i a l ob l i g a t i o n s th a t ha v e be e n sa t i s f i e d . Te n pe r c e n t (1 0 % ) of th e am o u n t s ce r t i f i e d by th e De v e l o p e r ' s en g i n e e r sh a l l be re t a i n e d as Se c u r i t y un t i l al l Im p r o v e m e n t s ha v e be e n co m p l e t e d , th e re q u i r e d "a s bu i l t " pl a n s ha v e be e n re c e i v e d by th e Ci t y , a wa r r a n t y se c u r i t y is pr o v i d e d , an d th e pu b l i c im p r o v e m e n t s ar e ac c e p t e d by th e Ci t y Co u n c i l . . Wa r r a n t y . Th e De v e l o p e r an d th e De v e l o p e r s En g i n e e r re p r e s e n t an d wa r r a n t to th e Ci t y th a t th e de s i g n fo r th e pr o j e c t me e t s al l la w s , Ci t y St a n d a r d s , En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s an d Or d i n a n c e s . Th e De v e l o p e r wa r r a n t s al l im p r o v e m e n t s re q u i r e d to be co n s t r u c t e d by it pu r s u a n t to th i s Co n t r a c t ag a i n s t po o r ma t e r i a l an d fa u l t y wo r k m a n s h i p . Th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d fo r st r e e t s is on e ye a r . Th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d fo r th e st r e e t s sh a l l co m m e n c e af t e r th e fi n a l we a r co u r s e ha s be e n co m p l e t e d . It is th e re s p o n s i b i l i t y of th e De v e l o p e r to co m p l e t e al l st r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s . Fa i l u r e of th e De v e l o p e r to co m p l e t e al l st r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s in a ti m e l y ma n n e r sh a l l no t in an y wa y co n s t i t u t e ca u s e fo r th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d to be mo d i f i e d fr o m th e st i p u l a t i o n s se t fo r t h ab o v e . Th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d fo r un d e r g r o u n d ut i l i t i e s is tw o ye a r s . Th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d on un d e r g r o u n d ut i l i t i e s sh a l l co m m e n c e fo l l o w i n g it s co m p l e t i o n an d ac c e p t a n c e by th e Ci t y En g i n e e r in wr i t i n g . It is th e re s p o n s i b i l i t y of th e De v e l o p e r to co m p l e t e th e re q u i r e d te s t i n g of th e un d e r g r o u n d ut i l i t i e s an d re q u e s t , in wr i t i n g , Ci t y ac c e p t a n c e of th e ut i l i t i e s . Fa i l u r e of th e De v e l o p e r to co m p l e t e th e re q u i r e d te s t i n g or re q u e s t ac c e p t a n c e of th e ut i l i t i e s in a ti m e l y ma n n e r sh a l l no t in an y wa y co n s t i t u t e ca u s e fo r th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d to be mo d i f i e d fr o m th e st i p u l a t i o n s se t fo r t h ab o v e . Al l tr e e s sh a l l be wa r r a n t e d to be al i v e , of go o d qu a l i t y , an d di s e a s e fr e e fo r 12 mo n t h s af t e r th e se c u r i t y fo r th e tr e e s is re l e a s e d . An y re p l a c e m e n t s sh a l l be wa r r a n t e d fo r 12 mo n t h s fr o m th e ti m e of pl a n t i n g . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l po s t ma i n t e n a n c e bo n d s in th e am o u n t of tw e n t y fi v e pe r c e n t (2 5 % ) of th e fi n a l ce r t i f i e d co n s t r u c t i o n co s t or ot h e r su r e t y ac c e p t a b l e to th e Ci t y to se c u r e th e wa r r a n t i e s . Th e Ci t y sh a l l re t a i n te n pe r c e n t (1 0 % ) of th e se c u r i t y po s t e d by th e De v e l o p e r un t i l th e bo n d s or ot h e r ac c e p t a b l e su r e t y ar e fu r n i s h e d to th e Ci t y or un t i l th e wa r r a n t y pe r i o d ha s be e n co m p l e t e d , wh i c h e v e r fi r s t oc c u r s . Th e re t a i n a g e ma y be us e d to pa y fo r wa r r a n t y wo r k . Th e Ci t y ’ s En g i n e e r i n g Gu i d e l i n e s id e n t i f y th e pr o c e d u r e s fo r fi n a l ac c e p t a n c e of st r e e t s an d ut i l i t i e s . De v e l o g e r ’ s De f a u l t . In th e ev e n t of de f a u l t by th e De v e l o p e r as to an y of th e Im p r o v e m e n t s to be pe r f o r m e d by it he r e u n d e r , th e Ci t y ma y , at it s op t i o n , pe r f o r m th e wo r k an d th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l pr o m p t l y re i m b u r s e th e Ci t y fo r an y ex p e n s e in c u r r e d by th e Ci t y , pr o v i d e d th e De v e l o p e r , ex c e p t in an em e r g e n c y as de t e r m i n e d by th e Ci t y or as ot h e r w i s e pr o v i d e d fo r in th i s Ag r e e m e n t , is fi r s t gi v e n wr i t t e n no t i c e of th e wo r k in de f a u l t , no t le s s th a n se v e n t y tw o (7 2 ) ho u r s in ad v a n c e . Th i s Ag r e e m e n t is a li c e n s e fo r th e Ci t y to ac t , an d it sh a l l no t be ne c e s s a r y fo r th e Ci t y to se e k a Co u r t or d e r fo r pe r m i s s i o n to en t e r th e la n d . Wh e n th e Ci t y do e s an y su c h wo r k , th e Ci t y ma y , in ad d i t i o n to it s ot h e r re m e d i e s , as s e s s th e co s t in wh o l e or in pa r t . Mi s c e l l a n e o u s . ma y no t as s i g n th i s Ag r e e m e n t wi t h o u t th e wr i t t e n pe r m i s s i o n of th e Ci t y Co u n c i l . Th e De v e l o p e r ’ s ob l i g a t i o n he r e u n d e r sh a l l co n t i n u e in fu l l fo r c e an d ef f e c t ev e n if th e De v e l o p e r se l l s on e or mo r e lo t s , th e en t i r e Pl a t , or an y pa r t of it . B. Th i r d pa r t i e s sh a l l ha v e no re c o u r s e ag a i n s t th e Ci t y un d e r th i s Ag r e e m e n t . C. Br e a c h of th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t by th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l be gr o u n d s fo r de n i a l of bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s , in c l u d i n g lo t s so l d to th i r d pa r t i e s . D. If an y po r t i o n , se c t i o n , su b s e c t i o n , se n t e n c e , cl a u s e , pa r a g r a p h or ph r a s e of th i s Ag r e e m e n t is fo r an y re a s o n he l d in v a l i d , su c h de c i s i o n sh a l l no t af f e c t th e va l i d i t y of th e re m a i n i n g po r t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t . Pa g e 8 of 13 Page 33 of 635 El l a - r u n .- . r l . . '- . - : ' 3: 1 : h- r — 51 ' ” : - I. II I LI E - ‘ 3 " ' u Ez l h i i — .: I _ _ J . _ : I : _ = _ In f - I : — ‘ -. - ; _ - " ‘ - _ -i " ' : " ; — : 1 - ' = - r l r . , . :_ {T I E - 'I E E F I I : -_ - ; ' I - . ' - ' I . I ?- _l _ .- . . - - 1 II . . I. .I . . -. I. J I - I . - . . ". ' ‘ ; _' _ . . ' : .: ' : . ' : . ” ' .- . _ . I 1 '- - - T— ; E -- F - ' - l' i . - ' -' . '7 ‘ _. ' - _- ' - : . ' - " . . . . . " " " ' . " : - . - . - . : l _ _ '5 ' '1 : - ._ ._ l. : . -- r JI _ . . _ _ . H: -_ '. ' - . [ _ T . 1: : I I' l l - I I I . I- - ' . I . I ' I ‘: ' - - J Ju l E . rg ? l __ . '= - -. .- .. ' - _ .- : ' . I . . . '- ' - ' 1" - .I j " _ l I ' I - ." ' : : . :- ' - ': ' . I I - J .- 5. - Ea c h ri g h t , po w e r or re m e d y he r e i n co n f e r r e d up o n th e Ci t y is cu m u l a t i v e an d in ad d i t i o n to ev e r y ot h e r ri g h t , po w e r or re m e d y , ex p r e s s or im p l i e d , no w or he r e a f t e r ar i s i n g , av a i l a b l e to Ci t y at la w or in eq u i t y , or un d e r an y ot h e r ag r e e m e n t , an d ea c h an d ev e r y ri g h t , po w e r an d re m e d y he r e i n se t fo r t h or ot h e r w i s e so ex i s t i n g ma y be ex e r c i s e d fr o m ti m e to ti m e as of t e n an d in su c h or d e r as ma y be de e m e d ex p e d i e n t by th e Ci t y an d sh a l l no t be a wa i v e r of th e ri g h t to ex e r c i s e at an y ti m e th e r e a f t e r an y ot h e r ri g h t , po w e r or re m e d y . Th e ac t i o n or in a c t i o n of th e Ci t y sh a l l no t co n s t i t u t e a wa i v e r or am e n d m e n t to th e pr o v i s i o n s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t . To be bi n d i n g , am e n d m e n t s or wa i v e r s sh a l l be in wr i t i n g , si g n e d by th e pa r t i e s an d ap p r o v e d by wr i t t e n re s o l u t i o n of th e Ci t y Co u n c i l . Th e Ci t y ’ s fa i l u r e to pr o m p t l y ta k e le g a l ac t i o n to en f o r c e th i s Ag r e e m e n t sh a l l no t be a wa i v e r or re l e a s e . Co m p l i a n c e wi t h La w s an d Re g u l a t i o n s . Th e De v e l o p e r re p r e s e n t s to th e Ci t y th a t th e Pl a t co m p l i e s wi t h al l Ci t y , Co u n t y , Me t r o p o l i t a n , St a t e an d Fe d e r a l la w s an d re g u l a t i o n s , in c l u d i n g bu t no t li m i t e d to : su b d i v i s i o n or d i n a n c e s , zo n i n g or d i n a n c e s an d en v i r o n m e n t a l re g u l a t i o n s . if th e Ci t y de t e r m i n e s th a t th e Pl a t do e s no t co m p l y , th e Ci t y ma y , at it s op t i o n , re f u s e to al l o w an y co n s t r u c t i o n or de v e l o p m e n t wo r k in th e Pl a t un t i l th e De v e l o p e r do e s co m p l y . Up o n th e Ci t y ’ s de m a n d , th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l ce a s e wo r k un t i l th e r e is co m p l i a n c e . Th i s Ag r e e m e n t sh a l l ru n wi t h th e la n d an d sh a l l be re c o r d e d ag a i n s t th e ti t l e to th e pr o p e r t y be f o r e an y bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s ar e is s u e d . Th e De v e l o p e r co v e n a n t s wi t h th e Ci t y , it s su c c e s s o r s an d as s i g n s , th a t th e De v e l o p e r is we l l se i z e d in fe e ti t l e of th e pr o p e r t y be i n g fi n a l pl a t t e d an d / o r ha s ob t a i n e d Co n s e n t s to th i s Ag r e e m e n t , in th e fo r m at t a c h e d he r e t o , fr o m al l pa r t i e s wh o ha v e an in t e r e s t in th e pr o p e r t y ; th a t th e r e ar e no un r e c o r d e d in t e r e s t s in th e pr o p e r t y be i n g fi n a l pl a t t e d ; an d th a t th e De v e l o p e r wi l l in d e m n i f y an d ho l d th e Ci t y ha r m l e s s fo r an y br e a c h of th e of th e fo r e g o i n g co v e n a n t s . Af t e r th e De v e l o p e r ha s co m p l e t e d th e Im p r o v e m e n t s re q u i r e d of it un d e r th i s Ag r e e m e n t , at th e De v e l o p e r ’ s re q u e s t th e Ci t y wi l l ex e c u t e an d de l i v e r a te r m i n a t i o n of th i s Ag r e e m e n t (i n re c o r d a b l e fo r m ) an d a re l e a s e of th e De v e l o p e r . Up o n br e a c h of th e te r m s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t , th e Ci t y ma y , fo l l o w i n g th e pa s s i n g of al l ap p l i c a b l e no t i c e an d cu r e pe r i o d s , dr a w do w n th e De v e l o p e r ’ s Se c u r i t y as pr o v i d e d in Pa r a g r a p h 30 (S e c u r i t y ) of th i s Ag r e e m e n t . Th e Ci t y ma y dr a w do w n th i s Se c u r i t y in th e am o u n t of $5 0 0 . 0 0 pe r da y th a t th e De v e l o p e r is in vi o l a t i o n (f o l l o w i n g th e pa s s i n g of al l ap p l i c a b l e no t i c e an d cu r e pe r i o d s ) . Th e Ci t y , in it s so l e di s c r e t i o n , sh a l l de t e r m i n e wh e t h e r th e De v e l o p e r is in vi o l a t i o n of th e Ag r e e m e n t . Su b j e c t to th e pr o v i s i o n s of Pa r a g r a p h 32 (D e v e l o p e r ' s De f a u l t ) he r e o f , th i s de t e r m i n a t i o n ma y be ma d e wi t h o u t no t i c e to th e De v e l o p e r . It is st i p u l a t e d th a t th e vi o l a t i o n of an y te r m wi l l re s u l t in da m a g e s to th e Ci t y in an am o u n t , wh i c h wi l l be im p r a c t i c a l an d ex t r e m e l y di f f i c u l t to as c e r t a i n . It is ag r e e d th a t th e pe r da y su m st i p u l a t e d is a re a s o n a b l e am o u n t to co m p e n s a t e th e Ci t y fo r it s da m a g e s . Th e De v e l o p e r wi l l be re q u i r e d to co n d u c t al l ma j o r ac t i v i t i e s to co n s t r u c t th e Im p r o v e m e n t s du r i n g th e fo l l o w i n g ho u r s of op e r a t i o n : Mo n d a y - Fr i d a y 7: 0 0 AM . un t i l 7: 0 0 PM . Sa t u r d a y 8: 0 0 AM . un t i l 5: 0 0 PM . Th i s do e s no t ap p l y to ac t i v i t i e s th a t ar e re q u i r e d on a 24 — h o u r ba s i s su c h as de w a t e r i n g , et c . An y de v i a t i o n s fr o m th e ab o v e ho u r s ar e su b j e c t to ap p r o v a l of th e Ci t y En g i n e e r . Vi o l a t i o n s of th e wo r k i n g ho u r s wi l l re s u l t in a $5 0 0 fi n e pe r oc c u r r e n c e in ac c o r d a n c e wi t h Pa r a g r a p h | of th i s se c t i o n . Th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l be re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e co n t r o l of we e d s in ex c e s s of tw e l v e in c h e s (1 2 ” ) on va c a n t lo t s or bo u l e v a r d s wi t h i n th e i r de v e l o p m e n t as pe r Ci t y Co d e 6- 7 - 1 . Fa i l u r e to co n t r o l we e d s wi l l be co n s i d e r e d a De v e l o p e r ’ s De f a u l t as ou t l i n e d in Pa r a g r a p h 32 (D e v e l o p e r ' s De f a u l t ) of th i s Ag r e e m e n t an d th e De v e l o p e r wi l l re i m b u r s e th e Ci t y as de f i n e d in sa i d Pa r a g r a p h 25 (R e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r Co s t s ) . Th e Ci t y ag r e e s at an y ti m e , an d fr o m ti m e to ti m e , wi t h i n te n (1 0 ) da y s af t e r re c e i p t of wr i t t e n re q u e s t by th e De v e l o p e r , a le n d e r or a pa r t y pu r c h a s i n g th e pr o p e r t y , to ex e c u t e , ac k n o w l e d g e an d de l i v e r a ce r t i f i c a t i o n in wr i t i n g an d in su c h fo r m as wi l l en a b l e it to be re c o r d e d in th e pr o p e r of f i c e fo r th e re c o r d a t i o n of de e d s an d ot h e r in s t r u m e n t s Pa g e 9 of 13 Page 34 of 635 ce r t i f y i n g : (a ) th a t th i s Ag r e e m e n t is un m o d i f i e d an d in fu l l fo r c e an d ef f e c t , or if th e r e h a v e be e nmo d i f i c a t i on s , th e id e n t i f y of su c h mo d i f i c a t i o n s an d th a t th e sa m e ar e in fu l l fo r c e an d ef f e c t as mo d i f i e d ; (th atno pa r t y isinde f a u l t un d e r an y pr o v i s i o n s of th i s Ag r e e m e n t or , if th e r e ha s be e n a de f a u l t , th e na t u r e su chde f a u l t ; (c ) th a t al l Im p r o v e m e n t s to be pe r f o r m e d un d e r th i s Ag r e e m e n t ha v e be e n pe r f o r m e d , sp e c i f y i ng th eim p r o v em e n t s tobe pe r f o r m e d ; an d (d ) as to an y ot h e r ma t t e r th a t th e re q u e s t i n g pa r t y sh a l l re a s o n a b l y re q ue s t. It ISIn t e n d e d th a t an y su c h st a t e m e n t ma y be re l i e d up o n by an y pe r s o n , pr o s p e c t i v e mo r t g a g e e of , or as s i g n e e an ymo r t g a ge , up o n su c h in t e r e s t . An y su c h st a t e m e n t on be h a l f of th e Ci t y ma y be ex e c u t e d by th e Ci t y Ad m i n i st r a t o r wi t h o u t Ci t y Co u n c i l ap p r o v a l . M. In d e m n i f i c a t i o n . To th e fu l l e s t ex t e n t pe r m i t t e d by la w , De v e l o p e r ag r e e s to de f e n d , in d e mn i f y an d ho l d ha r m l e s s th e Ci t y , an d it s em p l o y e e s , of f i c i a l s , an d ag e n t s fr o m an d ag a i n s t al l cl a i m s , ac t i o n s , da ma ge s , lo s s e s an d ex p e n s e s , in c l u d i n g re a s o n a b l e at t o r n e y fe e s , ar i s i n g ou t of De v e l o p e r ’ s ne g l i g e n c e or it s pe r f o r m a nc e or fa i l u r e tope r f o r m it s ob l i g a t i o n s un d e r th i s Co n t r a c t . De v e l o p e r ’ s in d e m n i f i c a t i o n ob l i g a t i o n sh a l l ap p l y to de v el o pe r ’s ge n e r a l co n t r a c t o r , su b c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) , or an y o n e di r e c t l y or in d i r e c t l y em p l o y e d or hi r e d by De v e l o p e r , or an y o ne fo rwh o s eac t s De v e l o p e r ma y be li a b l e . De v e l o p e r ag r e e s th i s in d e m n i t y ob l i g a t i o n sh a l l su r v i v e th e co m p l e t i o n or of th i s Co n t r a c t . ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 . No t i c e s . Re q u i r e d no t i c e s to th e De v e l o p e r sh a l l be in wr i t i n g , an d sh a l l be ei t h e r ha n d de l iv e re d toth e De v e l o p e r , it s em p l o y e e s or ag e n t s , or ma i l e d to th e De v e l o p e r by ce r t i f i e d or re g i s t e r e d ma i l at th e fo l l o w i ng ad dr es se s: US Ho m e s , LL C (d b a Le n n a r ) At t n : Jo e Ja b i o n s k i 15 3 5 5 36 ‘ “ Av e n u e N #1 0 0 Pl y m o u t h , MN 55 4 4 6 No t i c e s to th e Ci t y sh a l l be in wr i t i n g an d sh a l l be ei t h e r ha n d de l i v e r e d to th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a to r , orma i l e d toth e Ci t y by ce r t i f i e d ma i l or re g i s t e r e d ma i l in ca r e of th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r at th e fo l l o w i n g ad d r e s s : Ly n n Go r s k i , Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n 43 0 Th i r d St r e e t Fa r m i n g t o n , MN 55 0 2 Pa ge 10of13 Page 35 of 635 CITY: CITY OF FARMINGTON SIGNATURE PAGE FOR THE CITY By: _______________ _ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor By: _______________ _ Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of -------� 20 __ by Joshua Hoyt, Mayor of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public Page 11 of 13 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _______________________, 20____ by Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. ________________________________________ Notary Public Page 36 of 635 £? : : ; J f ‘ 1 ' + : é ? t l i I. ' ': h : ' .: : ' {? g _. 'I '_ _ _ = , ; ' n1 l ' . _ - . J 5 I ' _ - ' l _ -I : ' I I “i i : 5' '"a ? ‘ ? ? ' -' = - . ‘ = 3 ‘ = ' = : - ! r * r' f ". _ ' :. I ' - . i' . ' . .. ' .: . I ' - Wh i r l i g i g : - :- . ' - ié ' é I ' '" ”L I - 3 ' .. I. "" - . .- '1 - 15 ' . ST A T E OF )(ss . CO U N T Y OF ) Th e fo r e g o i n g in s t r u m e n t ac k n o wl e d ge d be f o r e me th i s da y of ,20 _ _ , by ,th e of ,a( n ) ,on it sbe h a l f . DR A F T E D BY : CI T Y or FA R M IN G T ON 43 0 Th i r d St r e et Fa r m i n g t o n , 55 02 4 Te l e p h o n e : (6 5 1) 28 0 -68 0 0 SI GN AT UR E PA G E FO R DE V EL O PE R DE V EL O PE R : US LL C (d b a Le n n a r ) By : Jo n Au n e It s : Vi c e No t ar y Pu b li c Pa ge 12of13 Page 37 of 635 IIn._ I O ut l ot E,VE R M IL L I O NVA L L E Y DE V E L O P M E N T , ac c o r d i n g toth e pl a t th e r e o f , Da k o t a Co u n t y , Mi n n e s o t a . Page 38 of 635 To t a l Pl a t t e d Ar e a : 25 . 9 3 AC La n d Us e Ty p e We t l a n d / Fl o o d p l a i n : 0. 0 0 AC WE T L AN D Co u n t y / C o l l e c t o r RO W : 0. 0 0 AC RO W Si n g l e Fa m i l y Ar e a : 9. 7 8 AC R- L D Ou t l o t A: 1. 5 0 AC PA R K Ou t l o t B: 4. 0 7 PO N D Ou t l o t C: 7. 2 5 AC FU T U R E To t a l De v e l o p m e n t Fe e Ac r e a g e * : 25 . 9 3 AC To t a l by La n d Us e Ty p e R- L D 9. 7 8 AC R- H D 0. 0 0 AC Co m m / I l l 0. 0 0 AC RO W 0. 0 0 AC Po n d 4. 0 7 AC We t l a n d 0. 0 0 AC Pa r k 1. 5 0 AC Fu t u r e 7. 2 5 AC Cu r r e n t Ph a s e De v e l o g m e n t Fe e Ac r e a g e : 12 . 3 5 AC <-- - - - -Us e d fo r al lDe v e l o p m e n t Fe e Ca l c s Nu m b e r of Un i t s (P r e l i m i n a r y Pl a t ) 13 4 Nu m b e r of Un i t s (F i n a l Pl a t ) 67 Ar e a of ne w bi t u m i n o u s 8, 8 5 9 Sq . Y d s . Al lPu b l i cSt r e e t s De v el o p me n t Co n t r a c t Ca l c u l a t i o n s VE R MI L LI O N CO M M O NS 4t h AD D I T I O N Ex h i b i t B De v e lo p m en t Co n t r a c t A cr ea g es fo r Pl a t t i n g Ca l c u l a t i o n s E xh ib i t BPa g e 1of3 Page 39 of 635 h’ 4 . a ‘ l i - w a , m ' z h , U' A ‘ L l u y u m ‘ u v rm Mr 1' ‘. t ' » , . 4 t n z i a i e e H 1 | ( (l g / . 1 9 2 py g m y xI V I N P ’ J ? W ‘ Y ? - m ? i V , u .‘ ne a é n w a w mr m w n m u m De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t Ca l c u l a t i o n s Ex h i b i t VE R M I L L I O N CO M M O N S 4t h AD D I T I O N De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t Su r f a c e Wa t e r Qu a l i t y Ma n a g e m e n t Fe e Re s i d e n t i a l , si n g l e / m u l t i $ 12 0 pe r ac r e $1 , 4 8 2 Co m m . / l n d u s t i a l / l n s t i t u t i o n a l $ 24 6 pe r ac r e $0 $1 , 4 8 2 Su r f a c e Wa t e r Ma n a g e m e n t Fe e Re s i d e n t i a l , lo w de n s i t y $ 12 , 7 4 4 pe r ac r e $1 2 4 , 6 3 6 Re s i d e n t i a l . hi g h de n s i t y 55 21 , 1 6 9 pe r ac r e $0 Co m m . / l n d u s t i a l / l n s t i t u t i o n a l $ 25 , 4 8 4 pe r ac r e $0 $1 24 , 6 3 6 Wa t e r m a i n Tr u n k Ar e a Ch a r g e Al l La n d Us e Ty p e s $4 , 9 9 0 pe r ac r e $6 1 ,6 2 7 Sa n i t a r y Se w e r Tr u n k Ar e a Ch a r g e Al l La n d Us e Ty p e s $ 2, 6 7 5 pe r ac r e $3 3 , 0 3 6 Pa r k De d i c a t i o n Dw e l l i n g un i t s / a c r e (P r e l i m i n a r y Pl a t ) 5. 1 7 Pe r c e n t a g e of la n d to be de d i c a t e d as Pa r k 13 % Re q u i r e d Pa r k La n d w/ Fi n a l Pl a t 1. 6 1 AC De d i c a t e d Pa r k La n d 1. 5 0 AC Ba l a n c e pa i d as Ca s h in Li e u 0. 1 1 AC Ap p r a i s a l Va l u e / A c r e $7 7 , 1 3 1 pe r ac r e Pa r k De v e l o p m e n t Fe e Pa r k De v e l o p m e n t Fe e pe r ac r e of re q u i r e d pa r k l a n d $ 25 , 6 8 6 pe r ac r e To t a l Pa r k De v e l o p m e n t Fe e $ - -_ Se a l c o a t i n g Bi t u m i n o u s Se a l Co a t i n g $ 1. 6 3 pe r sq u a r e ya r d — De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t Es c r o w Co n s t r u c t i o n Co s t 51 7 3 8 1 8 3 1 Co n t r a c t Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n Fe e 3% of Co n s t r u c t i o n Co s t $5 2 , 1 6 5 Co n s t r u c t i o n Ob s e r v a t i o n Es c r o w 5% of Co n s t r u c t i o n Co s t $8 6 , 9 4 2 SW P P Co m p l i a n c e Es c r o w $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $1 6 4 , 1 0 6 To t a l of Fe e s Du e u co n Pl a t t i n - $4 0 7 , 8 1 1 Pl a tt i n g Fe e Ca l c u l a t i o n sBa s e d on20 2 4 Fe e Sc h e d u l e i I O ve rs iz in g Re i m b u r s em e n t s /Co n s t r u c t i o n Es c r o w Re i m b u r s e m e n t s W Sa n i t a r y Se w er Tr u n kOv e r s i z i n g N/ A Wa t e r m a i n Ov e r s i zi n g N/ A To t a l Re i mb ur s em en t s Pa i d up o n Pr o o f ofPl a t Re c o r d i n .$0 E x hi bi t BPa g e 2of3 Page 40 of 635 I C o n st r u ct i o n Se c u r i t y Ca l c u l a t i o n s Gr a d i n g (f i l l ) /E r o s i o n Co n t r o l Sa n i t a r y Se w e r Wa t e r Ma i n St o r m Se w e r St r e e t Co n s t r u c t i o n Mo n u m e n t s St r e e t Li g h t s & Si g n a g e (i n c l u d e d in St r e e t Co n ) We t l a n d Mi t i g a t i o n $2 0 0 pe r To t a l Co n s t r u c t i o n Ex h i b i t B De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t Co n s t r u c t i o n Co s t $0 . 0 0 $4 4 6 , 9 9 5 $3 4 0 . 8 1 1 $4 0 4 , 2 2 5 $5 4 6 , 8 0 0 $1 3 , 4 0 0 $0 N/ A $1 , 7 5 2 , 2 3 1 .0 0 To t a l Se c u r i t y Am o u n t SCo m p l i a n c eEs c r o w Se c u r i t y Am o u n t $0 $5 5 8 , 7 4 3 $4 2 6 , 0 1 4 $5 0 5 , 2 8 1 $6 8 3 , 5 0 1 $1 6 , 7 5 0 $0 N/ A $2 , 1 9 0 , 2 8 9 $2 , 1 65 , 2 8 9 De v el o p me n t Co n t r a c t Ca l c u l a t i o n s VE R MI L LI O N CO M M O NS 4t h AD D I T I O N E x hi bi t BPa g e 3of3 ($25 ,00 Page 41 of 635 al l - __ . li ' l - I ' j l ? ? ? l l I :I I Ll :‘- :3 . - __ - 1 . . _ ' E | I - _ "- " E _ . _ _ _ :I I I : _ ; -u . _ -. ' I IR R E V O C A B L E LE T T E R OF CR E D I T No . Da t e : T0 : Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n 43 0 Th i r d St r e e t Fa r m i n g t o n , MN 55 0 2 4 De a r Si r or Ma d a m : We he r e b y is s u e , fo r th e ac c o u n t of (N a m e of De v e l o p e r ] an d in yo u r fa v o r , ou r Ir r e v o c a b l e Le t t e r of Cr e d i t in th e am o u n t of S , av a i l a b l e to yo u by yo u r dr a f t dr a w n on si g h t on th e un d e r s i g n e d ba n k . Th e dr a f t mu s t : a) Be a r th e cl a u s e , "D r a w n un d e r Le t t e r of Cr e d i t No . , da t e d , 20 , of (N a m e of Ba n k ] "; b) Be si g n e d by th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r or Fi n a n c e Di r e c t o r of th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n . c) Be pr e s e n t e d fo r pa y m e n t at (A d d r e s s of Ba n k ] on or be f o r e 4: 0 0 pm . on No v e m b e r 30 , 2 . Th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t sh a l l au t o m a t i c a l l y re n e w fo r su c c e s s i v e on e - y e a r te r m s un l e s s , at le a s t fo r t y — f i v e (4 5 ) da y s pr i o r to th e ne x t an n u a l re n e w a l da t e (w h i c h sh a l l be No v e m b e r 30 of ea c h ye a r ) , th e Ba n k de l i v e r s wr i t t e n no t i c e to th e Fa r m i n g t o n Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r th a t it in t e n d s to mo d i f y th e te r m s of , or ca n c e l , th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t . Wr i t t e n no t i c e is ef f e c t i v e if se n t by ce r t i f i e d ma i l , po s t a g e pr e p a i d , an d de p o s i t e d in th e U. S . Ma i l , at le a s t fo r t y — f i v e (4 5 ) da y s pr i o r to th e ne x t an n u a l re n e w a l da t e ad d r e s s e d as fo l l o w s : Fa r m i n g t o n Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r , 43 0 Th i r d St r e e t , Fa r m i n g t o n , MN 55 0 2 4 , an d is ac t u a l l y re c e i v e d by th e Ci t y Ad m i n i s t r a t o r at le a s t th i r t y (3 0 ) da y s pr i o r to th e re n e w a l da t e . Th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t se t s fo r t h in fu l l ou r un d e r s t a n d i n g wh i c h sh a l l no t in an y wa y be mo d i f i e d , am e n d e d , am p l i f i e d , or li m i t e d by re f e r e n c e to an y do c u m e n t , in s t r u m e n t , or ag r e e m e n t , wh e t h e r or no t re f e r r e d to he r e i n . Th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t is no t as s i g n a b l e . Th i s is no t 3 No t a t i o n Le t t e r of Cr e d i t . Mo r e th a n on e dr a w ma y be ma d e un d e r th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t . Th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t sh a l l be go v e r n e d by th e mo s t re c e n t re v i s i o n of th e Un i f o r m Cu s t o m s an d Pr a c t i c e fo r Do c u m e n t a r y Cr e d i t s , In t e r n a t i o n a l Ch a m b e r of Co m m e r c e Pu b l i c a t i o n No . 60 0 . We he r e b y ag r e e th a t a dr a f t dr a w n un d e r an d in co m p l i a n c e wi t h th i s Le t t e r of Cr e d i t sh a l l be du l y ho n o r e d up o n pr e s e n t a t i o n . [N A M E OF BA N K ] By : It s : [i d e n t i f y of f i c i a l ] Page 42 of 635 FE E OW N E R CO N S E N T TO DE V E L O P M E NT CO N T R A C T DR P BO O K B I N D E R LL C , aDe l a w a r e li m i t e d li a b i l i t y co m p a n y , fe e ow n e r s of al l orpa r t of th e Su b j e c t pr o p e r t y , th e de ve l op me nt ofwh i c h isgo v e r n e d by th e pr e c e d i n g De v e l o p m e n t Co n t r a c t , af f i r m an d co n s e n t to th e pr o v i s i o n s t h e r e o fan d ag r e e tobebo u n d by th e pr o v i s i o n s as th e sa m e ma y ap p l y toth a t po r t i o n of th e su b j e c t pr o p e r ty ow ne dby th e m . Da t e d th i s da y o f,20 2 4 . By : Br i a n Cl a u s o n It s : Au t h o r i z e d Si g n a t o r y ST A T E OF )ss . CO U N T Y OF Th e pr e c e d i n g in s t r u m e n t wa s be f o r e me th i s da y of ,20 2 4 , byBr i a n Cl a u s o n , th e Au t h o r i z e d Si g n a t or y ofDR P BO O K B I N DE R MU L T I S T A T E , LL C , aDe l a w a r e li m i t e d li a b i l i t y co m p a n y , on be h a l f of sa i d en t i t y . Ve r m il l i o n Co m mo n s 4‘ " Ad d i t i o n Fa r m i ng t o n , MN D R P B O O K BI N D E RMU L T I S T A T E , LL C N O T A R Y PU B L I C Page 43 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kim Sommerland, Finance Director Department: Finance Subject: Payment of Claims Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Attached is the list of check and electronic payments for the period of 09/12/24-10/02/2024 for approval. DISCUSSION: Not applicable BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable ACTION REQUESTED: Approve payment of claims. ATTACHMENTS: Council Summary Payment of Claims 10-07-2024 Page 44 of 635 CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL 09/12/2024-10/02/2024 CHECK PAYMENTS 821,261.17$ ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS 467,641.43$ TOTAL 1,288,902.60$ The City Council receives a detail list of claims paid that is available to the public upon request. CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS October 7, 2024 Page 45 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Matt Price, Interim Fire Chief Department: Fire Subject: Resolution Declaring Surplus Property-Fire Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The Fire Department is requesting the authorization to dispose of fire equipment. DISCUSSION: All equipment identified on the attached surplus lists are outside the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements for service life. BUDGET IMPACT: The proceeds from the auction will be placed in the Fire Department Equipment fund. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-80 Declaring Items as Surplus and Authorizing Disposal. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-80 Declaring Property Surplus - Fire Dept 2024 Surplus Items Medical 2024 Surplus Items Turn-out Gear 2024 Surplus Items Page 46 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-80 A RESOLUTION DECLARING ITEMS AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSAL WHEREAS, the Fire Department is requesting authorization to dispose of the following fire equipment that is no longer in use due to the condition of the equipment and is requesting to dispose of the equipment by sale at auction with funds being deposited into the equipment fund: See attachments for list of equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the above listed items are declared surplus and authorize its disposal with any proceeds to be placed into the equipment fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 47 of 635 2024 Surplus Items 1 – Duo-Safety ladder fiberglass 1 – Aluminum attic extension ladder 14’ 3 – Red garden hose. 1 – White Backboard 1 – Broken pike pole 8’ 1 – Holmatro power unit. Electric motor is bad. 2 – Stihl chain saw cases. (One goes with the Stihl chainsaw so possible repurpose to city) 1 – Stihl MS251 SN507234744 (off of B1, replacing with the larger MS450 saw) repurpose to city 6 – Indian pump cans 1 – Blue LA Rescue med bag (broken zipper one pocket) 1 – 2 ½ playpipe TFT with fog nozzle. 1 – 5G red safety can, Fuel. 2 – Cordura blue rope bags 4 – Rescue roco safety harness model 201602 MFG 2003. (in blue bags) 1 – Rescue ROCO blue bag with red life safety rope. Unknown length. 1 – RIT/Escape CMC red bag with orange rope. 1 – CMC red rescues equipment bag with various ropes, and webbing. 2 – Red CMC Rope Rescue bags with rappel gear. 1 – Red bag with rappel gear. Edge protection/rollers and tie off. 1 – hose bed cover 1 – Extractor fan 1 – Hose clamp 8 – Condemned extinguishers 4 – Drive over hose bridge. (Donate to MN fire engine club) Page 48 of 635 9 – 1-gallon jugs of hose and gear cleaner. 1 – Calibration stand for GasAlertMicro 5 gas monitors 1 – 1 ½ TFT Fog nozzle 1 – 1” fog nozzle 1 – 4’ multi-purpose tri-tool. Has pike pole on one end, sledge/ax on other. 1 – W/5 adapter. Storks to 6” thread off pump. Unknow from what truck. 2 – Pallets of fire hose from 3” to 1 ¾ was replaced with new hose. 4 – Used Calibration gas bottles from old 5 gas calibration stand. 2 with regulators. 2 – bottle holders for calibration gas. 1 – Box of accessories for GasAlertMicro 5 gas monitors.9 2 – unused calibration gas 5 – CO/H2S Sensors for 5 Gas monitors. 1 – Combustible Gas sensor for 5 Gas monitors 1 – Hydrogen Cyanide Sensor 10 – GasAlertMicro 5 gas monitors SE318-00212 SE317003743 SE317-003744 SE319-003122 SE317-003745 SE318-003314 SE317-003742 SE318-003313 SE317-003741 SQ321-001965 Turnout Gear attachment Medical Gear attachment Page 49 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 31- ScoƩ NXG2 Air Packs 2- MSA 45 SCF at 2216 psi yellow Air BoƩles Page 50 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 2- ScoƩ 60 Min BoƩles 4500 PSI 2- ScoƩ 2216 PSI boƩles 3- Stat Packs- First Aid Bags Page 51 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 1- Black Duffle containing 7 AED Trainers 2- Green Oxygen Bags Page 52 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 1- 4 pack of Baby CPR Mannequins in red bag 2- 4 pack of Adult Cpr Mannequins in a red bag Page 53 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 1- Splint Kit, contains: 2- 15” padded boards, 2- 26” padded boards, 2- 54 “ padded boards, 1 Vinyl Carry bag 1- Laerdal Bronchial Tree Trainer Page 54 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 1- Large Cardboard Box containing CPR Training Supplies for Resusci Anne (Airways and masks) 8- LiƩle Anne CPR Mannequins w/bags Page 55 of 635 Surplus Items from District Chief ScoƩ Maƫngly 4/20/2024 All items at Fire StaƟon 1 in Ladder Bay Shelves 1- Rescuci Anne CPR Mannequin with Hard Case 5- Baby CPR Mannequins in separate cases Page 56 of 635 Item Brand Req/Serial #Size/Color Item Quantity Notes Coat Janesville 0006389801/0006389802 N/A Flashlight 2 Coat Janesville 0006388671/0006388672 N/A Ladder Belt 1 Coat Janesville 0005653861/(unable to read)N/A Wildland Fire Coats 7 Brand New Coat Janesville 0006388641/0006388642 N/A Wildland Fire Coats 15 Used Coat Janesville 0006388631/0006388632 N/A Coat Janesville 0006388611/0006388612 N/A Coat Janesville 0006389791/0006389792 N/A Coat Janesville 0006388651/0006388652 N/A Coat Janesville 0006388601/0006388602 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390312 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390372 N/A Pants Janesville 0006387742 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390322 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390362 N/A Pants Janesville 1 pair, no tag N/A Pants Janesville 0006390292 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390342 N/A Pants Janesville 0006390382 N/A Boots Fire Dex 3182122154 11.5 W Boots Fire Dex 3161511360 14 W Boots Fire Dex 3208311812 11.5 W Boots No Brandname LS000121116 13 M Boots Fire Dex 3195031195 9 M Boots Fire Dex 3295111708 12.5 W Boots Fire Dex 3208310558 10 M Boots Fire Dex 3205371973 13 W Boots Fire Dex 3189283362 13 W Boots Fire Dex Boots Fire Dex Boots Fire Dex Boots Fire Dex Boots Fire Dex Boots Fire Dex Helmet Bullard Not Readable Black Helmet Bullard Not Readable Black Helmet Bullard Not Readable Black Helmet Bullard Not Readable White Helmet Cairns Not Readable Yellow Helmet Cairns Not Readable Yellow Helmet Cairns Not Readable Yellow Other ItemsCoat Turnout Gear Surplus May 2024 Page 57 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Lynn Gorski, City Administrator Department: HR Subject: Staff Changes and Recommendations Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Approve the appointments of Dan Miller as Police Sergeant, Matthew Brown as Deputy Fire Chief, Braeden Bierbrauer as a Community Service Officer, and Nicole Peaslee as Part-time Liquor Store Clerk. DISCUSSION: Officer Dan Miller has been selected to fill the vacant Sergeant position. He has risen to the top of a robust and multi-faceted promotional process. Dan has been a Police Officer with the City of Farmington since 2007 and, prior to that, was an Officer for the City of Cannon Falls. Fire Marshal Matthew Brown was selected to fill the vacant Deputy Chief position within the Fire Department. Matthew Brown joined the City of Farmington as the Fire Marshall on May 20, 2024. The Deputy position was posted internally and externally. Through the process, Matthew Brown was selected to be promoted to the Deputy Fire Chief position. Prior to joining Farmington Matthew worked for St. Paul Fire for 21 years. Braeden Bierbrauer was selected to fill a newly created role of a part-time Community Service Officer (CSO) within the Farmington Police Department. This role was created to relieve tasks from the Patrol Staff. Braeden is currently a student enrolled in the law enforcement program. Nicole Peaslee has been selected to join the Liquor Store Team as a part-time Liquor Store Clerk. BUDGET IMPACT: Wages are included in the 2024 budget. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the appointments of Dan Miller, Matthew Brown, Braeden Bierbrauer, and Nicole Peaslee. Page 58 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Peter Gilbertson, IT Director Department: IT Subject: Direct 10Gbps Connection with LOGIS via a Cross-Connection Service at the Minnesota Technology Center Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Connect Farmington directly to LOGIS via HBC's provided 10Gbps transport line. DISCUSSION: As part of our Westview Acres agreement with Hiawatha Broadband Communications, they have provided the to directly connection transport Farmington a Minnesota of City the 10Gbps Technology Center also known as the 511 building. Located in Minneapolis, the 511 Building is a central telecommunications and data center hub, hosting numerous telecommunications carriers. It functions as a major internet exchange point, allowing these carriers to exchange traffic efficiently. Since LOGIS is connected to the 511 building, the City's IT Staff recommends the purchase of a cross-connection to link the city's network directly to LOGIS. This will add numerous benefits, such as an alternative path to LOGIS to add redundancy at much faster speeds, allowing the City to maintain that connectivity to vital services without depending on the State's internet line exclusively. Since LOGIS has an account already in place at the 511 building, they will make these purchases on behalf of the City of Farmington and pass through billing to the City. BUDGET IMPACT: An initial $550 installation fee and reoccurring $350 monthly fee will be paid using franchise fees received through the City's franchise agreement with HBC. There is no contract as it is a monthly cancel-anytime subscription. ACTION REQUESTED: IT Staff recommends Mayor and Council Members approve LOGIS to setup a cross-connection at the Minnesota Technology Center on behalf of the City of Farmington. ATTACHMENTS: Farmington Westview Acres License Agreement Page 59 of 635 Page 60 of 635 Page 61 of 635 Page 62 of 635 Page 63 of 635 Page 64 of 635 Page 65 of 635 Page 66 of 635 Page 67 of 635 Page 68 of 635 Page 69 of 635 Page 70 of 635 (h) (i) Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the exhibits hereto, which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if they were fully set forth herein, constitutes the entire agreement between City and Licensee with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between them as to such subject matter, and there are no restrictions, agreements, arrangements, or undertaking, oral or written, between City and Licensee relating to the transactions contemplated hereby which are not fully expressed or referred to herein. Severability. If any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal, or incapable of being enforced by any rule or law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner adverse to either party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal, or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in an acceptable manner to the end that transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the greatest extent possible. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below. CITY OF FARMINGTON Date: -----------By: ____________ _ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Date: And: ------------------------ HIAWATHA BROADBAND COMP ANY 12 224960v2 Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 71 of 635 Pa g e 7 2 o f 6 3 5 EXHIBITB to LICENSE AGREEMENT Service Areas This list is provided for reference. The City and Contractor both recognize that there will be changes at the discretion of the City in service locations. City of Farmington Building Addresses: •City Hall -430 Third Street•Rambling River Center-325 Oak Street•Schmitz-Maki Arena -114 Spruce Street•Fire Station 1 -21625 Denmark A venue•Fire Station 2 -19695 Municipal Drive•Central Maintenance Facility-19650 Municipal Drive•Police Station -19500 Municipal Drive•Liquor Store Downtown -923 8th Street #945•Liquor Store Pilot Knob -18350 Pilot Knob Road•1st Street Garage -710 1st Street224960v2 Page 73 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: 2024-2025 Farmington High School Hockey Game Facility Use Agreement Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The City of Farmington (city) and Farmington School District (school district) annually approve a Farmington High School Hockey Game Facility Use Agreement for ice rental during high school boys and girls hockey games played at Schmitz-Maki Arena (arena). The agreement identifies the hourly ice rental rates and responsibilities of each entity during games. DISCUSSION: The attached 2024-2025 facility use agreement has been updated to reflect increased costs including wages and benefits associated with full-time and seasonal City Staff members who work during the games. As outlined in the agreement, there is a difference in cost when the games are held Monday through Friday compared to games held on Saturday. The City Attorney reviewed the attached agreement and found it to be acceptable. School District Staff members reviewed the agreement and Superintendent Jason Berg signed the attached agreement showing the School District accepted the terms and conditions in the agreement. BUDGET IMPACT: The School District’s rental for high school games provides revenue to the arena. The total revenue received by the City depends on the number of home games played during the 2024-2025 regular high school season and post season play. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached agreement with the School District for the rental of the arena for the Farmington High School boys and girls hockey games for the 2024-2025 season. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-25 High School Game Ice Rental Agreement-Signed Page 74 of 635 227813v2 FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL GAME FACILITY USE AGREEMENT This Facility Use Agreement (“Agreement”), made and entered into this _____ day of _______, 2024, by and between the Independent School District No. 192, a Minnesota independent school district (School District) and the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City). 1.Term. The School District is allowed to utilize the City’s facility, the Schmitz-Maki Arena (“Arena”), for the Farmington High School varsity and junior varsity hockey games. This Agreement covers the 2024-2025 school year. The School District shall provide City with a calendar of games for the 2024-2025 school year by June 1, 2024. 2.Payment Terms. a.The School District hereby agrees to pay to the City $338.00 an hour for Farmington High School varsity and junior varsity games that are held Monday through Friday and $420.00 an hour for varsity and junior varsity games played on Saturdays. b.Since the School District is tax-exempt no taxes will be charged. The City agrees to allow the School District to keep 100% of the gross ticket proceeds from said hockey games. c.City will issue a monthly invoice to the School District at the end of each month. The City reserves the right to charge a 1.5% interest per month for any unpaid bill that extends forty- five (45) days beyond the due date. 3.Cancellation. If the School District cancels a pre-scheduled hockey game and a different user does not rebook that time, then the City may still charge the School District for the cancelled game. The School District shall not be penalized for cancelling pre-scheduled games when the following conditions apply: a.When the School District has declared school closed due to inclement weather or other emergency condition, Act of God/Force Majeure; b.When the Minnesota State High School League curtails all practice times or games for any reason; or c.Some mechanical failure occurs as described in Section 8. 4.Rules and Regulations. The rules, policies, and regulations of the Arena, as amended from time to time, shall be and are a part of this Agreement as though they were set out in full herein, and are specifically incorporated as a part hereof by reference. Violation of any of the rules and regulations by any player, volunteer, or employee of the School District shall be grounds to bar or limit future use of the Arena. Page 75 of 635 227813v2 5.Indemnification. The School District shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) or claims for injury or damage arising out of the performance of this Agreement, caused by or resulting from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the School District, its officers, directors, volunteers, agents or employees. This release and indemnification does not apply to intentional, willful, or wanton acts by the City. The School District agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. Further, the School District agrees that it and its members and guests using the Arena shall abide by all rules and regulations from time to time in effect governing the use thereof. 6.Insurance. The School District must obtain and maintain liability insurance in amounts not less than the statutory liability limits established under Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and may obtain other insurance it deems necessary to insure the parties, the School District. The School District shall also maintain workers’ compensation coverage as required by law. All insurance policies shall be issued to the School District and shall name as additional insured the City. 7.Termination. It is understood that the City and the School District each reserves the right (1) to cancel this Agreement for any default by either party in terms of this Agreement and (2) to reschedule the dates or times of permitted use of said facilities on 20-days written notice. 8.Equipment. In the event of mechanical failure of the Arena’s equipment, the School District shall be notified by the City staff as soon as possible. Prepaid fees for hours canceled due to mechanical failure shall be refunded to the School District. 9.Staffing. a.The City shall provide and pay for the following during the events held at the Arena: •One (1) penalty box gate operator; and •One (1) Zamboni operator. b.The School District shall provide and pay for all other positions the School District deems necessary, including but not limited to the following: •First-aid personnel; •Game referees; •Goal judges when deemed necessary by the Athletic Director; •Admission personnel; •One (1) scoreboard operator; and •One (1) announcer. 10.Concessions. Concessions are provided by the Farmington Youth Hockey Association (FYHA). Scheduling and concession’s staffing will be facilitated by FYHA. The School District agrees to inform both FYHA and the City about any concerns and/or issues it has with concessions. 11.Notification. The School District shall be responsible for notifying their opponents of the game schedule and fees set forth by the City for the Arena. Page 76 of 635 227813v2 12.Assignment. The School District shall not assign or transfer its rights and privileges granted under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without written consent from the City. Any successor will assume all responsibilities and terms in accordance with this Agreement. 13.Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice. 14.Severability. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid for any reason, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions herein, the parties to this Agreement hereby declaring that they would have agreed to the other provisions of this Agreement notwithstanding such invalidity. 15.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Dakota County, Minnesota. 16.Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between the Parties and contains the entire agreement. 17.Amendments. Any modification or amendment of to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both Parties. FARMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF FARMINGTON, a ISD #192 Minnesota Municipal Corporation ______________________________ By: Jason Berg By: Joshua Hoyt Its: Superintendent Its: Mayor ______ By: Shirley R Buecksler Its: City Clerk Page 77 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Donation from Gerri Jolley to the Rambling River Center Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Gerri Jolley recently gave a donation to the Rambling River Center. DISCUSSION: Gerri Jolley recently made a generous donation of $50 to the Rambling River Center in honor of Fred Schmidtke. The donated money will be placed in the Rambling River Center’s Capital Improvement Fund, so it may either be used for future building improvements at the Rambling River Center or to purchase new equipment and/or furniture. Staff will express the City’s appreciation on behalf of the City Council to Gerri Jolley for this generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-84 Accepting a Donation of $50 from Gerri Jolley to the Rambling River Center. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-84 Accepting $50 from Gerri Jolley Page 78 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-84 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION OF $50 FROM GERRI JOLLEY WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to accept gifts, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the following persons and entities have offered to contribute to the City: Gerri Jolley has donated $50 to the Rambling River Center; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept this donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Hoyt and the Farmington City Council hereby accept with gratitude the generous donation of $50 from Gerri Jolley to the Rambling River Center. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 79 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Donation from Marilyn Walton to the Rambling River Center Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Marilyn Walton recently gave a donation to the Rambling River Center (RRC). DISCUSSION: Marilyn Walton won $100 from the RRC and Farmington Rotary raffle. Instead of taking the prize money, she donated the $100 back to the RRC. The donated money will be placed in the RRC Capital Improvement Fund, so it may either be used for future building improvements and/or to purchase new equipment or furniture. Staff will express the City’s appreciation on behalf of the City Council to Marilyn Walton for this generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-82 Accepting a Donation of $100 from Marilyn Walton to the Rambling River Center. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-82 Accepting $100 from Marilyn Walton Page 80 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-82 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION OF $100 FROM MARILYN WALTON TO THE RAMBLING RIVER CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to accept gifts, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the following persons and entities have offered to contribute to the City: Marilyn Walton has donated $100 to the Rambling River Center; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept this donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Hoyt and the Farmington City Council hereby accept with gratitude the generous donation of $100 from Marilyn Walton to the Rambling River Center. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 81 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Gary Rutherford, Police Chief Department: Police Subject: Resolution Authorizing Solicitation of Contributions to Fund Events That Foster Positive Relationships Between Law Enforcement and the Community Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Statutes section 471.198 authorizes cities to solicit contributions to fund events that foster positive relationships between law enforcement and the community. DISCUSSION: The Farmington Police Department has a long history of successful community engagement events. National Night Out, Toys for Town, School Supply and Hygiene Product Drives, Helmet Heroes, the National Police Week Open House, and Chill with a Cop are just some of the events that foster positive relationships with our community. While there are no means-based restrictions on any of our programs, these programs provide us with opportunities to form meaningful relationships and bonds with some of our most underserved, underprivileged, and marginalized members of our community, especially the youth. A previous Council last approved a similar resolution in 2019. Since that time, we have added several new and very well-received programs that should be included under this resolution such as our Chill with a Cop and Helmet Heroes programs. BUDGET IMPACT: This resolution will allow us to raise funds for these critical programs and will supplement the small amount of funds that are budgeted for community engagement programming. ACTION REQUESTED: Ask any questions that you may have and then Staff recommends that you adopt Resolution 2024- 81 Authorizing Solicitation of Contribution to Fund Events that Foster Positive Relationships Between Law Enforcement and the Community. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-81 Solicitation of Contributions to Fund Events Page 82 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-81 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTION TO FUND EVENTS THAT FOSTER POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE COMMUNITY WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 471.198 authorizes Cities to solicit contributions to fund events that foster positive relationships between law enforcement and the community; and WHEREAS, events including, but not limited to, National Night Out, an annual community-building campaign, promote Police-community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make neighborhoods safer and more connected; and WHEREAS, National Night Out and similar events provide opportunities to bring Police and neighbors together under positive circumstances; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this law, the City of Farmington may authorize solicitation of contributions to hold or sponsor these events. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council finds that the following events will foster positive relationships between law enforcement and the community of Farmington and neighboring communities. • National Night Out; • Toys for Town; • School Supply and Hygiene Product Drive; • Helmet Heroes; • National Police Week Open House; and • Chill with a Cop. 2. That this Council hereby authorizes officials and Staff to solicit contributions for the purposes of funding or supporting the above-referenced events in this community and surrounding communities. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 83 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: 2024 Mill & Overlay - Change Order No. 1 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: On August 5, 2024, the contract for the 2024 Mill & Overlay project was awarded to McNamara Contracting, Inc., the lowest of six bidders. As indicated previously, the City received very competitive bid unit prices, so Staff contacted the low bidder to determine if they have capacity to complete additional work at the bid prices. McNamara Contracting was able to add the work, and Staff has prepared a change order identifying the additional work location and the new proposed contract amount. The new contract amount does not cause the Street Maintenance Fund amount to increase or exceed the change amount allowed under municipal bidding requirements. DISCUSSION: Based on the pavement conditions, the additional roadway segments identified for mill & overlay treatment included the following:  198th Street West from Akin Road to English Avenue  English Avenue from 198th Street to Erickson Path The construction contract awarded to McNamara Contracting, Inc. was in the amount of $541,050.00; the following summarizes the new contract amount: Contract Award $ 541,050.00 Change Order No. 1 $ 96,970.00 New Contract Amount $ 638,020.00 This change increases the contract amount by 17.9%. The attached change order shows the location of the additional work. BUDGET IMPACT: The revised contract amount remains within the $880,000 budget allocation from the Street Maintenance Fund for this work. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $96,970.00 to McNamara Contracting, Inc. for the 2024 Mill & Overlay project. Page 84 of 635 ATTACHMENTS: 2024 Mill Overlay & Change Order 1 FINAL Page 85 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON CHANGE ORDER Date: September 13, 2024 City Project No. 24-02 Change Order No. 1 Project Name 2024 Mill & Overlay To McNamara Contracting, Inc. for the City of Farmington, Minnesota You are hereby directed to make the following change to your contract dated September 11, 2024. The change and the work affected thereby are subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. CHANGE ORDER This change order provides for changes in the work scope of this contract according to the attached itemization. Amount of Original Contract $ 541,050.00 Additions approved to date $ 0.00 Deductions approved to date $ 0.00 Contract amount to date $ 541,050.00 Amount of Change Order No. 1 (Add) $ 96,970.00 Revised Contract Amount $ 638,020.00 APPROVALS: Contractor: McNamara Contracting, LLC City: Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved By John Powell P.E. Date: Date: October 1, 2024 Page 86 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON PROJECT 24-02 2024 MILL & OVERLAY CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 MCNAMARA CONTRACTING, INC. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER CHANGE ORDER UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 0.2 23,000.00$ 4,600.00$ 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION SQ YD 1300 12.00$ 15,600.00$ 0 12.00$ -$ 2232.504 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5")SQ YD 55600 1.50$ 83,400.00$ 10940 1.50$ 16,410.00$ 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GA 3350 1.00$ 3,350.00$ 660 1.00$ 660.00$ 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 5400 70.00$ 378,000.00$ 1060 70.00$ 74,200.00$ 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON 320 85.00$ 27,200.00$ 0 85.00$ -$ 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 0.2 5,500.00$ 1,100.00$ 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 40 125.00$ 5,000.00$ 0 125.00$ -$ CONTRACT AMOUNT:541,050.00$ CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT:96,970.00$ Pa g e 8 7 o f 6 3 5 430 Third Street | Farmington, Minnesota | 651-280-6800 | FarmingtonMN.gov Page 88 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Memorandum of Understanding-Existing Easement Vacation and Creation of New Easement Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: To allow the reconstruction of the Spruce Street/Dushane Parkway intersection, and the future extension of Spruce Street to the west, an easement is required along the north edge of Outlot A, Vermillion Valley Development. Staff has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding -Existing Easement Vacation and Creation of New Easement (MOU) to facilitate this process. DISCUSSION: The attached exhibit shows the future extension of Spruce Street and where it is expected to connect to the future Pilot Knob Road extension. A 70-foot-wide corridor is needed for the future extension of Spruce Street. As part of the Vermillion River Crossings Third Addition plat which created the lot for the Yellow Tree apartment development, the northern 35 feet of the right of way was dedicated to the City. The south 35 feet is needed for the new intersection road extension south of the new apartments. As the City will have excess easement at the northeast corner of the Outlot A, Vermillion Valley Development, parcel once the intersection is realigned, City Staff approached the owner of Outlot A about an easement exchange. The City would vacate the excess right-of-way at the intersection, in exchange for a 35-foot-wide easement along the north edge of Outlot A. About 0.70 acres of easement will be vacated by the City in exchange for Adelmann Farm LLC agreeing to dedicate about 0.52 acres of new easement along the north edge of Outlot A. To achieve this, the City will vacate the entire easement currently on Outlot A; and Adelmann Farm LLC will dedicate a new 35- foot-wide easement along the entire north edge of Outlot A. The new easement area totaling about 1.07 acres. The process can be completed without an MOU. But as noted in Recital D of the MOU, the MOU is prepared to memorialize the parties’ discussions prior to the vacation, to affirm the City Staff support of the vacation of the existing easement and creation of the new easement, and to affirm Adelmann’s intent to grant a new easement to the City. Once the MOU is approved, Staff will prepare the vacation documents and notices, Adelmann Farm LLC will sign the easement, then after the City Council approves the vacation, Staff will record the new easement. BUDGET IMPACT: Page 89 of 635 Costs will be related to the Staff time required to prepare the vacation and easement documents, and recording. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding-Existing Easement Vacation and Creation of New Easement. ATTACHMENTS: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADELMANN FARM Future Spruce Street Alignment Page 90 of 635 232280v5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Existing Easement Vacation and Creation of New Easement This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into on _______________, 2024, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and Adelmann Farm, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Adelmann”) (the City and Adelmann are each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”). RECITALS: A. Adelmann owns the real property described as Outlot A, Vermillion Valley Development, Dakota County, Minnesota (the “Property”). B. The Property is currently encumbered by a permanent easement for public roadway, drainage, utility, trail and landscaping purposes in favor of the City dated June 26, 2007 recorded July 17, 2007, as Document No. 2530946 with the Office of the County Recorder for Dakota County (the “Existing Easement”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. C. To better fulfill the City’s needs along Spruce Street, the Parties desire to: (i) vacate the Existing Easement; and (ii) create a new permanent drainage and utility easement as depicted and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto (“New Easement”). D. The City cannot approve the vacation of the Existing Easement prior to the official vacation process, but to provide assurances to Adelmann prior to the actual vacation, the City agrees to enter into this MOU with Adelmann to memorialize the Parties’ discussions prior to the vacation; to affirm the City Staff’s support of the vacation of the Existing Easement and creation of the New Easement; and to affirm Adelmann’s intent to grant a New Easement to the City. Adelmann understands and acknowledges the City Council may not approve of the vacation of the Existing Easement and/or the New Easement and Adelmann waives any and all claims against the City as a result of the failure of the City Council to approve either the vacation of the Existing Easement or the New Easement. AGREEMENT: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein as part of this MOU. 2. Release of Existing Easement. Subject to City Council approval and the New Easement (as defined below), the City agrees to the vacation of the Existing Easement. Within thirty (30) days of the vacation, the City, its agents and assigns, at its sole cost and expense, will restore the Existing Easement Area to a condition as nearly equal as possible to that which existed prior to the creation of the Existing Easement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City agrees that Adelmann will not be obligated to pay any additional consideration for the Existing Easement vacation, including, but not limited to, any cost for an appraisal or the portion of the Property subject to the vacation. Page 91 of 635 232280v5 3. Grant of New Easement. In consideration for the vacation of the Existing Easement, and for no additional consideration, Adelmann agrees to grant the City the New Easement, as depicted and legally described on Exhibit B and in substantially the form on Exhibit C attached hereto. 4. City Council Approval. Notwithstanding anything in this MOU to the contrary, the vacation of the Existing Easement and creation of the New Easement contemplated in this MOU shall not be binding on City or Adelmann until the City Council approves the vacation of the Existing Easement and creation of the New Easement. Failure of the City Council to approve the vacation of the Existing Easement and creation of the New Easement by December 31, 2024 shall immediately relieve the City and Adelmann from any further obligations under this MOU. 5. Access and Right of Entry. A. For a period of thirty (30) days from the vacation of the Existing Easement Area, City’s agents shall have the right to enter in and upon the Existing Easement area in order to restore the Existing Easement Area as described in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. B. Upon reasonable notice to Adelmann, for a period of thirty (30) days from the execution of this Agreement, City’s agents shall have the right to enter in and upon the New Easement area in order to make, at City’s expense, surveys, measurements, and other noninvasive tests that City shall deem necessary. C. City agrees to restore any resulting damage to the New Easement area and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Adelmann from any and all claims by third persons of any nature whatsoever arising from City’s right of entry hereunder, including all actions, proceedings, demands, assessments, and reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City’s liability shall not exceed the limits provided under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 6. Priority. The City’s obligations under this MOU are conditioned upon the New Easement having record priority over any type of financing that affects the Property by being recorded prior to the recording of any mortgage or other type of financing encumbering the Property and/or receipt of consents, acceptable to the City and in recordable form, to the New Easement from any lenders whose interests are recorded prior to the recording of the New Easement. 7. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. This MOU may be executed by electronic means, including .pdf signatures sent by e-mail and by DocuSign or another method of electronic signature. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.] Page 92 of 635 Page 93 of 635 232280v5 4 EXHIBIT A TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXISTING EASEMENT Page 94 of 635 232280v5 5 Page 95 of 635 232280v5 6 Page 96 of 635 232280v5 7 Page 97 of 635 232280v5 8 EXHIBIT B TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF NEW EASEMENT ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, UTILITY, TRAIL AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENT: A Permanent Easement for Roadway, Utility, Trail and Landscaping purposes over, under, and across the North 35.00 feet Outlot A and Outlot B of the Vermillion Valley Development plat, Dakota County, Minnesota. Containing 46,593.75 square feet or 1.0696 acres of land. Page 98 of 635 232280v5 9 EXHIBIT C TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING GRANT OF NEW EASEMENT (Reserved for recording) GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY, TRAIL AND LANDSCAPING PURPOSES ADELMANN FARM, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation, the Grantee, hereinafter referred to as the "City", its successors and assigns, forever, a permanent easement for public roadway, drainage and utility, trail and landscaping purposes over, across, on, under, and through land situated within the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" and depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" (the "Easement Property"). INCLUDING the rights of the City, its contractors, agents, servants, and assigns, to enter upon the Easement Property at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, and maintain said Page 99 of 635 232280v5 10 public roadway, drainage and utility, trail and landscaping systems over, across, on, under, and through the Easement Property, together with the right to grade, level, fill, drain, pave, and excavate the Easement Property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of said public roadway, drainage and utility, trail and landscaping systems. The above named Grantor, for itself, its successors, and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee title of the Easement Property; that it has the sole right to grant and convey the easement to the City; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Easement Property; and it will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. [Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.] Page 100 of 635 232280v5 11 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor hereto has signed this Grant of Permanent Easement this _____ day of ______________, 2024. GRANTOR: ADELMANN FARM, LLC By: ___________________ [Print Name] Its ______________________ [Title] STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _____________, 2024, by __________________________________, the _______________________________ of the Adelmann Farm, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said entity. ___________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 LCMK/mkl Page 101 of 635 Dakota County, Maxar 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:9,028 Copyright 2018, Dakota County This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. Pa g e 1 0 2 o f 6 3 5 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Receive Quote and Award a Contract for the Fall 2024 Boulevard Stump Removals Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: We have areas of the city where trees have been removed in order to mitigate tree hazards, but the stumps remain. Staff has identified the specific location and diameters of 208 stumps to be removed as part of the Fall 2024 Boulevard Stump Removal project. One quote for the stump removal has been received and is being presented to the City Council. DISCUSSION: For the 208 locations identified in the quote documents, the quote includes:  Contractor shall inform residents of stump grinding at least one week in advance of work. Renotification is required if schedule is altered.  Stumps are to be ground and shavings removed.  Quality fill and seed are to be used for restoration according to City specifications. A Request for Quotes was sent to 21 vendors; one quote was received from Shadywood Tree Experts in the amount of $56,475.00 and is attached. Shadywood Tree Experts satisfactorily completed the city's spring stump removal project with a similar number of stumps. Prior to that project, staff checked their references and received positive responses. Based on the quoted amount, the average cost per stump is $271.51. While this amount is higher than the low bid received in the spring of $117.11 per stump, it remains much lower than the average spring bid of $300.86. BUDGET IMPACT: Emerald Ash Borer related costs are budgeted under account 5812; the stump removal costs are charged to the Contractual Services line item. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends acceptance of the quotes and award of a contract for the Spring 2024 Boulevard Stump Removals project to Shadywood Tree Experts for the quoted amount of $56,475.00and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Page 103 of 635 ATTACHMENTS: Shadywood 2024 Fall Farmington BLVD Stump Quote Fall 2024 Shadywood Agreement for Contract Services Page 104 of 635 ATTACHMENT (B)FARMINGTON QUOTE FORM «(A CONTRACTEDTREESERVICES To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned,as Contractor,hereby proposes and agrees to enter into independent contracts with the City of Farmington (”city”)to supply all labor,materials,and equipment necessary to provide contracted tree services in accordance with the specifications and other pertinent requirements prepared and distributed by the city and in strict accordance with the prices quoted by the Contractor. Shadywood Tree ExpertsContractor: Contractor’s Representative:Mike Harmon (Co—Owner) Contractor is:(check one)£Sole Proprietorship £Partnership £Corporation existing under State of Minnesota £Other (specify) principal Address:402 11th Ave S Hopkins MN 55343 Phone Number:952—933-0614 Office/Cell 562—760-2251 Email Address:mike.harmon@shadywoodtreeexperts.com Refer to maps attached in n for specific tree locations.Each tree is designated a speci?c number.The address and tree DBH is provided for reference. https?gteiammgtmnggL/po?aimomeMeLmapAMer.html?webmap=60_e891 e1 bf89420392e 353M4508&extent=-93JBQQA4.5139,-93MAA7]17 Unique Stump ID Address condition *dbh Measurement Quote 117 18040 180th Ct Stump 15 UnknOWn $200 121 5194 180TH STW Stump 21 Unknown $250 129 18095 ECHO DR Stump 16 Unknown $200 131 18075 ECHO DR Stump 22 Unknown $250 139 18080 ECHO DR Stump 18 Unknown $225 148 18090 ELGINAVE Stump 20 Unknown $250 161 18060 ELGINAVE Stump 21 Unknown $250 163 18135 ECHO TER Stump 20 Unknown $250 165 18107 ECHO TER Stump 18 Unknown $225 255 5164 UPPER 183RD STW Stump 12 Unknown $200 256 5154 UPPER 183RD STW Stump 12 Unknown $200 261 5134 UPPER 183RD STW Stump 17 Unknown $225 Page 1 of 7 Page 105 of 635 —CITY°F FARMINGTON V? ATTACHMENT (B) QUOTE FORM CONTRACTEDTREESERVICES 295 5131 183RD STW Stump 18 Jn nown $250 297 5102 183RD STW Stump 14 Jn <n0wn $250 316 5078 LOWER183RD STW Stump 20 Jnknown $600 327 18305 ELKWOODAVE Stump 4 Jn nown $200 340 5171 183RD STW Stump 19 Un nown $600 364 5265 UPPER 183RD STW S‘ump 21 Jn nown $600 368 18355 ELKWOODAVE Szump 18 Jn nown $600 369 18355 ELKWOODAVE 3 ump 19 Jn nown $600 377 5276 UPPER 183RD STW Stump 11 Jn nown $250 407 5131 185TH STW S ump 18 Jn nown $600 408 5119 185TH STW Stump 19.5 Un nown $600 410 5064 185TH STW Szump 12 Jn nown $225 428 18388 ECHO DR s ump 12 Jnknown $225 436 18417 ELDORADOWAY Stump 16 Jn nown $250 437 18417 ELDORADOWAY s :ump 16 Jn (nown $250 438 18423 ELDORADOWAY Stump 11 Jn nown $225 445 18462 ELDORADOWAY Stump 12 Jn nown $225 456 5276 185TH STW Stump 10 Jnknown $225 457 5276 185TH ST W Stump 14 Un (nown $250 462 5223 185TH STW Stump 17 Jn nown $250 507 18061 PILOT KNOB RD Stump 12 20 $250 508 18061 PILOT KNOBRD Stump 12 21 $225 509 18061 PILOTKNOBRD Stump 11 18 $225 510 5194 180TH STW Stump 16 Unknown $225 511 5614 180TH STW Stump 13 18 $225 513 18061 PILOTKNOBRD Stump 15 24.5 $600 515 18061 PILOTKNOBRD Stump 14 23 $600 516 18061 PILOTKNOB RD Stump 12 20 $250 523 18110 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 14 18 $225 524 18107 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 14.5 22 $250 525 18107 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 18 24 $600 527 18023 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 9 11 $200 528 18023 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 9 12 $200 530 5693 180TH ST W Stump 14 17.5 $225 531 5693 180TH STW Stump 15 22 8250 539 5729 180TH ST W Stump 16 20 $225 542 18058 EVERGLADECT Stump 14 18 $225 547 18057 EVERGLADECT Stump 14 20 $225 Page 2 of 7 Page 106 of 635 FARMINGTON “? ATTACHMENT (B) QUOTE FORM CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES 548 18057 EVERGLADECT Stump 15 21 $250 555 5910 180TH STW Stump 13 18 $225 557 18074 EXETERPL Stump 15 20 $225 564 18056 EXETERCT Stump 14 17 $225 565 18056 EXETERCT Stump 14.5 18.5 $200 566 18056 EXETERCT Stump 13.5 16.5 $200 595 18331 EXLEYAVE Stump 23 28.5 $700 601 5730 UPPER183RD STW Stump 18 23 $400 602 5769 184TH ST W Sum 15 18 $225 603 18398 EVERTONAVE 8 um p 17.5 20 $250 604 18410 EVERTONCIR Stump 11 15 $200 605 18432 EVERTONCIR S ump 6 11.5 $200 609 5821 184TH STW S:Ump 14 15 $200 616 18455 EXODUSAVE 8 :ump 13 16.5 $200 620 18473 EXODUSCIR Stump 14 17 $200 661 18639 ESQUIREWAY S:Ump 10 13 $200 677 18931 ENGLEWOODWAY S ump 16 Unknown $225 679 18913 ENGLEWOODWAY Stump 11 Unknown $200 681 18895 ENGLEWOODWAY Stump 16 Unknown $225 682 18897 ENGLEWOODCT 6 :ump 16 Unknown $225 717 18795 EXCALIBURTRL s ‘Ump 17 Unknown $250 721 18749 ENGLEWOODWAY s ump 15 Unknown $225 732 18520 EXODUSAVE Stump 15 17.5 $225 737 18514 EVERESTPATH s :ump 16 23 $400 738 18533 EXPLORERWAY s ump 15 17 $200 740 18533 EXPLORERWAY Stump 16 15 $200 741 18533 EXPLORERWAY s:ump 13.5 17 $200 775 18897 EXCLUSIVEPATH Stump 18 Jnknown $250 776 18897 EXCLUSIVEPATH S ump 14 Jn nown $225 786 5925 189TH STW Stump 18.5 Un nown $250 787 5925 189TH STW Stump 16.5 Jn nown $225 795 18954 EXCALIBURTRL Stump 17 Jn nown $250 798 18957 EXCALIBURTRL Stump 14 Jn nown $225 802 18945 EXCALIBURTRL Stump 18.5 Jn nown $250 806 18592 EGRETWAY Stump 15 Unknown $250 807 18592 EGRET WAY Stump 14.5 Jn nown $250 809 18599 EGRETWAY Stump 10 Unknown $225 862 5306 189TH STW Stump 11 Jn nown $225 Page 3 of 7 Page 107 of 635 _C"'YOF ATTACHMENT (B)FARMINGTON QUOTE FORM%CONTRACTEDTREESERVICES 883 18887 ELGINAVE Stump 12 Jn nown $200 864 18887 ELGINAVE Stump 17 J n nown $225 895 18907 ENGLISHAVE Stump 12 Jn nown $225 898 18915 ENGLISHAVE Stump 12 Jn nown $225 897 18915 ENGLISHAVE Stump 12 Jnknown $225 900 18929 ENGLISHAVE Stump 10 Jn nown $200 901 18929 ENGLISHAVE Stump 10 Un nown $200 923 18567 EGRETWAY Stump 14 J n nown $225 924 18567 EGRETWAY Stump 15.5 Unknown $250 925 18567 EGRETWAY Stump 21 Jn nown $400 931 18991 EMBERSAVE 8 :ump 19 .Jn nown $400 932 18991 EMBERSAVE Stump 14 Un nown $225 933 18938 EMBERSAVE S:ump 12 Jn nown $200 947 18882 EMBERSAVE 8 ump 14 Un nown $200 948 18882 EMBERSAVE S:ump 13 Un nown $200 984 18526 ELKRIVERTRL Szump 16 Un nown $259 988 18584 EMBERSAVE 8 ump 13 Un nown $200 988 18525 ELKRIVERTRL Stump 15 Un nown $200 1002 18685 EASTONAVE S:ump 19 Un nown $250 1005 18854 EASTONAVE Stump 12 Un nown $200 1008 18853 EASTONAVE S ump 12 Un nown $200 1007 18653 EASTONAVE Stump 15 Un nown $259 1270 19059 EVERESTTRL S ump 12 22 $300 1274 19085 EVERESTTRL S ump 12 14 $200 1278 19070 EVERESTTRL S:ump 22 23 $300 1297 19153 EVERESTTRL S:LImp 22 23 $300 1312 19280 EVENSTONDR S ump 17 23 $300 1313 19280 EVENSTONDR Stump 13 14 $200 1329 19121 EVERESTCT Szump 19.5 24 $400 1330 19121 EVERESTCT 8 ump 20 27 $400 1331 19141 EVERESTPATH S ump 17 23 $350 1337 5893 193 RDSTW Stump 17.5 27 $500 1339 19305 EVERESTPATH Stump 17.5 23 $250 1340 19305 EVERESTPATH Stump 20 23 $250 1341 19305 EVERESTPATH Stump 20 27 $400 1343 5970 193RD STW Stump 13 12.5 $200 1359 19415 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 9 13.5 $200 1387 19378 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 13 15 $200 Page 4 of 7 Page 108 of 635 FARMINGTON “? ATTACHMENT (B) QUOTE FORM CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES 1378 19066 EVERESTPATH Stump 12 15 $200 1394 19137 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 14 18.5 $225 1395 19142 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 15 19 $250 1397 19154 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 14 21.5 $250 1398 19164 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 18.5 22 $250 1408 19298 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 17 21 $250 1417 5860 193RD STW Stump 19.5 27.5 $600 1424 19328 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 16 21 $250 1447 19181 EVENSTONDR Stump 18 29 $600 1448 19182 EVENSTONDR Stump 11 13.5 $200 1449 19182 EVENSTONDR Stump 12 14 $200 1454 19199 EVENSTONDR Stump 12 21 $250 1532 19058 ENCHANTEDCT Stump 20 25 $400 1533 19064 ENCHANTEDCT Stump 19 26 $400 1552 19020 EPIC CT Stump 16 18.5 $225 1583 5394 193 RD STW Stump 18 22 $250 1655 19300 DUNBURYAVE Stump 10 Un nown $200 1663 4922 193RD STW Stump 12 Un nown $200 1664 4922 193RD STW Stump 9 Un nown $200 1668 4978 193RD STW Stump 10 Un nown $200 1672 19397 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 16 Unknown $250 1673 19385 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 14 Un nown $200 1674 19345 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 12 Un nown $200 1675 19329 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 10 Un (nown $200 1681 19435 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 12 Unknown $200 1682 19447 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 14 Un nown $200 1686 19430 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 15 Unmown $225 1689 19472 ELKRIDGETRL Stump 14 Un nown $200 1824 19508 EWING ST Stump 11 13 $200 1832 19509 EWINGST Stump 12 12.5 $209 1835 19550 EWINGST Stump 14 20 $250 1836 19562 EWINGST Stump 18 19 $225 1840 19575 EWINGST Stump 14 20 $250 1843 19640 EXCEPTIONALTRL Stump 17 22 $250 1846 19765 EXCELCT Stump 10 16 $225 1849 19760 EXCEL CT Stump 17 24 $400 1850 19740 EXCELCT Stump 18 21 $250 1855 19505 EXCEPTIONALTRL Stump 18.5 28 $600 Page 5 of 7 Page 109 of 635 FARMINGTON % ATTACHMENT (B) QUOTE FORM CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES 1890 19600 EVERESTPATH Szump 18 25 $400 1931 19871 EVERHILLAVE Stump 13 19 $250 1932 19906 EVERHILLAVE 8 um p 13 17.5 $225 1933 19906 EVERHILLAVE Stump 9 12 $200 1934 19918 EVERHILLAVE S ump 9 12 $200 1935 19913 EVERHILLAVE 8 'ump 14 23 $250 1936 19930 EVERHILLAVE Stump 13 16 $200 1938 19929 EVERHILLAVE S :ump 14 19.5 $250 1939 19929 EVERHILLAVE S um p 15 20 $250 1940 19905 EVERHILLAVE Stump 13 15.5 $225 1941 19905 EVERHILLAVE Szump 13 16 $225 1957 19727 EXCHANGETRL Stump 19 26 $600 1958 19727 EXCHANGETRL S:ump 18 23 $250 3208 18058 EVERGLADECT S ump 14 17 $225 3209 18622 EVERESTPATH Stump 13 16.5 $225 3211 19598 EWINGST S:Ump 23 30 $600 3218 18810 ENHANCECT Stump 12 Unknown $200 3229 18055 EXETERCT S ump 7 19 $225 3233 18064 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 14 15 $200 3267 18599 Everest Path S:ump 13 14 $200 3272 18559 EVERESTPATH S ‘ump 13 13 $200 3291 18182 EVENTIDEWAY S ump 12 18 $225 3292 18182 EVENTIDEWAY Stump 13 19 $250 3294 18591 EGRETWAY S :ump 14 Unknown $225 3297 19569 EWING ST Stump 25 12.5 $600 3298 19863 EVERHILLAVE S ump 10 12 $200 3300 19288 Enchanted Way Stump 14 18 $225 3301 19020 EPIC CT Stump 18 21.5 $250 3302 5609 180TH STW Stump 19 22 $250 3304 5900 UPPER 183RD STW Stump 38 41 $1000 3307 18941 ENGLEWOODCT Stump 8 Unknown $200 3309 19334 EVENINGSTARWAY Stump 16 18 $225 3310 19143 ESTATEAVE Stump 20 24 $250 3311 18139 ECHO DR Stump 16 Unknown $225 3312 18150 ECHO DR Stump 16 Unknown $225 3313 18140 ECHO DR Stump 16 Unknown $225 3315 18075 ELGINAVE Stump 12 Unknown $225 3318 5204 185TH STW Stump 14 Unknown $225 Page 6 of 7 Page 110 of 635 FARMINGTON J? ATTACHMENT (B) QUOTE FORM CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES 3319 18480 ELDORADOWAY Stump 18 Unknown $250 3320 18480 ELDORADOWAY Stump 7 Unknown $200 3323 5126 187TH STW Stump 18 Unknown $250 3324 4992 193RD srw Stump 14 Unknown $200 3335 18080 ECHO DR Stump 10 Unknown 8200 3354 19589 Exceptional Trail Stump 12 14 $200 Total Amount of Quote $$56,475.00 The Contractor will not be entitled to any compensation on any item other than those listed on this quotation form.in submitting this quote,it is understood the city retains the right to reject any and all quotes and to waive irregularities and informalities therein and to award the contract in the best interest of the city. Contractor hereby confirms that this quote shall be guaranteed by the Contractor for sixty (60)days from the date of quote opening to provide for sufficient time for analysis,city Council action and contract execution. Authorized Signature ma?a[ammo/t Date:9-27-24 Page 7 of 7 Page 111 of 635 ATTACHMENT (C)FARMINGTON QUALIFICATIONSJ?CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES QUALIFICATIONS If more room is needed,please attach additional sheets.Ensure ?sections are completed. 1.List number of years in business (4 years minimum):53 2.How many years of experience does the company have in performing work for local units of government or public agencies (2 years minimum): 30 PLUS YEARS 3.List of References/Communitiesworked for (3 references minimum).Two (2)references must be from local units of government/public agencies.References will be asked specifically on responsiveness to requests and level of professionalism. Community/Company Name,Contact Name,Phone Number,Last Work Date Mike Bahe -City of SLP -952-228—7584 —last 5 years Josh Obermier —City of MTKA—612270-1476 —last year Bob Conrad —City of Hopkins 952-292-4414 -last 10 plus years 4.Does the company have the ability to notify residents within one (1)week of stump removals by door hanger or postcard? YES 5.List of equipment available: Stump grinder/Dumnp trailer/3 trucks with dumping bodies/3 mini skids with buckets 6.List of staff available.Include staff names,qualifications and experience: Chad Moren -Current Stump Grinder on staff (20 years experience) Mike Harmon -Co~Owner —9 years experience /Dan Fox 5 years experience Page 1 of 2 Page 112 of 635 ATTACHMENT (C)FARMINGTON QUALIFICATIONS“?CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES 7.Does the company have the necessary tools,equipment,and staff to meet the project deadline? Please indicate the approximate time,in days,to complete this project. Project will be completed in 15 business days Page 2 of 2 Page 113 of 635 —C’"°‘ATTACHMENT (D)FARMINGTON RESPONSIBLECONTRACTORVERIFICATION %CONTRACTEDTREE SERVICES AFFIDAVITOF RESPONSIBLECONTRACTORFORM I hereby swear (or affirm)under the penalty for perjury: 1.That I am a contractor within the meaning of MINN.STAT.§16C.285,subd 1(c); 2.That I am in compliance with worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance requirements; 3.That I am currently registered with the Department of Revenue and the Department of Employment and Economic Development; 4.That I have a valid Federal Tax Identification Number; 5.That I have filed a Certificate OfAuthority to transact business in Minnesota with the Secretary of State. nuéc ?rm/Icon,/ Signed ' Shadywood Tree Experts Firm Name 81—4841634 Quoter’s E.I.Number: (Number used on Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return,U.S.Treasury Department Form 941) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 04 7 day of tJCfC'oMKmJ,2024. (SEAL)@o?/a, Notary Public .p .r“.or r— NATHANWILLIAMTHOMPSON NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA Page 1 of 1 Page 114 of 635 ATTACHMENT (E) STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 1 of 5 This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the 7th day of October , 2024, between the City of Farmington, Minnesota (hereinafter "city"), whose business address is 430 Third St, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and Shadywood Tree Experts a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "Vendor") whose business address is 402 11th Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343. Preliminary Statement The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of services by Vendor for Tree Services hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The city and Vendor agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The Vendor agrees to provide, perform, and complete all the provisions of the Work in accordance with the specifications, and quotes attached as Exhibit A. The terms of this Contract shall take precedence over any provisions of the Vendor’s proposal and/or general conditions. All Work under the Municipal Program shall be initiated by a notice to proceed from the city. 2. Term of Contract. All Work under this Contract shall be provided, performed and/or completed by _December 31, 2024_____. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Vendor based on the fees submitted in the proposal as full and complete payment for the goods, labor, materials and/or services rendered pursuant to this Contract. 4. Method of Payment. Payment for tree planting will be made within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the work. The contractor is required to submit an invoice after satisfactory completion of the work and each invoice shall include the following: date work was completed, address/facility/area where work was performed, and any other pertinent information. No travel time will be paid. Invoices shall be submitted to accountspayable@FarmingtonMN.gov City of Farmington Attn: Finance Department 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 5. Staffing. The Vendor has designated Mike Harmon to manage the Work. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Vendor may not remove or replace the designated staff without the approval of the city. Page 115 of 635 ATTACHMENT (E) STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 2 of 5 6. Standard of Care. Vendor shall exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of its services as is ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar circumstances in Dakota County, Minnesota. 7. Insurance. The contractor, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement the following minimum insurance coverages: A. General Liability. The contractor shall maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products-completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The city, including its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, shall be endorsed as additional insured. B. Automobile Liability. If the contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, the contractor shall maintain Business Automobile Liability Insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum combined single liability limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. C. Professional (Errors and Omissions) Liability. [Only required for professional services provided by accountants, attorneys, engineers, consultants, etc.] The contractor shall maintain Professional Liability Insurance for all claims the contractor may become legally obligated to pay resulting from any actual or alleged negligent act, error, or omission related to contractor’s professional services required under this Agreement. The contractor is required to carry the following minimum limits: $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The retroactive or prior acts date of such coverage shall not be after the effective date of this Agreement and the contractor shall maintain such insurance for a period of at least two (2) years, following completion of the Services. If such insurance is discontinued, extended reporting period/tail coverage must be obtained by the contractor to fulfill this requirement. D. Workers’ Compensation. The contractor shall maintain Workers’ Compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The contractor shall also carry Employers’ Liability Coverage with minimum limits as follows: • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease per employee • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Accident E. Additional Insurance Conditions. 1. The contractor shall, prior to commencing the Services, deliver to the city a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverage is in full force and effect. Page 116 of 635 ATTACHMENT (E) STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 3 of 5 2. The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. The city must be named as an additional insured on any umbrella/excess policy. 3. The contractor’s policies shall be primary insurance and non-contributory to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the city with respect to any claim arising out of the contractor’s performance under this Agreement. 4. The contractor’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days’ advanced written notice to the city, or ten (10) days’ written notice for non-payment of premium. 8. Indemnification. Vendor will defend and indemnify city, its officers, agents, and employees and hold them harmless from and against all judgments, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including a reasonable amount as and for its attorney’s fees paid, incurred or for which it may be liable resulting from any breach of this Contract by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, or any negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Contract. The city will indemnify and hold Vendor harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the city, its officers, agents, or employees. 9. Termination. This contract may be terminated by either party by thirty (30) days' written notice delivered to the other party at the addresses written above. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Vendor, the Vendor shall be paid for services rendered until the effective date of termination. 10. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Vendor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the city. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Vendor an employee of the city. 11. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Contract, the Vendor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, or age. The Vendor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Vendor further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363A.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 12. Subcontract or Assignment. Vendor shall not subcontract any part of the services to be provided under this Contract; nor may Vendor assign this Contract, or any interest arising herein, without the prior written consent of the city. Page 117 of 635 ATTACHMENT (E) STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 4 of 5 13. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by Vendor not specifically provided for in Exhibit A shall be honored by the city. 14. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Vendor is responsible for knowing of and abiding by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the type of services provided pursuant to this Contract; including, as applicable, the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. 15. Audits and Data Practices. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Vendor or other parties relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by the city and either Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six years after the effective date of this contract. This Contract is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). All government data, as defined in the Data Practices Act Section 13.02, Subd 7, which is created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Vendor in performing any of the functions of the city during performance of this Contract is subject to the requirements of the Data Practice Act and Vendor shall comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. All subcontracts entered into by Vendor in relation to this Contract shall contain similar Data Practices Act compliance language. 16. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the city and no member of the Council, or Commission, or Board of the city shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision renders the contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 17. Utilities. The contractor shall be obligated to protect all public and private utilities, streets, or roadways, whether occupying a street or public or private property. If such utilities, streets or roadways are damaged by reason of the contractor’s performance of the services required under the contract, the contractor shall repair or replace the same, or failing to do so promptly, the city shall cause repairs or replacement to be made and the cost of doing so shall be deducted from payment to be made to the contractor for tree services. 18. Damages. In the event of a breach of this Contract by the city, Vendor shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special, or consequential damages or damages for loss of business. 19. Governing Law. This Contract shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20. Severability. The provisions of this Contract are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Contract. 21. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Contract supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the Page 118 of 635 ATTACHMENT (E) STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 5 of 5 provisions of this Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. Executed as of the day and year first written above. The Work will be completed on or before December 31, 2024, and ready for final payment. Final payment will be made thirty (30) days after final acceptance of the Work by the city. CITY OF FARMINGTON __________________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor __________________________________ Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk VENDOR By: ________________________________ Its: _______________________________ Page 119 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Resolution Declaring Surplus Equipment-Public Works Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Public Works is requesting authorization to dispose of equipment that has exceeded its useful life, and which has been replaced. DISCUSSION: A complete listing of the item proposed to be declared surplus, and the reason why, is provided below:  2003 Elgin Sweeper; equipment has been replaced Staff proposes to put the sweeper up for auction or dispose of it via direct sale. BUDGET IMPACT: None; any proceeds received will be forwarded to the Finance Department. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-88 Declaring Item as Surplus and Authorizing Disposal. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2024-88 Declaring Property Surplus - Public Works Page 120 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2024-88 A RESOLUTION DECLARING ITEM AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSAL WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is requesting authorization to dispose of the following equipment that is no longer in use due to the condition and usefulness of the equipment and is requesting to dispose of the equipment via auction or sale: 2003 Elgin Sweeper NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the above listed item is declared surplus and authorize its disposal. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 121 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Lawful Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Fire Relief Association November 1, 2024 Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Approval of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Permit application received from Farmington Fire Relief Association to conduct off-site gambling (raffle) on November 1, 2024. DISCUSSION: Per State Statute and Farmington City Code, all gambling permit applications must first be approved by the City of Farmington before the applicant may submit their application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. Farmington Fire Relief Association will conduct a raffle at Farmington on Minnesota, Farmington, 945, Suite Street, 923 at located Store, Liquor 8th November 1, 2024. BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-89 Concurring with the Issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Permit to Conduct Off-Site Gambling (Raffle) - Farmington Fire Relief Association, November 1, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-89 Gambling Off-Site Permit, Farmington Fire Relief Assn, 11.01.24 Page 122 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-89 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT TO CONDUCT OFF-SITE GAMBLING (RAFFLE) – FARMINGTON FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION, NOVEMBER 1, 2024 WHEREAS, Farmington Fire Relief Association has made application for a Lawful Gambling Permit to the Gambling Control Board to conduct off-site gambling in the form of raffle; and WHEREAS, off-site gambling will be held at Farmington Liquor Store, 923 8th Street, Suite 945, Farmington, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has no objections to the said activity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby concur with the issuance of a Lawful Gambling Exempt by the Gambling Control Board to the Farmington Fire Relief Association to conduct off-site gambling at Farmington Liquor Store, 923 8th Street, Suite 945, Farmington, Minnesota, November 1, 2024. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 123 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Deanna Kuennen, Community & Economic Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Resolution 2024-83 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Rules 4410 authorize the Responsible Unit of Government (RGU) to use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process to review the potential environmental impacts associated with and process The areas. defined in projects development anticipated geographically requirements for the AUAR are specifically identified, including timelines associated with the various steps. Farmington West Industrial encompasses 329 acres located northwest of the intersection of County Road 50 and Pilot Knob Road. In April, an AUAR Scoping Document was published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor for this site/project and on June 17, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution 2025-51 Adopting a Final Order and Record of Decision for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project - determining that the AUAR is the appropriate environmental review document and ordering that an AUAR be prepared. The AUAR has been prepared, distributed, and the City Council is asked to adopt the AUAR dated September 2024. DISCUSSION: An AUAR is a planning tool to understand how different development scenarios will affect the environment before the development occurs. Minnesota Rule 4410 specifically identifies when a review is required, who manages the process, what topics are covered in the review, and what happens following adoption of an AUAR. An AUAR was developed for an area encompassing approximately 329 acres, including six (6) parcels, located northwest of the intersection of County Road 50 and Pilot Knob Road in Farmington. The area was studied to understand the potential impacts associated with developing the existing farmland into a technology park or industrial uses and to identify mitigation measures to compensate for those impacts. Page 124 of 635 AUAR Study Area An AUAR Scoping Document was prepared for this site for the two development scenarios, was reviewed and distributed to required state and federal agencies, and a notice of availability of the AUAR Scoping Document was published in the EQB Monitor for the required 30-day comment period which ended on May 16, 2024. The City Council adopted Resolution 2024-41 on June 17, 2204 - determining that the AUAR was appropriate and ordering that the AUAR be prepared. The draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan was prepared and distributed for a required 30-day public and agency review. Comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with potential development in this area. The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan was then distributed to the required agencies and Met-Council for a final 10-day review/objection period. No objections were received. If adopted, future development in the Project Study Area is expected to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Farmington West Industrial AUAR. The AUAR is valid for 5 years and requires updating every 5 years until development build-out is complete. BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable ACTION REQUESTED: As the RGU, the City Council is asked to consider Resolution 2024-83 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial Project. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-83 RESOLUTION - Adopt Final AUAR for Farmington West Industrial Final - Farmington West AUAR - Dated Sept 2024 Page 125 of 635 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-83 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE FARMINGTON WEST INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, namely Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 1, a local unit of government may use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (“AUAR”) instead of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) or Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) to review anticipated residential, commercial, warehousing, and light industrial development and associated infrastructure in a particular geographic area within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Farmington West Industrial (“Project”) property is located on approximately 329 acres located northwest of the intersection 212th Street West (County Road 50) and Pilot Knob Road; and WHEREAS, the AUAR was completed pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 which identifies and assesses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project Study Area; and WHEREAS, the AUAR was distributed for the required 30-day comment period, revised based on received comments, and redistributed for the required 10-day objection period; and WHEREAS, comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with the potential development in this areas; and WHEREAS, no objections were received; and WHEREAS, development of the Project Study Area is expected to comply with all Farmington and review agency standards as well as the mitigation measures outlined in the AUAR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, that the City of Farmington adopts the Farmington West Industrial AUAR dated September 2024. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 7th day of October 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 126 of 635 SEPTEMBER 2024 Farmington West Industrial FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Page 127 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 i Table of Contents 1. Project Title ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ................................................................................................................................................. 1 4. Reason for Preparation .................................................................................................................... 2 5. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 4 7. Climate Adaption and Resilience ...................................................................................................... 7 8. Cover Types ................................................................................................................................... 13 9. Permits and Approvals Required .................................................................................................... 15 10. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 17 11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms .................................................................................. 25 12. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 30 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................ 48 14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ................... 51 15. Historic Properties ......................................................................................................................... 55 16. Visual ............................................................................................................................................. 56 17. Air ................................................................................................................................................. 56 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint ...................................................................... 57 19. Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 62 20. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 63 21. Cumulative Potential Effects .......................................................................................................... 69 22. Other Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................... 70 Mitigation Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 70 List of Tables Table 1: Development Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions ....................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Existing Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 4: Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 5: Trees ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................... 15 Table 7: Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan designations within the AUAR Study Area .................... 18 Table 8: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks .......................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Soil Types ................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 10: Impaired Waters Within One Mile of the AUAR Study Area .................................................... 32 Table 11: Delineation Summary ............................................................................................................. 34 Table 12: Wells within the AUAR Study Area .......................................................................................... 38 Table 13: City Production Wells Pumping Capacity ................................................................................ 46 Page 128 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 ii Table 14: City of Farmington Water Use ................................................................................................ 47 Table 15: Phase I ESA: Identified Sites .................................................................................................... 49 Table 16: Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................... 60 Table 17: Annual Operational Emissions ................................................................................................ 60 Table 18: Trip Generation Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 65 Table 19: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS .................................................................................. 66 Table 20: Mitigation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 71 List of Figures Figure 1: USGS Map ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: AUAR Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Flood Impact Zones ................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Cover Types ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Existing Zoning Map ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 10: Soil Types .............................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 11: Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 32 Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary.............................................................................................. 33 Figure 13: Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................ 39 List of Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Quantifaction Appendix D: Agency Project Correspondence Appendix E: Environmental Review Map Appendix F: City of Farmington Water and Sanitary Sewer Plans Appendix G: Agency Comment Responses Appendix H: Agency Comments Page 129 of 635 September 2024 1 Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) follows the format of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) (December 2022 version). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics. 1. PROJECT TITLE Farmington West Industrial Development 2. PROPOSER Proposer: Project Bengal, LLC Contact Person: Lisa Workman Address: 525 Park St, Suite 247 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 866-621-3524 Email: statrep@cogencyglobal.com 3. RGU RGU: City of Farmington Contact Person: Tony Wippler Title: Planning Manager Address: 430 Third St City, State, ZIP: Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: 651-280-6822 Email: twippler@farmingtonmn.gov Page 130 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 2 4. REASON FOR PREPARATION AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR. 5. PROJECT LOCATION County: Dakota City/Township: Farmington PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Sections 26 and 35, Township 114N, Range 20W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River & Lake Pepin Tax Parcel Numbers: 037-146319000010, 037-140260085012, 037-140260051030, 037- 140260085011, 037-140260090010, 037-140350025011 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR: • US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 1) • Map depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (see Figure 2 through Figure 4) • List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during the life of the project (as detailed below in Item 7) • Cover type map as required for Item 8 (see Figure 6) • Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 10 (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9) Page 131 of 635 Farmington West East Industrial AUAR September 2024 3 Figure 1: USGS Map Page 132 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 4 Figure 2: AUAR Study Area 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: • Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area. • Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary. • Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. Page 133 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 5 The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 329 acres on six parcels in the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota (shown on Figure 2). The study area is bounded by Richard J. Ames Mem Hwy (County Highway 50) to the south, Pilot Knob Road to the east, and Flagstaff Avenue to the west. Project Bengal, LLC is proposing to develop the study area from existing farmland to a technology park or industrial uses. Development Scenarios The development scenarios, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, are outlined in Table 1 Scenario 1 includes multiple buildings for a total of 3 million square feet of a proposed technology park development (see Figure 3). Scenario 2 includes multiple buildings for a total of 2,968,000 square feet of light industrial (see Figure 4). The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts. Development of the study area would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new development. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 represents proposed technology park development. Construction is anticipated to take place over 3 to 4 phases from the end of 2024 to 2027 for the first phase. The remaining 2 to 3 phases are anticipated to be complete by 2039 (see Figure 3). Scenario 2 Scenario 2 represents proposed industrial development. Construction is anticipated to take place over multiple phases from 2024 to 2027 (see Figure 4). Table 1: Development Scenarios Component Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Technology Park (square feet) 3,000,000 - Industrial Building Area (square feet) - 2,968,000 Total (square feet) 3,000,000 2,968,000 Total Project Area 329 acres 329 acres Page 134 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 6 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 Page 135 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 7 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 7. CLIMATE ADAPTION AND RESILIENCE Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project. Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for the general project location. Some of the climate projections summarized below use Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. RCP 4.5 is an intermediate scenario in which emissions decline after peaking around 2040 with radiative energy capped at 4.5 watts per square meter (W/m2), and RCP 8.5 is a worst-case scenario in which emissions continue to rise through the 21st century with radiative energy capped at 8.5 W/m2.1 1 Climate Explorer Metadata. Available at https://climate.umn.edu/dnrs-climate-explorer-tool-cmip5 Page 136 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 8 Temperature According to the Minnesota Climate Explorer, the historical average temperature in Dakota County between 2002 and 2022 was approximately 45.9°F, with the lowest average in 2014 (42.1°F) and the highest average in 2012 (49.5°F).2 The average annual temperature in Dakota County is projected to increase to 49.0°F from 2040 to 2059 under RCP 4.5 (intermediate emissions pathway). In 2080-2099, average annual temperature is projected to further increase to 51.4°F and 55.1°F under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 (high emissions pathway), respectively. Urban Heat Island Surfaces and structures such as roads, parking lots, and buildings absorb and re-emit more heat from the sun than natural landscapes. This can significantly raise air temperature and overall extreme heat vulnerability in urban areas where there are dense concentrations of these surfaces. This is referred to as urban heat island effect. According to the Metropolitan Council’s Extreme Heat Map Tool, the AUAR study area is located in an area of low to medium heat vulnerability.3 Precipitation According to the Minnesota Climate Explorer, historic average precipitation in Dakota County between 2003 and 2023 was approximately 31.1 inches, with the lowest in 2022 (22.3 inches) and the highest in 2019 (41.5 inches). Average annual precipitation in Dakota County from 2040- 2059 is projected to be 32.3 inches under RCP 4.5. From 2080-2099, average annual precipitation is projected to be 32.6 inches under RCP 4.5 and 35.3 inches under RCP 8.5. Flood Risk In many places, climate change is exacerbating the frequency and intensity of the extreme rainfall events and associated flooding. According to the Metropolitan Council Localized Flood Map Screening Tool, a tool that identifies potential surface flooding locations, the study area is located within Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Shallow Flood Impact Zones (FIZ) as shown in Figure 5.4 Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary FIZ describe the first areas to fill with water during a flood event, with Primary filling first, followed by Secondary and Tertiary. Shallow FIZ are separate low areas generally considered low risk, but this depth may still be a concern for certain types of infrastructure. The FIZ data is derived from the topography from the State of Minnesota's 3-meter digital elevation model (DEM). Potential localized flooding locations are determined based on depressions in the DEM, and flood hazards are categorized based on the exposure and sensitivity of Metropolitan Council assets and infrastructure. 2 Minnesota Climate Explorer: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Available at https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/climateexplorer/main/historical 3 Extreme Heat Map Tool, Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning- Assistance/CVA/Extreme-Heat.aspx 4 Localized Flood Map Screening Tool. Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx Page 137 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 9 Cooling Degree Days As defined by the National Weather Service, degree days are based on the assumption that when the outside temperature is 65°F, heating or cooling is not needed to be comfortable. Degree days are the difference between the daily temperature mean and 65°F. If the temperature mean is above 65°F, 65 is subtracted from the mean and the result is the cooling degree days. For example, if the mean temperature over a 24-hour period is 70°F, then there have been 5 cooling degree days.5 Cooling degree days are used as a proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings. According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota, the number of cooling degree days in 2019 for Dakota County was 424. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Dakota County is projected to be 505 and 652 for RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively.6 For each resource category in the table below, describe the project’s proposed activities and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified. Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Project Design Aspects of building architecture/materials choices and site design may impact urban heat island conditions in the surrounding area, including changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves. In the coming decades, the location of the study area is anticipated to experience: • Increased annual temperatures • Increased annual precipitation and more frequent heavy rainfall events • Increased freeze thaw cycles • Medium urban heat island effect • Energy end-use efficient appliances and equipment and energy efficient lighting will be incorporated into building design • Building shells will be energy efficient • Proposed trees and landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate heat island effect • Water-efficient design will be incorporated for landscape vegetation choices, landscape irrigation, appliance, and equipment). 5 “What Are Heating and Cooling Degree Days,” National Weather Service. Available at https://www.weather.gov/key/climate_heat_cool. 6 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/. Page 138 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 10 Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Land Use No critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed. Portions of the study area are within FEMA 100-Year floodplains. Portions of the proposed development may experience flooding during extreme rain events. Design of the site and stormwater management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR study area. Infiltration areas will be used to improve water quality and reduce stormwater runoff in the project vicinity. Water Resources Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence water resources. Water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and increase in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff. There may be more evaporation and water available when it rains leading to an increase in the flood potential. It is projected that there will be more severe storm events with high, intense rain amounts which will require drainage systems to be adequately maintained to accommodate for the increase in water volume. • Developer will consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping and stormwater features will absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation. • Developer will use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to water resource buffers • Water reuse systems may be implemented to reduce water usage • Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements Page 139 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 11 Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/ Wastes Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of hazardous waste and materials. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste or materials. Not applicable Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the local species and suitable habitat. Suitable habitat for species may become unsuitable due to land use changes, increased temperature, and increased runoff Climate-appropriate native plantings and stormwater BMPs will provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species. Page 140 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 12 Figure 5: Flood Impact Zones Page 141 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 13 8. COVER TYPES AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided: • A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type) o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches) o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification) o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible) o Grassland (identify native and old field) o Cropland o Current development • An overlay map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally provided. The AUAR study area is approximately 329 acres of agricultural land. There are several buildings and structures within the study area. Existing cover types within the study area are shown in Table 3 and on Figure 6 and were determined by reviewing 2024 aerial photography. Green Infrastructure systems include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable check dams. The project proposer will use native plants in landscape design and will maintain existing significant floodplain and wetland complexes as feasible. Table 3: Existing Cover Types Cover Type Existing (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Wetlands and Shallow Lakes 7 (less than 2 meters deep) 23.5 23.5 23.5 Rivers/Streams 0 0 0 Wooded/Forest 27.7 6.5 6.5 Brush/Grassland 7.6 0 0 Cropland 271.1 37.8 39.2 Livestock Rangeland/Pastureland 0 0 0 Lawn/Landscaping 0 103 103 Green Infrastructure (total from Table 4) 0 16.1 16.1 Impervious Surface 0 126.9 125.5 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basins) 0 16.1 16.1 7 Includes wetland features that are tributaries of the Middle Creek in the northern portion of the site. Page 142 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 14 Cover Type Existing (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Other (describe) 0 N/A N/A Total 329 acres 329 acres 329 acres Table 4: Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Before (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Constructed Infiltration Systems (infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable check dams)8 0 16.1 16.1 Total 0 16.1 16.1 Table 5: Trees Trees Area (acres) Area of Mature Trees Removed During Development 4.3 Area of New Trees Planted 9 6.5 8 Based on preliminary stormwater requirement calculations based on estimated impervious surface area. 9 A tree replacement plan will be prepared to replace trees within the study area per city requirements. Page 143 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 15 Figure 6: Cover Types 9. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR. Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if applicable State Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable Page 144 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 16 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities To be applied for, if applicable Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable Industrial Wastewater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Significant Industrial User Permit To be applied for, if applicable Environmental Assessment Worksheet10 To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Temporary Groundwater Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if applicable Regional Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Sewer Connection Permit to Connect To be applied for, if applicable Direct Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable Industrial Waste Discharge Permit To be applied for, if applicable County Dakota County Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable Watershed District Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Review of Diversions, Intercommunity flows (upon request from adjoining communities), project site size of 40 acres or more, and projects that are adjacent to or appear to impact watercourses or unique natural resources To be applied for, if applicable City City of Farmington Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable Sign Permit To be applied for, if applicable Site Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way permit To be applied for, if applicable 10 If either scenario results in a proposed project that anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup generators and may exceed the threshold for air emissions, a separate EAW will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. Page 145 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 17 Unit of Government Type of Application Status WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable Wetland Buffer Zone Management Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable AUAR Approval In process 10. LAND USE Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. The AUAR study area is located in a semirural area north of County Highway 50 in Farmington, Minnesota. The study area consists of six existing parcels. The majority of the study area is designated as Agriculture land use; the northeastern portion of the study area is designated as Single Family Detached. The study area is generally bounded by Flagstaff Ave to the west, 212th St W to the south, Pilot Knob Rd to the east, and parcel boundaries to the north. Land uses adjacent to the study area include agricultural land to the north and south, residential land to the east and west, and industrial development to the east and west. Farmington High School is located to the west of the study area. There are no existing parks within or adjacent the study area. Dakota County Park Conservation Area and the Lake Marion Greenway Region Trail is located approximately one half-mile south of the study area boundary. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 53.3 percent of the study area is considered prime farmland, and an additional 9.9 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance (see Table 9). ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Farmington adopted the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan11 in 2019. The Comprehensive Plan designates a specific mix of future land use designations throughout the city and describes Farmington as an “emerging suburban edge” community that is continuing to develop into urbanized levels of development. One of 11 Source: City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_745675/File/Government/Departments/PlanningandZoning/2040/2040CompPla n_Dec2020.pdf Page 146 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 18 the goals of the Comprehensive Plan update is to “establish the community’s long-term vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and maps to shape and manage future changes in the community.” Anticipated phasing for future development in the AUAR study area is predicted to occur between 2020 and 2040. The study area is identified as Industrial and Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial) in the 2040 future land uses, see Table 7. Table 7: Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan designations within the AUAR Study Area Future Land Use Designation Purpose Industrial Land guided for primarily manufacturing and/or processing of products, warehousing, or warehousing in order to increase the city’s tax base and provide employment opportunities. Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial) Land guided for the integration of commercial and industrial land uses which are compatible with each other, including office, light industrial, and retail uses. Intent of this land use designation is to provide additional flexibility that supports the creation of employment centers on large sites, generally characterized by a broader diversity of jobs, higher development densities and jobs per acre, higher quality site and architectural design, and increased tax revenues. Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan 12 is used to guide the County’s housing, transportation, county facilities, parks, and land use planning over the next 20 years. Farmington is classified as an emerging suburban edge community. Communities with the emerging suburban edge classification includes areas managing rapid growth and change. These areas have significant amounts of land for future development. Primary concerns in suburban edge communities include protecting water supplies and preserving open space. In Dakota County, cities independently administer zoning and comprehensive planning land use controls; the County does not have land use or zoning authority in Farmington. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. 12 Source: Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Government/Planning/CompPlan/Documents/2040ComprehensivePlanAmendment.pdf Page 147 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 19 Existing Zoning Most of the study area is zoned as I, Industrial. According to Farmington’s city code 13, a small section in the southeast portion of the study area is zoned as MUCI, Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial. The Industrial district is intended to provide “areas for existing and future industrial uses and promotes high quality architectural, landscaping and site plan development standards in order to increase the City's tax base and employment opportunities.” Permitted uses include breweries, data centers, distilleries, light manufacturing facilities, microdistilleries, offices, office showrooms, office warehouses, research facilities, small breweries, and warehousing facilities. Conditional uses include bus terminals, child day care facilities, cocktail rooms, commercial recreational uses, food processing facilities, kennels, manufacturing facilities, public utility buildings, recycling facilities, taprooms, truck terminals, and warehouse retails. Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial District “provides for the development of larger mixed business areas along major roadways, including services, offices, research laboratories, and light manufacturing uses without any exterior activities, as well as compatible commercial uses. This district is intended to be flexible to accommodate a mix of non-residential uses and development formats”. Permitted uses include child daycare facilities, commercial recreation, data centers, health clubs, hotels, offices, research laboratories, class I restaurants, retails sales and services, and warehousing facilities. Conditional uses include brewpubs, convenience stores, dental laboratories, grocery stores, hotels and motels, public utility buildings, and class II and II restaurants. The AUAR study area is currently used for agricultural purposes (crop cultivation), but in the future, agricultural land in the City of Farmington is expected to be developed to different land uses. One parcel on the west side of the study area is currently zoned for A-1 (Agriculture). Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the current City’s Comprehensive Plan. FEMA National Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel numbers 27037C0218E and 27037C0214E, effective 12/02/2011), the majority of the AUAR study area is located in an area of minimal flooding area. Portions of the study area along the north and the northeastern boundary are located in Zone A, a 100-year floodplain. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization The study area is located within the Vermillion River watershed, which is administered by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO). The VRWJPO seeks to protect surface water, ground water, and natural resources within the Vermillion River watershed. Jurisdiction of the VRWJPO is provided under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and the Metropolitan Area Local Water 13 Source: City Code of Farmington, MN. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/farmingtonmn/latest/farmington_mn/0-0-0-1 Page 148 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 20 Management Rules. One unnamed stream designated as a Water Quality Corridor by the VRWJPO is located along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area and extends through the eastern portion of the AUAR study area. Additionally, there is a Tributary Connector along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area and a Principal Connector near the northern boundary of the AUAR study area. Farmington Surface Water Management Plan The Farmington Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map identifies four wetlands within the study area. This plan lays out the City’s rules regarding development within and near wetlands. Development adjacent to wetlands the must adhere to several standards listed in Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17 Wetland Standards including the buffer width and setbacks listed in Table 8. The City of Farmington uses a functional value index to define wetlands classifications. The functional value index is based on a weighted average that incorporates the wetland community and the functional value. Per the Farmington Wetland Ordinance, “To achieve no net loss of wetlands except as authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, fill, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetlands permitted by a wetland alteration permit, must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002).” Table 8: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks14 Wetland Classification Functional Value Index Average Buffer Width (Feet) Minimum Buffer (Feet) Structure Setback from Outer Edge of Buffer (Feet) Protect 1-0.6 75 75 10 Manage 1 0.59-0.5 50 30 10 Manage 2 0.49-0.3 30 25 10 Dakota County 2020 Land Conservation Plan15 Dakota County developed a Land Conservation Plan in 2020 as a shared vision of the geographic area of Dakota County to guide future land protection efforts and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. The plan identifies portions of the study area as part of the Middle Creek Conservation Focus Area (CFA). CFAs are identified priority areas for voluntary land protection and enhances natural 14 Source: City of Farmington Wetland Ordinance. https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_745675/File/Government/Departments/NaturalResources/Water/WetlandOrdin ance.pdf 15 Source: Dakota County Land Conservation Plan. https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Environment/LandConservation/Plan/Documents/LandConservationPlan.pdf Page 149 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 21 resource management. The Middle Creek CFA will be considered and impacts to these areas will be avoided or mitigated as feasible in future site design. iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity. No critical facilities are proposed as part of the project. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. AUAR Guidance: The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be discussed. If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing designated parks, recreation areas, or trails, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the AUAR area. The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9, 11, 18, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. Existing Land Use Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The existing agricultural land is expected to transition to different land uses as the city develops. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Zoning Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Most of the study area is zoned as I, Industrial. Scenario 1 proposes technology park use and Scenario 2 proposes industrial use and both uses would be consistent with the current Industrial zoning. One parcel that is currently zoned for agriculture would require a re-zoning. Page 150 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 22 2040 Comprehensive Plan The city has certified that the updated 2040 Comprehensive Plan will comply with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. Scenario 1 Scenario 1, which includes technology park use, is consistent with the land uses allowed under the comprehensive plan. Scenario 2 Scenario 2, which includes industrial use, is consistent with the land uses allowed under the comprehensive plan. Farmington Surface Water Management Plan Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Delineated wetlands and wetland buffer areas in the AUAR study area will be avoided for the development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The development will not impose on the existing wetland buffer. Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail The development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will not have impacts on the Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Both scenarios would require a re-zoning of the one parcel currently zoned for agriculture to industrial. Page 151 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 23 Figure 7: Existing Land Use Page 152 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 24 Figure 8: Future Land Use Page 153 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 25 Figure 9: Existing Zoning Map 11. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY/LAND FORMS Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the study area was completed in May 2024. The study area is comprised primarily of a mixture of alluvially and glacially deposited sands with varying amounts of gravel (and potentially cobbles and boulders), sandy loam, and/or sandy clay loam. The bedrock in this area consists of the Prairie du Chein Group dolostone and is indicated by geologic maps to be approximately 130 to 240 feet below the ground surface. The soil profile across the study area is relatively variable, typically consisting of varying amounts of topsoil overlaying varying thicknesses of alluvially deposited soils which then overlay glacially deposited soils to the termination depths of the borings. Varying thicknesses of existing fill were encountered in many of the borings. Fill was encountered in 25 out of the 132 borings with fill depths ranging from about 4 to 23 feet below existing surface grades. A portion of the study area is comprised of Rosemount Outwash with Excellent to Good Quality potential for sand and gravel mining. Potential for mining will be considered prior to development. Groundwater was observed in 83 of the 132 soil borings performed, ranging from depths of approximately 2 1/2 to 40 feet below surface grade at the time of the field exploration. Those Page 154 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 26 depths correlate to observed groundwater elevations ranging from approximately 883 to 932 feet. Typically, groundwater was encountered around Elevations 905 to 915 feet. According to the Minnesota Regions Prone to Surface Karst Feature Development Series GW-01, the study area is not directly located within an area prone to karst development. Furthermore, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) indicates surface karst features primarily occur where 50 feet or less of unconsolidated material overlie carbonate bedrock or sandstone. The Minnesota Geologic Survey indicates bedrock at the study area is greater than 50 feet (130 to 240 feet) from existing surface grades. Based on this, the risk for karst conditions developing on the study area with regards to the proposed construction, including stormwater infiltration features, is negligible.16 Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be included. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil, the area is comprised of 21 different soil types. Soil information is included in Table 9 and Figure 10. The erosion hazard rating included in Table 9 indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Within the project site, 18.5% of the soil surface is mapped with a “moderate” rating, indicating that some erosion is likely in these areas and that erosion control measures may be needed. The remaining 81.5% of the study area is mapped with a “slight” rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Topography within the study area varies from 906 feet in elevation in the northwest corner of the site to 968 feet in elevation in the southwest portion of the site. The site generally drains to the northeast towards linear drainage features. Scenario 1 and 2 Page 155 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 27 It is anticipated that for the proposed development, additional earthwork will need to be brought on-site. The proposed project would require approximately 1,200,000 total cubic yards of excavation over 300 acres. Where appropriate, slope stabilization will be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard methods of erosion and sediment control. The proposed development within the AUAR study area will require compliance with the VRWJPO and the City of Farmington’s erosion and sediment control standards. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area. Table 9: Soil Types Map unit symbol Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Farmland Rating Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 2B B Ostrander loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 22 6.70% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 2C B Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 18.9 5.70% Farmland of statewide importanc e 0 Moderate 39B B Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 3.8 1.20% All areas are prime farmland 0 Moderate 39C B Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 6.8 2.10% Farmland of statewide importanc e 0 Moderate Page 156 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 28 Map unit symbol Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Farmland Rating Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 98 B/D Colo silt loam, occasional ly flooded 7.7 2.30% Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season 95 Slight 129 B/D Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.4 1.60% All areas are prime farmland 15 Slight 176 B/D Garwin silty clay loam 21.9 6.70% Prime farmland if drained 95 Slight 208 B/D Kato silty clay loam 53.3 16.20% Prime farmland if drained 95 Slight 213B B/D Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 15.4 4.70% All areas are prime farmland 5 Moderate 255 B/D Mayer silt loam 1.6 0.50% Prime farmland if drained 90 Slight 285A B Port Byron silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.3 1.00% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 285B B Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 21 6.40% All areas are prime farmland 0 Moderate Page 157 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 29 Map unit symbol Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Farmland Rating Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 301B B Lindstrom silt loam, till plain, 2 to 6 percent slopes 28.3 8.60% All areas are prime farmland 5 Moderate 320C2 B Tallula silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 3.8 1.20% Farmland of statewide importanc e 0 Severe 411A B Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 16.3 4.90% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 411B B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 60 18.20% All areas are prime farmland 0 Moderate 411C B Waukegan silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 3 0.90% Farmland of statewide importanc e 0 Severe 611C A Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 23.8 7.20% Not prime farmland 0 Moderate Page 158 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 30 Map unit symbol Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Farmland Rating Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 611D A Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 12.8 3.90% Not prime farmland 0 Severe Figure 10: Soil Types 12. WATER RESOURCES AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be Page 159 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 31 impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There are several DNR Public Watercourses within the study area vicinity. An unnamed DNR Public Watercourse and MPCA 303d Impaired Water, unnamed stream M-049-010- 001, is directly adjacent to the northeast of the study area. Vermillion River, another DNR Public Watercourse and MPCA 303d Impaired Water, is approximately one-half mile south of the study area. An unnamed branch of the Vermillion River, unnamed stream M-049-012, is located approximately one-quarter mile south of the Study Area and is designated as a MnDNR Public Watercourse, MPCA 303d Impaired Water, and MnDNR trout stream. There are two unnamed DNR Public Water Basins within one mile of the study area, both located to the northeast of the study area. The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area is not within one mile of the AUAR Study Area. Emmons & Olivier (EOR) completed a wetland delineation in 2023 on three eastern parcels (PIDs 037-140260085011, 037-140260090010, and 037-146319000010) within the study area and identified seven wetlands within these parcels. A Notice of Decision (NOD) was issued by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the local government unit (LGU) responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The EOR delineation is valid through November 17, 2028. Kimley-Horn completed a wetland delineation in May 2024 for the remaining three parcels (PIDS 140260085012, 140260051030, and 140350025011) within the study area and identified seven wetlands. A formal wetland approval process will be initiated with Dakota County to review the delineated wetland boundaries and types; a NOD has not yet been issued. The AUAR study area is located within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization area. The City was issued a MCPA MS-4 permit in 2021, and have adopted water resource standards into their City ordinances. Runoff from the study area generally drains northeast towards an unnamed stream (AUID 07040001-668), see Figure 11. Page 160 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 32 Figure 11: Surface Water Resources Table 10: Impaired Waters Within One Mile of the AUAR Study Area Assessment Unit ID Name Impaired Used Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 07040001-517 Vermillion River Aquatic consumption, aquatic life, aquatic recreation Approved for fecal coliform, mercury in fish tissue, and turbidity 07040001-527 Unnamed creek Aquatic life, aquatic recreation Approved for fecal coliform 07040001-668 Unnamed creek (Vermillion River Tributary) Aquatic recreation Approved for fecal coliform Page 161 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 33 Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary Page 162 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 34 Table 11: Delineation Summary Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Size (acres) Wetland Classification 17 Wetlands Delineated by Emmons and Olivier (2023) Wetland 1 Wet Meadow / Shallow Marsh 2 / 3 Wetland 1 is a fresh wet meadow, that is frequently farmed. It is incompletely drained by allow gradient man-made ditch that exhibits characteristics of a shallow marsh community. The wetland edge was located following the contiguous stand of dominant reed canary grass and avoiding upland species such as Canada goldenrod and smooth brome. 2.51 Manage 3 Wetland 2 Shallow Marsh / Shrub-Carr 3 / 6 Wetland 2 is along low-gradient ditch that has acquired wetland characteristics of a shallow marsh/shrub-carr due to near constant inundation and slow water movement. Wetland boundary was located at the top of bank along the ditch edge. 1.15 Manage 3 Wetland 3 Seasonally Flooded Basin / Shallow Marsh / Deep Marsh / Shrub-Carr 1 / 3 / 4 / 6 Wetland 3 consists of a mosaic of wetland types. The lower end of the ditch has shallow marsh characteristics with seasonally flooded basins in adjoining low areas. The mosaic of wetlands in the northeast corner includes shrub-carr, shallow marsh, and deep marsh types. The wetland boundary was located at the top of bank along the ditch edge. Two uncultivated sections adjacent to the ditch were incorporated because they were confirmed to be wetland by sample point W4 and the previous L1 analysis. Along the northeastern boundary, the wetland boundary was determined by dominance of upland goldenrod species and smooth brome vs dominance by reed canary grass. 4.92 Manage 3 17 Wetlands within the study area are classified in the Farmington Local Surface Water Management Plan. Available at: https://cityoffarmington.hosted.civiclive.com/government/departments/engineering/engineering_comprehensive_plans Page 163 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 35 Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Size (acres) Wetland Classification 17 Wetland 4 Seasonally Flooded Basin / Wet Meadow / Shallow Marsh / Shrub-Carr 1 / 2 / 3 / 6 Wetland 4 consists of a variety of wetland types including partially farmed seasonally flooded basin that grades into wet meadow followed by near continuously saturated areas of shrub- carr and shallow marsh. The wetland boundary was determined primarily from saturation on recent aerial images examined during the level 1 delineation, and from LiDAR-derived contours that indicated the base of the slope and likely flowpaths. 11.84 Manage 2 Wetland 5 Seasonally Flooded Basin 1 Wetland located directly east of Wetland 2 in the southeastern portion of the site. The wetland boundary was determined by a TEP review. 0.42 Manage 3 Wetland 6 Seasonally Flooded Basin 1 Wetland located directly east of Wetland 2 in the southeastern portion of the site. The wetland boundary was determined by a TEP review. 0.24 Manage 3 Wetland 7 Seasonally Flooded Basin 1 Wetland located directly south of Wetland 2 in the southeastern portion of the site. The wetland boundary was determined by a TEP review. 0.25 Manage 3 Wetlands Delineated by Kimley-Horn (2024) Wetland 8 Fresh Wet Meadow / Shallow Marsh / Shrub-Carr 2 / 3 / 6 Wetland 8 is a wetland complex located in the northwestern portion of the study area. The wetland is an extension of Wetland 4 previously delineated by EOR. Kimley-Horn delineated the boundary of Wetland 8 beyond the study area boundary (14.33 acres in total), and only a small portion of this wetland is located within the study area (0.06 acres). The wetland is a complex of multiple wetland types, although only fresh wet meadow is present within the study area. The wetland boundary was based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation dominance, and topography. 0.06 Manage 2 Page 164 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 36 Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Size (acres) Wetland Classification 17 Wetland 9 Seasonally Flooded Basin 1 Wetland 9 is an isolated depressional wetland located in an agricultural field in the western portion of the study area. The wetland boundary was based on topography and review of aerial photography. 0.12 Manage 3 Wetland 10 Seasonally Flooded Basin 1 Wetland 10 is located in an agricultural swale in the central portion of the study area. Portions of the seasonally flooded basin wetland were uncultivated and contained weedy herbaceous vegetation, and portions of the wetland were located in an agricultural field. The wetland boundary was based on topography and review of aerial photography. 1.08 Not determined Wetland 11 Fresh Wet Meadow 2 Wetland 11 is an isolated depressional fresh wet meadow located in the central portion of the study area. The wetland is located within pasture and an upland mound was observed in the center of the feature. The wetland boundary was based on the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and the change in topography. 0.22 Not determined Wetland 12 Shrub-Carr 6 Wetland 12 is an isolated depressional shrub-carr wetland located in the central portion of the study area. The wetland boundary was based on the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation the presence of hydric soils, and topography. 0.12 Not determined Wetland 13 Fresh Wet Meadow 2 Wetland 13 is an isolated depressional fresh wet meadow located in the central portion of the study area. A distinct change in topography was observed along the entire southern boundary of the wetland and an upland mound was observed in the center of the feature. The wetland boundary was based on the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and the change in topography. 0.27 Not determined Page 165 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 37 Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Size (acres) Wetland Classification 17 Wetland 14 Fresh Wet Meadow 2 Wetland 14 is an isolated depressional fresh wet meadow in the central portion of the study area. The wetland boundary was based on the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and the change in topography. 0.32 Manage 3 Total 23.52 Page 166 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 38 ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. According to the Geologic Atlas of Dakota County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990), groundwater is present at approximately 20 feet below grade, excluding the wetland portion. Based on Dakota County’s well records, there are five wells located within the AUAR study area, see Table 12. Wells located within the AUAR study area would be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. Dakota County has delegated authority from the MDH to regulate well sealing activities. There may be improperly buried wells located within the study area. If unidentified wells are found, Dakota County Environmental Resources must be contacted to determine the course of action, which may include sealing, relocating, or preserving by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. The AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection area (Farmington NW) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) (Farmington NW, moderate vulnerability). Coordination with the city would be required to verify suitability of stormwater infiltration on site due to the DWSMA requirements. Table 12: Wells within the AUAR Study Area Well ID Number Index Status Well Use Well Depth (feet) 768804 Active Irrigation 245 H304659 Sealed Domestic 75 540204 Active Domestic 240 W05399 Inactive Domestic - W05400 Active Domestic - Page 167 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 39 Figure 13: Groundwater Resources Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR: • Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process • Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow estimates should be explained • The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified Page 168 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 40 • If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described • The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described. • If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000 edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential development should be followed. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. The AUAR study area is mostly located within the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The northern portion of the AUAR study area is currently located outside of the 2020 and 2030 MUSA; the entire study area is included in the 2040 MUSA. The City is endeavoring on an off-cycle Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would re-guide the staging from outside of the Current 2030 MUSA to within the Current 2030 MUSA. Under Scenario 1 the project will generate a peak day discharge of industrial non- contact cooling water of 0.8 MGD for an approximately 6-month period. Wastewater discharge would be approximately 30% to 40% of the incoming industrial cooling water, as the rest of the water is lost to evaporation through the cooling process. The domestic wastewater will have typical BOD and TSS characteristics as normal domestic strength waste for a typical office setting. The Industrial cooling water will contain little to no organic waste, and will have mineral concentrations as much as 10 to 100 times the levels in the drinking water depending on the type of water treatment that will be required for the system. Approximately 140,000 gallons per day of domestic wastewater is anticipated to be generated under Scenario 2. This volume was estimated using the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) tool. Wastewater from the development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is proposed to be collected by an onsite conveyance system that will route wastewater to a new interceptor to be extended to the south from the Pilot Knob Road site. The project proposer will coordinate with the City. Wastewater from the property will flow to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Empire Township, Dakota County. Page 169 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 41 The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP is an advanced secondary treatment plant with ultraviolet disinfection. As of May 2023, the plant has a maximum capacity of 28.6 million gallons per day. The plant currently experiences average flows of 10.7 million gallons per day. Based on the wastewater quality and flows, MCES will review the plant to ensure no detrimental performance from accepting the flows. In the event that there are some wastewater flow or constituent concerns, storage can help attenuate peaks, and other forms of industrial wastewater discharge will be investigated. Based on an evaluation of the City’s Comprehensive Sewer plan, the table below shows the anticipated wastewater discharge from the site: City of Farmington 2040 Comp Plan Projected Flow The table below shows the flows for Scenario 1 will be slightly higher for a peak day event, but significantly lower for the average daily flows that were projected based on the comprehensive plan. To offset the peak daily flows to the MCES system, a flow equalization system or some other method of disposal of the cooling water will be implemented to maintain the anticipated flows from the project areas within the flow generation assumptions contained within the existing Comprehensive Plan. Some scenarios will include working with the MPCA for a cooling water discharge permit, a flow equalization tank, or further reuse of the cooling water will all be evaluated. An industrial discharge permit for MCES may be applied for. The development proposed in Scenario 2 is consistent with the City’s planned sanitary sewer usage from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Projected Page 170 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 42 No subsurface sewage treatment systems are anticipated within the AUAR study area for the proposed development scenario. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. The proposed development scenario will evaluate surface discharge to an infiltration or filtration basin of treated non-contact cooling water with the MPCA and DNR as a potential partial relief to wastewater treatment plant discharge. ii. Stormwater – Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post- construction, including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate, and change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines: • It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues • A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided • The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. • If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: Page 171 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 43 o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs. o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included. Environmental Effects Stormwater runoff can cause a number of environmental problems. When untreated stormwater drains from manmade locations such as agricultural fields, impervious surfaces, and construction sites, it can carry sediments and/or pollutants that harm aquatic ecosystems and wildlife. Existing conditions There is currently minimal impervious surface area within the study area, largely along the central access road. Runoff from the study area generally drains northeast towards the existing wetland at a rate consistent with agricultural use, and eventually directed towards the Middle Creek branch of the Vermillion River Watershed, see Figure 11 and Figure 12. During Construction During construction, erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems per the City of Farmington Design Standards. The following design/construction standards are to be adhered to during construction: • Provide necessary precautions to prevent soil erosion, damage to adjacent property and control runoff to surface water. • The erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained and repaired throughout construction and until such time as the property has been either sodded or a seeded vegetative cover has taken hold. • Temporary rock entrances are required on every construction site and are required after backfilling of foundation. • Exposed soil, including stock piles shall be stabilized immediately where activity has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of this site and will not resume for a period of time exceeding 14 days. • After connecting drainage ditches or swales that drain water from the site, the last two hundred (200) linear feet must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to surface water. Page 172 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 44 • If dewatering is to take place, adequate treatment must be provided so that nuisance conditions will not result from the discharge. • The City will require water quality ponds to be designed with outlet skimmers, energy dissipation, sediment storage, stabilized banks and permanent vegetation to maximize pollutant removal and control. • Design for minimum freeboard of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level, or 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation whichever is more restrictive. • Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, as well as require conveyance channels be constructed to withstand velocities from a 10-year storm event without erosion. Post Construction Overall impervious surface area is proposed to increase to over 125 acres in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, increasing the runoff rate. To mitigate this, the stormwater basins on- site are proposed to be sized to accommodate runoff from these impervious areas and the outlet control structures designed to discharge at a rate less than that in the existing condition. Under the proposed development, stormwater from the impervious areas of the site is proposed to be directed to one of six stormwater management BMPs on-site where the stormwater is proposed to be treated according to the published MPCA guidelines and City of Farmington requirements. These basins are proposed to utilize an engineered sand section to filter stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland to the northeast of the site. Infiltration and filtration is discussed further below. As it leaves the site, stormwater will be routed to the existing wetland basin to the north of the site. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin. The soils across the AUAR study area primarily consists of hydraulic group B and are well-suited for infiltration, and more specifically bioinfiltration. Filtration will be pursued if future soil borings identify soil layers that would restrict infiltration. The required treatment volume is determined by the City of Farmington as a function of new impervious area. The project will be required to meet the VRWJPO and City of Farmington’s Engineering Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan requirements. The project will be required to retain the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event, as well as the larger of either 2-year 24 hour storm events or 1 inch of runoff from impervious surface. Additionally, new stormwater infrastructure will be designed to meet the City’s requirements for no net increase of total phosphorus and total suspended solids to the maximum extent possible. Finally, existing off-site flows directed to the project will need to be retained and managed on-site. Page 173 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 45 Additional detailed stormwater analysis will be provided at later stages of the design phase. The following stormwater management requirements will be adhered to: • Farmington City Code, Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 5: Postconstruction Stormwater Management • City of Farmington Local Surface Water Management Plan • Vermillion River Joint Watershed Powers Organization Standards • National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be determined for each new development within the AUAR study area. • City of Farmington Engineering Guidelines Additionally, to mitigate additional winter salt use associated with the planned increase impervious surfaces, the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan with every project that requires a NPDES permit. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. A Water Use Appropriations Permit would be obtained if permanent dewatering is determined to be necessary for construction of development in Scenario 1 and 2. A Water Use Appropriation permit is required for permanent water dewatering and applies to users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year. The water supply for the study area will be obtained from the City of Farmington. The City’s water system consists of seven active wells, one elevated storage tank, one standpipe, and a network of trunk and lateral watermains varying in sizes from 4-inches Page 174 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 46 to 24-inches. The groundwater wells range in depth from 402 to 512 feet deep and draw water from the Jordan aquifer and the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer. According to the City’s comprehensive plan, the City’s firm pumping capacity is 7,200 gallons per minute as of 2019. Treatment of the City’s water supply included chlorination and fluoridation. Coordination with the City to upsize these systems will be completed, if needed. The site is currently served by a 12- and 16-inch watermain that will provide adequate capacity to the site. Based on preliminary review, the domestic and industrial process water can be primarily supplied by the City's seven groundwater well sources and will likely need to be supplemented with reclaimed water and/or rainwater due to infrastructure and permitting. For industrial process water in Scenario 1, reclaimed/reuse water may also be a feasible and necessary alternative and will be evaluated as site design progresses. The reclaimed water could come from the nearby MCES Empire WWTP. Currently, the WWTP has averaged between 10 and 11 million gallons of flow per day. MCES is interested in providing reclaimed water for the region. An Empire WWTP effluent pipe and pumping facilities would be constructed if required. If completed, the reclamation facility could provide reclaimed water to the AUAR site and other sites in the vicinity. Scenario 1 will have a water demand of up to approximately 2,000,000 to 2,530,000 gallons per day and Scenario 2 will have 200,000 gallons per day for peak water flow. The Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution Plan contemplates a replacement well if Wells 1, 3, and 4 are removed from service due to their age. The remaining firm capacity without Wells 1, 3, and 4 is 6.62 MGD. At the existing max day demand of 5.33 MGD, that leaves residual firm capacity of 1.29 MGD. Scenario 1 water demand exceeds this residual firm capacity and may trigger the need for the replacement well if those existing wells are removed from service. Using the pumping capacities identified in the existing water system plan and assuming a capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute for Well 9, the pumping capacity of the city production wells is shown in Table 13. Table 13: City Production Wells Pumping Capacity Well No. Well field Depth (feet) Rate (gpm) Year Constructed Aquifer Status 1 South 402 1000 1938 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Active 2 South 399 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Inactive 3 South 424 600 1959 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Active 4 North 477 1000 1973 Jordan Active 5 North 417 1200 1999 Jordan Active 6 North 485 2000 2002 Jordan Active Page 175 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 47 Well No. Well field Depth (feet) Rate (gpm) Year Constructed Aquifer Status 7 North 501 1400 2002 Jordan Active 8 North 460 2000 2006 Jordan Active 9 North 477 2000 2019 Jordan Active 10 To Be Installed As Well No. 1 is seldom used, the city intends to decommission the installation in 2024. The pumping capacity with one of the 2,000 GPM wells being out of service after Well No. 1 is decommissioned is 11.81 MGD. The 2020 demands were 2.14 MGD and 5.77 MGD for average daily and maximum daily demands, respectively. In February of 2021, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorized an amendment of the city’s DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 to authorize the use of Well No. 9, and, additionally, the withdrawal of up to 1,000 million gallons of water per year for municipal/public water supply. The City’s recent water use, as identified in the annual report to the DNR, is described in Table 14. Table 14: City of Farmington Water Use Year Water Use (gallons) 2023 834,984,000 2022 810,939,011 2021 824,915,341 2020 749,989,000 Table 13 refers to Well No. 10 as “to be installed”; however, a Groundwater Technical Review completed by the DNR in 2020 concluded that the annual use volumes have been decreasing since 2007. This indicates that a request for increase in annual volume does not appear likely before the next WSP in 2027. If it is anticipated that pumping volume will exceed the City’s allowed amount under their appropriation permit, an amendment to the City’s appropriation would be required. The City and applicant will also coordinate with the DNR, including area hydrologists, for any new wells and appropriations that may be needed, which would include evaluation of the aquifers. iv. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to Page 176 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 48 avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. The development proposed in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is planning to avoid impacting the wetlands in the AUAR study area. If development plans change, the project proposer would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local wetland requirements including wetland mitigation requirements through the purchase of wetland banking credits. The City of Farmington has buffer requirements outlined in the Farmington Wetland Ordinance that may be applicable to adjacent development. More information on the Farmington Wetland Ordinance can be found in Section 10. 2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part the development scenario. The AUAR study does not contain and is not adjacent to any recreational water bodies. 13. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre- project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in May 2024. Regulatory database information pertaining to the study area and surrounding area was obtained. Sites Page 177 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 49 identified adjacent to the study area are listed in Table 15. There are also several aboveground storage tanks located within the study area. Table 15: Phase I ESA: Identified Sites Site Name Address Description Risk Pilot Knob Trail Farmington Minnesota Construction stormwater permit Low Devenshire Farms 5788 212th Street W Feedlot Low Whispering Fields 20861 Flagstaff Avenue Construction stormwater permit Low G & T Trucking Pilot Knob & County Road 50 Historic spill Low Dakota Electric Association Highway 50 and Fairgreen Avenue Historic spill Low Merit Construction Services, Inc 5441 212th Street West Hazardous waste Low Marshall Line Inc/Marshall Line Busses/Precision Fitting & Valve Co/Duo Plastics 5441 212th Street West Aboveground storage tanks, Brownfields, leaking storage tank, historic leaking aboveground storage tank, very small quantity generator, underground storage tank, site assessment, voluntary investigation and cleanup, construction stormwater permit High MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) was reviewed to identify potential environmental hazards within the study area. According to the review, one site, Pilot Knob trail, is present within the southeastern portion of the study area. The site is an inactive stormwater that was terminated on October 17, 2011. There are several WIMN sites within the study area vicinity, notably to the southeast of the site. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Page 178 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 50 AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. According to Dakota County Ordinances 110 and 111, Dakota County will ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811. Construction Generated Solid Waste Construction of the proposed development would generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Operation Generated Solid Waste Recycling for industrial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Dakota County Ordinance 15.08 requires all solid waste haulers to offer source separated recycling services and curbside pick-up within the county. The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services provided in the project area. During operation, it is estimated that the non- residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream be approximately 45,000 tons per year for Scenario 1 and 44,520 tons per year for Scenario 2. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations). Scenario 1 could include several hundred diesel-powered backup generators for emergency use. Each of these generators would have a 6,100 gallon diesel belly tank that will be installed and maintained in compliance with applicable state regulations for aboveground storage tanks, including: • New tanks and piping would be designed to applicable industry standards and guidance. • Tank upgrades and repairs would follow applicable industry standards. • Tank owners would clearly label all tanks and piping. • Underground storage tanks of any size will not be used as above ground storage tanks. Scenario 2 is not anticipated to include any storage tanks. Page 179 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 51 Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Not applicable. 14. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE FEATURES) Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. The majority of the land within the AUAR study area has been previously disturbed through farming and provides limited and low-quality habitat. Minimal wildlife habitat is located within the AUAR study area due to the prior extent of continued ground disturbance and minimal natural vegetation. Habitat within the study area include woodlands, wetlands, and grasslands, as seen in Figure 6. Wildlife that can be found within the study area include birds, small mammals, and insects. There are no areas of biodiversity significance within one mile of the study area. There is one area of ecological significance in the northeastern portion of the study area. The AUAR study area is located approximately 10 miles away from the Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result. Page 180 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 52 State-Listed Species Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) in April 2024 per license agreement LA2024-006 for the study area and area within a one-mile radius for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species. The review did not identify any state listed species. A correspondence letter was requested from the Minnesota DNR (MnDNR). The MnDNR concurred that no state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species were present within the study area, and that no further review was required. Federally-Listed Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool was used to identify federally-listed species within or near the AUAR Study Area. This review identified one federally-listed endangered species, the Northern Long-eared Bat. This review also identified one federally-listed proposed endangered species, Tricolored Bat, one federally- listed candidate species, monarch butterfly, and one experimental population, whooping crane. The IPaC Species List is included in Appendix D. Northern Long-Eared Bat A record for the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis Septentrionalis) is located within Dakota County. Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) was designated a federally endangered species by FWS in April 2023. According to the MnDNR, in the southern part of the state, NLEB may use attics, bridges, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include under loose tree bark, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels. Tricolored Bat The Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) was proposed to be designated as a federally endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in September 2022. According to the USFWS, during the winter, tricolored bats are often found in caves and abandoned mines. During the spring, summer, and fall, Tricolored Bats are found in forested habitats where they roost in trees, primarily among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees, but may also be found in Spanish moss, pine trees, and occasionally human structures. Like the Northern Long-eared Bat, the spread of white-nose syndrome across the eastern portion of the United States has become the major threat to the Tricolored Bat, with an estimated decline of more than 90% in affected colonies. According to the DNR’s Rare Species Guide, there are no known maternity colonies within the state of Minnesota. Only three live hibernating individuals have been observed in Minnesota Monarch Butterfly The Monarch Butterfly is designated as a candidate species for official listing by the USFWS. The preferred habitat for this species is prairie where milkweed and flowers are present. According to the USFWS, there are many potential reasons for the butterfly’s decline, including habitat loss at breeding and overwintering sites, disease, pesticides, logging at overwintering sites, and climate change Page 181 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 53 Whooping Crane The Whooping Crane is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the USFWS. Non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park land and as a proposed species on private land. The preferred habitat for the species include shallow mashes and adjacent, open grasslands. The Proposed Action would be completed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. The Proposed Action is not expected to diminish the quality or extent of whooping crane suitable habitat within the Study Area vicinity. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the whooping crane. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Federally-listed Species Northern Long-eared Bat The proposed development will require tree clearing. According to the USFWS, tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. On November 30, 2022, the USFWS published in the Federal Register (87 FR 73488) a final rule which reclassified this species as an endangered species. The rule went into effect March 31, 2023. Given that the site area has been cultivated for agricultural use and does not contain caves or large expanses of forested habitat, the potential for the Northern Long-eared Bat to utilize the site is considered low. The project may include the removal of a small quantity of trees. Tricolored Bat The proposed development will require tree clearing. According to the USFWS, the Tricolored Bat uses forested areas for roosting and foresting during the spring, summer, and fall. Due to the low occurrence rate and given that the study area has been disturbed for agricultural use and does not contain caves or large expanses of forested habitat, the potential for the Tricolored Bat to utilize the study area is considered low. The project may include the removal of a small quantity of trees. Monarch Butterfly The Proposed Action may affect monarch butterflies and/or suitable monarch habitat; however, ground and vegetation disturbing activities are not expected to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the study area. In addition, proposed native seed mix establishment will provide additional suitable habitat and benefit the species. The study area has been disturbed for agricultural use and does not contain natural prairie vegetation; therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Page 182 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 54 Whooping Crane The Proposed Action would be completed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. The project is not expected to diminish the quality or extent of whooping crane suitable habitat within the study area vicinity. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane. Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris. Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife. Tree Removal The AUAR study area contains approximately 4.3 acres of wooded land. Forests and forested areas provide an important natural resource in Minnesota. Forest clearing and tree removal creates a variety of environmental impacts including habitat destruction, biodiversity impairment, soil erosion, and loss of carbon sinks. Although some tree removal will be necessary, the scope of removal will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development. Tree removal will adhere to the City's tree preservation requirements. The City of Farmington regulates tree preservation and requires builders to submit a tree preservation plan prior to construction. City staff review these plans and attempt to identify and save as many significant trees as feasible18. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. Federally-listed Species Northern Long-eared Bat Tree clearing activities should be restricted to when Northern long-eared bats are not likely to be present, between November 1 to March 31. Coordination with USFWS before tree clearing is recommended. Tricolored Bat To prevent impacts to bat species, tree trimming or removal should occur during the winter months (October 1 – March 31). Monarch Butterfly The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. 18 Source: Farmington, Minn., City Code 10-6-11 Page 183 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 55 Whooping Crane No mitigation measures are anticipated to be required. Invasive Species State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mixes. Methods to avoid spreading noxious weeds and/or invasive species will be incorporated into project specifications (and/or SWPPP when developed). According to the DNR, some methods that can prevent the spread of invasive species during construction include: • Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site. • Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible. • Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible. • Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out. Tree Removal Although tree removal will be required for development, some existing trees may be preserved in areas around the perimeter of the property. Prior to construction, a tree preservation plan will be submitted and reviewed by city staff. Tree replacement will be conducted as required by the city. Stormwater The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of all stormwater run-off within the AUAR study area. 15. HISTORIC PROPERTIES Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified. Page 184 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 56 The Minnesota Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MnSHIP) was reviewed to identify historic resources. According to MnSHIP, there are three historic buildings within the study area. None of the historic buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) or the Farmington Historic Landmarks database. According to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) Public Viewer map, there are no known archeological records in the vicinity of the site. Based on the results of the database review and absent a federal nexus, a Phase I Archaeological Assessment is not proposed for the project. If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (if a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit is required due to impacts to regulated wetlands), a Phase I Archaeological Assessment may be necessary. 16. VISUAL Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural land that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Any development of agricultural land will have an impact on the visual look of a property. Future development would conform with the city ordinances for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting to avoid impacts to neighboring properties and species. No significant visual impacts are anticipated. As building and site designs advance, lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the extent practicable. 17. AIR Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. Page 185 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 57 Not applicable to an AUAR. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control ordinances in effect. The proposed development may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. The City of Farmington regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA.19 Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. 18. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS/CARBON FOOTPRINT a. GHG Quantification – For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project- specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the 19 Source: Farmington, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances § 10-6-27 (A) Page 186 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 58 process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.20 Project-related GHG Emissions This section describes the GHG emissions from the existing buildings within the study area and include an estimated quantification of the following GHG emissions associated with the proposed scenarios. • Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Methane (CH4) The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions over the proposed life/design service life of future development. The estimates also include emissions from the construction and operating phases of the scenario. Emissions were estimated using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC) (Version 7 June 2021)21 and are summarized in Table 16 and Table 17 by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and source type (e.g., combustion from mobile equipment, off-site electricity). 20 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases 21 Source: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator Page 187 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 59 Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction and are from mobile equipment including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium and heavy- duty trucks, and construction equipment (both gasoline and diesel). Page 188 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 60 Table 16: Construction Emissions Scope Emission Type Emission Sub-Type Emitant Existing CO2e Emissions (total) Scenario 1 Project- Related CO2e Emissions (total) Scenario 2 Project- Related CO2e Emissions (total) Scope 1 Combustion Mobile equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 0 26,571 26,288 Total 0 26,571 26,288 Table 17: Annual Operational Emissions Scope Emission Type Emission Sub- Type Emitant Existing CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scenario 1 Proposed CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scenario 2 Proposed CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scope 1 Combustion Stationary equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 4 9,114 9,017 Scope 1 Non- combustion Refrigeration/AC Equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 309 309 309 Scope 2 Off-site electricity Grid-based CO2, N2O, CH4 0 30,414 30,090 Scope 2 Renewable energy credit purchases Grid-based -- 0 -30,414 Scope 3 Off-site waste management Area CO2, CH4 0 10,781 10,666 Total 313 20,204 50,082 b. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Unless otherwise noted differently, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under consideration for the proposed development to reduce emissions for both scenarios: • Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting • Energy efficient building shells Page 189 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 61 • Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable • Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development • Provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure • Grid-based wind and solar power will be purchased (for Scenario 1) Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant considerations. ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. • Both scenarios would require new appliances, equipment, and lighting during operation. The use of energy efficient technologies would reduce the amount of electricity used per product. Collectively, the implementation of these technologies would reduce overall energy use and in-turn, GHG emissions. • Both scenarios would require heating and cooling during operation. One of the highest sources of energy use is energy spent heating and cooling buildings. The use of energy efficient building shells reduces the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling, therefore reducing energy use and GHG emissions. • Waste would be generated during operation of both scenarios. By implementing waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable, GHG emitted from wastes during operations can be reduced. • Trees and additional landscaping can reduce the GHG footprint of the project by absorbing greenhouse gas emissions. For both scenarios, tree replacement will occur per city requirements. • Conventional gas-powered vehicles emit harmful GHG’s. For Scenario 1, the project proposer is planning to provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure to encourage adoption of electric vehicles. • Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar are able to provide electricity to the grid without emitting GHG’s. Use of these sources radically reduce GHG emissions associated with electricity use. For Scenario 1, the project proposer is planning to fund renewable energy sources so 100 percent of their energy load will be offset by renewables. The potential mitigation listed in Item 18.b.i. was selected to comply with best management practices for new construction and reduce GHG emissions where practicable during operations. Page 190 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 62 iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per number of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals. The Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the highest emissions – transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry, and land use. The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a total estimated 1,036,794 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 1 and 1,025,893 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 2 (including both construction and operations phases). The proposer will evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city building codes. 19. NOISE Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect. If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. Existing Noise The AUAR study area is currently agricultural land. The existing noise sources at the site consist mainly of the surrounding roadways. Construction Noise As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. Construction of the proposed project would comply with MPCA noise standards. Page 191 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 63 Traffic Generated Noise A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud. Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible. Operational Noise For Scenario 1, the main sources of noise include computers and ventilation systems within the building, and the use of generators tested once a month and in the case of emergency. Sensitive receptors within the project site vicinity include adjacent residential houses, Farmington High School (approximately 0.4 miles west), and Bethel’s Rock Church (approximately 0.1 miles south). Further noise evaluation will be completed as design progresses and best practices to reduce noise spill will be implemented for the technology park uses to comply with local and state noise regulations. 20. TRANSPORTATION Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking Minimum off-street parking requirements listed in Section 10-6-4 of the City of Farmington’s Code of Ordinances will be adhered to. Existing Conditions The existing roadway network within the study area includes County Road 50 / 212th Street W, Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31), Denmark Avenue (CSAH 31) / Akin Road, Eaton Avenue, 200th Street, Flagstaff Avenue, Fairgreen Avenue, and Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23). The roadway network is described below: • County Highway 50 is an east-west County Highway which is a two-lane undivided roadway west of Flagstaff Avenue, and a four-lane divided roadway east of Flagstaff Avenue. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions County Highway 50 as a future “Other Arterial”. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic Page 192 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 64 (AADT) of 16,200 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2023 east of Cedar Avenue. The posted speed limit on County Highway 50 is 50 or 55 mph depending on the roadway segment. • Pilot Knob Road is a north-south two-lane divided county highway. CSAH 31 travels along Pilot Knob Road until its end at County Highway 50. South of County Highway 50, Demark Avenue is CSAH 31. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions Pilot Knob Road Street as a future A-Minor Expander, with a planned connection to the future TH 50 expansion to the south to the future alignment of CSAH 70. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 6,600 vpd in 2022 North of County Highway 50. The posted speed limit on Pilot Knob Road is 55 mph. • CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) is a north-south four-lane divided county roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a Principal Arterial in the near- term future. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 15,200 vpd north of County Highway 50 and 11,300 south of County Highway 50, as of 2022. The posted speed limit on Cedar Avenue is 55 mph. • Flagstaff Avenue is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a major collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 3,600 north of 208th Street, as of 2023. The posted speed limit Flagstaff Avenue is 55 mph. • Denmark Avenue / Akin Road is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a future Major Collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 5,200 on Akin Road north of County Highway 50 and 6,600 on Demark Avenue south of County Highway 50. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. • Eaton Avenue is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies the roadway as a minor collector. The AADT was 1,400 in 2023 and there is no posted speed limit. • 200th Street is a two-lane undivided roadway which runs east-west. The Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies the roadway as a minor collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 2,400 east of Cedar Avenue, as of 2021. There is no posted speed limit, so it is treated as 55 mph for analysis purposes. • Fairgreen Avenue is an unpaved local roadway which is the location of a proposed site access. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 32and there is no posted speed limit. The City of Farmington and Dakota County are planning to construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail along the east side of Pilot Knob Road (C.S.A.H. 31) between 212th St W (C.S.A.H. 50) and 195th St W (C.S.A.H. 64). The project will eliminate the need for pedestrians to cross Pilot Knob Road to use the existing trail. It will also improve safety, mobility and connectivity for those walking or biking. Traffic Generation The trip generation of the two previously shown development scenarios were estimated based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Scenario 1 utilized the Land Use Page 193 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 65 Code (LUC) for Warehousing (LUC 150) as the best available representation of the number of trips generated by a Technology Park, while Scenario 2 utilized the code Industrial Park (LUC 130). The trip generation is shown Table 18. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix B. Table 18: Trip Generation Forecasts Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Scenario 1 510 393 117 540 151 389 5,130 Scenario 2 1,009 817 192 1,009 222 787 10,002 Availability of Transit There are no transit services available near the project vicinity, however, there is a planned Metro Transit Red Line BRT station sited approximately 1 mile away from the project site. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Items 16 and 17. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in May 2024 based on the projected trip generation of the proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix C. Based on the detailed findings of the Farmington West TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to support redevelopment within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths. The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at the site access points as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Exhibit 1 of the TIA). The accesses along County Highway 50, Flagstaff Avenue, and Pilot Knob Road meet the access spacing requirement in the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan and each are at the location of or across from an existing access point. Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, several intersections operate poorly in the AM peak hour due to school traffic from the nearby Farmington High school. Based on the traffic data, this problem is anticipated to exist only during the peak period for school traffic in the morning and doesn’t necessitate major changes to the road network which would be required to facilitate acceptable operations at this time. The two Page 194 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 66 intersections along Flagstaff Avenue are heavily by school traffic but are anticipated to see no issues during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored for possible signalization or control changes in the future. The proposed access along County Highway 50 at the location of what is currently Fairgreen Avenue is anticipated to see poor side street operations, with LOS F projected by Design Year (2040) in both Scenarios. It is recommended that separated left and right turn lanes should be installed in order to improve operations somewhat, but the side street left turn operations are anticipated to be poor in all Design Year (2040) scenarios. The intersection of County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue is anticipated to need some changes in order to increase the capacity and decrease the delays anticipated during the PM peak hour. Dual southbound and westbound left turn lanes are recommended as a mitigation for both scenarios to improve the operations at this intersection. With these mitigations, the intersection will operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour of all scenarios. Table 19shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario. Note that all future scenarios include significant background changes to the control and lane use proposed by traffic studies for other parcels in the vicinity. Table 19: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 1 Mitigated LOS Scenario 2 LOS Scenario 2 Mitigated LOS 2023 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 A.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue C C D C C C C E C C C County Highway 50 & Flagstaff Avenue C C D C E C E F F F F Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street C D F E F E F E F E F County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue A A A D F D F F F F F County Highway 50 & Pilot Knob Road B B B B B B B B B B B Page 195 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 67 Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 1 Mitigated LOS Scenario 2 LOS Scenario 2 Mitigated LOS 2023 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street A A A B B B B C C C C County Highway 50 & Eaton Avenue A A A A A A A A A A A County Highway 50 & Denmark Avenue B B C C C C C C C C C Flagstaff Avenue & West Access -- -- -- A A A A A A A A P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue C D D D E C D F D C D County Highway 50 & Flagstaff Avenue C B C D C D C F E F E Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street A A A A A A A A A A A County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue B A A D E D E F F F F County Highway 50 & Pilot Knob Road B B B B C B C B C B C Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street A B B B C B C C D C D County Highway 50 A A A A A A A A A A A Page 196 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 68 Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 1 Mitigated LOS Scenario 2 LOS Scenario 2 Mitigated LOS 2023 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 2027 2040 & Eaton Avenue County Highway 50 & Denmark Avenue B B C B C B C B C B C Flagstaff Avenue & West Access -- -- -- A A A A A A A A Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Farmington West property. It should be noted that mitigation measures noted in the mitigation plan are only the mitigation measures that are the direct result of the development in addition to the background mitigation. Existing (2024) No-Build Conditions • No Mitigation Necessary Short-Term (2027) No-Build Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the future due to the presence of Farmington High School. Short-Term (2027) Scenario 1 Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the long-term future due to the presence of Farmington High School. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional westbound left turn lane. Short-Term (2027) Scenario 2 Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the long-term future due to the presence of Farmington High School. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional westbound left turn lane. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional southbound left turn lane. An additional eastbound receiving lane will also be required for this. • County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Install separated southbound left and right turn lanes or an alternate mitigation measure. Page 197 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 69 Long-Term (2040) No-Build Conditions • All Modifications from Short-Term (2027) No-Build Conditions. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions • All Modifications from Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional southbound left turn lane. An additional eastbound receiving lane will also be required for this. • County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Install separated southbound left and right turn lanes or an alternate mitigation measure. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 2 Conditions • All modifications from Short-Term (2027) Scenario 2 Conditions. 21. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area. However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”22 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. There are five reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the environmental effects of the proposed project: 22 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a Page 198 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 70 • Vita Attiva: A roadway extension will be construction from the west end of the development to County Highway 50. Construction will likely start in 2024 or 2025. • An anticipated construction of a 168-unit apartment complex at the northwest corner of Dushane Parkway/Spruce Street. Construction anticipated to begin in 2024. • R&L Carriers: Anticipated expansion of their facility southeast of Pilot Knob Road/208th Street. • The site on the south side of Knutsen Drive is considering development. • Farmington Technology Park: Anticipated developed of a technology park off of 255th St West. Future private development projects may result in impacts to transportation, water resources, and utilities. These impacts will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. Not applicable. 22. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AUAR Guidance: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. There are no other potential environmental effects that have not been addressed in preceding sections. MITIGATION PLAN This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the AUAR comment period. This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The Page 199 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 71 plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. In addition to the anticipated permits and approvals listed in, the mitigation measures developed in the AUAR process are outlined in Table 20. There were no impacts or mitigation strategies identified in Item 15; therefore, this area is not included in the Mitigation Plan. The remaining AUAR items have identified regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the study area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of reference. Table 20: Mitigation Plan Resource Area Mitigation Land Use Scenario 1 and 2: Any zoning inconsistencies (one parcel zoned as A-1, Agriculture) will be addressed through a re-zoning. Scenario 1 and 2: the City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the TAZ allocations, if needed. Geology, Soils, and Topography Scenario 1 and 2: Erosion prevention and sediment control practices will be implemented on-site per the NPDES General Stormwater Permit requirements. Scenario 1 and 2: Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found to be present, follow the VRWJPO, City of Farmington, and the MPCA design guidelines. Scenarios 1 and 2: Given the presence of potential source of aggregate within the AUAR study area, mining activities will be taken into consideration prior to development. Water Resources Scenarios 1 and 2: Infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the appropriate water quality treatment. As required by the City, the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff from the 1-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events in post- development conditions will be managed to not exceed the existing conditions. Scenarios 1 and 2: Maintenance and monitoring of the stormwater management areas will be performed to ensure long term effectiveness of the facilities. Scenarios 1 and 2: Obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA for a sewer extension and permit to connect. Scenarios 1 and 2: Obtain a permit from MDH for a watermain installation Scenarios 1 and 2: Groundwater wells will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. Dakota County has delegated authority from the MDH to regulate well sealing activities. If unidentified wells are found, Dakota County Environmental Resources must be contacted to determine the course of action. Scenarios 1 and 2: A chloride management plan will be implemented per any state and local guidelines or requirements. Page 200 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 72 Resource Area Mitigation Scenarios 1 and 2: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater management will be adhered to during construction. Scenarios 1 and 2: Avoidance measures will be taken to avoid impacts to the wetlands within the AUAR study area. If proposed design plans change and impacts to wetlands are necessary, the project proposer will purchase wetland banking credits. Buffers will be installed around wetlands to protect water quality from adjacent development. Scenarios 1: Future development may use effluent water from the MCES Empire treatment facility for non-contact cooling. Scenarios 1 and 2: The existing water infrastructure is planned to be extended and upsized and should be sufficient for the future development needs. Scenarios 1 and 2: The AUAR study area is within the vicinity of designated trout streams. Additional regulation and review may be required when permitting within five miles of a designated trout stream. Scenario 1: An Industrial Discharge Permit may be applied for. Contamination/ Hazardous Waste Scenarios 1 and 2: Development would both generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities; Products will be kept in their original containers unless they cannot be resealed. Original labels and Material Safety Data Sheets will be made available. Surplus materials will be properly removed from the property upon completion of use. Scenarios 1 and 2: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c. Scenarios 1 and 2: Coordinate with the MPCA regarding the required plans, material handling, and disposal. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources Scenario 1 and 2: Wildlife friendly erosion control methods will be utilized within the study area to minimize impacts to wildlife using the site during construction. Scenario 1 and 2: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction. Additionally, appropriate measures will be taken to control the spread of invasive species will be controlled during construction and landscaping: • Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site. • Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible. • Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible. • Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out. • Native and drought-tolerant species will be utilized in landscaped areas. Page 201 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 73 Resource Area Mitigation Scenario 1 and 2: Tree clearing activities will be restricted to winter months when NLEB and migratory birds are not likely to be present (November 1 - March 31). If winter tree clearing is not feasible, technical assistance from the USFWS is required. A specific tree replacement plan will be created and approved by the City prior to development. Visual Scenario 1 and 2: Lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS that recommends a lighting system that minimizes uplight and backlight would be adhered to the extent practicable. Air Scenario 1 and 2: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. The City of Farmington regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA. GHG Emissions/Carbon Footprint Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Unless otherwise noted differently, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under consideration for the proposed development to reduce emissions for both scenarios: • Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting • Energy efficient building shells • Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable • Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development • Provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure • Grid-based wind and solar power will be purchased (for Scenario 1) Noise Scenario 1 and 2: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated noise levels. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted to minimize noise levels and nighttime construction activities. All major construction activities must be conducted between 7 am and 7 pm Monday through Friday or 8 am and 5 pm on Saturdays. Major construction activity is not permitted on Sundays. These hours do not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering. Any deviati on from the above hours would be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Scenario 1: Further noise evaluation will be completed as design progresses and best practices to reduce noise will be implemented. Transportation Short-Term (2027) No-Build Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the future due to the presence of Farmington High School. Page 202 of 635 Farmington West Industrial AUAR September 2024 74 Resource Area Mitigation Short-Term (2027) Scenario 1 Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the long-term future due to the presence of Farmington High School. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional westbound left turn lane. Short-Term (2027) Scenario 2 Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored carefully for possible signalization or another change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the long-term future due to the presence of Farmington High School. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional westbound left turn lane. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional southbound left turn lane. An additional eastbound receiving lane will also be required for this. • County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Install separated southbound left and right turn lanes or a ¾ access prohibiting southbound left turns. Long-Term (2040) No-Build Conditions • All Modifications from Short-Term (2027) No-Build Conditions. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions • All Modifications from Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions. • County Highway 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional southbound left turn lane. An additional eastbound receiving lane will also be required for this. • County Highway 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Install separated southbound left and right turn lanes or a ¾ access prohibiting southbound left turns. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 2 Conditions All modifications from Short-Term (2027) Scenario 2 Conditions. Page 203 of 635 Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Report Page 204 of 635 9.29.2023 Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. Prepared for The City of Farmington Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delineation Report Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota Page 205 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Review Team and Contact Information ............................................................................................................................... 3 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.0. Supplementary Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1. Historical Aerial Imagery Review ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delineation Methods ................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 7 4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.0. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ................................................................................................................................. 8 4.0.0. Topography ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.0.1. Soils Data ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.0.2. Water Resources Data .................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1. Hydrology and Aerial Imagery Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.1. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delineation Results ................................................................................................................. 14 4.2.0. Antecedent Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................. 14 4.2.1. Wetland Descriptions ................................................................................................................................................... 14 5. APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 21 6. APPENDIX B: WETLAND DATA SHEETS AND PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................................ 35 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area. Imagery source: Google Satellite ............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. The project area is located within the City of Farmington west of Pilot Knob Road. ............................................ 6 Figure 3. Topography generally slopes towards low areas in the northeastern and northwestern corners of the study area. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database Hydric Soil Classification identified eleven non-hydric/predominantly non-hydric and four Predominantly hydric/hydric soil units in the Study Area. ................................................ 12 Figure 5. Several NWI-mapped wetlands were identified within the Study Area. ................................................................ 13 Page 206 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 2 Figure 6. Four wetlands were delineated within the Study Area. ............................................................................................ 20 Figure 8. Historical Aerial Imagery 1991 - Source: USGS ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9. Historical Aerial Imagery 1997. Source: Metropolitan Council ............................................................................... 22 Figure 10. Historical Aerial Imagery 2003. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 11. Historical Aerial Imagery 2008. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12. Historical Aerial Imagery 2009. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 25 Figure 13. Historical Aerial Imagery 2010. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 26 Figure 14. Historical Aerial Imagery 2012. Source: USGS ........................................................................................................ 27 Figure 15. Historical Aerial Imagery 2013. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 28 Figure 16. Historical Aerial Imagery 2015. Source: FSA ........................................................................................................... 29 Figure 17. Historical Aerial Imagery 2016. Source: Metropolitan Council ............................................................................. 30 List of Tables Table 1. NRCS Soils and Hydric Rating ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. BWSR hydrology assessment with aerial imagery recording form........................................................................... 10 Table 3. Antecedent Precipitation from Minnesota Climatology Working Group ................................................................ 14 Table 4. Delineated Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Page 207 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the City of Farmington with an evalua�on of poten�al exis�ng wetlands and jurisdic�onal waters within the Study Area (Figure 1) that may preclude, constrain, or otherwise affect development on the parcels. The Study Area encompasses three adjacent parcels totaling 169.5 acres. Emmons & Oliver Resources (EOR) will share this report with the appropriate Local Government Unit (LGU) and state agencies from which the need for future work, poten�al permits, concerns, and need for addi�onal coordina�on and consulta�on with the state or LGU will be determined. Conclusions, permi�ng requirements, and recommenda�ons for future work within the Study Area are summarized below. Evalua�on of the Study Area began with a review of exis�ng wetland resources in accordance with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2016 offsite wetland hydrology determina�on technical guidance document. High resolu�on (1-meter) digital eleva�on data, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) hydric soil classifica�on data, Na�onal Wetland Inventory (NWI) Data, Na�onal Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Public Waters Inventory (PWI) data were also reviewed as part of the wetland hydrology determina�on. Results from the offsite wetland analysis iden�fied five suspect areas with the poten�al for suppor�ng wetland hydrology. A Level 2 onsite delinea�on performed by EOR on August 29 and August 30, 2023 iden�fied four wetlands within the Study Area. EOR recommends submital of this report to the LGU to validate the boundary of the delineated wetlands and wetland types. 1.1. Review Team and Contact Informa�on The delinea�on was performed by Chris Long and Joey Castaneda and reviewed by Jimmy Marty of EOR. Wetland Delineators Chris Long, CMWP #1346 clong@eorinc.com Jimmy Marty, CMWP #1322 jmarty@eorinc.com Joey Castaneda jcastaneda@eorinc.com Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR) 1919 University Ave W #300 St. Paul, MN 55104 651.770.8448 Page 208 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 4 Figure 1. Study Area. Imagery source: Google Satellite Page 209 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 5 2. INTRODUCTION The Study Area is located to the west of Pilot Knob Road in Farmington, MN on private land owned by two landowners (Figure 2). The legal descrip�on is the SE ¼ of Sec�on 26 and the NE ¼ of Sec�on 35, Township 114N, Range 20W. The Study Area is comprised of three parcels with Dakota County IDs 14- 02600-85-011, 14-02600-90-010, and 14-63190-00-010. Most of the Study Area consisted of row crop agriculture (corn) during the August 2023 site visits. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conserva�on District is the Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conserva�on Act in the City of Farmington. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delinea�on The BWSR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has established methodology for using aerial imagery to support wetland hydrology determina�ons in cul�vated fields. The methods are outlined in Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/Wetland Determina�ons, dated July 1, 2016. These methods were applied to determine the presence of wetlands in areas of the site that are consistently under cul�va�on. The por�ons of the property that were clearly outside of any poten�al wetlands iden�fied in accordance with BWSR’s 2016 guidance document were deemed as “wetland-free” non-wetland areas. 3.1.0. Supplementary Data Collec�on The following data were collected and reviewed prior to reviewing historical aerial imagery in accordance with BWSR’s 2016 technical guidance document: • MNDNR high resolu�on 1-meter digital eleva�on data and 2-foot eleva�on contours (Figure 3) • Natural Resources Conserva�on Service (NRCS) SSURGO hydric soil classifica�on data (Figure 4) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NWI (Figure 5) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) NHD (Figure 5) • MNDNR Public Waters Inventory (PWI) (Figure 5) 3.1.1. Historical Aerial Imagery Review Historical aerial imagery was acquired for all available years from 1991 to 2021 (Appendix A). Antecedent precipita�on condi�ons for all available imagery were evaluated for the three months preceding photography dates based on data obtained from the Minnesota State Climatology Office. All areas exhibi�ng a poten�al wetland signature were iden�fied in each aerial photograph according to offsite mapping conven�ons outlined in BWSR’s 2016 guidance document. All areas iden�fied as poten�al wetlands were further evaluated with a level 2 delinea�on. Page 210 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 6 Figure 2. The project area is located within the City of Farmington west of Pilot Knob Road. Page 211 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 7 3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delinea�on Methods EOR followed methodology in accordance with the 2016 BWSR/USACE joint technical guidance documenta�on, methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delinea�on Manual, and supplemental methods iden�fied in the Midwest Regional Supplement to delineate wetlands within the Study Area. Paired wetland and upland observa�ons and data were recorded in the field using BioApp’s mobile version of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Automated Wetland Determina�on Data Form – Midwest Region. Sample points and delineated boundaries were collected in the field using corrected differen�al Global Posi�oning System (GPS) and mapped using QGIS v.3.28.10. 3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology EOR conducted field work on August 29 and August 30, 2023, to validate the presence/absence of wetland resources iden�fied through the offsite analysis and to iden�fy wetland boundaries. Several transects were established in representa�ve transi�on zones of the poten�al wetlands. The transects consisted of a sample point in the poten�al wetland, and if wetland criteria were met, a sample point in the upland. Soils, vegeta�on, and hydrology were documented at each sample point and provided in data sheets. Vegetation Observed plant species were iden�fied and assigned corresponding Midwest Region wetland indicator status. The wetland probability indicator status of dominant plant species was determined using the 2020 Na�onal Wetland Plant List v3.5. Soils Soil profiles were collected to a minimum of 24 inches. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Charts. Soils were described to include those hydric indicators immediately below the A- horizon. A hydric soil determina�on was made based upon soil characteriza�on (texture, color), soil order, ponding, and flooding frequency. Hydrology As required in the 1987 Manual, the presence of subsurface hydrology or indicators thereof was characterized in the roo�ng zone to a minimum of 24 inches. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were iden�fied according to the Midwest Regional Supplement. Delineation Boundary Determination Wetland boundaries were determined a�er taking into considera�on the parameters of soil, hydrology, vegeta�on, topography, and professional judgment at paired upland and wetland sample points. Boundary GPS data was collected at sufficient and appropriate intervals, depending on curvature and assumed accuracy. Page 212 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 8 4. RESULTS 4.0. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delinea�on 4.0.0. To pography The Study Area is situated on a gravelly and sandy glaciofluvial/fluvial plain amid low-lying areas adjacent to the North Branch Vermillion River. The north half of the site generally drains to the north, toward the riparian corridor, while the south half of the site drains towards a ditch that winds its way northeast to the same riparian corridor. The highest points in the Study Area are a ridge along the western border and a central knob, which reaches an eleva�on of 950 feet above sea level. The lowest point is the northern end of the ditch at 906 feet (Figure 3). 4.0.1. Soils Data NRCS SSURGO data mapped fi�een soil units within the Study Area. Textures range from clay loams to sandy loams with clay and silt loams occupying the low-lying areas. Eleven non-hydric and predominantly non - hydric soil units make up 108.4 acres or about 57% of the Study Area. The remaining 43% of the Study Area is made up of hydric and predominantly hydric soil units. (Figure 4; Table 1). Hydric ra�ngs were based on those iden�fied in the SSURGO database. Table 1. NRCS Soils and Hydric Ra�ng Unit symbol Soil Unit Name Drainage class Hydric Classifica�on Acreage 208 Kato silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Poorly drained Predominantly Hydric 53.8 301B Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Well drained Not Hydric 25.4 611C Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Excessively drained Not Hydric 25.0 176 Garwin silt loam Poorly drained Predominantly Hydric 20.4 411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Well drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 15.0 411B Waukegan silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Well drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 13.0 611D Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes Excessively drained Not Hydric 12.8 129 Cylinder loam Somewhat poorly drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 5.7 98 Colo silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Poorly drained Predominantly Hydric 5.7 320C2 Tallula silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Well drained Not Hydric 3.8 Page 213 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 9 Unit symbol Soil Unit Name Drainage class Hydric Classifica�on Acreage 411C Waukegan silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Well drained Not Hydric 3 2C Ostrander loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Well drained Not Hydric 2.3 255 Mayer loam Poorly drained Hydric 1.6 39C Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Well drained Not Hydric 1.1 285B Port Byron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Well drained Not Hydric 0.9 4.0.2. Water Resources Data Several NWI mapped wetlands occupy depressions and low-lying areas within the Study Area (Figure 5). A wetland complex associated with the North Branch Vermillion River wraps around the northern sec�on of the Study Area. Emergent wetlands (PEM1C) and shrub wetlands (PSS1Cd) from this complex extend into the Study Area along the northern border. Three emergent wetlands (PEM1C and PEM1A) exist within the central and south-eastern sec�ons of the Study Area. The large ditch throughout the central and south-central sec�ons of the Study Area is iden�fied as a lo�c river throughflow wetland. There are no Public Waters basins or watercourses within the Study Area. The nearest mapped Public Waters water feature is North Branch Vermillion River, which passes about 100 feet from Study Area along it’s northern border. 4.1. Hydrology and Aerial Imagery Analysis EOR reviewed 14 photos from 1991 to 2021, of which seven images had normal antecedent precipita�on levels in the three months preceding the image date (Table 2). Reviewed aerial imagery is provided in Appendix A. Seven poten�al wetland areas were iden�fied during the review. Six out of the seven areas (Area 1 – Area 6) had wetland signatures in more than 50% of the images taken during normal antecedent precipita�on condi�ons. Area 7 had wetland signatures in only 43% of images with normal precipita�on condi�ons. In addi�on, every poten�al wetland area had hydric soils and two of the seven areas had NWI-mapped wetlands. Using the decision matrix on page 16 of the guidance document, Areas 1 – 6 could be confirmed as wetlands without any further inves�ga�on needed, and Area 7 could also be confirmed as a wetland if other hydrology indicators are present onsite. Page 214 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 10 Table 2. BWSR hydrology assessment with aerial imagery recording form Month, Year Image Source Antecedent Precipitation Interpretation (list hydrology indicators observed, e.g. crop stress, drowned out, standing water, etc.) Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 April 1991 USGS Normal NSS NSS NSS NSS NSS NSS NSS April 1997 Metropolitan Council Dry NSS NSS NSS NSS NSS NSS WS May 2003 FSA Normal AP AP CS AP/CS CS NV NV July 2008 FSA Dry AP AP NV NV AP NC NC June 2009 FSA Dry AP AP NV SS NSS NV NV Aug 2010 FSA Wet AP AP AP SS SS SS NSS April 2012 USGS Normal AP AP DO SS SS NSS NSS July 2013 FSA Wet AP AP DO DO WS NSS NSS Sept 2015 FSA Normal AP AP CS AP AP NC NV April 2016 Metropolitan Council Normal AP AP NSS SS AP NC/SS SS Oct 2017 FSA Normal AP AP DO AP/CS AP NC CS April 2019 Dakota County Wet NSS NSS SS SS AP NC/SS SS April 2020 Metropolitan Council Wet AP AP AP AP/SS AP NC/SS NC June 2021 FSA Normal AP AP AP/CS AP AP NC/SS NC/SS # Normal Years 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 # Normal Years with wet signature 6 6 5 6 6 4 3 % Normal Years with wet signature 86% 86% 71% 86% 86% 57% 43% Presence of hydric soils Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Presence of NWI-mapped wetlands Y N N N N Y N Wetland Decision Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators are present 4.1.1. Recommenda�ons Analysis of the topography, soils, water resources, and historical aerial imagery suggest all seven poten�al wetland areas are wetlands. Given the large areal extent of these wetlands, a level 2 inves�ga�on was performed to verify the wetland boundaries within these suspected areas. Page 215 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 11 Figure 3. Topography generally slopes towards low areas in the northeastern and northwestern corners of the study area. Page 216 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 12 Figure 4. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database Hydric Soil Classifica�on iden�fied eleven non-hydric/predominantly non-hydric and four Predominantly hydric/hydric soil units in the Study Area. Page 217 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 13 Figure 5. Several NWI-mapped wetlands were iden�fied within the Study Area. Page 218 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 14 4.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delinea�on Results 4.2.0. Antecedent Precipita�on The site visit was conducted on August 29 and 30, 2023. Antecedent precipita�on data from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group indicated the three month antecedent precipita�on was dry prior to field work; with the previous month also dry (Table 3). At the �me of the delinea�on, the agricultural fields were all planted in corn that was 6-� tall or greater. Table 3. Antecedent Precipita�on from Minnesota Climatology Working Group Precipita�on data for target wetland loca�on: County: Dakota Township number: 114N Township name: Farmington Range number: 20W Nearest community: Farmington Sec�on number: 26 Score using 1991-2020 normal period for August 29 2023 site visit: (Values are in inches) 1st prior month: August 2023 2nd prior month: July 2023 3rd prior month: June 2023 Es�mated precipita�on total for this loca�on: 1.09** 2.37R 2.33R* There is a 30% chance this loca�on will have less than: 3.04 4.00 2.92 There is a 30% chance this loca�on will have more than: 5.16 5.41 5.17 Type of month: dry normal wet dry dry dry Monthly score 3 * 1 = 3 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 1 = 1 Mul�-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 6 (dry) *Totals derived from nearest sta�on with data (within 12 miles) as local totals were not posted at �me of data retrieval 4.2.1. Wetland Descrip�ons EOR iden�fied four wetlands within the Study Area (Figure 6; Table 4). Most of the wetlands were located within previously iden�fied poten�al wetland areas. Addi�onal details of sample points are provided in the data sheets and photographs included in Appendix B. Page 219 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 15 Table 4. Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Wetland Type Area (acres) within Study Area Cowardin et al / NWI Circular 39 Eggers and Reed Wetland 1 PEM1Bf, PEM1Cx Type 2, Type 3 Wet Meadow, Shallow Marsh 1.16 Wetland 2 PEM1Cx, PSS1A Type 3, Type 6 Shallow Marsh, Shrub-Carr 2.11 Wetland 3 PEM1A, PEM1Cd, PEM1Cx, PUBH, PSS1B Type 1, Type 3, Type 4, Type 6 Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh, Deep Marsh, Shrub-Carr 4.92 Wetland 4 PEM1A(f), PEM1B, PEM1C, PSS1C Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 6 Seasonally Flooded Basin, Wet Meadow, Shallow Marsh, Shrub-Carr 11.83 Page 220 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 16 Wetland 1 Es�mated Size: 1.16 Acres Sampling Point(s): W1, U1 Loca�on: The wetland is in a shallow depression at the head of the ditch, in the southeast quadrant of the study area. Classifica�on: Wetland 1 is a fresh wet meadow, that is frequently farmed. It is incompletely drained by a low gradient man-made ditch that exhibits characteris�cs of a shallow marsh community. Vegeta�ve Cover: Vegeta�ve cover consisted of weedy wetland species such as reed canary grass and smartweed, with giant reed and beggar’s �ck in the ditch, and upland species such as goldenrod, smooth brome, and horseweed. Dominant Wetland Vegeta�on: Reed canary grass (FACW) Defined Soil Type: Kato Silty Clay Loam Observed Soil Textures: Loam to Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Thick Dark Surface (A12) Secondary Hydrology Indicators: - Geomorphic Posi�on (D2) - FAC -neutral test (D5) Hydrology Source(s): Surface run-off from surrounding cul�vated land Comments: The ditch does not con�nue through the wetland. It is culverted at the eastern end of the wetland and presumably outlets somewhere west of the Study Area. Wetland Boundary Determina�on The wetland edge was located following the con�guous stand of dominant reed canary grass and avoiding upland species such as Canada goldenrod and smooth brome. Page 221 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 17 Wetland 2 Es�mated Size: 2.11 Acres Sampling Point(s): W2, U2 Loca�on: This wetland is located in the central southern por�on of the Study Area. Classifica�on: Wetland 2 is along low-gradient ditch that has acquired wetland characteris�cs of a shallow marsh/shrub-carr due to near constant inunda�on and slow water movement. Vegeta�ve Cover: Vegeta�on consists of disturbance-related wetland species including; reed canary grass, giant reed, narrowleaf catail, and beggar’s �ck. The northern end of this wetland is shrub-carr dominated by common buckthorn. Dominant Wetland Vegeta�on: Reed canary grass (FACW) Defined Soil Type: Garwin silty clay loam Observed Soils: clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Thick Dark Surface (A12) Secondary Hydrology Indicators: - Geomorphic Posi�on (D2) - FAC -neutral test (D5) Hydrology Source(s): Surface run-off from surrounding cul�vated land that is collected and channeled in the ditch Comments: The wide uncul�vated border next to the ditch (represented by sample point U2) had some wetland characteris�cs, but did not meet all three indicators to be able to classify this area as a wetland. Wetland Boundary Determina�on Wetland boundary was located at the top of bank along the ditch edge. Page 222 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 18 Wetland 3 Es�mated Size: 4.92 Acres Sampling Point(s): W3, U3, W4, U4 Loca�on: This wetland occupies the lower third of the ditch and the mosaic of wetlands around the northeastern end of the Study Area. Classifica�on: Wetland 3 consists of a mosaic of wetland types. The lower end of the ditch has shallow marsh characteris�cs with seasonally flooded basins in adjoining low areas. The mosaic of wetlands in the northeast corner includes shrub-carr, shallow marsh, and deep marsh types. Vegeta�ve Cover: Vegeta�ve cover was dense and o�en dominated by reed canary grass. Shrubs consisted of common buckthorn, box elder, and various willows. Dominant Wetland Vegeta�on: Reed canary grass (FAC W), common buckthorn (FAC), sandbar willow (FACW), box elder (FAC), and black willow (OBL). Defined Soil Type: Kato silty clay loam Observed Soils: clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Thick Dark Surface (A12) Secondary Hydrology Indicators: - Geomorphic Posi�on (D2) - FAC -neutral test (D5) Hydrology Source(s): Surface run-off from cul�vated land to the south and surface water that is flowing down the ditch. Comments: Wetland Boundary Determina�on The wetland boundary was located at the top of bank along the ditch edge. Two uncul�vated sec�ons adjacent to the ditch were incorporated because they were confirmed to be wetland by sample point W4 and the previous L1 analysis. Along the northeastern boundary, the wetland boundary was determined by dominance of upland goldenrod species and smooth brome vs dominance by reed canary grass. Page 223 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 19 Wetland 4 Es�mated Size: 11.75 Acres Sampling Point(s): W5, W5b, W6, U6, W7, U7 Loca�on: The wetland is located on the edge of a large wetland complex that borders the Study Area to the north. Classifica�on: Wetland 4 consists of a variety of wetland types including par�ally farmed seasonally flooded basin that grades into wet meadow followed by near con�nuously saturated areas of shrub-carr and shallow marsh. Vegeta�ve Cover: The vegeta�on at most of the sample points was heavily disturbed by farming ac�vity. However adjacent unmanaged areas were composed of thick reed canary grass and catails, as well as dense shrubs including; willows, buckthorn and wild grape vines. Dominant Wetland Vegeta�on: reed canary grass (FACW), yellow nut sedge (FACW), peach-leaf willow (FACW), wild cucumber (FACW), Defined Soil Type: Garwin silty clay loam; Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Observed Soils: loam and clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Thick Dark Surface (A12), Redox Dark Surface (F6) Secondary Hydrology Indicators: - Geomorphic Posi�on (D2) - FAC -neutral test (D5) Hydrology Source(s): Surface run-off from cul�vated lands to the south and water flow from wide swales extending west of the Project Area. Comments: Wetland Boundary Determina�on The wetland boundary was determined primarily from satura�on on recent aerial images examined during the level 1 delinea�on, and from LiDAR-derived contours that indicated the base of the slope and likely flowpaths. Page 224 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 20 Figure 6. Four wetlands were delineated within the Study Area. Page 225 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 21 5. APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGE REVIEW Figure 7. Historical Aerial Imagery 1991 - Source: USGS Page 226 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 22 Figure 8. Historical Aerial Imagery 1997. Source: Metropolitan Council Page 227 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 23 Figure 9. Historical Aerial Imagery 2003. Source: FSA Page 228 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 24 Figure 10. Historical Aerial Imagery 2008. Source: FSA Page 229 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 25 Figure 11. Historical Aerial Imagery 2009. Source: FSA Page 230 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 26 Figure 12. Historical Aerial Imagery 2010. Source: FSA Page 231 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 27 Figure 13. Historical Aerial Imagery 2012. Source: USGS Page 232 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 28 Figure 14. Historical Aerial Imagery 2013. Source: FSA Page 233 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 29 Figure 15. Historical Aerial Imagery 2015. Source: FSA Page 234 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 30 Figure 16. Historical Aerial Imagery 2016. Source: Metropolitan Council Page 235 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 31 Figure 18. Historical Aerial Imagery 2017. Source: FSA Page 236 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 32 Figure 19. Historical Aerial Imagery 2019. Source: Dakota County Page 237 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 33 Figure 20. Historical Aerial Imagery 2020. Source: Metropolitan Council Page 238 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 34 Figure 21. Historical Aerial Imagery 2021. Source: FSA Page 239 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 35 6. APPENDIX B: WETLAND DATA SHEETS AND PHOTOGRAPHS WETLAND 1 Wet Meadow, Shallow Marsh W1, U1 Page 240 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota W1 Chris Long CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 35 T114N R020W Depression None 0-2 44.642686 -93.180649 WGS84 Kato silty clay loam Wetland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 1 100.00 015 0.00 0.00 95.00 190.00 0.000.00 5.00 20.00 0 0.00 0.005100.00 210.00 Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FACW Persicaria pensylvanica 5 N FACW 2.1 Solidago canadensis 3NFACU Erigeron canadensis N FACU ✔ ✔ 2 ✔ 100.030 ✔0 Page 241 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W1 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 L 11-22 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 22-30 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 CM CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 242 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota U1 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 35 T114N R020W Toeslope None 3-7 44.642547 -93.180730 WGS84 Kato silty clay loam Wetland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 2 50.00 015 0.00 0.00 44.00 88.00 0.000.00 56.00 224.00 0 0.00 0.005100.00 312.00 Solidago canadensis 50 Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea 44 Y FACW 3.12 Cirsium arvense 4NFACU Asclepias syriaca N FACU2 100.030 ✔0 Page 243 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U1 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 L 14-24 10YR 2/1 100 SIL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ No depleted soil layer was encountered, but Thick Dark Surface was assumed based on the value and chroma of the recorded soils. ✔ Page 244 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 36 Photograph 1. Sample Point W1 Photograph 2. Sample Point U1 Page 245 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 37 Photograph 3. View of Wetland 1, south of the ditch, facing west. Page 246 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 46 WETLAND 2 Shallow Marsh, Shrub-Carr W2, U2 Page 247 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota W2 Chris Long, CMWP #1346 sec 35 T114N R020W Channel Concave 3-7 44.644109 -93.183358 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam R2UBFx ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 1 100.00 015 0.00 0.00 98.00 196.00 3.001.00 1.00 4.00 0 0.00 0.005100.00 203.00 Phalaris arundinacea 98 Y FACW Ambrosia trifida 1 N FAC 2.03 Asclepias syriaca 1NFACU ✔ ✔ ✔ 100.030 ✔0 Page 248 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W2 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 CL 24-28 2.5Y 5/2 95 2.5Y 6/4 5 CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Depleted layer encountered, thick Dark Surface assumed Page 249 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota U2 Chris Long CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 35 T114N R020W Depression None 0-2 44.644157 -93.183112 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 2 50.00 015 0.00 0.00 35.00 70.00 0.000.00 58.00 232.00 0 0.00 0.00593.00 302.00 Trifolium hybridum 55 Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea 25 Y FACW 3.25 Salix interior 7NFACW Geum aleppicum N FACW Solidago canadensis 3 3 N FACU 93.030 ✔0 Page 250 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U2 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 CL 12-24 10YR 5/1 100 CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 251 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 47 Photograph 4. Sample Point W2 along ditch edge. Photograph 5. Sample Point U2. Page 252 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 48 Photograph 6. View of Wetland 2. The ditch is in the center of the image overgrown with vegeta�on. Page 253 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 49 WETLAND 3 Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh, Shallow Open Water, Shrub-Carr W3, U3, W4, U4 Page 254 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota W3 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Toeslope None 0-2 44.648324 -93.178338 WGS84 Kato silty clay loam None ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 2 2 100.00 015 Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC Salix bebbiana 5 N FACW 6.00 6.00 Salix nigra 5 N OBL 104.00 208.00 Cornus alba 4 N FACW 45.0015.00 0.00 0.00 29.0 1.00 5.005126.00 264.00 Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FACW Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW 2.1 Lobelia siphilitica 1NOBL Leucanthemum vulgare NUPL ✔ 1 ✔ 97.030 ✔0 Page 255 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W3 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 L 12-23 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M/PL SL 23-29 10Y 6/1 60 7.5YR 5/6 40 CM SL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 256 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota U3 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Toeslope None 0-2 44.648232 -93.178349 WGS84 Kato silty clay loam None ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 0 1 0.00 015 0.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 0.000.00 98.00 392.00 0 0.00 0.005102.00 400.00 Solidago altissima 93 Y FACU Bromus inermis 3 N FACU 3.92 Helianthus grosseserratus 2NFACW Asclepias syriaca N FACU2 100.0 2 30 Vitis riparia N FACW ✔2.0 Page 257 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U3 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 L 14-24 10YR 4/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M/PL L ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 258 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 50 Photograph 7. Sample Point W3. Photograph 8. Sample Point U3. Page 259 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota W4 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Terrace None 0-2 44.647662 -93.179407 WGS84 Kato silty clay loam Wetland, R2UBFx ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 4 4 100.00 015 Salix interior 15 Y FACW Acer negundo 9 Y FAC 7.00 7.00 Salix nigra 7 Y OBL 113.00 226.00 27.009.00 2.00 8.00 31.0 0.00 0.005131.00 268.00 Phalaris arundinacea 95 Y FACW Equisetum pratense 3 N FACW 2.05 Solidago altissima 2NFACU ✔ ✔ 100.030 ✔0 Page 260 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W4 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 L 12-24 10YR 2/1 100 CL 24-31 10YR 2/1 60 5Y 5/1 35 CM CL 7.5YR 5/8 5 M CLC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Soil transitioning to depleted matrix. Thick Dark Surface assumed. Page 261 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota U2 Chris Long CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 35 T114N R020W Depression None 0-2 44.644157 -93.183112 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 2 50.00 015 0.00 0.00 35.00 70.00 0.000.00 58.00 232.00 0 0.00 0.00593.00 302.00 Trifolium hybridum 55 Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea 25 Y FACW 3.25 Salix interior 7NFACW Geum aleppicum N FACW Solidago canadensis 3 3 N FACU 93.030 ✔0 Page 262 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U2 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 CL 12-24 10YR 5/1 100 CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 263 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 51 Photograph 9. Sample Point W4. Photograph 10. Sample Point U4. Page 264 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 52 WETLAND 4 Seasonally Flooded Basin, Wet Meadow, Shallow Marsh, Shrub-Carr W5, W5B, W6, U6, W7, U7 Page 265 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-30 City of Farmington Minnesota W5 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Baseslope None 0-2 44.650330 -93.186839 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 2 2 100.00 015 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 45.0015.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00565.00 145.00 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW Cyperus esculentus 20 Y FACW 2.23 Setaria pumila 10 N FAC Panicum capillare NFAC✔ ✔ 5 ✔ 65.030 ✔0 35% bare ground Page 266 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W5 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 L 14-24 10YR 2/1 100 CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ No depleted layer encountered. Thick Dark Surface assumed. Page 267 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-29 City of Farmington Minnesota W5b Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Toeslope None 3-7 44.650096 -93.186877 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ This point was originally thought to be an upland point, but was revised after Amaranthus sp. was more accurately identified as the wetland obligate; waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). The wetland boundary was adjusted to more closely match the L1 boundary. 30 2 2 100.00 015 15.00 15.00 16.00 32.00 0.000.00 5.00 20.00 0 0.00 0.00536.00 67.00 Amaranthus tuberculatus 15 Y OBL Cyperus esculentus 12 Y FACW 1.86 Phalaris arundinacea 4NFACW Rumex acetosella N FACU ✔ Taraxacum officinale ✔ 3 2 N FACU ✔ 36.030 ✔0 Page 268 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W5b 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 14-24 10YR 2/1 100 CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ No depleted layer encountered. Thick Dark Surface assumed. Page 269 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 53 Photograph 11. Sample Point W5. Photograph 12. Sample Point U5. Page 270 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-30 City of Farmington Minnesota W6 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Baseslope None 0-2 44.651330 -93.185941 WGS84 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Wetland, PEM1Cd ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 Salix amygdaloides 20 Y FACW 3 3 100.00 20.015 6.00 6.00 130.00 260.00 0.000.00 15.00 60.00 0 0.00 0.005151.00 326.00 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW Echinocystis lobata 30 Y FACW 2.16 Taraxacum officinale 15 N FACU Typha angustifolia NOBL✔ ✔ 6 ✔ 131.030 ✔0 Page 271 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W6 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 3/4 5 C M/PL L 12-31 10YR 2/1 100 L ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 272 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-30 City of Farmington Minnesota U6 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Baseslope None 0-2 44.651166 -93.185897 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 Populus deltoides 40 Y FAC 3 Acer negundo 30 YFAC 3 100.00 70.015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 465.00155.00 15.00 60.00 0 0.00 0.005170.00 525.00 Poa pratensis 80 Y FAC Taraxacum officinale 15 N FACU 3.09 Plantago major 5NFAC ✔ 100.030 ✔0 Page 273 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U6 -13 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 13-26 10YR 2/1 100 CL 26-32 10YR 5/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 CM CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 274 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 54 Photograph 13. Sample Point W6. Photograph 14. Sample Point U6. Page 275 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-30 City of Farmington Minnesota W7 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Baseslope None 0-2 44.651696 -93.184364 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30 1 1 100.00 015 Salix interior 4 N FACW 2.00 2.00 98.00 196.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 0.00 0.005100.00 198.00 Phalaris arundinacea 94 Y FACW Typha angustifolia 2 N OBL 1.98 ✔ ✔ ✔ 96.030 ✔0 Page 276 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) W7 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 L 8-22 10YR 2/1 100 CL 22-28 10YR 6/2 98 10YR 7/8 2 CM CL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 277 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Pilot Knob Road Delineation Dakota County 2023-08-30 City of Farmington Minnesota U7 Chris Long, CMWP #1346, Joey Castaneda sec 26 T114N R020W Toeslope None 0-2 44.651379 -93.184454 WGS84 Garwin silty clay loam None ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Vegetation is significantly disturbed, but even assuming hydrophytic vegetation, there is no wetland hydrology. 30 0 1 0.00 015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.002.00 0.00 0.00 0 100.00 500.005102.00 506.00 Zea mays 100 Y UPL Panicum capillare 2 N FAC 4.96 102.030 ✔0 Vegetation is significantly disturbed. Page 278 of 635 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – 9HUVLRQ SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, 06 0DVNHG Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dark Surface (S7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stripped Matrix (S6) U7 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 L 14-26 10YR 7/2 100 SL ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Page 279 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 55 Photograph 15. Sample Point W7. Photograph 16. Sample Point U7. Page 280 of 635 Pilot Knob Road Wetland Delinea�on September 29, 2023 EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 56 Photograph 17. View of Wetland 4 looking east near sample point W6. The wetland edge was delineated approximately following the border of the shrubs and unmowed grasses. Page 281 of 635 Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Page 282 of 635 Traffic Analysis Farmington West Industrial Traffic Impact Analysis FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA AUGUST 2024 Prepared By: Page 283 of 635 1 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 6 5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 39 APPENDICIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 EXHIBITS (SEE APPENDIX A) EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA EXHIBIT 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION CONTROL AND GEOMETRY EXHIBIT 3: EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 4: BACKGROUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL BACKGROUND TRIPS EXHIBIT 6: 2027 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 7: 2040 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 9: SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS EXHIBIT 10: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 11: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCEANRIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 12: SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS EXHIBIT 13: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 14: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCEANRIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Page 284 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report serves as the traffic analysis for the Farmington West AUAR. The Farmington West site is located in the City of Farmington, Minnesota, and bordered by Flagstaff Avenue to the west, CSAH 50 to the south, and CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to the east. The area is currently agricultural land. The traffic impacts of the two potential development scenarios are analyzed within this report. The location of the development is provided in Exhibit 1. The forthcoming traffic analysis focused on three analysis years: the existing conditions (2024), anticipated opening year of the proposed development (2027), and a long term “design year” (2040) which will demonstrate the effects of the fully completed development on the adjacent roadway system with future growth. 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by the AUAR guidelines. The following specific information, per AUAR recommended content, should be provided: • A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the AUAR development) traffic volumes; • Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for each major development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included; • Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times at critical points (if any); • A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate problems. Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion problems, as well as ADTs (average daily traffic). Page 285 of 635 3 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE LOCATION The Farmington West site is located in the City of Farmington, Minnesota, and bordered by Flagstaff Avenue to the west, CSAH 50 to the south, and CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to the east. The area is currently used for agricultural purposes. In this analysis, two development scenarios are analyzed: Scenario 1 consists of a Technology Center which would total about 3,000,000 square feet in area. Scenario 2 includes a total of 2,968,000 square feet of general industrial. 2.2 SITE CIRCULATION Access to the site will be provided by three access points, along the following roadways: • Flagstaff Avenue, opposite 211th Street W • CSAH 50 at what is currently Flagstaff Avenue • Pilot Knob Road, opposite 208th Street W All proposed access points are at existing intersections. 2.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE Currently, the AUAR site is used for agriculture. There are two scenarios included in the AUAR. Scenario 1 would see the construction of a technology park that totals 3,000,000 Square Feet. Scenario 2 would see an industrial park constructed, being similar in size at 2,968,000 Square Feet. Table 1 provides a summary of the two development scenarios. TABLE 1: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Scenario 1 Technology Park 3,000,000 Square Feet Scenario 2 Industrial Area 2,968,000 Square Feet The development of the AUAR site is anticipated to be completed by 2027. 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Major characteristics of these roadways are summarized in Table 2. The existing intersection geometry and control is shown in Exhibit 2. CSAH 50 (212th Street W) is an east-west County Highway which is a two-lane undivided roadway west of CSAH 23, becoming a two-lane divided roadway east of CSAH 23 and then a four-lane divided roadway 0.3 miles east of CSAH 23. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions CSAH 50 as a future “Other Arterial”. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT) Page 286 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 4 of 16,200 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2023 east of Cedar Avenue. The posted speed limit on CSAH 50 is 55 mph. Pilot Knob Road is a north-south two-lane divided county highway near the study area. North of 206th Street, it is an undivided roadway. CSAH 31 travels along Pilot Knob Road until its end at CSAH 50. South of CSAH 50, Demark Avenue is CSAH 31. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions Pilot Knob Road Street as a future A-Minor Expander, with a planned connection to the future TH 50 expansion to the south. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 6,600 vpd in 2022 North of CSAH 50. The posted speed limit on Pilot Knob Road is 55 mph. CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) is a north-south four-lane divided county roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a Principal Arterial in the near-term future. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 15,200 vpd north of CSAH 50 and 11,300 vpd south of CSAH 50, as of 2023. The posted speed limit on Cedar Avenue is 55 mph. Flagstaff Avenue is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a major collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 3,600 vpd north of 208th Street, as of 2023. The posted speed limit Flagstaff Avenue is 55 mph. Denmark Avenue / Akin Road is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan envisions the roadway as a future Major Collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 5,200 vpd on Akin Road north of CSAH 50 and 6,600 on Demark Avenue south of CSAH 50, as of 2023. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Eaton Avenue is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway. The Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies the roadway as a minor collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 1,400 vpd north of CSAH 50, as of 2023. 200th Street is a two-lane undivided roadway which runs east-west. The Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan classifies the roadway as a minor collector. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 2,400 east of Cedar Avenue, as of 2021. There is no posted speed limit, so it is treated as 55 mph for analysis purposes. A disconnected section of 200th Street is west of Pilot Knob Road, with an AADT of 900 as of 2023. Fairgreen Avenue is an unpaved local roadway which is the location of a proposed site access. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 32 north of CSAH 50, as of 2023. There is no posted speed limit. Page 287 of 635 5 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS STREET NAME DESIGNATION FUNCITONAL CLASSIFICATION (1) NUMBER OF LANES POSTED SPEED MEDIAN 212th Street W CSAH 50 Other Arterial 2-4 (2) 55 mph Yes (2) Pilot Knob Road CSAH 31 “A” Minor Expander 2 55 mph No Cedar Avenue CSAH 23 Principal Arterial 4 55 mph Yes Flagstaff Avenue -- Major Collector 2 55 mph No Denmark Avenue CSAH 31 Major Collector 2 50 mph No Eaton Avenue -- Minor Collector 2 -- No 200th Street W CR 64 Minor Collector 2 -- No (1) From Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan (2) CSAH 50 is four lane divided roadway east of Cedar Avenue, throughout the study area. 3.2 STUDY AREA The proposed development would be located north of CSAH 50 between Flagstaff Avenue and Pilot Knob Road in Farmington, Minnesota. The surrounding roadway network consists of Minnesota State Highways (known as Trunk Highways and abbreviated TH) under MnDOT jurisdiction as well as local roads under jurisdiction of the City of Farmington, and county roads under Dakota County Jurisdiction, many of which are County State Aid Highways (CSAHs). The following intersections will be included in the traffic capacity analysis: • CSAH 50 (212th Street W) & CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) • Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W • CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue • Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street • CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue (Future Access Point) • CSAH 50 & CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) • CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue • CSAH 50 & CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue)/Akin Road The study intersections listed above are shown in Exhibit 1. 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained from the MnDOT’s Transportation Data and Analysis Traffic Volume Maps. Daily volumes for existing roadways within the study area are summarized in Table 3. Note that Pilot Knob Road does not have AADT data for 2023 so data from 2022 is reported instead. Page 288 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 6 TABLE 3: EXISTING AADT VOLUMES ROADWAY FROM TO AADT VOLUME (Year of Data) Cedar Avenue 215th Street CSAH 50 11,300 (2023) CSAH 50 205th Street 15,200 (2023) CSAH 50 Cedar Avenue Pilot Knob Road 16,200 (2023) Pilot Knob Road Denmark Avenue 16,300 (2023) Pilot Knob Road CSAH 50 195th Street 6,600 (2022) Denmark Avenue 220th Street CSAH 50 6,600 (2023) Akin Road CSAH 50 195th Street W 5,200 (2023) Flagstaff Avenue CSAH 50 200th Street 3,600 (2023) Eaton Avenue CSAH 50 208th Street 1,400 (2023) Fairgreen Avenue CSAH 50 210th Street W 32 (2023) Kimley-Horn collected turning movement counts (TMCs) at the following study intersections on Thursday, March 14, 2024: • CSAH 50 (212th Street W) & CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) • Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W • CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue • Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street • CSAH 50 & CSAH 23 (Cedar Avenue) • CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue • CSAH 50 & CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue)/Akin Road Traffic data was not collected at Fairgreen Avenue because it is utilized only by a few homes and sees negligible turning movements. The AM peak hour of the network was determined to be 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM while the network PM peak hour was determined to be 4:15 to 5:15 PM. Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the 2024 Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes. 4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 4.1 FUTURE BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT AND ROADWAY CHANGES The City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan were reviewed for future projects which are anticipated to have a significant impact on the study roadways or the future traffic volumes. There are some notable changes which will affect the way the volumes develop, but none will affect the geometry or control of the study intersections. There are some background developments in the area which are anticipated to have some impact on the volumes at the study intersections. The traffic from the following background developments was added to the roadway network: Page 289 of 635 7 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 • The Vitta Attiva development will include 141 single-family detached housing units for senior living and 48 townhomes for senior living. It is estimated to be completed by Opening Year (2027). This development is located south of CSAH 50 between Pilot Knob Road and Eaton Avenue. • A 168-unit apartment building is planned for the area south of CSAH 50 between Eaton Avenue and Denmark Avenue. The distribution of trips to these background developments is shown in Exhibit 4. The total peak hour background development trips are shown in Exhibit 5. 4.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING Background traffic volumes were developed for the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2040 No-Build traffic conditions. The following provides a summary of the background volume development. Growth rates of the surrounding roadways were calculated using the projected 2040 Traffic Volumes shown in the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan. The Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan projected the volumes using a travel demand model, based on the most recent AADT data available at the time (2015), while the Dakota County 2040 transportation plan was based on AADTs from 2019. The Existing AADT at the time of the report and the forecasted 2040 AADTs included in the report are shown below in Table 4. TABLE 4: AADT GROWTH ANALYSIS Roadway Location Description Begin Year Begin AADT Grown Year Grown AADT Growth Source CSAH 50 Near Flagstaff Ave 2015 14,600 2040 17,300 0.7% (1) CSAH 50 Near Easton Ave 2015 15,700 2040 19,000 0.8% (1) CSAH 50 East of Denmark Ave 2015 12,300 2040 15,500 0.9% (1) Pilot Knob Rd South of CR 64 2015 6,700 2040 11,900 2.3% (1) Flagstaff Ave North of CSAH 50 2016 2,750 (3) 2040 4,800 2.3% (1) Akin Rd South of CR 64 2016 5,300 (3) 2040 5,600 0.2% (1) CSAH 50 East of Cedar Ave 2019 14,800 2040 13,800 -0.3% (2) CSAH 50 Near Pilot Knob Rd 2019 13,800 2040 11,800 -0.7% (2) CSAH 50 East of Denmark Ave 2019 11,300 2040 10,300 -0.4% (2) Pilot Knob Rd North of CSAH 50 2019 6,500 2040 12,600 3.2% (2) Cedar Ave North of CR 64 2019 20,300 2040 42,000 3.5% (2) Cedar Ave South of CR 78 2019 5,800 2040 6,400 0.5% (2) Denmark Ave South of CSAH 50 2019 7,400 2040 5,400 -1.5% (2) 200th St W East of Cedar Avenue 2019 1,750 2040 4,000 4.0% (2) Selected Annual Growth Rate 1.5% (1) City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Met Council Forecasts) (2) Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan (Travel Demand Model “Build” Scenario with CSAH 70/CR 74 Connection) (3) MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application Page 290 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 8 Growth rates in the area are anticipated to vary between -1.5% and 3.5% based on the data shown in Table 1. Some roadways such as CSAH 50 showed little to no projected growth based on the AADT projections. Other roadways are expected to see significant increases in traffic volumes according to the forecasts. Since growth of these side streets is primarily dependent on the turning movement volumes along CSAH 50, a single unified growth rate was applied. It was determined that a 1.5% annual growth rate is most appropriate for the area based on the projections in the table above. Note that while growth along some of the roads may be slightly underrepresented by this growth rate, this method gives a conservative estimate along CSAH 50 and other roadways. Met Council forecasts of the City of Farmington’s population show a projected increase from 24,300 in 2020 to 32,500 in 2040, equivalent to a about 1.5% annual population growth. This aligns with the selected growth rate and supports that this rate is an accurate estimate for the increase in traffic levels due to background growth. The future background traffic volumes were calculated by applying the selected 1.5% annual growth rate to the Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes (Exhibit 3) and adding the background development trips in Exhibit 5. The Opening Year (2027) No-Build peak hour traffic volumes are given in Exhibit 6. The 2040 No-Build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 7. Dakota County anticipates a corridor connection between CSAH 70 (at Cedar Avenue) to County Road 74 in Farmington (at TH 3) to be completed in the future. The completion of this corridor is anticipated to have a significant impact on the traffic along CSAH 50, with a reduction along CSAH 50 anticipated as a result of this development. However, the timeline and details of this proposed corridor are largely uncertain at this point, and it is difficult to estimate the exact impact of the proposed corridor on the traffic patterns along CSAH 50. The traffic forecasts included in the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan were the “Build” forecasts, with these forecasts being calculated under the assumption that the connection will be completed. The selected growth rate of 1.5% generally aligns with the “Base” scenario forecasts of the Dakota County Travel demand model, which excluded the connection. 4.3 ANTICIPATED TRIP GENERATION Trip generation forecasts for the proposed development are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. Based on a comparison of Table 5 to Tables 6, trip generation for the proposed site is anticipated to be significantly lower in Scenario 1. The trip generation for Scenario 1 is shown below in Table 5. Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 5,130 daily trips, including 510 in the AM peak hour and 540 in the PM peak hour. TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY – SCENARIO 1 Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Technology Park 150 – Warehousing 3,000 kSF 5,130 393 117 510 151 389 540 The trip generation for Scenario 2 is shown below in Table 6. Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 10,002 daily trips, including 1,009 in the AM peak hour and the same amount during the PM peak hour. Page 291 of 635 9 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 6: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY – SCENARIO 2 Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Industrial Park 130 – Industrial Park 2,968 kSF 10,002 817 192 1,009 222 787 1,009 Comparing the two scenarios, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate an additional 4,872 daily trips, 499 AM peak hour trips, and 469 PM peak hour trips compared to Scenario 1. 4.4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of site traffic for the proposed development onto the surrounding roadway network was based on turning movement counts and a general review of the study area. Site traffic was assigned to/from the site based on review of the nearby traffic patterns, and a general assessment of the major regional roadways. Since both development scenarios are industrial uses, they are anticipated to have the same global distribution. The following overall global distribution was applied: • 40% to/from the south on Cedar Avenue (for CSAH 70) • 20% to/from the north on Cedar Avenue (5% via 200th Street/Flagstaff Avenue) • 15% to/from the north on Pilot Knob Road • 10% to/from the east on CSAH 50 • 5% to/from the west on CSAH 50 • 5% to/from the north on Flagstaff Avenue • 5% to/from the south on Denmark Avenue Proposed site traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadway network and study intersections by applying the trip distribution provided in Exhibit 8 to the trip generation forecast for the Development Scenario as provided in Tables 5, and 6 for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. The total peak hour trips anticipated for Scenario 1 is shown in Exhibit 9. The Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 traffic volumes (Exhibit 10) were calculated by adding the Year 2027 No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 6) and the site trips for Scenario 1 (Exhibit 9). The Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 traffic volumes (Exhibit 11) were calculated by adding the Year 2040 No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 7) and the site trips for Scenario 1 (Exhibit 9). The total peak hour trips anticipated for Scenario 2 is shown in Exhibit 12. The Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 traffic volumes (Exhibit 13) were calculated by adding the Year 2027 No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 6) and the site trips for Scenario 2 (Exhibit 12). The Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 traffic volumes (Exhibit 14) were calculated by adding the Year 2040 No-Build traffic volumes (Exhibit 7) and the site trips for Scenario 2 (Exhibit 12). Page 292 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 10 5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 5.1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS The analysis years included in this report include Existing (2024), the opening year (2027) of the proposed development, and a long-term design year (2040). Table 7 describes the conditions analyzed for the updated AUAR traffic analysis. Note that the intersection of CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue was not analyzed in the Existing and No-Build conditions because the number of turning movements is negligible. TABLE 7: ANALYSIS CONDITION SUMMARY CONDITION VOLUME AND ROADWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS Condition 1 Existing (2024) VOLUMES: Existing traffic volumes, as counted in March 2024. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing Roadway Network. Condition 2 Opening Year (2027) No-Build VOLUMES: Condition 1 traffic volumes grown to 2027 with 1.5% annual growth (as determined in section 4.2) plus traffic from background developments discussed in section 4.1. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing Roadway Network plus new south leg of CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road intersection, for background development. Condition 3 Design Year (2040) No-Build VOLUMES: Condition 1 traffic volumes grown to 2040 with 1.5% annual growth (as determined in section 4.2) plus traffic from background developments discussed in section 4.1. ROADWAY NETWORK: Condition 2 roadway network. Condition 4 Opening Year (2027) Build Scenario 1 VOLUMES: Condition 2 Traffic Volumes; addition of Scenario 1 site Traffic. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus south leg of Pilot Knob & CSAH 50 intersection and three new site accesses. Condition 5 Design Year (2040) Build Scenario 1 VOLUMES: Condition 2 Traffic Volumes; addition of Scenario 1 site traffic. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus south leg of Pilot Knob & CSAH 50 intersection and three new site accesses. Addition of second westbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Condition 6 Opening Year (2027) Build Scenario 2 VOLUMES: Condition 2 Traffic Volumes; addition of Scenario 2 site Traffic. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus south leg of Pilot Knob & CSAH 50 intersection and three new site accesses. Condition 7 Design Year (2040) Build Scenario 2 VOLUMES: Condition 2 Traffic Volumes; addition of Scenario 2 site traffic. ROADWAY NETWORK: Existing network plus south leg of Pilot Knob & CSAH 50 intersection and three new site accesses. Addition of second westbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue, along with an additional eastbound receiving lane to support the southbound left turn lanes. Page 293 of 635 11 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE OVERVIEW An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections for the seven (7) scenarios listed in Table 7. The capacity analysis was performed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and traffic modeling software was used to determine intersection delay and level of service (LOS). LOS is a quantitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection or along a roadway segment. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum acceptable level of operation at an intersection in the Twin Cities Metro area. Each study signalized and stop-controlled intersection was analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual using Synchro 12/SimTraffic software. For unsignalized intersections, the worst movement delay and LOS was reported instead of the overall intersection delay and LOS. This was done to ensure that the mainline LOS did not hide any potential issues on the minor street. The overall intersection LOS was reported for signalized intersections. Table 8 provides the LOS grading criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections. For the purposes of this traffic analysis, it was assumed that acceptable level of service for the overall intersection is LOS D or better and the acceptable level of service for an individual movement is LOS E or better. TABLE 8: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/veh icle) at: Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A 0 – 10 0 – 10 B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35 D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55 E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80 F > 50 > 80 5.3 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for 2024 Existing traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine existing operating conditions. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 3. Existing intersection control and geometry was assumed for this analysis, as shown in Exhibit 2. Table 9 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, all movements operate at an acceptable LOS except for the eastbound and westbound left turns at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue which currently operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This level of delay is not atypical of left turn movements at busy intersections. Page 294 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 12 TABLE 9: EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 46.9 D 36.7 D 4.7 A 26.2 C WB 44.6 D 26.3 C 10.2 B NB 46.0 D 34.5 C 5.4 A SB 43.3 D 19.9 B 3.7 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 6.3 A 1.3 A 0.4 A 16.5 C WB 0.0 A 2.5 A 2.4 A NB 5.9 A 16.5 C 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 4.7 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 21.5 C - - 6.4 A 21.5 C WB - - - - - - NB 13.0 B 2.3 A - - SB - - 1.7 A 0.6 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 31.9 C 6.0 A - - 11.7 B WB - - 12.7 B 4.4 A NB - - - - - - SB 23.5 C - - 8.2 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 7.1 A WB 7.1 A - - 2.4 A NB - - 1.5 A 0.8 A SB 1.2 A 0.6 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 6.6 A 3.3 A 2.9 A 4.5 A WB 6.6 A 4.9 A 4.6 A NB 22.2 C 11.6 B 7.3 A SB 17.4 C - - 7.2 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 36.0 D 14.1 B 5.2 A 18.9 B WB 31.8 C 18.9 B 5.1 A NB 32.3 C 28.6 C 4.2 A SB 33.0 C 32.9 C 5.8 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 295 of 635 13 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 9: EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 60.4 E 46.2 D 6.0 A 34.0 C WB 79.3 E 46.3 D 14.2 B NB 42.9 D 47.9 D 8.9 A SB 27.7 C 26.5 C 3.1 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 6.6 A 1.6 A 1.2 A 16.2 C WB 0.0 A 2.4 A 2.0 A NB 0.0 A 16.2 C 0.0 A SB - - - - 3.1 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 6.0 A - - 2.4 A 6.0 A WB - - - - - - NB 2.4 A 2.4 A - - SB - - 0.6 A 0.2 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 27.3 C 7.9 A - - 14.1 B WB - - 18.0 B 7.1 A NB - - - - - - SB 22.0 C - - 6.4 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 9.6 A WB 9.6 A - - 4.3 A NB - - 2.4 A 1.4 A SB 2.3 A 0.5 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 4.3 A 3.6 A 3.0 A 4.2 A WB 7.3 A 4.1 A 3.8 A NB 11.9 B - - 4.6 A SB 18.9 C - - 9.3 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 35.9 D 13.2 B 5.9 A 15.9 B WB 45.7 D 14.1 B 4.1 A NB 28.7 C 29.8 C 6.2 A SB 29.9 C 33.3 C 5.1 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays under Existing (2024) conditions. Page 296 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 14 5.4 OPENING YEAR (2027) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2027) No-Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine baseline conditions for the anticipated opening year of the proposed AUAR development scenarios. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 6. Analysis was carried out with existing intersection geometry and control, as shown in Exhibit 2. Table 10 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at an overall LOS D or better in the AM and PM Peak Hours. All individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the eastbound and westbound left turn movements at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue which are anticipated to operate at LOS E and F during the PM peak hour, respectively. In particular, the westbound left turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, with about 90s of delay per vehicle. The westbound left turn lane may require improvements in the Opening Year (2027) No-Build scenario, based on these projections, with a dual westbound left turn anticipated to be the most effective mitigation for this issue. The need for this improvement will be dependent on the construction of the corridor connecting CSAH 70 and CR 74, it should be reevaluated based on the anticipated traffic changes in the area when a corridor study is completed. Page 297 of 635 15 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 10: OPENING YEAR (2027) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 49.6 D 36.1 D 4.7 A 27.4 C WB 52.0 D 27.7 C 11.4 B NB 51.0 D 37.7 D 5.6 A SB 44.6 D 19.0 B 3.4 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.0 A 1.3 A 1.1 A 19.2 C WB 0.0 A 2.9 A 3.1 A NB 16.1 C 19.2 C 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 4.6 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 28.5 D - - 7.2 A 28.5 D WB - - - - - - NB 8.8 A 2.5 A - - SB - - 1.9 A 0.8 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 34.6 C 7.3 A 2.2 A 14.4 B WB 0.0 A 15.9 B 5.0 A NB 43.1 D 45.2 D 0.0 A SB 26.5 C 12.2 B 9.8 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 8.0 A WB 8.0 A - - 2.6 A NB - - 1.6 A 1.3 A SB 1.3 A 0.6 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.5 A 3.3 A 4.2 A 4.7 A WB 6.6 A 5.2 A 5.5 A NB 17.8 C 18.7 C 4.2 A SB 21.9 C - - 6.2 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 40.6 D 13.8 B 5.2 A 19.8 B WB 46.6 D 19.4 B 5.1 A NB 34.6 C 31.0 C 4.2 A SB 37.4 D 35.9 D 6.7 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 298 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 16 TABLE 10: OPENING YEAR (2027) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 66.2 E 49.7 D 5.8 A 37.1 D WB 87.5 F 50.9 D 15.3 B NB 48.5 D 52.2 D 11.6 B SB 31.5 C 29.1 C 3.2 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 6.3 A 1.6 A 1.1 A 11.6 B WB 0.0 A 2.9 A 2.3 A NB 11.4 B 11.6 B 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A - - Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 6.2 A - - 2.7 A 6.2 A WB - - - - - - NB 2.6 A 2.3 A - - SB - - 0.7 A 0.1 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 32.5 C 9.9 A 3.9 A 17.1 B WB 0.0 A 21.2 C 7.5 A NB 39.8 D 44.8 D 0.0 A SB 25.3 C 15.0 B 8.3 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 10.2 B WB 10.2 B - - 5.4 A NB - - 2.6 A 1.6 A SB 2.6 A 0.6 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 7.3 A 4.1 A 3.8 A 4.7 A WB 8.7 A 4.3 A 3.9 A NB 20.3 C - - 7.3 A SB 18.1 C - - 7.1 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 37.8 D 13.7 B 6.5 A 17.6 B WB 37.9 D 16.5 B 4.7 A NB 33.0 C 30.1 C 4.6 A SB 33.9 C 33.3 C 5.3 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Opening Year (2027) No-Build conditions: • Westbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (PM Peak Hour) • Southbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) Page 299 of 635 17 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 Queueing issues are anticipated to be minimal, with only two 95th percentile queues anticipated to extend past their storage length. 5.5 DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for the Design Year (2040) No-Build scenario traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine the baseline operating conditions for the design year. Existing geometry and intersection control was utilized, as summarized in Exhibit 2, with the addition of the south leg at CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road which provides access to the background development located here. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 7. Table 11 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of D or better, with the exception of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street which is anticipated to operate at LOS F in the AM peak with the eastbound left turn movement seeing delays of around 2 minutes. This is largely due to school traffic travelling to the nearby Farmington High School and creating very few gaps due to the high amount of southbound through movements. Side street volumes along 200th Street are not high enough for a signal to be a justifiable improvement at this intersection and the delays at this intersection are only anticipated during the peak time of school traffic. No changes are proposed, but the intersection should be monitored and if the delays are found to be unacceptable a signal should be installed. At CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue, many individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours. Because the intersection has high numbers of turning movements and conflicting volumes. The westbound and southbound left are anticipated to require mitigation due to these issues, with both movements seeing LOS F operations during the AM peak hour. The overall intersection operations are acceptable during both peak hours, but the operations of these movements are poor and queueing issues are present for both. The proposed mitigation is installation of an additional southbound left and westbound left turn lanes. Note that for an additional southbound left turn lane to be installed, an additional receiving lane would need to be installed at the east leg of the intersection. The need for these improvements will be dependent on the construction of the corridor connecting CSAH 70 and CR 74, it should be reevaluated based on the anticipated traffic changes in the area when a corridor study is completed. CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue is anticipated to see some side street movements worsen to LOS E or F. The northbound through movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour but has a volume of only 1 vehicle during this period. The southbound and northbound left turn are anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour which is not uncommon for minor side street movements along a corridor such as CSAH 50. Page 300 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 18 TABLE 11: DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 53.1 D 42.6 D 6.0 A 45.9 D WB 96.1 F 50.5 D 30.1 C NB 55.1 E 44.0 D 7.6 A SB 83.0 F 26.4 C 3.9 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 13.0 B 1.4 A 0.8 A 26.1 D WB 0.0 A 3.8 A 4.0 A NB 26.1 D 18.6 C 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 5.6 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 100+ F - - 29.1 D 100+ F WB - - - - - - NB 20.4 C 2.9 A - - SB - - 3.1 A 1.5 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 41.5 D 8.9 A 3.1 A 17.5 B WB 0.0 A 18.5 B 6.7 A NB 50.5 D 51.6 D 0.0 A SB 31.3 C 18.5 B 13.8 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 9.2 A WB 9.2 A - - 3.3 A NB - - 1.9 A 1.3 A SB 1.6 A 0.7 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 11.4 B 3.9 A 3.4 A 5.7 A WB 8.8 A 6.1 A 6.1 A NB 21.8 C 59.8 F 7.1 A SB 24.7 C - - 10.9 B CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 48.4 D 19.0 B 7.1 A 24.1 C WB 48.6 D 23.1 C 5.6 A NB 41.7 D 34.3 C 6.6 A SB 39.4 D 41.3 D 8.4 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 301 of 635 19 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 11: DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 73.6 E 68.1 E 9.2 A 48.8 D WB 88.8 F 72.3 E 29.7 C NB 51.8 D 61.1 E 23.5 C SB 43.6 D 38.1 D 3.5 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 11.0 B 1.8 A 1.5 A 24.7 C WB 0.0 A 3.6 A 2.9 A NB 24.7 C 0.8 A 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 3.0 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 8.3 A - - 3.5 A 8.3 A WB - - - - - - NB 3.5 A 3.0 A - - SB - - 0.8 A 0.1 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 37.5 D 10.8 B 3.4 A 19.9 B WB - - 25.4 C 10.3 B NB 51.5 D 45.2 D - - SB 29.6 C 18.6 B 11.4 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 13.9 B WB 13.9 B - - 6.5 A NB - - 3.2 A 2.0 A SB 3.7 A 0.8 A - - CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 9.7 A 4.4 A 4.3 A 5.9 A WB 10.7 B 5.1 A 4.1 A NB 36.5 E - - 10.8 B SB 35.4 E - - 19.8 C CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 42.2 D 17.0 B 8.4 A 20.1 C WB 49.9 D 19.4 B 5.2 A NB 37.6 D 33.2 C 6.0 A SB 39.3 D 40.1 D 6.2 A Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Design Year (2040) No-Build conditions: • Southbound left and westbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) Page 302 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 20 5.6 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 build conditions to determine mitigation measures necessary to ensure acceptable LOS at the study intersections for the technology park scenario. The existing geometry was assumed to be in place, with the addition of the northbound approach at CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road and the site accesses for Scenario 1. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 10. Table 12 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. In general, delays are anticipated to be slightly higher than the Opening Year (2027) No-Build scenario, with all intersections continuing to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street which is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the AM, with the eastbound left turn movement seeing significant delays due to school traffic. Most movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, with some movements at the intersection of CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue anticipated to operate at LOS E or F. Notably, the westbound left movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour with delays of just over 100s. The intersection is anticipated to see very high left turning movements, particularly for the southbound and westbound left turns. The issue is not seen for the southbound left turns due to the movement having two phases per cycle. This intersection will require mitigation in the future under Scenario 1 build conditions, but similar to the Opening Year (2027) No-Build conditions, the overall intersection operations during the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 build conditions are generally acceptable. Page 303 of 635 21 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 12: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 48.8 D 37.3 D 4.9 A 33.1 C WB 63.2 E 31.6 C 14.1 B NB 53.5 D 39.9 D 9.9 A SB 62.4 E 21.4 C 3.6 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 11.2 B 1.7 A 0.2 A 23.9 C WB 0.0 A 3.2 A 3.2 A NB 23.9 C 18.7 C 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 1.4 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 40.8 E - - 10.8 B 40.8 E WB - - - - - - NB 7.7 A 2.9 A - - SB - - 2.3 A 0.9 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 12.3 B 1.7 A - - 28.6 D WB - - 5.9 A 6.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 28.6 D - - 6.9 A CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 35.0 C 7.9 A 3.3 A 14.7 B WB 0.0 A 16.2 B 5.9 A NB 40.4 D 39.2 D 0.0 A SB 27.2 C 14.2 B 10.1 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 11.5 B - - 3.8 A 11.5 B WB 9.8 A - - 2.9 A NB 3.5 A 2.6 A 1.6 A SB 1.7 A 1.3 A 0.3 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 7.8 A 3.5 A 4.3 A 5.0 A WB 6.0 A 5.6 A 5.6 A NB 18.5 C 8.5 A 5.2 A SB 14.0 B - - 5.8 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 43.2 D 15.6 B 5.8 A 21.4 C WB 42.4 D 21.8 C 5.3 A NB 34.9 C 30.9 C 4.7 A SB 35.0 C 36.5 D 7.0 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 2.8 A WB 7.1 A - - 3.3 A NB - - 1.6 A 0.7 A SB 4.9 A 3.3 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 304 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 22 TABLE 12: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 73.1 E 64.4 E 7.8 A 50.1 D WB 100+ F 72.7 E 37.3 D NB 52.8 D 55.8 E 13.5 B SB 39.6 D 32.6 C 3.2 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 9.7 A 1.7 A 1.0 A 27.7 D WB 0.0 A 3.5 A 2.7 A NB 0.0 A 27.7 D 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 1.7 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 7.2 A - - 2.8 A 7.2 A WB - - - - - - NB 2.7 A 2.6 A - - SB - - 0.8 A 0.2 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 7.6 A 2.0 A - - 31.6 D WB - - 6.2 A 6.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 31.6 D - - 17.6 C CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 33.4 C 10.5 B 3.1 A 18.3 B WB 0.0 A 23.1 C 8.7 A NB 41.3 D 45.3 D 0.0 A SB 27.3 C 18.4 B 8.6 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 13.3 B - - 6.5 A 13.3 B WB 12.1 B - - 5.5 A NB 3.0 A 3.5 A 1.4 A SB 2.5 A 1.2 A 0.2 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 5.7 A 4.3 A 5.3 A 5.0 A WB 10.2 B 4.3 A 4.8 A NB 21.6 C - - 7.8 A SB 24.4 C - - 8.0 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 41.4 D 14.9 B 6.8 A 17.9 B WB 45.0 D 15.4 B 4.7 A NB 33.2 C 30.0 C 5.8 A SB 33.1 C 36.0 D 5.3 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 2.6 A WB 6.4 A - - 4.1 A NB - - 1.2 A 0.7 A SB 2.5 A 1.8 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 305 of 635 23 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 conditions: • Southbound left and westbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) 5.7 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 Mitigated traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the proposed mitigations will ensure the operations are acceptable. The roadways were modeled with the mitigation proposed in the section above added to the existing network, along with the northbound approach at CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road and the site accesses. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, but this section focuses on the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection which is the only intersection that saw unacceptable delays in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 build conditions. The following mitigation was implemented to improve the operations of the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection: • Install an additional westbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Table 13 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, the roadway network is anticipated acceptable, with only a few left turn movements operating at LOS E and no movements operating at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. TABLE 13: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 50.2 D 37.2 D 5.5 A 29.4 C WB 48.7 D 30.0 C 12.5 B NB 57.4 E 39.9 D 10.1 B SB 52.9 D 20.3 C 3.7 A PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 66.4 E 53.8 D 7.4 A 38.2 D WB 69.1 E 46.6 D 16.3 B NB 46.5 D 53.6 D 14.6 B SB 35.2 D 33.5 C 3.3 A The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 Mitigated conditions: • Southbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) Page 306 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 24 5.8 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 build conditions to determine mitigation measures necessary to ensure acceptable LOS at the study intersections for the technology park scenario. The existing geometry is assumed to be in place, as is shown in Exhibit 2, along with the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 Mitigations (additional westbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue). The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 11. Table 14 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. In general, delays are anticipated to be slightly higher than the Design Year (2040) No-Build scenario. The intersection of CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS E during the PM peak hours, with significant delays at all approaches except for southbound. Based on these operations, this intersection will require further mitigation. The southbound left turning movement at CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS F with delays around one minute during the AM peak hour. While delays are less than ideal, the operations are not unexpected for a side street left turn movement along a corridor as busy as CSAH 50. Vehicles would also have the option to utilize a different access. Separated left and right turning movements are recommended for the southbound approach to help improve these delays. The eastbound left turn movement at Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F as was the case in the Design Year (2040) No-Build scenario. Page 307 of 635 25 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 14: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 59.4 E 47.3 D 7.2 A 35.0 C WB 59.3 E 39.4 D 17.0 B NB 60.8 E 44.9 D 13.0 B SB 57.7 E 22.3 C 4.3 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 20.3 C 1.7 A 0.9 A 41.9 E WB 0.0 A 4.1 A 4.1 A NB 41.9 E 30.8 D 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 1.6 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 100+ F - - 30.8 D 100+ F WB - - - - - - NB 19.8 C 3.3 A - - SB - - 3.6 A 2.0 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 15.7 C 1.8 A - - 65.2 F WB - - 6.7 A 7.0 A NB - - - - - - SB 65.2 F - - 23.3 C CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 42.8 D 9.1 A 2.6 A 18.5 B WB 0.0 A 19.5 B 7.7 A NB 48.2 D 46.7 D 0.0 A SB 33.3 C 18.4 B 15.2 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 14.7 B - - 4.3 A 14.7 B WB 14.5 B - - 3.8 A NB 5.3 A 3.2 A 1.6 A SB 2.0 A 1.5 A 0.3 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 13.2 B 3.9 A 4.6 A 5.9 A WB 9.2 A 6.3 A 6.9 A NB 30.4 D 30.1 D 13.1 B SB 29.9 D - - 10.0 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 48.3 D 19.2 B 7.5 A 24.1 C WB 41.3 D 23.3 C 6.2 A NB 40.9 D 33.7 C 6.0 A SB 41.9 D 40.4 D 8.7 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 3.6 A WB 7.2 A - - 3.3 A NB - - 1.7 A 0.7 A SB 6.3 A 4.4 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 308 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 26 TABLE 14: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 76.1 E 76.3 E 12.8 B 57.4 E WB 89.3 F 74.4 E 32.5 C NB 60.4 E 62.3 E 51.9 D SB 54.1 D 33.8 C 3.5 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 14.8 B 1.9 A 0.8 A 22.0 C WB - - 4.3 A 3.8 A NB - - 22.0 C - - SB - - - - 2.0 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 9.4 A - - 3.3 A 9.4 A WB - - - - - - NB 3.6 A 3.0 A - - SB - - 0.9 A 0.2 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 9.0 A 2.2 A - - 40.0 E WB - - 7.0 A 6.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 40.0 E - - 21.6 C CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 41.8 D 11.5 B 4.5 A 21.9 C WB 0.0 A 27.4 C 11.4 B NB 53.9 D 47.8 D 0.0 A SB 32.4 C 17.7 B 11.8 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 20.7 C - - 10.9 B 20.7 C WB 19.6 C - - 8.7 A NB 5.3 A 4.1 A 2.3 A SB 4.6 A 1.6 A 0.4 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.8 A 4.7 A 4.7 A 5.9 A WB 13.6 B 5.0 A 5.7 A NB 28.7 D - - 10.0 A SB 37.4 E - - 20.4 C CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 45.7 D 18.0 B 8.6 A 21.4 C WB 45.9 D 19.8 B 5.5 A NB 37.9 D 34.0 C 7.0 A SB 38.8 D 36.6 D 6.5 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 2.9 A WB 7.2 A - - 4.4 A NB - - 1.4 A 0.7 A SB 2.7 A 2.2 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 309 of 635 27 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 conditions: • Southbound left at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hour) • Westbound left, westbound right, and northbound right at Cedar Avenue & CSAH 50 (PM Peak Hour) Queueing issues are anticipated to be significant at the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection and the intersection will require mitigation to improve the queueing and operations. 5.9 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 Mitigated traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the proposed mitigations will ensure the operations are acceptable. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, but this section focuses on the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection which is the only intersection that saw unacceptable delays in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 1 build conditions. The following mitigation was implemented to improve the operations of the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection: • Install an additional westbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue (assumed for Design Year 2040 Build Scenario) • Install an additional southbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue • Modify the signal timings to adjust for these changes. Mitigation changes were not made at the intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street. As mentioned previously, the presence of Farmington High School south of this intersection along Flagstaff Avenue creates delays for the left turn movements during the AM peak when school traffic is quite high. This intersection should be monitored in the future for possible signalization, but it is unlikely to meet warrants and the operational issues are limited to a short period in the AM. Table 15 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection is anticipated to see significantly improved operations, operating at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Two left turn movements (eastbound and northbound) are anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hours and all other movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. These operations are acceptable for a busy intersection such as CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. Furthermore, with separated southbound left and right turn lanes, CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue is anticipated to improve to LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours, with only the southbound left turn movement operating at a worse LOS than C. Page 310 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 28 TABLE 15: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 MITIGATED DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 45.2 D 36.0 D 6.1 A 28.2 C WB 49.0 D 30.6 C 15.0 B NB 46.4 D 36.6 D 8.9 A SB 43.6 D 21.1 C 4.0 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 19.3 C 2.0 A 0.0 A 44.5 E WB 0.0 A 6.7 A 7.2 A NB 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A SB 44.5 E 0.0 A 9.7 A PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 56.1 E 49.4 D 8.9 A 35.4 D WB 51.5 D 42.1 D 19.5 B NB 58.5 E 44.1 D 13.2 B SB 49.3 D 25.9 C 2.9 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 10.9 B 2.3 A - - 39.7 E WB - - 6.8 A 7.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 39.7 E - - 11.2 B The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays in the Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 Mitigated conditions. An alternative mitigation test was conducted with significant turn lane extensions instead of the installation of dual southbound and westbound left turn lanes. The turn lanes were tested with 600’ of storage, double the existing turn lane length of about 300’ for each. Results of this analysis is shown below in Table 16. Page 311 of 635 29 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 16: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Scenario Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 60.9 E 53.3 D 7.0 A 35.3 D WB 63.0 E 34.2 C 15.8 B NB 63.3 E 51.3 D 12.3 B SB 53.9 D 23.2 C 3.9 A PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 69.4 E 83.3 F 16.7 B 56.4 E WB 88.7 F 48.3 D 21.5 C NB 74.2 E 64.2 E 19.6 B SB 100+ F 34.1 C 5.1 A During the AM peak hour, the intersection would operate generally acceptably with these mitigations in place, but during the PM peak hour, both movements would operate at LOS F and the intersection would operate at an overall LOS F. Furthermore, review of the 95th percentile queue lengths compared to the provided 600’ of storage length shows that both the southbound and westbound left turn movements are at or over the storage capacity. Based on the results of this analysis, the operations are poor and dual southbound and westbound turn lanes represent a significant improvement operationally compared to extensions of these turn lanes. However, when considering the costs associated with the implementation of dual turn lanes, these operations could be considered tolerable. 5.10 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 build conditions to determine mitigation measures necessary to ensure acceptable LOS at the study intersections for the industrial scenario. The existing geometry was assumed to be in place, with the addition of the northbound approach at CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road and the Scenario 2 access points. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 13. Table 17 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Delays and queues are anticipated to increase at the intersection of CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. The delays and queues at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue are extensive and will require mitigation. The proposed access point at CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue is anticipated to see LOS F side-street operations due to the high through volumes along CSAH 50. The eastbound left turn movement of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour due to the influence of the nearby Farmington High School. The CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue access may require mitigation if traffic volumes are realized, it is anticipated to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The side street is not anticipated to meet signal warrant thresholds, though some improvement of the operations would likely occur if separate southbound left and right turn lanes were installed. Note that the northbound left turn at CSAH 50 & Flagstaff operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour but has a volume of only 1 vehicle during this period. During the PM peak hour, the congestion at CSAH 50 & Page 312 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 30 Flagstaff Avenue is a result of poor operations at the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection. Improving the operations at Cedar Avenue will resolve this issue. Page 313 of 635 31 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 17: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 55.7 E 46.4 D 6.1 A 66.6 E WB 100+ F 71.2 E 56.1 E NB 57.0 E 43.1 D 22.2 C SB 100+ F 31.0 C 4.7 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 17.8 C 2.0 A 1.1 A 63.4 F WB 0.0 A 3.8 A 3.5 A NB 63.4 F 26.6 D 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 1.7 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 49.7 E - - 13.8 B 49.7 E WB - - - - - - NB 12.9 B 3.2 A - - SB - - 2.7 A 0.9 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 22.8 C 1.9 A - - 100+ F WB - - 6.3 A 6.9 A NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 95.9 F CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 38.3 D 8.4 A 3.8 A 16.2 B WB 0.0 A 17.5 B 7.0 A NB 46.9 D 44.1 D 0.0 A SB 30.3 C 5.2 A 11.8 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 15.6 C - - 4.8 A 16.8 C WB 16.8 C - - 3.4 A NB 5.4 A 4.5 A 1.2 A SB 2.0 A 2.6 A 0.7 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.4 A 3.7 A 3.6 A 5.3 A WB 6.9 A 5.8 A 6.1 A NB 20.8 C 16.7 C 6.8 A SB 23.6 C - - 7.1 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 37.9 D 17.3 B 6.3 A 21.7 C WB 40.7 D 21.1 C 5.3 A NB 35.8 D 34.6 C 4.5 A SB 34.1 C 36.3 D 7.3 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 3.7 A WB 8.6 A - - 4.6 A NB - - 2.9 A 1.2 A SB 6.8 A 4.0 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 314 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 32 TABLE 17: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 77.1 E 64.1 E 7.2 A 100+ F WB 100+ F 100+ F 100+ F NB 62.9 E 60.1 E 18.5 B SB 45.7 D 35.8 D 3.3 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 17.2 C 1.8 A 0.5 A 100+ F WB 0.0 A 91.0 F 64.1 F NB 100+ F 100+ F 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 44.8 E Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 7.4 A - - 2.9 A 7.4 A WB - - - - - - NB 3.2 A 3.0 A - - SB - - 0.8 A 0.2 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 9.8 A 2.3 A - - 100+ F WB - - 6.8 A 5.9 A NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 100+ F CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 35.2 D 10.2 B 3.3 A 19.6 B WB 0.0 A 25.2 C 9.6 A NB 39.4 D 38.7 D 0.0 A SB 29.8 C 21.8 C 10.0 A Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 23.0 C - - 13.2 B 23.0 C WB 12.9 B - - 9.0 A NB 5.5 A 4.1 A 2.3 A SB 2.9 A 1.8 A 0.3 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 6.6 A 4.0 A 4.3 A 4.8 A WB 8.5 A 4.4 A 3.5 A NB 23.9 C - - 6.2 A SB 29.3 D - - 9.9 A CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 42.6 D 15.0 B 7.1 A 18.5 B WB 44.5 D 16.0 B 5.0 A NB 34.6 C 34.6 C 5.6 A SB 35.3 D 34.4 C 5.5 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 8.7 A WB 18.5 A - - 13.9 A NB - - 1.7 A 0.7 A SB 4.1 A 3.5 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 315 of 635 33 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 conditions: • Westbound left, westbound right, northbound right, and southbound left at Cedar Avenue & CSAH 50 (AM and PM Peak Hour) Queueing issues are anticipated to be significant at the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection and the intersection will require mitigation to improve the queueing and operations. 5.11 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 Mitigated traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the proposed mitigations will ensure the operations are acceptable. The roadways were modeled with future baseline geometry and signal, along with the mitigation proposed in the section above. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, but this section focuses on the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection which is the root cause of most of the unacceptable delays in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 build conditions. The following mitigations were implemented to improve the operations of the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection: • Install an additional westbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue • Install an additional southbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue • Install a southbound left turn lane at CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Table 18 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. Based on the analysis, the intersection of CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue is anticipated to operate acceptably, with only a few left turn movements operating at LOS E and no movements operating at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of CSAH 50 & Flagstaff operates at acceptable operations with no queueing from Cedar Avenue affecting the intersection. Only the northbound approach at CSAH 50 & Flagstaff operates at a worse LOS than D, and this approach sees volumes of less than five (5) vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour despite the installation of the turn lane. If these traffic levels are realized, a ¾ access similar to Flagstaff Avenue’s should be considered for Fairgreen Avenue to remove the excessive delays of the southbound left turns. Page 316 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 34 TABLE 18: OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 MITIGATED DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 49.3 D 33.6 C 5.5 A 26.4 C WB 45.3 D 27.6 C 12.6 B NB 50.3 D 36.6 D 12.0 B SB 39.4 D 22.9 C 3.8 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 22.4 C 2.4 A 2.5 A 56.0 F WB 0.0 A 3.9 A 3.8 A NB 56.0 F 54.1 F 0.0 A SB - - 1.4 A 1.8 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 22.7 C 2.1 A - - 100+ F WB - - 6.5 A 6.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 8.0 A PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 53.9 D 41.2 D 9.0 A 35.0 C WB 56.9 E 39.7 D 17.8 B NB 55.6 E 43.7 D 10.6 B SB 46.2 D 27.8 C 2.8 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 16.7 C 2.2 A 1.0 A 27.4 D WB 0.0 A 4.2 A 2.9 A NB 0.0 A 27.4 D 0.0 A SB - - 1.6 A 2.3 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.9 A 2.3 A - - 48.0 E WB - - 6.6 A 5.7 A NB - - - - - - SB 48.0 E - - 12.4 B Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement followed by the overall intersection delay and LOS. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays in the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 Mitigated conditions. 5.12 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed for Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 build conditions to determine mitigation measures necessary to ensure acceptable LOS at the study intersections for the technology park scenario. The geometry includes the added northbound approach at CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road, all Scenario 2 site accesses and the Opening Year (2027) Scenario 2 Mitigations. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours and is based on the traffic volumes provided in Exhibit 14. Page 317 of 635 35 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 Table 19 provides a summary of the capacity analysis at the study intersections. In general, network operations are anticipated to be worse than the Design Year (2040) No-Build scenario, with side street stop control intersections anticipated to see significantly higher delays. The northbound approach of CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, but this leg sees a negligible volume of less than five (5) vehicles per hour at this time and this portion of roadway is a minor, unpaved road. Operations at the intersection are otherwise generally acceptable. As discussed previously, Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street operates very poorly during the peak time for Farmington High school entering trips in the AM, but outside of this time the operations are generally acceptable. The CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue access has LOS F at the southbound left turn movement. The eastbound left turn also operates at LOS F in this scenario due to the high amount of site traffic turning left here opposed by very high westbound through volumes. If these traffic volumes are realized, alternative traffic control options may need to be explored. Side street traffic volumes would not likely warrant a signal, although if a signal warrant were carried out using the eastbound left turn volumes, a signal may be warranted. Because the traffic patterns and access usage could vary significantly depending on the final design of the site, a signal warrant analysis should be carried out when a site-specific land use plan has been developed, if the development of Scenario 2 were to proceed. The intersection of CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue is anticipated to have many movements operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, but none are anticipated to operate LOS F. This level of operations is in line with what is typically expected at a busy intersection. Page 318 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 36 TABLE 19: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection1 Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 53.4 D 38.0 D 7.0 A 30.3 C WB 51.8 D 32.0 C 15.2 B NB 49.3 D 38.8 D 16.2 B SB 43.4 D 23.4 C 4.0 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 36.9 E 2.8 A 1.4 A 100+ F WB 0.0 A 4.4 A 4.6 A NB 100+ F 61.9 F 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 1.8 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 100+ F - - 100+ F 100+ F WB - - - - - - NB 40.9 E 4.2 A - - SB - - 4.9 A 2.9 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 51.0 F 2.9 A - - 100+ F WB - - 6.8 A 6.9 A NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 41.4 E CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 42.3 D 10.2 B 4.2 A 18.0 B WB 0.0 A 18.7 B 8.2 A NB 43.8 D 54.5 D 0.0 A SB 33.5 C 13.2 B 15.8 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 20.2 C - - 5.7 A 20.2 C WB 16.1 C - - 3.7 A NB 6.6 A 5.5 A 1.4 A SB 2.5 A 2.9 A 0.8 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 12.0 B 4.3 A 3.5 A 6.3 A WB 8.4 A 6.6 A 6.7 A NB 29.3 D 13.5 B 11.4 B SB 27.8 D - - 12.5 B CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 44.0 D 21.4 C 8.0 A 25.0 C WB 47.4 D 24.2 C 6.5 A NB 41.0 D 33.3 C 4.7 A SB 42.6 D 40.2 D 8.9 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 4.5 A WB 11.7 A - - 4.6 A NB - - 3.2 A 1.3 A SB 8.8 A 5.0 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 319 of 635 37 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 TABLE 19: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 68.6 E 55.1 E 10.4 B 46.0 D WB 64.8 E 53.9 D 31.5 C NB 65.2 E 55.5 E 14.6 B SB 64.5 E 37.6 D 3.5 A CSAH 50 & Flagstaff Avenue Side Street Stop EB 36.1 E 2.7 A 1.9 A 48.2 E WB 0.0 A 5.4 A 3.8 A NB 0.0 A 48.2 E 0.0 A SB - - 0.0 A 3.6 A Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street Side Street Stop EB 9.6 A - - 3.4 A 9.6 A WB - - - - - - NB 3.3 A 3.5 A - - SB - - 0.9 A 0.3 A CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue Side Street Stop EB 10.2 B 2.6 A - - 100+ F WB - - 7.4 A 7.6 A NB - - - - - - SB 100+ F - - 44.0 E CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Signal EB 42.4 D 12.2 B 4.7 A 23.3 C WB 0.0 A 28.2 C 12.6 B NB 53.5 D 48.9 D 0.0 A SB 35.8 D 22.1 C 13.0 B Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Side Street Stop EB 31.9 D - - 21.9 C 31.9 D WB 20.0 C - - 11.8 B NB 6.0 A 4.7 A 2.6 A SB 5.6 A 2.0 A 0.3 A CSAH 50 & Eaton Avenue Side Street Stop EB 8.6 A 4.7 A 4.5 A 5.9 A WB 12.9 B 5.1 A 5.1 A NB 28.1 D - - 12.1 B SB 38.6 E - - 16.1 C CSAH 50 & Denmark Avenue/Akin Road Signal EB 49.7 D 19.4 B 9.6 A 22.5 C WB 49.8 D 20.0 B 5.5 A NB 39.6 D 34.9 C 7.8 A SB 43.4 D 40.9 D 6.8 A Flagstaff Avenue & West Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 4.7 A WB 9.7 A - - 6.7 A NB - - 2.1 A 0.9 A SB 2.7 A 2.4 A - - Note 1: Overall intersection delay and LOS reported for signal control. For side-street stop control, delay and LOS are reported for the worst movement. Page 320 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 38 The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and the following movements are anticipated are anticipated to be at or near capacity in the Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 conditions: • Northbound right at Cedar Avenue & CSAH 50 (AM and PM Peak Hour) • Westbound left and southbound left at Cedar Avenue & CSAH 50 • Eastbound left at Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street (AM peak hour queues block right turn lane) • Eastbound left at Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50. Queueing issues are anticipated to be significant at the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection but do not affect the operations of the intersection in a negative way. The queueing at Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street is problematic but only occurs during the peak time of school traffic. The turn lane mitigations proposed at the CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue intersection require major changes to that intersection and therefore additional analysis was conducted to ensure that additional northbound left and westbound left turn lanes are fully necessary. The analysis was conducted with these turn lanes instead extended greatly in length to 600’, twice the existing length which is about 300’ for both movements. The results of the SimTraffic analysis with this alternative mitigation scheme is shown below in Table 20. TABLE 20: DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 ALTERNATE MITIGATION DELAY AND LOS SUMMARY Scenario Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 60.5 E 49.7 D 6.5 A 100+ F WB 100+ F 100+ F 100+ F NB 68.1 E 51.4 D 32.3 C SB 83.8 F 22.0 C 4.1 A PM Peak Hour CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue Signal EB 70.0 E 86.0 F 14.8 B 100+ F WB 100+ F 100+ F 98.5 F NB 73.5 E 66.9 E 13.5 B SB 100+ F 58.6 E 20.5 C Results of the analysis show that the intersection is anticipated to see excessive levels of delay regardless of how long the southbound and westbound left turn lanes are, with the intersection operating at an overall LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour with only turn lane extensions for these movements. Therefore, additional southbound and westbound left turn lanes will be required under Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 conditions in order for the intersection to operate acceptably. Page 321 of 635 39 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report serves as the traffic analysis for the Farmington West AUAR. The Farmington West site is located in the City of Farmington, Minnesota, and bordered by Flagstaff Avenue to the west, CSAH 50 to the south, and CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to the east. The area is currently agricultural land. Traffic analysis was conducted for Existing (2024) conditions, Opening Year (2027) conditions, and Design Year (2040) conditions, with the future year analysis including three scenarios: No-Build, Scenario 1 (Technology Park), and Scenario 2 (Industrial Park). Below is a summary of the analysis results and findings. 6.1 EXISITNG LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for the Existing (2024) traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine existing operating conditions. The analysis was performed for weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing intersection control and geometry was assumed for this analysis. Based on the analysis, all intersections operate at LOS C or better and all intersection movements operate at LOS D or better except for the westbound and eastbound left turn movements at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays under Existing (2024) conditions. 6.2 TRIP GENERATION & TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT Trip generation forecasts for the proposed development are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. The site trip generation for Scenario 1 was estimated using ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 150 – Warehousing. This is because there is no ITE Land Use Code for technology park, so an approximation had to be applied. Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 5,130 daily trips, including 510 in the AM peak hour and 540 in the PM peak hour. The trip generation for Scenario 2 was estimated using ITE Land Use Code 130 – Industrial Park. Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 10,002 daily trips, including 1,009 in the AM peak hour and the same amount during the PM peak hour. Comparing the two scenarios, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate an additional 4,872 daily trips, 499 AM peak hour trips, and 469 PM peak hour trips compared to Scenario 1. 6.3 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for the No-Build traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine the baseline operating conditions of the anticipated opening year. The Existing intersection geometry and control was utilized for the analysis. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS except for the westbound left and eastbound left turns at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue which are anticipated to operate at LOS F and LOS E in the PM peak hour. Depending on the buildout of the CSAH 70/CR 74 corridor to the south and the impacts that it has on the traffic patterns along CSAH 50, an additional westbound left turn lane may be needed at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. It is recommended that the corridor should be reevaluated based on the anticipated traffic changes in the area when a corridor study is completed. Page 322 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 40 6.4 SCENARIO 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY A capacity analysis was performed for the Scenario 1 traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the addition of project traffic significantly impacts operating conditions of the study intersections. Similar to the no-build scenarios, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS except for the westbound left and eastbound left turns at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue which are anticipated to operate at LOS F and LOS E in the PM peak hour. Depending on the buildout of the CSAH 70/CR 74 corridor to the south and the impacts that it has on the traffic patterns along CSAH 50, an additional westbound left turn lane may be needed at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. It is recommended that the corridor should be reevaluated based on the anticipated traffic changes in the area when a corridor study is completed. In addition, the CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue intersection should be monitored as it is anticipated that there will be less than desirable side street delays, however this is not on common on a corridor such as CSAH 50. 6.5 SCENARIO 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMAMRY A capacity analysis was performed for the Scenario 2 traffic conditions at the study intersections to determine if the addition of project traffic significantly impacts operating conditions of the study intersections. Similar to the no-build scenarios, most intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS. The westbound left and eastbound left turns at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue which are anticipated to operate at LOS F and LOS E in the PM peak hour. Depending on the buildout of the CSAH 70/CR 74 corridor to the south and the impacts that it has on the traffic patterns along CSAH 50, an additional westbound left turn lane may be needed at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue. It is recommended that the corridor should be reevaluated based on the anticipated traffic changes in the area when a corridor study is completed. These improvements may be necessary even with the buildout of the CSAH 70 corridor. In addition, the CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue intersection would likely need traffic control changes due to side street delays if the site traffic volumes are realized. If the developer proceeds with Scenario 2, a signal warrant analysis should be conducted when a site-specific plan is available to determine the final control needs at the intersection. 6.6 MITIGATION PLAN The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Farmington West Development. The design year geometry, traffic control, and mitigations are shown in Exhibit 14. No-Build Conditions • The intersection of Flagstaff Avenue & 200th Street should be monitored for possible change in traffic control. The side street operations may be poor during the AM peak in the future due to the presence of Farmington High School. • CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional westbound left turn lane (short-term improvement). Page 323 of 635 41 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis August 2024 o The need for this mitigation will be influenced by the proposed corridor connecting CSAH 70 and CR 74. Depending on how traffic patterns develop at the intersection, turn lane extensions may be sufficient in this scenario, based on additional analysis. • CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue – Install an additional southbound left turn lane (long-term improvement). An additional eastbound receiving lane will also be required for this. o The need for this mitigation will be influenced by the proposed corridor connecting CSAH 70 and CR 74. Depending on how traffic patterns develop at the intersection, turn lane extensions may be sufficient in this scenario, based on additional analysis. Scenario 1 Build Conditions • All No-Build Mitigations. o Turn lane extensions rather than dual left turn lanes for the southbound and westbound approaches at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue would result in generally poor operations but this level of operations could be deemed tolerable considering the difference in costs associated with the two alternatives. • CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Consider Installing separated southbound left and right turn lanes and monitor for potential traffic control changes (long-term improvement). If operational or safety issues are found to occur at this intersection, access control (such as installation of a ¾ access) could be appropriate. Scenario 2 Build Conditions • All No-Build Mitigations o Turn lane extensions for the southbound and westbound left turn movements at CSAH 50 & Cedar Avenue result in unacceptable operations; dual left turn lanes will be required for both movements. • CSAH 50 & Fairgreen Avenue – Consider Installing separated southbound left and right turn lanes, intersection will likely need traffic control changes due to side street delays (short-term improvement). If this scenario moves forward, a signal warrant analysis should be conducted at this intersection when a site-specific land use plan is available. APPENDICIES APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS APPENDIX C: SIMTRAFFIC AND RODEL REPORTS Page 324 of 635 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis June 2024 Appendix A: Exhibits Page 325 of 635 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND AUAR Area Study Intersections Site Accesses Pa g e 3 2 6 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Study Intersections Existing Stop Control Existing Signal Control Channelized Right Turn Pa g e 3 2 7 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2024) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Study Intersections AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 2 8 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 4 BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Access Location Site Traffic Distribution Trip Access Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic Pa g e 3 2 9 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 5 BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Study Intersections AM (PM) Peak Hour TripsXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 0 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 6 OPENING YEAR (2027) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Study Intersections AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 1 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 7 DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Study Intersections AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 2 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 8 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic 215th St Pa g e 3 3 3 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 9 SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour Site TripsXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 4 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 10 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 5 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 11 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 6 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 12 SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour TripsXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 7 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 13 OPENING YEAR (2027) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 8 o f 6 3 5 NOT TO SCALE 50COUNTY50COUNTY 31 COUNTY 208th St 23 COUNTY 31 COUNTY 200th St EXHIBIT 14 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FARMINGTON WEST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) Pa g e 3 3 9 o f 6 3 5 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis June 2024 Appendix B: Turning Movement Counts Page 340 of 635 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Cedar Ave Cedar Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 9 32 11 0 52 40 31 71 0 142 8 58 48 0 114 34 50 10 0 94 402 7:15 AM 8 27 4 0 39 43 64 73 0 180 3 51 38 0 92 53 67 16 0 136 447 7:30 AM 9 23 12 0 44 52 69 96 0 217 6 47 52 0 105 52 59 15 0 126 492 7:45 AM 15 33 11 0 59 63 62 78 0 203 5 66 55 0 126 86 93 26 0 205 593 Hourly Total 41 115 38 0 194 198 226 318 0 742 22 222 193 0 437 225 269 67 0 561 1934 8:00 AM 11 33 4 0 48 37 42 63 0 142 5 60 39 0 104 74 40 25 0 139 433 8:15 AM 9 20 2 0 31 50 49 92 0 191 2 35 36 0 73 76 45 18 0 139 434 8:30 AM 9 21 6 0 36 37 39 59 0 135 8 45 26 0 79 50 32 11 0 93 343 8:45 AM 12 23 3 0 38 31 41 59 0 131 8 39 36 0 83 50 50 23 0 123 375 Hourly Total 41 97 15 0 153 155 171 273 0 599 23 179 137 0 339 250 167 77 0 494 1585 *** BREAK ***--------------------- 4:00 PM 31 62 6 0 99 47 45 80 1 172 7 89 78 0 174 69 37 12 0 118 563 4:15 PM 20 38 9 0 67 59 55 79 0 193 5 74 82 0 161 98 62 13 0 173 594 4:30 PM 27 72 11 0 110 54 63 74 0 191 6 64 110 0 180 78 60 8 0 146 627 4:45 PM 14 41 7 0 62 45 56 73 1 174 15 59 68 0 142 86 51 15 0 152 530 Hourly Total 92 213 33 0 338 205 219 306 2 730 33 286 338 0 657 331 210 48 0 589 2314 5:00 PM 23 59 9 0 91 39 58 92 0 189 10 74 76 0 160 58 59 15 0 132 572 5:15 PM 15 53 5 0 73 47 47 70 0 164 10 67 85 0 162 87 42 11 0 140 539 5:30 PM 15 39 7 0 61 25 50 82 0 157 8 53 55 0 116 86 50 17 0 153 487 5:45 PM 11 34 7 0 52 25 55 46 0 126 4 50 46 0 100 67 44 21 0 132 410 Hourly Total 64 185 28 0 277 136 210 290 0 636 32 244 262 0 538 298 195 64 0 557 2008 Grand Total 238 610 114 0 962 694 826 1187 2 2707 110 931 930 0 1971 1104 841 256 0 2201 7841 Approach % 24.7 63.4 11.9 -- 25.6 30.5 43.8 -- 5.6 47.2 47.2 -- 50.2 38.2 11.6 --- Total %3.0 7.8 1.5 -12.3 8.9 10.5 15.1 -34.5 1.4 11.9 11.9 -25.1 14.1 10.7 3.3 -28.1 - Lights 228 590 106 -924 624 799 1148 -2571 107 884 836 -1827 1048 802 242 -2092 7414 % Lights 95.8 96.7 93.0 -96.0 89.9 96.7 96.7 -95.0 97.3 95.0 89.9 -92.7 94.9 95.4 94.5 -95.0 94.6 Mediums 7 13 5 -25 20 13 35 -68 2 25 24 -51 48 20 13 -81 225 % Mediums 2.9 2.1 4.4 -2.6 2.9 1.6 2.9 -2.5 1.8 2.7 2.6 -2.6 4.3 2.4 5.1 -3.7 2.9 Articulated Trucks 3 7 3 -13 50 14 4 -68 1 22 70 -93 8 19 1 -28 202 % Articulated Trucks 1.3 1.1 2.6 -1.4 7.2 1.7 0.3 -2.5 0.9 2.4 7.5 -4.7 0.7 2.3 0.4 -1.3 2.6 Pedestrians ---0 ----2 ----0 ----0 -- % Pedestrians --------100.0 ------------ Pa g e 3 4 1 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Cedar Ave [SB] Out In Total 2260 2092 4352 67 81 148 29 28 57 0 0 0 2356 2201 4557 242 802 1048 0 13 20 48 0 1 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 256 841 1104 0 R T L P 26 4 4 0 85 85 24 7 4 Ou t 27 0 7 0 68 68 25 7 1 In 53 5 1 0 15 3 15 3 50 4 5 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 11 8 7 0 4 35 11 4 8 T 82 6 0 14 13 79 9 L 69 4 0 50 20 62 4 P 2 2 0 0 0 1532 1827 3359 45 51 96 72 93 165 0 0 0 1649 1971 3620 Out In Total Cedar Ave [NB] L T R P 107 884 836 0 2 25 24 0 1 22 70 0 0 0 0 0 110 931 930 0 CS A H 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 20 7 2 53 29 0 21 5 4 In 92 4 25 13 0 96 2 Ou t 11 4 8 28 16 0 11 9 2 22 8 7 3 0 23 8 L 59 0 13 7 0 61 0 T 10 6 5 3 0 11 4 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 4 2 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Cedar Ave Cedar Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:15 AM 8 27 4 0 39 43 64 73 0 180 3 51 38 0 92 53 67 16 0 136 447 7:30 AM 9 23 12 0 44 52 69 96 0 217 6 47 52 0 105 52 59 15 0 126 492 7:45 AM 15 33 11 0 59 63 62 78 0 203 5 66 55 0 126 86 93 26 0 205 593 8:00 AM 11 33 4 0 48 37 42 63 0 142 5 60 39 0 104 74 40 25 0 139 433 Total 43 116 31 0 190 195 237 310 0 742 19 224 184 0 427 265 259 82 0 606 1965 Approach % 22.6 61.1 16.3 -- 26.3 31.9 41.8 -- 4.4 52.5 43.1 -- 43.7 42.7 13.5 --- Total %2.2 5.9 1.6 -9.7 9.9 12.1 15.8 -37.8 1.0 11.4 9.4 -21.7 13.5 13.2 4.2 -30.8 - PHF 0.717 0.879 0.646 -0.805 0.774 0.859 0.807 -0.855 0.792 0.848 0.836 -0.847 0.770 0.696 0.788 -0.739 0.828 Lights 41 112 29 -182 177 232 298 -707 17 206 167 -390 246 251 79 -576 1855 % Lights 95.3 96.6 93.5 -95.8 90.8 97.9 96.1 -95.3 89.5 92.0 90.8 -91.3 92.8 96.9 96.3 -95.0 94.4 Mediums 2 3 2 -7 4 4 12 -20 1 11 7 -19 15 5 3 -23 69 % Mediums 4.7 2.6 6.5 -3.7 2.1 1.7 3.9 -2.7 5.3 4.9 3.8 -4.4 5.7 1.9 3.7 -3.8 3.5 Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 -1 14 1 0 -15 1 7 10 -18 4 3 0 -7 41 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.9 0.0 -0.5 7.2 0.4 0.0 -2.0 5.3 3.1 5.4 -4.2 1.5 1.2 0.0 -1.2 2.1 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 -- % Pedestrians --------------------- Pa g e 3 4 3 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:15 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:15 AM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Cedar Ave [SB] Out In Total 545 576 1121 25 23 48 7 7 14 0 0 0 577 606 1183 79 251 246 0 3 5 15 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 82 259 265 0 R T L P 56 5 0 15 25 52 5 Ou t 74 2 0 15 20 70 7 In 13 0 7 0 30 45 12 3 2 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 31 0 0 0 12 29 8 T 23 7 0 1 4 23 2 L 19 5 0 14 4 17 7 P 0 0 0 0 0 457 390 847 11 19 30 17 18 35 0 0 0 485 427 912 Out In Total Cedar Ave [NB] L T R P 17 206 167 0 1 11 7 0 1 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 19 224 184 0 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 51 0 15 3 0 52 8 In 18 2 7 1 0 19 0 Ou t 32 8 8 2 0 33 8 41 2 0 0 43 L 11 2 3 1 0 11 6 T 29 2 0 0 31 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Pa g e 3 4 4 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Cedar Ave Cedar Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 20 38 9 0 67 59 55 79 0 193 5 74 82 0 161 98 62 13 0 173 594 4:30 PM 27 72 11 0 110 54 63 74 0 191 6 64 110 0 180 78 60 8 0 146 627 4:45 PM 14 41 7 0 62 45 56 73 1 174 15 59 68 0 142 86 51 15 0 152 530 5:00 PM 23 59 9 0 91 39 58 92 0 189 10 74 76 0 160 58 59 15 0 132 572 Total 84 210 36 0 330 197 232 318 1 747 36 271 336 0 643 320 232 51 0 603 2323 Approach % 25.5 63.6 10.9 -- 26.4 31.1 42.6 -- 5.6 42.1 52.3 -- 53.1 38.5 8.5 --- Total %3.6 9.0 1.5 -14.2 8.5 10.0 13.7 -32.2 1.5 11.7 14.5 -27.7 13.8 10.0 2.2 -26.0 - PHF 0.778 0.729 0.818 -0.750 0.835 0.921 0.864 -0.968 0.600 0.916 0.764 -0.893 0.816 0.935 0.850 -0.871 0.926 Lights 83 206 34 -323 180 222 312 -714 36 266 313 -615 311 215 46 -572 2224 % Lights 98.8 98.1 94.4 -97.9 91.4 95.7 98.1 -95.6 100.0 98.2 93.2 -95.6 97.2 92.7 90.2 -94.9 95.7 Mediums 0 2 0 -2 6 3 5 -14 0 2 3 -5 7 8 5 -20 41 % Mediums 0.0 1.0 0.0 -0.6 3.0 1.3 1.6 -1.9 0.0 0.7 0.9 -0.8 2.2 3.4 9.8 -3.3 1.8 Articulated Trucks 1 2 2 -5 11 7 1 -19 0 3 20 -23 2 9 0 -11 58 % Articulated Trucks 1.2 1.0 5.6 -1.5 5.6 3.0 0.3 -2.5 0.0 1.1 6.0 -3.6 0.6 3.9 0.0 -1.8 2.5 Pedestrians ---0 ----1 ----0 ----0 -- % Pedestrians --------100.0 ------------ Pa g e 3 4 5 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Cedar AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:15 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:15 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Cedar Ave [SB] Out In Total 661 572 1233 7 20 27 5 11 16 0 0 0 673 603 1276 46 215 311 0 5 8 7 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 51 232 320 0 R T L P 86 6 0 24 12 83 0 Ou t 74 7 0 19 14 71 4 In 16 1 3 0 43 26 15 4 4 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 31 8 0 1 5 31 2 T 23 2 0 7 3 22 2 L 19 7 0 11 6 18 0 P 1 1 0 0 0 429 615 1044 14 5 19 22 23 45 0 0 0 465 643 1108 Out In Total Cedar Ave [NB] L T R P 36 266 313 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 36 271 336 0 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 62 7 10 12 0 64 9 In 32 3 2 5 0 33 0 Ou t 30 4 8 7 0 31 9 83 0 1 0 84 L 20 6 2 2 0 21 0 T 34 0 2 0 36 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Pa g e 3 4 6 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 7 110 2 119 0 117 8 125 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 19 263 7:15 AM 8 108 0 116 2 166 6 174 3 2 0 5 0 0 17 17 312 7:30 AM 10 109 1 120 0 195 25 220 1 1 0 2 0 0 23 23 365 7:45 AM 13 143 0 156 0 193 43 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 416 Hourly Total 38 470 3 511 2 671 82 755 4 3 0 7 1 0 82 83 1356 8:00 AM 11 156 0 167 0 125 96 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 415 8:15 AM 3 132 2 137 0 154 19 173 1 0 0 1 0 0 35 35 346 8:30 AM 3 104 0 107 1 135 15 151 0 0 1 1 0 0 13 13 272 8:45 AM 7 98 0 105 0 116 7 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 240 Hourly Total 24 490 2 516 1 530 137 668 1 0 1 2 0 0 87 87 1273 *** BREAK ***----------------- 4:00 PM 14 204 1 219 0 150 13 163 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 17 400 4:15 PM 16 209 2 227 0 161 13 174 1 1 0 2 0 0 17 17 420 4:30 PM 24 242 1 267 0 162 12 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 475 4:45 PM 20 199 0 219 0 145 14 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 397 Hourly Total 74 854 4 932 0 618 52 670 2 1 0 3 0 0 87 87 1692 5:00 PM 20 187 0 207 0 164 18 182 0 1 0 1 0 0 25 25 415 5:15 PM 19 211 0 230 0 135 26 161 0 0 1 1 1 0 28 29 421 5:30 PM 16 182 3 201 0 138 19 157 0 0 2 2 0 0 26 26 386 5:45 PM 16 154 1 171 0 108 26 134 0 1 2 3 0 0 21 21 329 Hourly Total 71 734 4 809 0 545 89 634 0 2 5 7 1 0 100 101 1551 Grand Total 207 2548 13 2768 3 2364 360 2727 7 6 6 19 2 0 356 358 5872 Approach %7.5 92.1 0.5 -0.1 86.7 13.2 -36.8 31.6 31.6 -0.6 0.0 99.4 -- Total %3.5 43.4 0.2 47.1 0.1 40.3 6.1 46.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 - Lights 205 2373 8 2586 3 2240 348 2591 4 5 6 15 2 0 346 348 5540 % Lights 99.0 93.1 61.5 93.4 100.0 94.8 96.7 95.0 57.1 83.3 100.0 78.9 100.0 -97.2 97.2 94.3 Mediums 2 91 5 98 0 65 12 77 3 1 0 4 0 0 9 9 188 % Mediums 1.0 3.6 38.5 3.5 0.0 2.7 3.3 2.8 42.9 16.7 0.0 21.1 0.0 -2.5 2.5 3.2 Articulated Trucks 0 84 0 84 0 59 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 144 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.3 2.5Pa g e 3 4 7 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 558 348 906 15 9 24 0 1 1 573 358 931 346 0 2 9 0 0 1 0 0 356 0 2 R T L 25 5 6 84 91 23 8 1 Ou t 27 2 7 59 77 25 9 1 In 52 8 3 14 3 16 8 49 7 2 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 36 0 0 12 34 8 T 23 6 4 59 65 22 4 0 L 3 0 0 3 11 15 26 5 4 9 0 0 0 16 19 35 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T R 4 5 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 7 6 6 CS A H 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 51 7 6 17 5 14 4 54 9 5 In 25 8 6 98 84 27 6 8 Ou t 25 9 0 77 60 27 2 7 20 5 2 0 20 7 L 23 7 3 91 84 25 4 8 T 8 5 0 13 R Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 4 8 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:30 AM 10 109 1 120 0 195 25 220 1 1 0 2 0 0 23 23 365 7:45 AM 13 143 0 156 0 193 43 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 416 8:00 AM 11 156 0 167 0 125 96 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 415 8:15 AM 3 132 2 137 0 154 19 173 1 0 0 1 0 0 35 35 346 Total 37 540 3 580 0 667 183 850 2 1 0 3 0 0 109 109 1542 Approach %6.4 93.1 0.5 -0.0 78.5 21.5 -66.7 33.3 0.0 -0.0 0.0 100.0 -- Total %2.4 35.0 0.2 37.6 0.0 43.3 11.9 55.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 7.1 - PHF 0.712 0.865 0.375 0.868 0.000 0.855 0.477 0.900 0.500 0.250 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.779 0.779 0.927 Lights 36 489 2 527 0 629 173 802 1 0 0 1 0 0 105 105 1435 % Lights 97.3 90.6 66.7 90.9 -94.3 94.5 94.4 50.0 0.0 -33.3 --96.3 96.3 93.1 Mediums 1 33 1 35 0 22 10 32 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 4 73 % Mediums 2.7 6.1 33.3 6.0 -3.3 5.5 3.8 50.0 100.0 -66.7 --3.7 3.7 4.7 Articulated Trucks 0 18 0 18 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.1 -2.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 -0.0 --0.0 0.0 2.2 Pa g e 3 4 9 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:30 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:30 AM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 209 105 314 12 4 16 0 0 0 221 109 330 105 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 R T L 54 0 18 33 48 9 Ou t 85 0 16 32 80 2 In 13 9 0 34 65 12 9 1 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 18 3 0 10 17 3 T 66 7 16 22 62 9 L 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 6 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T R 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 12 6 2 62 34 13 5 8 In 52 7 35 18 58 0 Ou t 73 5 27 16 77 8 36 1 0 37 L 48 9 33 18 54 0 T 2 1 0 3 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM) Pa g e 3 5 0 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 4:30 PM 24 242 1 267 0 162 12 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 475 4:45 PM 20 199 0 219 0 145 14 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 397 5:00 PM 20 187 0 207 0 164 18 182 0 1 0 1 0 0 25 25 415 5:15 PM 19 211 0 230 0 135 26 161 0 0 1 1 1 0 28 29 421 Total 83 839 1 923 0 606 70 676 0 1 1 2 1 0 106 107 1708 Approach %9.0 90.9 0.1 -0.0 89.6 10.4 -0.0 50.0 50.0 -0.9 0.0 99.1 -- Total %4.9 49.1 0.1 54.0 0.0 35.5 4.1 39.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 6.2 6.3 - PHF 0.865 0.867 0.250 0.864 0.000 0.924 0.673 0.929 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.000 0.779 0.787 0.899 Lights 83 803 1 887 0 580 70 650 0 1 1 2 1 0 105 106 1645 % Lights 100.0 95.7 100.0 96.1 -95.7 100.0 96.2 -100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -99.1 99.1 96.3 Mediums 0 15 0 15 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 26 % Mediums 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.6 -1.7 0.0 1.5 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.9 0.9 1.5 Articulated Trucks 0 21 0 21 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.3 -2.6 0.0 2.4 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.2 Pa g e 3 5 1 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Flagstaff AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:30 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:30 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 154 106 260 0 1 1 0 0 0 154 107 261 105 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 1 R T L 84 1 21 15 80 5 Ou t 67 6 16 10 65 0 In 15 1 7 37 25 14 5 5 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 70 0 0 70 T 60 6 16 10 58 0 L 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T R 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 15 7 2 26 37 16 3 5 In 88 7 15 21 92 3 Ou t 68 5 11 16 71 2 83 0 0 83 L 80 3 15 21 83 9 T 1 0 0 1 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) Pa g e 3 5 2 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Eastbound Approach Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 23 2 25 4 24 28 0 26 17 43 96 7:15 AM 25 3 28 1 27 28 0 46 32 78 134 7:30 AM 23 4 27 0 35 35 0 86 37 123 185 7:45 AM 8 6 14 2 50 52 0 211 30 241 307 Hourly Total 79 15 94 7 136 143 0 369 116 485 722 8:00 AM 10 2 12 6 117 123 0 288 25 313 448 8:15 AM 9 1 10 2 40 42 0 38 12 50 102 8:30 AM 9 0 9 4 16 20 0 21 13 34 63 8:45 AM 13 2 15 2 15 17 0 16 16 32 64 Hourly Total 41 5 46 14 188 202 0 363 66 429 677 *** BREAK ***----------- 4:00 PM 22 3 25 2 44 46 1 30 17 48 119 4:15 PM 36 4 40 3 53 56 0 31 28 59 155 4:30 PM 24 5 29 2 60 62 0 30 19 49 140 4:45 PM 38 3 41 0 48 48 0 43 18 61 150 Hourly Total 120 15 135 7 205 212 1 134 82 217 564 5:00 PM 26 3 29 0 67 67 0 38 17 55 151 5:15 PM 25 2 27 1 53 54 0 94 12 106 187 5:30 PM 21 3 24 2 55 57 0 96 22 118 199 5:45 PM 26 3 29 2 42 44 0 80 24 104 177 Hourly Total 98 11 109 5 217 222 0 308 75 383 714 Grand Total 338 46 384 33 746 779 1 1174 339 1514 2677 Approach %88.0 12.0 -4.2 95.8 -0.1 77.5 22.4 -- Total %12.6 1.7 14.3 1.2 27.9 29.1 0.0 43.9 12.7 56.6 - Lights 326 45 371 31 719 750 0 1153 335 1488 2609 % Lights 96.4 97.8 96.6 93.9 96.4 96.3 0.0 98.2 98.8 98.3 97.5 Mediums 12 0 12 1 27 28 1 20 4 25 65 % Mediums 3.6 0.0 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.6 100.0 1.7 1.2 1.7 2.4 Articulated Trucks 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.2 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Pa g e 3 5 3 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 1045 1488 2533 39 25 64 0 1 1 1084 1514 2598 335 1153 0 4 20 1 0 1 0 339 1174 1 R T L 1 0 1 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 In 1 0 1 0 To t a l Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ W B ] 1198 750 1948 20 28 48 2 1 3 1220 779 1999 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T 31 719 1 27 1 0 33 746 Ea s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 73 7 17 2 75 6 In 37 1 12 1 38 4 Ou t 36 6 5 1 37 2 32 6 12 0 33 8 L 45 0 1 46 R Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 5 4 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM) Start Time Eastbound Approach Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:15 AM 25 3 28 1 27 28 0 46 32 78 134 7:30 AM 23 4 27 0 35 35 0 86 37 123 185 7:45 AM 8 6 14 2 50 52 0 211 30 241 307 8:00 AM 10 2 12 6 117 123 0 288 25 313 448 Total 66 15 81 9 229 238 0 631 124 755 1074 Approach %81.5 18.5 -3.8 96.2 -0.0 83.6 16.4 -- Total %6.1 1.4 7.5 0.8 21.3 22.2 0.0 58.8 11.5 70.3 - PHF 0.660 0.625 0.723 0.375 0.489 0.484 0.000 0.548 0.838 0.603 0.599 Lights 61 15 76 8 205 213 0 616 121 737 1026 % Lights 92.4 100.0 93.8 88.9 89.5 89.5 -97.6 97.6 97.6 95.5 Mediums 5 0 5 0 24 24 0 15 3 18 47 % Mediums 7.6 0.0 6.2 0.0 10.5 10.1 -2.4 2.4 2.4 4.4 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.4 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pa g e 3 5 5 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:15 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:15 AM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 266 737 1003 29 18 47 0 0 0 295 755 1050 121 616 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 124 631 0 R T L 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 To t a l Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ W B ] 631 213 844 15 24 39 0 1 1 646 238 884 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T 8 205 0 24 1 0 9 229 Ea s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 20 5 8 1 21 4 In 76 5 0 81 Ou t 12 9 3 1 13 3 61 5 0 66 L 15 0 0 15 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Pa g e 3 5 6 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (5:00 PM) Start Time Eastbound Approach Flagstaff Ave Flagstaff Ave Eastbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 5:00 PM 26 3 29 0 67 67 0 38 17 55 151 5:15 PM 25 2 27 1 53 54 0 94 12 106 187 5:30 PM 21 3 24 2 55 57 0 96 22 118 199 5:45 PM 26 3 29 2 42 44 0 80 24 104 177 Total 98 11 109 5 217 222 0 308 75 383 714 Approach %89.9 10.1 -2.3 97.7 -0.0 80.4 19.6 -- Total %13.7 1.5 15.3 0.7 30.4 31.1 0.0 43.1 10.5 53.6 - PHF 0.942 0.917 0.940 0.625 0.810 0.828 0.000 0.802 0.781 0.811 0.897 Lights 98 11 109 5 217 222 0 308 75 383 714 % Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pa g e 3 5 7 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Flagstaff Ave & 200th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 5:00 PMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Flagstaff Ave [SB] Out In Total 315 383 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 383 698 75 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 308 0 R T L 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 To t a l Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ W B ] 319 222 541 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 222 541 Out In Total Flagstaff Ave [NB] L T 5 217 0 0 0 0 5 217 Ea s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 18 9 0 0 18 9 In 10 9 0 0 10 9 Ou t 80 0 0 80 98 0 0 98 L 11 0 0 11 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (5:00 PM) Pa g e 3 5 8 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Pilot Knob Rd Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 29 79 0 108 0 98 21 0 119 19 42 0 61 288 7:15 AM 24 82 0 106 0 122 17 0 139 26 50 0 76 321 7:30 AM 25 87 0 112 0 151 16 0 167 44 66 0 110 389 7:45 AM 30 112 0 142 0 186 28 0 214 39 75 0 114 470 Hourly Total 108 360 0 468 0 557 82 0 639 128 233 0 361 1468 8:00 AM 14 135 0 149 0 158 30 0 188 34 45 0 79 416 8:15 AM 19 115 0 134 0 137 17 0 154 46 39 0 85 373 8:30 AM 15 91 0 106 0 116 41 0 157 40 30 0 70 333 8:45 AM 26 71 0 97 0 104 26 0 130 24 23 0 47 274 Hourly Total 74 412 0 486 0 515 114 0 629 144 137 0 281 1396 *** BREAK ***-------------- 4:00 PM 51 146 0 197 0 134 34 0 168 50 36 0 86 451 4:15 PM 57 148 0 205 0 131 35 0 166 58 48 0 106 477 4:30 PM 63 187 0 250 1 137 38 0 176 44 40 0 84 510 4:45 PM 39 149 0 188 0 120 38 0 158 45 49 0 94 440 Hourly Total 210 630 0 840 1 522 145 0 668 197 173 0 370 1878 5:00 PM 62 128 0 190 0 143 46 0 189 47 43 0 90 469 5:15 PM 56 134 0 190 0 125 21 0 146 57 44 0 101 437 5:30 PM 37 142 0 179 0 113 31 0 144 35 28 0 63 386 5:45 PM 36 113 0 149 0 100 22 0 122 46 26 0 72 343 Hourly Total 191 517 0 708 0 481 120 0 601 185 141 0 326 1635 Grand Total 583 1919 0 2502 1 2075 461 0 2537 654 684 0 1338 6377 Approach %23.3 76.7 --0.0 81.8 18.2 --48.9 51.1 --- Total %9.1 30.1 -39.2 0.0 32.5 7.2 -39.8 10.3 10.7 -21.0 - Lights 516 1810 -2326 1 1981 446 -2428 617 640 -1257 6011 % Lights 88.5 94.3 -93.0 100.0 95.5 96.7 -95.7 94.3 93.6 -93.9 94.3 Mediums 24 70 -94 0 54 13 -67 34 20 -54 215 % Mediums 4.1 3.6 -3.8 0.0 2.6 2.8 -2.6 5.2 2.9 -4.0 3.4 Articulated Trucks 43 39 -82 0 40 2 -42 3 24 -27 151 % Articulated Trucks 7.4 2.0 -3.3 0.0 1.9 0.4 -1.7 0.5 3.5 -2.0 2.4 Pedestrians --0 ----0 ---0 -- % Pedestrians -------------- Pa g e 3 5 9 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 962 1257 2219 37 54 91 45 27 72 0 0 0 1044 1338 2382 640 617 0 20 34 0 24 3 0 0 0 0 684 654 0 R L P 25 7 3 0 42 10 4 24 2 7 Ou t 25 3 7 0 42 67 24 2 8 In 51 1 0 0 84 17 1 48 5 5 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 46 1 0 2 13 44 6 T 20 7 5 0 40 54 19 8 1 L 1 0 0 0 1 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB] CS A H 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 49 4 7 16 8 14 6 0 52 6 1 In 23 2 6 94 82 0 25 0 2 Ou t 26 2 1 74 64 0 27 5 9 51 6 24 43 0 58 3 L 18 1 0 70 39 0 19 1 9 T 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 6 0 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Pilot Knob Rd Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:30 AM 25 87 0 112 0 151 16 0 167 44 66 0 110 389 7:45 AM 30 112 0 142 0 186 28 0 214 39 75 0 114 470 8:00 AM 14 135 0 149 0 158 30 0 188 34 45 0 79 416 8:15 AM 19 115 0 134 0 137 17 0 154 46 39 0 85 373 Total 88 449 0 537 0 632 91 0 723 163 225 0 388 1648 Approach %16.4 83.6 --0.0 87.4 12.6 --42.0 58.0 --- Total %5.3 27.2 -32.6 0.0 38.3 5.5 -43.9 9.9 13.7 -23.5 - PHF 0.733 0.831 -0.901 0.000 0.849 0.758 -0.845 0.886 0.750 -0.851 0.877 Lights 77 408 -485 0 598 86 -684 155 208 -363 1532 % Lights 87.5 90.9 -90.3 -94.6 94.5 -94.6 95.1 92.4 -93.6 93.0 Mediums 8 26 -34 0 23 4 -27 7 8 -15 76 % Mediums 9.1 5.8 -6.3 -3.6 4.4 -3.7 4.3 3.6 -3.9 4.6 Articulated Trucks 3 15 -18 0 11 1 -12 1 9 -10 40 % Articulated Trucks 3.4 3.3 -3.4 -1.7 1.1 -1.7 0.6 4.0 -2.6 2.4 Pedestrians --0 ----0 ---0 -- % Pedestrians -------------- Pa g e 3 6 1 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:30 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:30 AM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 163 363 526 12 15 27 4 10 14 0 0 0 179 388 567 208 155 0 8 7 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 225 163 0 R L P 61 2 0 16 33 56 3 Ou t 72 3 0 12 27 68 4 In 13 3 5 0 28 60 12 4 7 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 91 0 1 4 86 T 63 2 0 11 23 59 8 L 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB] CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 12 9 1 65 38 0 13 9 4 In 48 5 34 18 0 53 7 Ou t 80 6 31 20 0 85 7 77 8 3 0 88 L 40 8 26 15 0 44 9 T 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM) Pa g e 3 6 2 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Pilot Knob Rd Eastbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 57 148 0 205 0 131 35 0 166 58 48 0 106 477 4:30 PM 63 187 0 250 1 137 38 0 176 44 40 0 84 510 4:45 PM 39 149 0 188 0 120 38 0 158 45 49 0 94 440 5:00 PM 62 128 0 190 0 143 46 0 189 47 43 0 90 469 Total 221 612 0 833 1 531 157 0 689 194 180 0 374 1896 Approach %26.5 73.5 --0.1 77.1 22.8 --51.9 48.1 --- Total %11.7 32.3 -43.9 0.1 28.0 8.3 -36.3 10.2 9.5 -19.7 - PHF 0.877 0.818 -0.833 0.250 0.928 0.853 -0.911 0.836 0.918 -0.882 0.929 Lights 204 592 -796 1 513 156 -670 182 167 -349 1815 % Lights 92.3 96.7 -95.6 100.0 96.6 99.4 -97.2 93.8 92.8 -93.3 95.7 Mediums 3 12 -15 0 8 1 -9 11 6 -17 41 % Mediums 1.4 2.0 -1.8 0.0 1.5 0.6 -1.3 5.7 3.3 -4.5 2.2 Articulated Trucks 14 8 -22 0 10 0 -10 1 7 -8 40 % Articulated Trucks 6.3 1.3 -2.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 -1.5 0.5 3.9 -2.1 2.1 Pedestrians --0 ----0 ---0 -- % Pedestrians -------------- Pa g e 3 6 3 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:15 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:15 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 360 349 709 4 17 21 14 8 22 0 0 0 378 374 752 167 182 0 6 11 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 180 194 0 R L P 80 6 0 9 23 77 4 Ou t 68 9 0 10 9 67 0 In 14 9 5 0 19 32 14 4 4 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 15 7 0 0 1 15 6 T 53 1 0 10 8 51 3 L 1 0 0 0 1 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Out In Total Fake Approach [NB] CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 14 7 6 29 39 0 15 4 4 In 79 6 15 22 0 83 3 Ou t 68 0 14 17 0 71 1 20 4 3 14 0 22 1 L 59 2 12 8 0 61 2 T 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Pa g e 3 6 4 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time 208th St Pilot Knob Rd Pilot Knob Rd Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 3 7 10 48 0 48 5 52 57 115 7:15 AM 2 10 12 36 4 40 13 83 96 148 7:30 AM 6 5 11 38 2 40 14 107 121 172 7:45 AM 2 5 7 58 5 63 18 106 124 194 Hourly Total 13 27 40 180 11 191 50 348 398 629 8:00 AM 2 7 9 39 0 39 15 78 93 141 8:15 AM 3 7 10 33 2 35 5 86 91 136 8:30 AM 2 14 16 55 3 58 7 60 67 141 8:45 AM 2 11 13 44 6 50 11 46 57 120 Hourly Total 9 39 48 171 11 182 38 270 308 538 *** BREAK ***---------- 4:00 PM 4 16 20 83 5 88 15 82 97 205 4:15 PM 5 33 38 82 5 87 11 101 112 237 4:30 PM 5 17 22 98 4 102 9 83 92 216 4:45 PM 1 18 19 75 10 85 9 88 97 201 Hourly Total 15 84 99 338 24 362 44 354 398 859 5:00 PM 8 16 24 94 4 98 12 89 101 223 5:15 PM 4 11 15 72 6 78 12 85 97 190 5:30 PM 3 22 25 60 6 66 8 65 73 164 5:45 PM 5 11 16 54 4 58 8 61 69 143 Hourly Total 20 60 80 280 20 300 40 300 340 720 Grand Total 57 210 267 969 66 1035 172 1272 1444 2746 Approach %21.3 78.7 -93.6 6.4 -11.9 88.1 -- Total %2.1 7.6 9.7 35.3 2.4 37.7 6.3 46.3 52.6 - Lights 41 195 236 921 37 958 137 1210 1347 2541 % Lights 71.9 92.9 88.4 95.0 56.1 92.6 79.7 95.1 93.3 92.5 Mediums 4 6 10 29 5 34 32 49 81 125 % Mediums 7.0 2.9 3.7 3.0 7.6 3.3 18.6 3.9 5.6 4.6 Articulated Trucks 12 9 21 19 24 43 3 13 16 80 % Articulated Trucks 21.1 4.3 7.9 2.0 36.4 4.2 1.7 1.0 1.1 2.9Pa g e 3 6 5 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 1116 1347 2463 35 81 116 28 16 44 1179 1444 2623 1210 137 49 32 13 3 1272 172 T L 23 8 27 37 17 4 Ou t 26 7 21 10 23 6 In 50 5 48 47 41 0 To t a l 20 8 t h S t [ W B ] R 21 0 9 6 19 5 L 57 12 4 41 1251 958 2209 53 34 87 25 43 68 1329 1035 2364 Out In Total Pilot Knob Rd [NB] T R 921 37 29 5 19 24 969 66 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 6 6 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM) Start Time 208th St Pilot Knob Rd Pilot Knob Rd Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 7:15 AM 2 10 12 36 4 40 13 83 96 148 7:30 AM 6 5 11 38 2 40 14 107 121 172 7:45 AM 2 5 7 58 5 63 18 106 124 194 8:00 AM 2 7 9 39 0 39 15 78 93 141 Total 12 27 39 171 11 182 60 374 434 655 Approach %30.8 69.2 -94.0 6.0 -13.8 86.2 -- Total %1.8 4.1 6.0 26.1 1.7 27.8 9.2 57.1 66.3 - PHF 0.500 0.675 0.813 0.737 0.550 0.722 0.833 0.874 0.875 0.844 Lights 6 25 31 158 11 169 58 358 416 616 % Lights 50.0 92.6 79.5 92.4 100.0 92.9 96.7 95.7 95.9 94.0 Mediums 1 1 2 10 0 10 2 15 17 29 % Mediums 8.3 3.7 5.1 5.8 0.0 5.5 3.3 4.0 3.9 4.4 Articulated Trucks 5 1 6 3 0 3 0 1 1 10 % Articulated Trucks 41.7 3.7 15.4 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.5 Pa g e 3 6 7 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:15 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:15 AM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 183 416 599 11 17 28 4 1 5 198 434 632 358 58 15 2 1 0 374 60 T L 71 0 2 69 Ou t 39 6 2 31 In 11 0 6 4 10 0 To t a l 20 8 t h S t [ W B ] R 27 1 1 25 L 12 5 1 6 364 169 533 16 10 26 6 3 9 386 182 568 Out In Total Pilot Knob Rd [NB] T R 158 11 10 0 3 0 171 11 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Pa g e 3 6 8 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time 208th St Pilot Knob Rd Pilot Knob Rd Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 5 33 38 82 5 87 11 101 112 237 4:30 PM 5 17 22 98 4 102 9 83 92 216 4:45 PM 1 18 19 75 10 85 9 88 97 201 5:00 PM 8 16 24 94 4 98 12 89 101 223 Total 19 84 103 349 23 372 41 361 402 877 Approach %18.4 81.6 -93.8 6.2 -10.2 89.8 -- Total %2.2 9.6 11.7 39.8 2.6 42.4 4.7 41.2 45.8 - PHF 0.594 0.636 0.678 0.890 0.575 0.912 0.854 0.894 0.897 0.925 Lights 16 82 98 343 12 355 32 340 372 825 % Lights 84.2 97.6 95.1 98.3 52.2 95.4 78.0 94.2 92.5 94.1 Mediums 1 2 3 2 1 3 8 17 25 31 % Mediums 5.3 2.4 2.9 0.6 4.3 0.8 19.5 4.7 6.2 3.5 Articulated Trucks 2 0 2 4 10 14 1 4 5 21 % Articulated Trucks 10.5 0.0 1.9 1.1 43.5 3.8 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.4 Pa g e 3 6 9 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Pilot Knob Rd & 208th StSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:15 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:15 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Pilot Knob Rd [SB] Out In Total 425 372 797 4 25 29 4 5 9 433 402 835 340 32 17 8 4 1 361 41 T L 64 11 9 44 Ou t 10 3 2 3 98 In 16 7 13 12 14 2 To t a l 20 8 t h S t [ W B ] R 84 0 2 82 L 19 2 1 16 356 355 711 18 3 21 6 14 20 380 372 752 Out In Total Pilot Knob Rd [NB] T R 343 12 2 1 4 10 349 23 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Pa g e 3 7 0 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Eaton Ave Eaton Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 3 98 0 101 2 117 7 126 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 232 7:15 AM 5 104 2 111 3 138 9 150 2 0 1 3 3 0 7 10 274 7:30 AM 6 120 2 128 2 157 17 176 1 0 0 1 4 0 3 7 312 7:45 AM 7 150 1 158 0 214 14 228 2 0 2 4 4 0 10 14 404 Hourly Total 21 472 5 498 7 626 47 680 6 0 4 10 13 0 21 34 1222 8:00 AM 7 143 5 155 0 179 3 182 2 1 3 6 2 0 2 4 347 8:15 AM 5 151 3 159 1 149 5 155 2 0 2 4 4 0 3 7 325 8:30 AM 4 128 2 134 1 177 7 185 0 0 3 3 4 0 4 8 330 8:45 AM 2 101 2 105 0 112 13 125 4 0 1 5 0 0 3 3 238 Hourly Total 18 523 12 553 2 617 28 647 8 1 9 18 10 0 12 22 1240 *** BREAK ***----------------- 4:00 PM 4 185 1 190 1 155 1 157 3 0 2 5 7 0 4 11 363 4:15 PM 8 200 3 211 0 159 3 162 2 0 4 6 6 0 5 11 390 4:30 PM 4 214 4 222 2 148 0 150 2 0 1 3 14 0 9 23 398 4:45 PM 0 194 2 196 1 160 3 164 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 366 Hourly Total 16 793 10 819 4 622 7 633 7 0 7 14 33 0 18 51 1517 5:00 PM 2 182 1 185 2 164 3 169 3 0 2 5 8 0 5 13 372 5:15 PM 3 196 1 200 0 150 7 157 0 0 1 1 7 0 3 10 368 5:30 PM 2 183 0 185 2 127 0 129 1 0 2 3 8 0 1 9 326 5:45 PM 1 161 0 162 1 119 2 122 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 287 Hourly Total 8 722 2 732 5 560 12 577 4 0 5 9 25 0 10 35 1353 Grand Total 63 2510 29 2602 18 2425 94 2537 25 1 25 51 81 0 61 142 5332 Approach %2.4 96.5 1.1 -0.7 95.6 3.7 -49.0 2.0 49.0 -57.0 0.0 43.0 -- Total %1.2 47.1 0.5 48.8 0.3 45.5 1.8 47.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.1 2.7 - Lights 50 2397 25 2472 17 2295 84 2396 22 0 23 45 78 0 52 130 5043 % Lights 79.4 95.5 86.2 95.0 94.4 94.6 89.4 94.4 88.0 0.0 92.0 88.2 96.3 -85.2 91.5 94.6 Mediums 13 73 1 87 0 97 2 99 2 1 0 3 1 0 7 8 197 % Mediums 20.6 2.9 3.4 3.3 0.0 4.0 2.1 3.9 8.0 100.0 0.0 5.9 1.2 -11.5 5.6 3.7 Articulated Trucks 0 40 3 43 1 33 8 42 1 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 92 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.6 10.3 1.7 5.6 1.4 8.5 1.7 4.0 0.0 8.0 5.9 2.5 -3.3 2.8 1.7Pa g e 3 7 1 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Eaton Ave [SB] Out In Total 134 130 264 16 8 24 8 4 12 158 142 300 52 0 78 7 0 1 2 0 2 61 0 81 R T L 26 1 6 44 74 24 9 8 Ou t 25 3 7 42 99 23 9 6 In 51 5 3 86 17 3 48 9 4 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 94 8 2 84 T 24 2 5 33 97 22 9 5 L 18 1 0 17 42 45 87 1 3 4 4 3 7 47 51 98 Out In Total Eaton Ave [NB] L T R 22 0 23 2 1 0 1 0 2 25 1 25 CS A H 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 48 4 1 19 3 79 51 1 3 In 24 7 2 87 43 26 0 2 Ou t 23 6 9 10 6 36 25 1 1 50 13 0 63 L 23 9 7 73 40 25 1 0 T 25 1 3 29 R Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 7 2 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Eaton Ave Eaton Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 7 150 1 158 0 214 14 228 2 0 2 4 4 0 10 14 404 8:00 AM 7 143 5 155 0 179 3 182 2 1 3 6 2 0 2 4 347 8:15 AM 5 151 3 159 1 149 5 155 2 0 2 4 4 0 3 7 325 8:30 AM 4 128 2 134 1 177 7 185 0 0 3 3 4 0 4 8 330 Total 23 572 11 606 2 719 29 750 6 1 10 17 14 0 19 33 1406 Approach %3.8 94.4 1.8 -0.3 95.9 3.9 -35.3 5.9 58.8 -42.4 0.0 57.6 -- Total %1.6 40.7 0.8 43.1 0.1 51.1 2.1 53.3 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.0 1.4 2.3 - PHF 0.821 0.947 0.550 0.953 0.500 0.840 0.518 0.822 0.750 0.250 0.833 0.708 0.875 0.000 0.475 0.589 0.870 Lights 18 523 8 549 1 660 26 687 5 0 8 13 13 0 15 28 1277 % Lights 78.3 91.4 72.7 90.6 50.0 91.8 89.7 91.6 83.3 0.0 80.0 76.5 92.9 -78.9 84.8 90.8 Mediums 5 34 0 39 0 51 1 52 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 95 % Mediums 21.7 5.9 0.0 6.4 0.0 7.1 3.4 6.9 16.7 100.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 -10.5 6.1 6.8 Articulated Trucks 0 15 3 18 1 8 2 11 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 3 34 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.6 27.3 3.0 50.0 1.1 6.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 11.8 7.1 -10.5 9.1 2.4 Pa g e 3 7 3 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:45 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:45 AM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Eaton Ave [SB] Out In Total 44 28 72 7 2 9 2 3 5 53 33 86 15 0 13 2 0 0 2 0 1 19 0 14 R T L 59 6 18 34 54 4 Ou t 75 0 11 52 68 7 In 13 4 6 29 86 12 3 1 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 29 2 1 26 T 71 9 8 51 66 0 L 2 1 0 1 9 13 22 0 2 2 4 2 6 13 17 30 Out In Total Eaton Ave [NB] L T R 5 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 2 6 1 10 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 12 2 9 93 28 13 5 0 In 54 9 39 18 60 6 Ou t 68 0 54 10 74 4 18 5 0 23 L 52 3 34 15 57 2 T 8 0 3 11 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) Pa g e 3 7 4 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Eaton Ave Eaton Ave Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 8 200 3 211 0 159 3 162 2 0 4 6 6 0 5 11 390 4:30 PM 4 214 4 222 2 148 0 150 2 0 1 3 14 0 9 23 398 4:45 PM 0 194 2 196 1 160 3 164 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 366 5:00 PM 2 182 1 185 2 164 3 169 3 0 2 5 8 0 5 13 372 Total 14 790 10 814 5 631 9 645 7 0 7 14 34 0 19 53 1526 Approach %1.7 97.1 1.2 -0.8 97.8 1.4 -50.0 0.0 50.0 -64.2 0.0 35.8 -- Total %0.9 51.8 0.7 53.3 0.3 41.3 0.6 42.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 2.2 0.0 1.2 3.5 - PHF 0.438 0.923 0.625 0.917 0.625 0.962 0.750 0.954 0.583 0.000 0.438 0.583 0.607 0.000 0.528 0.576 0.959 Lights 10 774 10 794 5 604 8 617 7 0 7 14 34 0 18 52 1477 % Lights 71.4 98.0 100.0 97.5 100.0 95.7 88.9 95.7 100.0 -100.0 100.0 100.0 -94.7 98.1 96.8 Mediums 4 6 0 10 0 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 32 % Mediums 28.6 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.3 1.9 2.1 Articulated Trucks 0 10 0 10 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 11.1 1.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 1.1 Pa g e 3 7 5 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Eaton AveSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:15 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:15 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks Eaton Ave [SB] Out In Total 18 52 70 4 1 5 1 0 1 23 53 76 18 0 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 34 R T L 83 1 10 6 81 5 Ou t 64 5 7 21 61 7 In 14 7 6 17 27 14 3 2 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 9 1 0 8 T 63 1 6 21 60 4 L 5 0 0 5 15 14 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 29 Out In Total Eaton Ave [NB] L T R 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 14 2 3 32 16 14 7 1 In 79 4 10 10 81 4 Ou t 62 9 22 6 65 7 10 4 0 14 L 77 4 6 10 79 0 T 10 0 0 10 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Pa g e 3 7 6 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Denmark Ave Akin Rd Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 10 48 48 0 106 0 97 18 0 115 32 12 4 0 48 11 7 8 0 26 295 7:15 AM 9 50 38 0 97 1 98 32 0 131 37 13 0 0 50 19 15 10 0 44 322 7:30 AM 19 53 57 0 129 2 124 20 0 146 48 22 0 0 70 33 36 15 0 84 429 7:45 AM 8 90 50 0 148 1 150 22 0 173 59 23 2 0 84 20 17 15 0 52 457 Hourly Total 46 241 193 0 480 4 469 92 0 565 176 70 6 0 252 83 75 48 0 206 1503 8:00 AM 7 102 51 0 160 1 119 18 0 138 45 18 8 0 71 19 14 14 0 47 416 8:15 AM 3 101 51 0 155 4 109 21 0 134 39 14 4 0 57 22 22 3 0 47 393 8:30 AM 4 63 64 0 131 10 87 29 0 126 74 49 8 0 131 23 30 28 0 81 469 8:45 AM 7 70 22 0 99 2 80 21 0 103 30 13 4 0 47 17 8 7 0 32 281 Hourly Total 21 336 188 0 545 17 395 89 0 501 188 94 24 0 306 81 74 52 0 207 1559 *** BREAK ***--------------------- 4:00 PM 13 116 52 0 181 4 91 32 0 127 49 25 2 0 76 24 34 10 0 68 452 4:15 PM 8 118 63 0 189 4 102 19 2 125 41 16 6 0 63 25 17 9 2 51 428 4:30 PM 10 153 69 0 232 1 112 22 0 135 32 32 0 0 64 20 25 3 0 48 479 4:45 PM 3 127 49 0 179 4 103 23 0 130 51 19 2 0 72 18 28 12 0 58 439 Hourly Total 34 514 233 0 781 13 408 96 2 517 173 92 10 0 275 87 104 34 2 225 1798 5:00 PM 11 124 64 0 199 3 122 33 0 158 45 14 2 0 61 22 9 6 1 37 455 5:15 PM 12 125 66 0 203 1 108 24 0 133 35 5 6 0 46 34 23 8 3 65 447 5:30 PM 7 132 68 0 207 3 76 19 0 98 47 20 5 0 72 38 22 9 0 69 446 5:45 PM 4 118 43 0 165 3 73 18 0 94 37 15 2 0 54 30 19 2 0 51 364 Hourly Total 34 499 241 0 774 10 379 94 0 483 164 54 15 0 233 124 73 25 4 222 1712 Grand Total 135 1590 855 0 2580 44 1651 371 2 2066 701 310 55 0 1066 375 326 159 6 860 6572 Approach % 5.2 61.6 33.1 -- 2.1 79.9 18.0 -- 65.8 29.1 5.2 -- 43.6 37.9 18.5 --- Total %2.1 24.2 13.0 -39.3 0.7 25.1 5.6 -31.4 10.7 4.7 0.8 -16.2 5.7 5.0 2.4 -13.1 - Lights 134 1514 812 -2460 40 1569 359 -1968 660 301 52 -1013 365 313 138 -816 6257 % Lights 99.3 95.2 95.0 -95.3 90.9 95.0 96.8 -95.3 94.2 97.1 94.5 -95.0 97.3 96.0 86.8 -94.9 95.2 Mediums 1 41 36 -78 3 41 12 -56 34 7 3 -44 10 13 21 -44 222 % Mediums 0.7 2.6 4.2 -3.0 6.8 2.5 3.2 -2.7 4.9 2.3 5.5 -4.1 2.7 4.0 13.2 -5.1 3.4 Articulated Trucks 0 35 7 -42 1 41 0 -42 7 2 0 -9 0 0 0 -0 93 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.2 0.8 -1.6 2.3 2.5 0.0 -2.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.4 Pedestrians ---0 ----2 ----0 ----6 -- % Pedestrians --------100.0 ---------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 7 7 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 2 03/14/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/14/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Akin Rd [SB] Out In Total 794 816 1610 20 44 64 2 0 2 0 0 0 816 860 1676 138 313 365 0 21 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 159 326 375 6 R T L P 20 2 0 0 35 54 19 3 1 Ou t 20 6 6 0 42 56 19 6 8 In 40 8 6 0 77 11 0 38 9 9 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 37 1 0 0 12 35 9 T 16 5 1 0 41 41 15 6 9 L 44 0 1 3 40 P 2 2 0 0 0 1165 1013 2178 52 44 96 8 9 17 0 0 0 1225 1066 2291 Out In Total Denmark Ave [NB] L T R P 660 301 52 0 34 7 3 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 701 310 55 0 CS A H 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 48 2 7 17 4 90 0 50 9 1 In 24 6 0 78 42 0 25 8 0 Ou t 23 6 7 96 48 0 25 1 1 13 4 1 0 0 13 5 L 15 1 4 41 35 0 15 9 0 T 81 2 36 7 0 85 5 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 7 8 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Denmark Ave Akin Rd Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 8 90 50 0 148 1 150 22 0 173 59 23 2 0 84 20 17 15 0 52 457 8:00 AM 7 102 51 0 160 1 119 18 0 138 45 18 8 0 71 19 14 14 0 47 416 8:15 AM 3 101 51 0 155 4 109 21 0 134 39 14 4 0 57 22 22 3 0 47 393 8:30 AM 4 63 64 0 131 10 87 29 0 126 74 49 8 0 131 23 30 28 0 81 469 Total 22 356 216 0 594 16 465 90 0 571 217 104 22 0 343 84 83 60 0 227 1735 Approach % 3.7 59.9 36.4 -- 2.8 81.4 15.8 -- 63.3 30.3 6.4 -- 37.0 36.6 26.4 --- Total %1.3 20.5 12.4 -34.2 0.9 26.8 5.2 -32.9 12.5 6.0 1.3 -19.8 4.8 4.8 3.5 -13.1 - PHF 0.688 0.873 0.844 -0.928 0.400 0.775 0.776 -0.825 0.733 0.531 0.688 -0.655 0.913 0.692 0.536 -0.701 0.925 Lights 22 322 198 -542 13 434 88 -535 193 98 20 -311 82 79 46 -207 1595 % Lights 100.0 90.4 91.7 -91.2 81.3 93.3 97.8 -93.7 88.9 94.2 90.9 -90.7 97.6 95.2 76.7 -91.2 91.9 Mediums 0 24 16 -40 3 19 2 -24 23 4 2 -29 2 4 14 -20 113 % Mediums 0.0 6.7 7.4 -6.7 18.8 4.1 2.2 -4.2 10.6 3.8 9.1 -8.5 2.4 4.8 23.3 -8.8 6.5 Articulated Trucks 0 10 2 -12 0 12 0 -12 1 2 0 -3 0 0 0 -0 27 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.8 0.9 -2.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 -2.1 0.5 1.9 0.0 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.6 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 -- % Pedestrians --------------------- Pa g e 3 7 9 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 7:45 AMEnding At03/14/2024 8:45 AM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Akin Rd [SB] Out In Total 208 207 415 6 20 26 2 0 2 0 0 0 216 227 443 46 79 82 0 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 83 84 0 R T L P 46 2 0 10 28 42 4 Ou t 57 1 0 12 24 53 5 In 10 3 3 0 22 52 95 9 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 90 0 0 2 88 T 46 5 0 12 19 43 4 L 16 0 0 3 13 P 0 0 0 0 0 290 311 601 23 29 52 2 3 5 0 0 0 315 343 658 Out In Total Denmark Ave [NB] L T R P 193 98 20 0 23 4 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 104 22 0 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 12 1 5 96 25 0 13 3 6 In 54 2 40 12 0 59 4 Ou t 67 3 56 13 0 74 2 22 0 0 0 22 L 32 2 24 10 0 35 6 T 19 8 16 2 0 21 6 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) Pa g e 3 8 0 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM) Start Time CSAH 50 CSAH 50 Denmark Ave Akin Rd Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:30 PM 10 153 69 0 232 1 112 22 0 135 32 32 0 0 64 20 25 3 0 48 479 4:45 PM 3 127 49 0 179 4 103 23 0 130 51 19 2 0 72 18 28 12 0 58 439 5:00 PM 11 124 64 0 199 3 122 33 0 158 45 14 2 0 61 22 9 6 1 37 455 5:15 PM 12 125 66 0 203 1 108 24 0 133 35 5 6 0 46 34 23 8 3 65 447 Total 36 529 248 0 813 9 445 102 0 556 163 70 10 0 243 94 85 29 4 208 1820 Approach % 4.4 65.1 30.5 -- 1.6 80.0 18.3 -- 67.1 28.8 4.1 -- 45.2 40.9 13.9 --- Total %2.0 29.1 13.6 -44.7 0.5 24.5 5.6 -30.5 9.0 3.8 0.5 -13.4 5.2 4.7 1.6 -11.4 - PHF 0.750 0.864 0.899 -0.876 0.563 0.912 0.773 -0.880 0.799 0.547 0.417 -0.844 0.691 0.759 0.604 -0.800 0.950 Lights 36 521 241 -798 9 428 102 -539 156 69 10 -235 94 83 25 -202 1774 % Lights 100.0 98.5 97.2 -98.2 100.0 96.2 100.0 -96.9 95.7 98.6 100.0 -96.7 100.0 97.6 86.2 -97.1 97.5 Mediums 0 2 6 -8 0 8 0 -8 3 1 0 -4 0 2 4 -6 26 % Mediums 0.0 0.4 2.4 -1.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 -1.4 1.8 1.4 0.0 -1.6 0.0 2.4 13.8 -2.9 1.4 Articulated Trucks 0 6 1 -7 0 9 0 -9 4 0 0 -4 0 0 0 -0 20 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.1 0.4 -0.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 -1.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 -1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.1 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----4 -- % Pedestrians ------------------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 8 1 o f 6 3 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: CSAH 50 & Denmark Ave/Akin RdSite Code:Start Date: 03/14/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/14/2024 4:30 PMEnding At03/14/2024 5:30 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians Akin Rd [SB] Out In Total 207 202 409 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 208 416 25 83 94 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 85 94 4 R T L P 63 3 0 6 2 62 5 Ou t 55 6 0 9 8 53 9 In 11 8 9 0 15 10 11 6 4 To t a l CS A H 5 0 [ W B ] R 10 2 0 0 0 10 2 T 44 5 0 9 8 42 8 L 9 0 0 0 9 P 0 0 0 0 0 333 235 568 8 4 12 1 4 5 0 0 0 342 243 585 Out In Total Denmark Ave [NB] L T R P 156 69 10 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 70 10 0 CSAH 5 0 [ E B ] To t a l 14 0 7 23 20 0 14 5 0 In 79 8 8 7 0 81 3 Ou t 60 9 15 13 0 63 7 36 0 0 0 36 L 52 1 2 6 0 52 9 T 24 1 6 1 0 24 8 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) Pa g e 3 8 2 o f 6 3 5 Farmington West AUAR │ Traffic Analysis June 2024 Appendix C: Traffic Reports Page 383 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.4 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.2 2.8 2.9 0.3 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s)46.9 36.7 4.7 44.6 26.3 10.2 46.0 34.5 5.4 43.3 19.9 3.7 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)26.2 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 1.3 0.4 2.5 2.4 5.9 16.5 2.9 4.7 2.5 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 3.9 0.3 0.1 1.0 3.3 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.5 6.4 13.0 2.3 1.7 0.6 2.9 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 4.7 4.7 8.3 4.7 3.5 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.9 6.0 12.7 4.4 23.5 0.6 8.2 11.7 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 2.4 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.1 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 3.3 2.9 6.6 4.9 4.6 22.2 11.6 7.3 17.4 7.2 4.5 Page 384 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 2.9 3.7 0.6 3.9 3.3 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)36.0 14.1 5.2 31.8 18.9 5.1 32.3 28.6 4.2 33.0 32.9 5.8 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)18.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)36.2 Page 385 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)102 173 47 246 221 136 67 174 159 124 308 250 Average Queue (ft)37 73 14 120 104 67 19 80 48 16 170 59 95th Queue (ft)82 142 39 210 185 116 53 139 113 73 280 180 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)160 29 Average Queue (ft)44 1 95th Queue (ft)128 13 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)55 26 14 21 Average Queue (ft)13 1 1 1 95th Queue (ft)38 13 9 11 Link Distance (ft)2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 386 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft)102 43 50 4 Average Queue (ft)27 7 7 0 95th Queue (ft)68 26 33 3 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB SB Directions Served L LTR Maximum Queue (ft)5 22 Average Queue (ft)0 2 95th Queue (ft)4 13 Link Distance (ft)792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T R L L R Maximum Queue (ft)132 100 103 172 195 64 94 108 117 Average Queue (ft)60 37 39 78 85 19 29 49 49 95th Queue (ft)111 84 88 140 151 48 69 86 87 Link Distance (ft)2524 2524 2329 2329 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 387 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)45 59 36 Average Queue (ft)9 17 7 95th Queue (ft)33 44 27 Link Distance (ft)832 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)45 15 47 73 Average Queue (ft)9 1 9 20 95th Queue (ft)30 6 31 52 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 388 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)94 132 134 84 26 179 159 57 223 119 41 136 Average Queue (ft)27 46 56 37 3 90 69 18 103 42 4 59 95th Queue (ft)67 104 108 72 15 151 134 42 178 88 18 114 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)145 65 Average Queue (ft)51 19 95th Queue (ft)105 46 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3 Page 389 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.4 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 2.9 2.9 0.3 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s)60.4 46.2 6.0 79.3 46.3 14.2 42.9 47.9 8.9 27.7 26.5 3.1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)34.0 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.0 16.2 0.8 3.1 2.2 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.6 0.2 2.5 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 4.9 6.9 6.7 10.3 3.3 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)27.3 7.9 18.0 7.1 22.0 0.4 6.4 14.1 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 4.3 2.4 1.4 2.3 0.5 1.9 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 3.6 3.0 7.3 4.1 3.8 11.9 4.6 18.9 9.3 4.2 Page 390 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 2.9 3.7 0.6 3.8 3.5 0.4 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)35.9 13.2 5.9 45.7 14.1 4.1 28.7 29.8 6.2 29.9 33.3 5.1 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)15.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)44.8 Page 391 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)162 256 52 318 516 239 74 200 227 252 308 192 Average Queue (ft)75 133 17 175 175 79 27 113 82 69 147 54 95th Queue (ft)141 225 42 304 423 171 64 177 167 181 248 127 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 4 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 22 2 0 0 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)164 9 Average Queue (ft)50 0 95th Queue (ft)116 6 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)75 9 18 8 Average Queue (ft)22 0 2 0 95th Queue (ft)51 4 10 6 Link Distance (ft)2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 392 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)72 20 24 Average Queue (ft)30 7 1 95th Queue (ft)53 20 8 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB Directions Served LTR Maximum Queue (ft)17 Average Queue (ft)1 95th Queue (ft)8 Link Distance (ft)792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T T T R L L R Maximum Queue (ft)205 99 112 169 165 99 88 96 98 Average Queue (ft)103 50 49 82 89 42 33 52 37 95th Queue (ft)169 95 91 136 139 80 71 88 74 Link Distance (ft)2524 2524 2329 2329 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 393 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)38 56 43 Average Queue (ft)11 26 11 95th Queue (ft)33 48 34 Link Distance (ft)832 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)22 19 24 81 Average Queue (ft)4 2 7 30 95th Queue (ft)17 11 22 64 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 394 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 04/16/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)66 140 150 90 42 138 116 56 162 114 25 110 Average Queue (ft)21 59 71 35 10 66 45 17 77 39 3 46 95th Queue (ft)53 111 120 67 32 114 97 39 137 83 15 89 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)100 41 Average Queue (ft)40 12 95th Queue (ft)86 31 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 25 Page 395 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.2 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.8 2.9 0.2 2.9 Total Del/Veh (s)49.6 36.1 4.7 52.0 27.7 11.4 51.0 37.7 5.6 44.6 19.0 3.4 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)27.4 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 1.3 1.1 2.9 3.1 16.1 19.2 3.3 4.6 2.8 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 3.2 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)28.5 7.2 8.8 2.5 1.9 0.8 3.2 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 5.4 3.9 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)34.6 7.3 2.2 15.9 5.0 43.1 45.2 26.5 12.2 9.8 14.4 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 2.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.6 1.2 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 3.3 4.2 6.6 5.2 5.5 17.8 18.7 4.2 21.9 6.2 4.7 Page 396 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 2.7 3.7 0.7 3.6 3.4 0.5 3.5 Total Del/Veh (s)40.6 13.8 5.2 46.6 19.4 5.1 34.6 31.0 4.2 37.4 35.9 6.7 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)39.1 Page 397 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)102 176 50 295 364 232 53 166 132 103 340 294 Average Queue (ft)36 69 17 144 131 77 15 88 52 16 182 65 95th Queue (ft)77 136 42 269 287 168 46 147 115 74 300 214 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)10 2 4 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)179 40 Average Queue (ft)49 2 95th Queue (ft)158 19 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)54 14 22 8 Average Queue (ft)12 1 2 0 95th Queue (ft)36 8 11 6 Link Distance (ft)2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 398 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)104 45 42 Average Queue (ft)26 8 7 95th Queue (ft)72 30 28 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)124 105 119 17 218 209 60 40 107 122 150 Average Queue (ft)57 39 42 1 97 107 26 11 38 60 63 95th Queue (ft)107 86 93 9 176 181 54 33 83 106 123 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1818 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 399 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)59 53 55 Average Queue (ft)13 16 9 95th Queue (ft)43 40 34 Link Distance (ft)833 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)50 26 57 64 Average Queue (ft)10 2 15 21 95th Queue (ft)33 15 40 50 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 400 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)78 108 136 86 41 203 189 60 229 144 37 167 Average Queue (ft)28 48 58 33 7 102 81 19 116 44 6 62 95th Queue (ft)64 98 108 70 28 170 156 44 198 99 22 128 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)142 56 Average Queue (ft)56 17 95th Queue (ft)110 42 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 16 Page 401 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.5 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 2.8 2.9 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)66.2 49.7 5.8 87.5 50.9 15.3 48.5 52.2 11.6 31.5 29.1 3.2 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)37.1 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 1.6 1.1 2.9 2.3 11.4 11.6 0.9 2.7 2.4 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 3.9 0.8 0.1 0.3 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)6.2 2.7 2.6 2.3 0.7 0.1 2.5 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 5.3 3.5 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 9.9 3.9 21.2 7.5 39.8 44.8 25.3 15.0 8.3 17.1 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 5.4 2.6 1.6 2.6 0.6 2.2 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.3 4.1 3.8 8.7 4.3 3.9 20.3 7.3 18.1 7.1 4.7 Page 402 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.3 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.3 2.7 2.8 0.3 2.6 Total Del/Veh (s)48.8 37.3 4.9 63.2 31.6 14.1 53.5 39.9 9.9 62.4 21.4 3.6 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)33.1 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.2 1.7 0.2 3.2 3.2 23.9 18.7 1.3 1.4 3.1 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.9 0.1 0.1 1.3 3.4 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)40.8 10.8 7.7 2.9 2.3 0.9 4.3 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)12.3 1.7 5.9 6.0 28.6 6.9 5.2 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.0 7.9 3.3 16.2 5.9 40.4 39.2 27.2 14.2 10.1 14.7 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)11.5 3.8 9.8 2.9 3.5 2.6 1.6 1.7 1.3 0.3 2.1 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 3.5 4.3 6.0 5.6 5.6 18.5 8.5 5.2 14.0 5.8 5.0 Page 403 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.2 2.6 3.6 0.8 3.6 3.4 0.5 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)43.2 15.6 5.8 42.4 21.8 5.3 34.9 30.9 4.7 35.0 36.5 7.0 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.4 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 3.3 1.6 0.7 4.9 3.3 2.8 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)43.5 Page 404 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)100 172 70 328 547 242 83 158 158 255 349 518 Average Queue (ft)42 83 16 192 150 84 17 93 62 78 244 127 95th Queue (ft)89 146 45 311 419 172 52 149 127 198 377 413 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)4 1 0 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)23 4 0 18 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)419 37 Average Queue (ft)80 2 95th Queue (ft)269 23 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)120 5 32 19 29 Average Queue (ft)43 0 4 2 2 95th Queue (ft)88 4 19 10 16 Link Distance (ft)2565 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 405 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L T Maximum Queue (ft)132 62 57 4 Average Queue (ft)32 15 7 0 95th Queue (ft)89 43 32 3 Link Distance (ft)1308 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)132 20 4 25 50 Average Queue (ft)51 1 0 1 22 95th Queue (ft)104 10 3 7 42 Link Distance (ft)2565 2518 792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)163 102 122 20 198 212 68 48 122 154 162 Average Queue (ft)62 41 49 1 99 107 32 15 42 63 62 95th Queue (ft)123 92 101 8 170 186 60 40 88 115 121 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 406 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L TR Maximum Queue (ft)48 58 57 66 36 4 Average Queue (ft)17 11 19 12 7 0 95th Queue (ft)44 37 47 42 28 3 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 918 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)38 14 57 57 Average Queue (ft)8 1 13 21 95th Queue (ft)28 7 39 47 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 407 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)118 135 144 103 43 217 220 48 269 106 44 138 Average Queue (ft)34 53 66 39 8 113 95 17 131 41 6 62 95th Queue (ft)81 110 124 77 30 186 180 39 223 84 23 115 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)147 51 Average Queue (ft)56 16 95th Queue (ft)108 40 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)49 51 Average Queue (ft)24 9 95th Queue (ft)49 32 Link Distance (ft)682 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 45 Page 408 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.3 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.3 2.7 Total Del/Veh (s)50.2 37.2 5.5 48.7 30.0 12.5 57.4 39.9 10.1 52.9 20.3 3.7 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)29.4 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.8 1.6 0.4 3.4 3.3 28.4 22.0 1.0 1.4 3.2 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.1 3.2 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)92.8 11.3 11.9 3.1 2.2 0.9 7.0 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.4 1.6 6.1 6.3 34.0 10.5 5.3 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.6 8.5 2.1 16.6 5.9 47.3 39.5 28.2 16.9 10.2 15.3 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)14.1 3.9 9.5 2.8 4.0 2.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.4 2.2 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 3.7 3.2 8.7 5.4 5.8 19.3 32.6 4.4 20.0 9.5 5.1 Page 409 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.2 2.7 3.7 0.8 3.7 3.4 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)39.9 15.2 5.7 45.5 18.9 5.1 34.7 31.4 5.7 32.3 35.5 6.7 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)20.0 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 3.4 1.8 0.7 5.5 3.4 2.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)42.4 Page 410 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)105 180 44 156 181 260 150 11 70 163 144 233 Average Queue (ft)34 77 14 78 102 126 80 0 18 92 57 80 95th Queue (ft)78 142 36 137 158 222 132 8 49 150 123 201 Link Distance (ft)2323 2665 2481 2091 2091 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)349 471 409 58 Average Queue (ft)232 110 65 4 95th Queue (ft)371 363 232 27 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)9 Queuing Penalty (veh)12 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)121 40 18 39 Average Queue (ft)43 4 2 3 95th Queue (ft)88 20 12 22 Link Distance (ft)2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 411 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)298 156 50 Average Queue (ft)58 20 9 95th Queue (ft)219 97 33 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%)4 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB SB Directions Served L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)122 11 78 Average Queue (ft)47 1 25 95th Queue (ft)92 7 55 Link Distance (ft)792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)139 125 119 15 204 204 79 64 114 124 163 Average Queue (ft)62 45 48 1 105 114 32 16 39 58 63 95th Queue (ft)117 94 98 9 181 192 62 42 87 105 125 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 412 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)51 61 48 67 48 Average Queue (ft)15 12 15 13 7 95th Queue (ft)42 42 39 47 28 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)62 29 47 63 Average Queue (ft)12 2 15 22 95th Queue (ft)37 15 41 51 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 413 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)90 128 134 107 49 201 191 57 290 109 45 140 Average Queue (ft)26 53 63 36 10 107 86 17 131 45 7 61 95th Queue (ft)65 110 115 76 33 176 164 40 232 91 24 114 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)140 64 Average Queue (ft)57 19 95th Queue (ft)110 44 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)54 8 43 Average Queue (ft)24 1 9 95th Queue (ft)50 6 32 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 14 Page 414 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.5 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.3 2.8 2.9 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)66.4 53.8 7.4 69.1 46.6 16.3 46.5 53.6 14.6 35.2 33.5 3.3 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)38.2 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 1.7 1.8 3.4 2.5 18.7 1.3 1.6 2.9 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 2.7 2.1 2.3 0.7 0.1 2.4 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.5 2.0 6.0 6.4 23.3 12.1 4.9 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 10.2 4.1 22.9 9.3 43.7 35.6 26.5 18.4 8.6 18.1 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 3.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)14.2 5.9 12.9 6.6 3.2 3.3 1.9 2.3 1.2 0.3 3.3 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 4.0 4.0 10.7 4.3 3.6 23.2 6.8 30.8 11.4 5.0 Page 415 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 2.7 3.7 0.6 3.8 3.5 0.5 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)38.4 13.8 6.6 38.4 14.9 4.2 32.9 33.6 5.4 35.0 36.4 5.7 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 4.1 1.2 0.5 2.3 1.7 2.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)50.9 Page 416 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)162 314 51 272 308 376 225 7 101 215 252 311 Average Queue (ft)83 166 16 145 170 156 98 0 33 131 108 127 95th Queue (ft)140 275 41 231 255 304 177 5 74 196 227 266 Link Distance (ft)2323 2665 2481 2091 2091 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 1 4 2 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)343 383 212 22 Average Queue (ft)182 85 64 1 95th Queue (ft)304 225 140 12 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)100 8 9 24 44 Average Queue (ft)36 0 1 2 2 95th Queue (ft)78 6 7 12 18 Link Distance (ft)2481 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 417 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)58 21 27 Average Queue (ft)30 10 4 95th Queue (ft)50 24 19 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB SB Directions Served L LTR Maximum Queue (ft)63 133 Average Queue (ft)17 58 95th Queue (ft)46 114 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)270 154 158 26 214 208 134 44 136 142 101 Average Queue (ft)126 61 64 3 104 112 52 10 57 76 48 95th Queue (ft)219 118 122 14 172 182 100 30 107 122 86 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Page 418 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)91 42 70 41 43 Average Queue (ft)39 13 28 4 10 95th Queue (ft)71 37 56 22 33 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)38 31 45 109 Average Queue (ft)7 5 12 35 95th Queue (ft)25 21 33 78 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 419 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)80 163 165 90 50 167 136 52 179 110 20 138 Average Queue (ft)24 72 84 37 12 77 57 17 89 45 4 59 95th Queue (ft)59 139 143 70 39 133 108 37 156 91 16 115 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)114 45 Average Queue (ft)52 12 95th Queue (ft)94 33 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)67 31 Average Queue (ft)39 3 95th Queue (ft)60 17 Link Distance (ft)718 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 15 Page 420 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.5 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 2.6 0.3 2.8 2.9 0.2 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)73.1 64.4 7.8 102.4 72.7 37.3 52.8 55.8 13.5 39.6 32.6 3.2 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)50.1 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 1.7 1.0 3.5 2.7 27.7 1.2 1.7 2.9 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 3.9 0.7 0.1 0.3 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 2.8 2.7 2.6 0.8 0.2 2.8 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.6 2.0 6.2 6.7 31.6 17.6 5.7 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.4 10.5 3.1 23.1 8.7 41.3 45.3 27.3 18.4 8.6 18.3 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)13.3 6.5 12.1 5.5 3.0 3.5 1.4 2.5 1.2 0.2 3.3 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 4.3 5.3 10.2 4.3 4.8 21.6 7.8 24.4 8.0 5.0 Page 421 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 2.8 3.7 0.5 4.1 3.5 0.4 3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)41.4 14.9 6.8 45.0 15.4 4.7 33.2 30.0 5.8 33.1 36.0 5.3 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)17.9 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 4.1 1.2 0.7 2.5 1.8 2.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)58.4 Page 422 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T R L T R T L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)182 362 162 350 1430 350 6 113 218 252 279 337 Average Queue (ft)79 192 28 308 510 135 0 34 130 102 123 197 95th Queue (ft)155 325 115 402 1276 307 4 84 200 206 260 308 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2481 2097 2097 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)6 24 3 0 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)8 163 24 0 1 4 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T T Maximum Queue (ft)280 234 Average Queue (ft)80 60 95th Queue (ft)210 149 Link Distance (ft)2069 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)112 19 15 48 Average Queue (ft)35 1 2 2 95th Queue (ft)76 10 9 18 Link Distance (ft)2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 423 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)66 35 34 Average Queue (ft)31 10 4 95th Queue (ft)53 27 21 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB SB Directions Served L R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)65 4 194 Average Queue (ft)18 0 74 95th Queue (ft)46 3 158 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)229 138 149 20 193 220 130 52 123 135 111 Average Queue (ft)123 65 68 2 104 116 52 11 57 76 47 95th Queue (ft)204 123 130 12 172 190 98 33 106 123 90 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Page 424 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)84 44 68 40 34 Average Queue (ft)38 13 27 4 10 95th Queue (ft)68 38 52 27 31 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)24 30 41 77 Average Queue (ft)5 5 11 31 95th Queue (ft)20 21 30 64 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 425 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 1 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)69 148 168 100 66 161 155 51 184 135 16 100 Average Queue (ft)21 76 88 39 18 79 59 18 102 44 3 51 95th Queue (ft)53 135 145 76 50 138 126 40 171 99 12 93 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)111 35 Average Queue (ft)48 12 95th Queue (ft)92 29 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)76 32 Average Queue (ft)38 4 95th Queue (ft)62 20 Link Distance (ft)718 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 199 Page 426 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.3 2.8 2.7 0.4 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s)59.4 47.3 7.2 59.3 39.4 17.0 60.8 44.9 13.0 57.7 22.3 4.3 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)35.0 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)20.3 1.7 0.9 4.1 4.1 41.9 30.8 0.9 1.6 4.1 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.9 3.4 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)165.5 30.8 19.8 3.3 3.6 2.0 10.8 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)15.7 1.8 6.7 7.0 65.2 23.3 6.3 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)42.8 9.1 2.6 19.5 7.7 48.2 46.7 33.3 18.4 15.2 18.5 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)14.7 4.3 14.5 3.8 5.3 3.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.3 2.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)13.2 3.9 4.6 9.2 6.3 6.9 30.4 30.1 13.1 29.9 10.0 5.9 Page 427 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.6 3.6 0.9 3.5 3.4 0.6 3.5 Total Del/Veh (s)48.3 19.2 7.5 41.3 23.3 6.2 40.9 33.7 6.0 41.9 40.4 8.7 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)24.1 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 3.3 1.7 0.7 6.3 4.4 3.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)50.6 Page 428 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)134 274 54 189 294 483 270 4 72 194 218 286 Average Queue (ft)48 102 15 103 127 169 103 0 23 110 84 117 95th Queue (ft)102 205 42 173 206 326 192 3 57 171 181 253 Link Distance (ft)2323 2665 2481 2091 2091 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 8 0 1 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)349 592 507 55 Average Queue (ft)265 162 107 4 95th Queue (ft)386 484 351 28 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)12 Queuing Penalty (veh)21 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)165 4 47 18 47 Average Queue (ft)60 0 7 2 4 95th Queue (ft)129 3 32 11 31 Link Distance (ft)2565 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 429 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB SB Directions Served L R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)440 269 63 4 9 Average Queue (ft)84 35 13 0 0 95th Queue (ft)287 149 41 3 6 Link Distance (ft)1308 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%)7 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)139 21 8 40 131 Average Queue (ft)55 1 0 2 32 95th Queue (ft)107 16 6 18 82 Link Distance (ft)2565 2518 792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)221 141 150 22 308 329 180 61 161 190 196 Average Queue (ft)86 54 57 1 138 147 40 16 62 84 95 95th Queue (ft)162 116 118 9 239 255 107 44 122 146 171 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Page 430 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)34 61 69 93 59 Average Queue (ft)16 13 19 17 13 95th Queue (ft)40 43 52 57 39 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L L R LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)62 29 18 86 84 Average Queue (ft)14 3 1 22 26 95th Queue (ft)46 16 9 62 61 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 431 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)94 180 181 122 47 268 250 66 282 139 42 182 Average Queue (ft)34 82 91 51 12 138 124 21 163 60 8 76 95th Queue (ft)78 155 162 99 36 227 214 46 267 119 28 147 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)159 70 Average Queue (ft)67 21 95th Queue (ft)130 49 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)45 8 64 Average Queue (ft)23 0 13 95th Queue (ft)48 4 41 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 35 Page 432 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.3 0.4 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 2.8 2.7 0.4 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s)45.2 36.0 6.1 49.0 30.6 15.0 46.4 36.6 8.9 43.6 21.1 4.0 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)28.2 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.8 2.0 2.1 4.1 4.3 50.5 21.8 1.7 1.6 4.3 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.6 0.1 2.0 3.5 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)170.2 61.7 19.4 3.4 3.4 1.6 12.6 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.9 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)19.3 2.0 6.7 7.2 44.5 9.7 6.2 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)40.8 9.2 3.2 19.2 7.4 49.3 47.5 31.5 11.4 14.9 17.8 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)12.3 3.6 12.3 2.8 4.2 3.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 0.5 2.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.7 4.1 4.9 8.5 6.3 6.4 23.8 39.5 7.5 29.8 15.5 5.9 Page 433 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.2 2.6 3.5 0.9 3.6 3.4 0.6 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)47.2 19.4 7.5 46.5 24.1 5.9 41.0 34.6 5.4 39.3 42.9 7.5 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)24.7 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.0 4.2 1.8 0.8 5.6 4.3 3.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)47.2 Page 434 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)101 194 48 209 221 268 232 8 64 183 200 244 Average Queue (ft)45 89 16 100 122 139 94 0 17 99 73 47 95th Queue (ft)90 162 40 171 186 228 171 6 47 162 152 170 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2481 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)213 231 130 130 74 Average Queue (ft)131 145 59 56 6 95th Queue (ft)209 215 112 111 36 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)182 54 17 57 Average Queue (ft)64 7 2 5 95th Queue (ft)139 30 11 30 Link Distance (ft)2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 435 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft)516 234 62 4 Average Queue (ft)114 37 9 0 95th Queue (ft)412 160 35 3 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%)11 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft)166 9 16 38 52 Average Queue (ft)62 0 1 10 19 95th Queue (ft)129 6 7 31 42 Link Distance (ft)2559 793 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)171 139 162 17 287 295 83 53 123 155 195 Average Queue (ft)80 59 59 1 131 137 34 16 57 73 93 95th Queue (ft)143 124 129 9 234 241 69 42 111 126 169 Link Distance (ft)2512 2512 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Page 436 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)42 56 60 56 44 Average Queue (ft)13 14 18 15 11 95th Queue (ft)37 43 47 44 35 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L L R LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)55 19 4 62 88 Average Queue (ft)13 1 0 18 28 95th Queue (ft)40 10 3 47 72 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 437 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)108 193 190 116 34 255 264 56 306 199 39 193 Average Queue (ft)41 77 93 47 7 136 119 20 165 60 8 86 95th Queue (ft)89 155 166 93 25 223 222 42 273 138 28 163 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 1 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)201 51 Average Queue (ft)76 19 95th Queue (ft)147 42 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)67 8 57 Average Queue (ft)27 0 12 95th Queue (ft)55 6 40 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 Page 438 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.6 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.4 2.7 2.7 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)56.1 49.4 8.9 51.5 42.1 19.5 58.5 44.1 13.2 49.3 25.9 2.9 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)35.4 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)15.9 2.2 1.6 4.2 3.4 22.0 26.9 1.2 1.8 3.7 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.7 0.7 0.1 0.4 3.6 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 3.2 2.6 3.1 0.9 0.2 3.2 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.3 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.9 2.3 6.8 7.7 39.7 11.2 5.5 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)43.4 11.4 5.1 25.6 11.4 55.5 54.2 31.1 19.1 11.9 21.3 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)16.7 7.4 15.5 8.0 6.3 4.2 2.3 4.3 1.4 0.2 4.0 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.5 4.6 5.3 10.5 5.0 4.6 31.4 9.4 46.8 19.1 6.1 Page 439 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 2.7 3.5 0.8 3.6 3.5 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)42.3 18.5 8.9 43.2 19.7 5.1 38.1 35.2 6.7 37.7 40.3 6.7 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)21.5 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.3 4.3 1.3 0.7 1.6 2.0 2.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)54.5 Page 440 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)179 335 124 231 285 414 303 39 111 212 225 273 Average Queue (ft)81 180 23 131 155 175 125 1 35 124 99 103 95th Queue (ft)145 289 75 206 239 317 242 25 79 191 184 253 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2481 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 0 9 0 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)258 287 169 149 27 Average Queue (ft)155 167 66 63 1 95th Queue (ft)236 249 135 129 12 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)116 4 4 20 19 82 Average Queue (ft)47 0 0 1 3 8 95th Queue (ft)94 4 3 12 13 42 Link Distance (ft)2559 2559 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 441 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)82 43 29 Average Queue (ft)37 12 4 95th Queue (ft)66 32 19 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB SB SB Directions Served L L TR Maximum Queue (ft)64 87 133 Average Queue (ft)21 29 46 95th Queue (ft)52 68 92 Link Distance (ft)783 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)346 306 218 22 240 230 132 39 153 154 175 Average Queue (ft)167 92 83 2 134 141 61 7 74 88 64 95th Queue (ft)303 242 164 13 210 220 112 27 127 133 126 Link Distance (ft)2511 2511 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)4 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)17 0 0 0 Page 442 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT R L Maximum Queue (ft)81 46 97 120 4 57 Average Queue (ft)39 14 35 14 0 15 95th Queue (ft)69 38 73 66 3 43 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)37 36 50 131 Average Queue (ft)7 6 13 47 95th Queue (ft)26 24 35 102 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 443 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 08/30/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)88 220 218 108 69 175 171 56 232 138 25 146 Average Queue (ft)32 106 119 48 18 103 88 21 126 57 6 69 95th Queue (ft)71 182 193 90 47 161 154 45 207 113 19 129 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)144 54 Average Queue (ft)64 17 95th Queue (ft)116 40 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)98 4 25 Average Queue (ft)43 0 3 95th Queue (ft)77 3 15 Link Distance (ft)718 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 32 Page 444 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.6 2.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 2.7 0.4 2.7 2.8 0.4 2.7 Total Del/Veh (s)76.1 76.3 12.8 89.3 74.4 32.5 60.4 62.3 51.9 54.1 33.8 3.5 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)57.4 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)14.8 1.9 0.8 4.3 3.8 22.0 1.1 2.0 3.6 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 3.3 3.6 3.0 0.9 0.2 3.4 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.0 2.2 7.0 6.7 40.0 21.6 6.2 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)41.8 11.5 4.5 27.4 11.4 53.9 47.8 32.4 17.7 11.8 21.9 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)20.7 10.9 19.6 8.7 5.3 4.1 2.3 4.6 1.6 0.4 4.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 4.7 4.7 13.6 5.0 5.7 28.7 10.0 37.4 20.4 5.9 Page 445 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.6 0.9 3.5 3.3 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)45.7 18.0 8.6 45.9 19.8 5.5 37.9 34.0 7.0 38.8 36.6 6.5 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)21.4 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 4.4 1.4 0.7 2.7 2.2 2.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)68.5 Page 446 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)264 507 270 324 349 1099 350 6 124 634 731 350 Average Queue (ft)105 257 43 195 226 376 176 0 40 233 265 228 95th Queue (ft)198 425 173 294 351 1000 355 5 91 568 695 396 Link Distance (ft)2323 2665 2481 2091 2091 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)16 0 1 8 0 0 0 19 Queuing Penalty (veh)26 1 11 69 2 0 0 34 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)349 595 436 41 Average Queue (ft)244 182 132 2 95th Queue (ft)375 549 427 20 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)13 Queuing Penalty (veh)20 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)109 19 20 80 Average Queue (ft)45 2 2 10 95th Queue (ft)89 14 12 48 Link Distance (ft)2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 447 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft)99 43 29 9 Average Queue (ft)40 13 4 0 95th Queue (ft)75 34 20 5 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB SB Directions Served L LTR Maximum Queue (ft)68 204 Average Queue (ft)22 76 95th Queue (ft)51 157 Link Distance (ft)782 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)333 223 244 26 286 263 174 52 160 174 156 Average Queue (ft)175 79 87 3 143 148 60 12 73 91 61 95th Queue (ft)286 178 174 16 239 238 119 36 134 152 117 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0 0 Page 448 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)103 52 98 58 51 Average Queue (ft)42 15 35 8 18 95th Queue (ft)78 43 72 40 46 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)28 11 49 50 135 Average Queue (ft)6 0 8 13 41 95th Queue (ft)23 8 28 36 95 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 449 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)73 213 215 125 61 228 202 66 284 146 26 152 Average Queue (ft)28 99 109 50 15 106 90 23 132 56 4 67 95th Queue (ft)64 182 188 96 46 186 172 48 228 112 17 122 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)138 61 Average Queue (ft)57 15 95th Queue (ft)109 37 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)90 4 46 Average Queue (ft)43 0 4 95th Queue (ft)69 3 22 Link Distance (ft)718 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 168 Page 450 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 2.8 3.7 0.6 3.6 3.4 0.4 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)37.8 13.7 6.5 37.9 16.5 4.7 33.0 30.1 4.6 33.9 33.3 5.3 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)17.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)49.6 Page 451 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)160 289 58 349 586 350 84 236 241 265 329 163 Average Queue (ft)75 151 17 196 195 90 32 125 101 99 178 59 95th Queue (ft)132 244 44 333 411 184 72 197 190 222 285 121 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 5 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 29 4 0 1 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)142 29 Average Queue (ft)55 1 95th Queue (ft)116 13 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)71 4 26 16 20 Average Queue (ft)20 0 1 2 1 95th Queue (ft)48 3 11 9 11 Link Distance (ft)2559 2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 452 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)72 22 15 Average Queue (ft)31 7 1 95th Queue (ft)53 21 10 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)228 124 142 31 180 178 94 47 108 125 107 Average Queue (ft)119 55 63 4 97 103 42 13 45 63 45 95th Queue (ft)200 112 117 18 155 159 74 36 89 105 82 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1148 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 453 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)47 82 48 Average Queue (ft)13 30 12 95th Queue (ft)40 64 37 Link Distance (ft)833 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L T L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)32 4 32 37 70 Average Queue (ft)5 0 5 10 30 95th Queue (ft)21 3 20 28 58 Link Distance (ft)2335 1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 454 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 No-Build -PM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)68 156 146 88 48 153 150 55 189 125 17 123 Average Queue (ft)22 61 72 37 13 78 59 20 93 42 4 53 95th Queue (ft)50 118 128 68 36 131 120 42 159 95 14 104 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)130 45 Average Queue (ft)51 11 95th Queue (ft)103 31 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 37 Page 455 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.1 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.7 2.7 0.3 2.7 Total Del/Veh (s)53.1 42.6 6.0 96.1 50.5 30.1 55.1 44.0 7.6 83.0 26.4 3.9 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)45.9 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)13.0 1.4 0.8 3.8 4.0 26.1 18.6 3.9 5.6 3.5 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.9 0.3 0.1 1.8 3.5 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)123.9 29.1 20.4 2.9 3.1 1.5 8.6 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 6.0 4.4 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)41.5 8.9 3.1 18.5 6.7 50.5 51.6 31.3 18.5 13.8 17.5 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.6 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 3.3 1.9 1.3 1.6 0.7 1.4 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.4 3.9 3.4 8.8 6.1 6.1 21.8 59.8 7.1 24.7 10.9 5.7 Page 456 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.2 2.6 3.6 0.9 3.5 3.4 0.6 3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)48.4 19.0 7.1 48.6 23.1 5.6 41.7 34.3 6.6 39.4 41.3 8.4 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)24.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 Total Del/Veh (s)55.2 Page 457 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T R L T R T L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)118 214 54 350 1272 350 11 75 195 182 187 350 Average Queue (ft)43 87 16 225 348 126 0 19 112 81 50 270 95th Queue (ft)94 162 41 371 1039 278 8 57 179 165 146 397 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2475 2097 2097 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 12 3 0 21 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 87 18 0 35 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft)635 610 44 Average Queue (ft)219 151 5 95th Queue (ft)615 480 31 Link Distance (ft)2069 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)78 13 15 47 Average Queue (ft)21 1 2 3 95th Queue (ft)57 7 10 20 Link Distance (ft)2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 458 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft)328 169 62 29 Average Queue (ft)74 19 10 1 95th Queue (ft)264 109 38 13 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%)5 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)173 148 162 20 270 283 91 51 125 168 194 Average Queue (ft)82 55 54 1 127 133 28 13 54 77 86 95th Queue (ft)146 120 118 9 226 236 63 39 103 132 159 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1818 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Page 459 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)51 71 45 Average Queue (ft)12 16 11 95th Queue (ft)40 45 37 Link Distance (ft)833 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T L R LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)50 8 28 4 58 93 Average Queue (ft)11 0 3 0 20 28 95th Queue (ft)34 6 15 0 46 65 Link Distance (ft)2335 1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 460 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -AM Peak Hour 04/19/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)119 171 191 122 48 247 231 61 309 183 45 174 Average Queue (ft)39 71 85 46 9 128 116 21 162 60 9 85 95th Queue (ft)87 137 150 90 33 208 199 47 274 134 28 155 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)169 58 Average Queue (ft)69 22 95th Queue (ft)132 50 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 144 Page 461 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.6 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.7 0.3 2.7 2.8 0.3 2.6 Total Del/Veh (s)73.6 68.1 9.2 88.8 72.3 29.7 51.8 61.1 23.5 43.6 38.1 3.5 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)48.8 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.0 1.8 1.5 3.6 2.9 24.7 0.8 3.3 3.0 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 3.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)8.3 3.5 3.5 3.0 0.8 0.1 3.2 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 6.3 4.0 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)37.5 10.8 3.4 25.4 10.3 51.5 45.2 29.6 18.6 11.4 19.9 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.6 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)13.9 6.5 3.2 2.0 3.7 0.8 2.7 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 4.4 4.3 10.7 5.1 4.1 36.5 10.8 35.4 19.8 5.9 Page 462 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.2 2.6 3.6 0.8 3.6 3.4 0.5 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)42.2 17.0 8.4 49.9 19.4 5.2 37.6 33.2 6.0 39.3 40.1 6.2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)21.0 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 Total Del/Veh (s)61.9 Page 463 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T T R L T Maximum Queue (ft)211 419 325 350 1063 350 100 318 439 329 347 407 Average Queue (ft)102 228 37 240 352 144 39 166 169 179 240 110 95th Queue (ft)178 362 156 375 924 307 83 269 360 326 349 266 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2097 2097 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)9 9 5 0 0 0 6 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)14 61 33 1 0 0 11 7 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)243 20 Average Queue (ft)89 1 95th Queue (ft)179 14 Link Distance (ft)2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)105 7 22 22 39 Average Queue (ft)32 0 1 2 2 95th Queue (ft)75 0 10 12 19 Link Distance (ft)2559 2106 6413 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 464 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)88 21 15 Average Queue (ft)38 8 1 95th Queue (ft)71 23 9 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)272 151 165 25 254 260 136 39 124 145 156 Average Queue (ft)152 69 75 2 132 138 54 9 58 73 61 95th Queue (ft)239 131 138 14 219 222 101 28 103 120 120 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1148 1818 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Page 465 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement WB WB SB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)50 102 56 Average Queue (ft)15 32 15 95th Queue (ft)40 68 40 Link Distance (ft)833 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)38 4 39 53 127 Average Queue (ft)7 0 5 14 42 95th Queue (ft)25 3 23 38 99 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 466 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 No-Build -PM Peak Hour Optimized 04/22/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)94 238 223 110 51 181 174 52 239 150 26 137 Average Queue (ft)31 92 100 47 14 101 87 20 120 59 5 68 95th Queue (ft)72 173 177 91 39 168 160 40 203 118 17 121 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)163 49 Average Queue (ft)66 14 95th Queue (ft)124 37 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 128 Page 467 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.3 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 2.4 0.4 2.6 2.8 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)55.7 46.4 6.1 138.1 71.2 56.1 57.0 43.1 22.2 132.2 31.0 4.7 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)66.6 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)17.8 2.0 1.1 3.8 3.5 63.4 26.6 1.0 1.7 4.4 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 4.0 0.5 0.1 1.2 3.2 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)49.7 13.8 12.9 3.2 2.7 0.9 5.1 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.8 1.9 6.3 6.9 173.1 95.9 12.2 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)38.3 8.4 3.8 17.5 7.0 46.9 44.1 30.3 5.2 11.8 16.2 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)15.6 4.8 16.8 3.4 5.4 4.5 1.2 2.0 2.6 0.7 3.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.4 3.7 3.6 6.9 5.8 6.1 20.8 16.7 6.8 23.6 7.1 5.3 Page 468 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.2 2.7 3.6 0.8 3.8 3.4 0.5 3.2 Total Del/Veh (s)37.9 17.3 6.3 40.7 21.1 5.3 35.8 34.6 4.5 34.1 36.3 7.3 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.7 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.6 4.6 2.9 1.2 6.8 4.0 3.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)65.6 Page 469 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T R L T R T L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)109 223 52 350 1958 350 74 60 241 419 349 350 Average Queue (ft)35 109 16 267 612 125 5 19 91 76 182 324 95th Queue (ft)82 191 42 416 1762 296 68 51 175 245 343 411 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2481 2097 2097 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 28 1 0 0 4 52 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 180 5 0 0 5 66 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft)967 889 41 Average Queue (ft)495 355 3 95th Queue (ft)992 867 22 Link Distance (ft)2069 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)215 4 42 14 54 Average Queue (ft)78 0 6 1 3 95th Queue (ft)161 3 25 7 23 Link Distance (ft)2565 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 470 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)133 86 64 Average Queue (ft)32 24 10 95th Queue (ft)92 60 39 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)254 108 4 47 306 Average Queue (ft)111 2 0 5 91 95th Queue (ft)209 42 3 26 245 Link Distance (ft)2565 2518 792 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)154 121 114 16 238 244 93 56 110 131 169 Average Queue (ft)72 43 49 1 111 123 37 14 46 66 71 95th Queue (ft)127 98 101 9 202 215 72 39 90 113 138 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 471 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L TR Maximum Queue (ft)43 72 59 124 45 12 Average Queue (ft)21 12 16 30 9 0 95th Queue (ft)45 42 43 80 32 5 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 918 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)50 22 60 65 Average Queue (ft)10 1 15 23 95th Queue (ft)32 7 42 54 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 472 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)84 134 153 119 47 229 221 54 279 109 39 155 Average Queue (ft)29 55 71 44 9 116 101 18 142 44 8 66 95th Queue (ft)67 112 126 92 33 190 182 40 235 92 28 120 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)127 81 Average Queue (ft)53 22 95th Queue (ft)104 54 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)71 22 90 Average Queue (ft)31 2 25 95th Queue (ft)57 12 61 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 272 Page 473 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.4 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.4 2.8 2.8 0.3 2.6 Total Del/Veh (s)49.3 33.6 5.5 45.3 27.6 12.6 50.3 36.6 12.0 39.4 22.9 3.8 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)26.4 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)22.4 2.4 2.5 3.9 3.8 56.0 54.1 1.4 1.8 5.2 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 4.0 0.2 0.1 1.2 3.3 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)36.3 9.6 9.8 3.5 2.5 1.0 4.3 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)22.7 2.1 6.5 6.7 102.4 8.0 8.4 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)37.9 8.8 2.3 18.5 7.3 47.1 47.9 29.6 14.6 12.5 16.7 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)21.0 7.9 15.2 3.6 5.6 4.2 1.6 1.9 2.7 0.8 3.7 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 3.7 3.8 7.2 5.9 5.4 19.0 4.8 17.1 7.7 5.3 Page 474 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.6 0.8 3.6 3.3 0.5 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)44.8 16.1 6.3 50.3 21.8 5.1 37.2 31.9 5.2 35.0 34.7 6.9 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)21.7 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)9.4 4.4 3.0 1.3 7.3 3.9 3.8 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)42.5 Page 475 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T R L L T R L T T R L Maximum Queue (ft)100 210 44 182 231 292 215 68 160 142 289 234 Average Queue (ft)35 91 13 89 112 117 80 17 82 52 94 121 95th Queue (ft)80 172 35 157 185 227 149 49 144 113 244 201 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 2 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)226 114 130 24 Average Queue (ft)129 49 48 1 95th Queue (ft)195 95 100 16 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)240 8 42 22 30 Average Queue (ft)90 0 7 2 2 95th Queue (ft)181 4 30 11 18 Link Distance (ft)2554 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 476 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB SB Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft)118 70 44 4 Average Queue (ft)32 20 9 0 95th Queue (ft)89 46 33 3 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB SB SB Directions Served L T T R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)250 16 4 48 85 65 Average Queue (ft)107 1 0 4 19 24 95th Queue (ft)215 13 3 20 53 45 Link Distance (ft)2554 2518 793 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)3 0 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)154 127 126 15 240 244 99 52 120 135 184 Average Queue (ft)69 48 52 1 121 128 42 16 46 67 72 95th Queue (ft)126 104 110 8 208 218 79 41 96 117 138 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Page 477 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L TR Maximum Queue (ft)64 58 58 109 52 18 Average Queue (ft)23 13 17 29 10 1 95th Queue (ft)53 43 44 72 35 9 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 918 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)48 13 30 55 77 Average Queue (ft)11 0 3 14 26 95th Queue (ft)34 10 16 37 60 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 478 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)100 161 168 108 42 245 218 58 282 136 34 152 Average Queue (ft)30 58 72 42 8 122 108 18 138 47 7 59 95th Queue (ft)72 121 135 84 31 202 193 41 237 100 23 121 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)136 68 Average Queue (ft)58 19 95th Queue (ft)115 45 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)66 28 82 Average Queue (ft)33 3 27 95th Queue (ft)56 17 65 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 5 Page 479 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 2.7 2.8 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)53.9 41.2 9.0 56.9 39.7 17.8 55.6 43.7 10.6 46.2 27.8 2.8 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)35.0 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)16.7 2.2 1.0 4.2 2.9 27.4 1.6 2.3 3.9 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 3.9 0.6 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 3.3 3.0 3.1 0.9 0.2 3.1 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 3.6 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 2.3 6.6 5.7 48.0 12.4 6.9 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.9 10.9 4.1 24.0 9.5 43.6 46.1 29.0 20.2 9.1 19.2 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)21.2 13.5 17.8 8.2 4.3 4.1 2.2 3.5 1.8 0.4 5.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.5 4.3 4.4 8.2 4.3 4.0 27.4 10.3 26.1 14.3 5.0 Page 480 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 2.8 3.7 0.7 3.6 3.5 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)43.0 15.4 7.4 45.6 15.5 4.7 34.3 33.2 5.9 33.6 37.5 5.8 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 5.6 1.9 0.8 3.0 2.4 4.2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)51.3 Page 481 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)140 270 57 312 332 426 240 8 94 178 238 246 Average Queue (ft)67 136 17 179 200 151 101 0 34 106 84 66 95th Queue (ft)123 232 45 282 297 297 197 6 76 169 170 202 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2481 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 1 7 5 1 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft)245 259 128 120 Average Queue (ft)132 149 61 54 95th Queue (ft)208 222 110 105 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)145 32 18 76 Average Queue (ft)51 1 2 14 95th Queue (ft)107 10 11 54 Link Distance (ft)2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 482 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)77 53 33 Average Queue (ft)33 14 6 95th Queue (ft)60 37 25 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T LT R Maximum Queue (ft)70 4 196 173 Average Queue (ft)22 0 52 73 95th Queue (ft)52 3 162 143 Link Distance (ft)2517 783 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 150 Storage Blk Time (%)3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)8 1 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)280 167 162 26 215 233 115 44 145 170 101 Average Queue (ft)144 63 68 3 108 116 53 9 71 86 46 95th Queue (ft)244 133 136 17 181 195 98 30 125 139 83 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0 0 Page 483 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L TR Maximum Queue (ft)151 48 91 75 44 4 Average Queue (ft)67 14 31 8 12 0 95th Queue (ft)121 39 66 38 35 3 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 918 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)26 31 49 99 Average Queue (ft)5 5 14 34 95th Queue (ft)21 21 37 76 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 484 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)75 189 198 92 51 166 147 64 226 109 21 109 Average Queue (ft)23 83 92 42 14 79 62 21 107 47 4 49 95th Queue (ft)56 148 154 77 39 142 121 49 186 94 15 96 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)116 48 Average Queue (ft)51 13 95th Queue (ft)97 35 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)110 43 Average Queue (ft)59 5 95th Queue (ft)91 24 Link Distance (ft)718 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 24 Page 485 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.5 3.1 39.4 36.1 36.7 2.7 0.4 2.7 2.9 0.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)77.1 64.1 7.2 338.8 296.2 255.2 62.9 60.1 18.5 45.7 35.8 3.3 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)14.6 Total Del/Veh (s)135.3 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)17.2 1.8 0.5 91.0 64.1 185.8 103.0 23.8 44.8 45.0 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 2.9 3.2 3.0 0.8 0.2 3.0 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)9.8 2.3 6.8 5.9 126.8 116.7 24.3 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.2 10.2 3.3 25.2 9.6 39.4 38.7 29.8 21.8 10.0 19.6 6: Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)23.0 13.2 12.9 9.0 5.5 4.1 2.3 2.9 1.8 0.3 5.5 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 4.0 4.3 8.5 4.4 3.5 23.9 6.2 29.3 9.9 4.8 Page 486 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 2.7 3.7 0.6 3.8 3.5 0.5 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s)42.6 15.0 7.1 44.5 16.0 5.0 34.6 34.6 5.6 35.3 34.4 5.5 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)18.5 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)18.5 13.9 1.7 0.7 4.1 3.5 8.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)8.9 Total Del/Veh (s)197.1 Page 487 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB B21 B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)159 318 101 350 2778 350 2528 2577 110 261 318 321 Average Queue (ft)79 188 21 347 2597 141 1761 1494 38 142 120 164 95th Queue (ft)141 294 70 356 3272 326 3254 3220 87 224 244 309 Link Distance (ft)2323 2664 2481 2481 2097 2097 Upstream Blk Time (%)57 16 32 Queuing Penalty (veh)725 103 200 Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)4 57 1 0 0 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 430 10 0 0 0 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)342 406 279 44 Average Queue (ft)224 99 75 2 95th Queue (ft)344 283 186 22 Link Distance (ft)2069 2069 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)7 0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)151 11 1623 1624 375 35 455 Average Queue (ft)48 1 339 333 49 4 117 95th Queue (ft)108 11 1299 1288 255 20 387 Link Distance (ft)2481 2565 2565 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%)4 Queuing Penalty (veh)12 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)28 26 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 15 Page 488 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)70 30 29 Average Queue (ft)30 10 7 95th Queue (ft)54 28 25 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB SB Directions Served L T R LTR Maximum Queue (ft)85 10 9 742 Average Queue (ft)30 0 0 409 95th Queue (ft)67 7 7 768 Link Distance (ft)2565 782 Upstream Blk Time (%)3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)265 136 142 22 215 229 143 35 139 150 126 Average Queue (ft)147 62 67 4 114 120 56 8 67 84 52 95th Queue (ft)232 119 124 17 186 192 103 28 121 140 98 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Page 489 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT R L Maximum Queue (ft)166 39 98 73 4 48 Average Queue (ft)67 14 35 10 0 10 95th Queue (ft)124 36 76 41 0 34 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served L L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)28 26 37 87 Average Queue (ft)5 4 11 31 95th Queue (ft)21 19 28 69 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 490 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2027 Scenario 2 Build -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)77 145 159 103 43 171 160 62 222 134 16 111 Average Queue (ft)25 75 89 38 11 82 64 19 107 51 5 52 95th Queue (ft)58 133 145 74 32 143 129 43 187 104 15 98 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)128 36 Average Queue (ft)49 12 95th Queue (ft)100 30 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)356 60 Average Queue (ft)83 7 95th Queue (ft)226 38 Link Distance (ft)718 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1510 Page 491 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.4 2.7 2.7 0.4 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s)53.4 38.0 7.0 51.8 32.0 15.2 49.3 38.8 16.2 43.4 23.4 4.0 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)30.3 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.9 2.8 1.4 4.4 4.6 257.6 61.9 1.5 1.8 7.2 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 3.9 0.2 0.1 3.4 5.0 2.6 Total Del/Veh (s)229.8 105.4 40.9 4.2 4.9 2.9 18.4 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)51.0 2.9 6.8 6.9 532.5 41.4 17.6 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)42.3 10.2 4.2 18.7 8.2 43.8 54.5 33.5 13.2 15.8 18.0 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)20.2 5.7 16.1 3.7 6.6 5.5 1.4 2.5 2.9 0.8 4.1 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)12.0 4.3 3.5 8.4 6.6 6.7 29.3 13.5 11.4 27.8 12.5 6.3 Page 492 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.6 3.5 0.9 3.6 3.4 0.6 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)44.0 21.4 8.0 47.4 24.2 6.5 41.0 33.3 4.7 42.6 40.2 8.9 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Del/Veh (s)25.0 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)11.7 4.6 3.2 1.3 8.8 5.0 4.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 Total Del/Veh (s)55.0 Page 493 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)122 268 83 215 248 292 208 11 78 194 463 350 Average Queue (ft)48 112 18 112 134 146 92 0 23 99 89 120 95th Queue (ft)103 202 50 184 210 253 163 0 60 161 249 317 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2481 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 1 0 4 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)298 312 272 162 55 Average Queue (ft)157 162 69 63 3 95th Queue (ft)254 254 164 127 25 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)300 228 8 8 57 31 62 Average Queue (ft)126 11 0 0 7 6 4 95th Queue (ft)261 106 4 4 30 24 28 Link Distance (ft)2481 2554 2554 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)9 Page 494 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB NB SB Directions Served L R L T R Maximum Queue (ft)759 325 99 10 32 Average Queue (ft)152 55 17 0 1 95th Queue (ft)532 205 61 7 14 Link Distance (ft)1308 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 300 Storage Blk Time (%)16 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 1 Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Avenue & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB SB SB Directions Served L T TR R LT R Maximum Queue (ft)329 352 196 37 258 88 Average Queue (ft)159 55 13 4 91 33 95th Queue (ft)324 331 154 21 286 97 Link Distance (ft)2554 2554 793 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 150 Storage Blk Time (%)8 0 18 Queuing Penalty (veh)29 0 12 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)164 148 166 20 269 272 91 60 142 146 203 Average Queue (ft)80 55 65 1 127 134 42 16 56 74 100 95th Queue (ft)142 121 134 10 227 234 74 43 114 127 179 Link Distance (ft)2518 2518 2335 2335 1144 1816 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Page 495 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street W Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT R L TR Maximum Queue (ft)61 56 62 141 4 56 25 Average Queue (ft)25 15 20 38 0 12 1 95th Queue (ft)50 45 50 101 3 39 12 Link Distance (ft)725 833 1816 918 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L L R LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)65 24 9 92 80 Average Queue (ft)14 2 0 19 25 95th Queue (ft)42 13 6 56 62 Link Distance (ft)1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 496 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)75 180 200 124 58 292 281 72 321 170 34 189 Average Queue (ft)29 87 99 50 12 142 132 22 174 62 6 76 95th Queue (ft)63 167 176 97 38 246 233 50 283 143 21 146 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 1 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)150 86 Average Queue (ft)70 22 95th Queue (ft)127 52 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft)79 34 87 Average Queue (ft)33 3 28 95th Queue (ft)61 17 69 Link Distance (ft)682 459 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 71 Page 497 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.6 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5 0.4 2.6 2.8 0.3 2.7 Total Del/Veh (s)68.6 55.1 10.4 64.8 53.9 31.5 65.2 55.5 14.6 64.5 37.6 3.5 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)46.0 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.1 2.7 1.9 5.4 3.8 48.2 1.5 3.6 5.8 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 3.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)9.6 3.4 3.3 3.5 0.9 0.3 3.6 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 8.5 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 2.6 7.4 7.6 139.7 44.0 13.6 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)42.4 12.2 4.7 28.2 12.6 53.5 48.9 35.8 22.1 13.0 23.3 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)31.9 21.9 20.0 11.8 6.0 4.7 2.6 5.6 2.0 0.3 6.9 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)8.6 4.7 4.5 12.9 5.1 5.1 28.1 12.1 38.6 16.1 5.9 Page 498 of 635 SimTraffic Performance Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 2.6 3.5 0.8 3.7 3.3 0.5 3.3 Total Del/Veh (s)49.7 19.4 9.6 49.8 20.0 5.5 39.6 34.9 7.8 43.4 40.9 6.8 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)22.5 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.7 6.7 2.1 0.9 2.7 2.4 4.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)67.9 Page 499 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B21 B21 NB NB NB Directions Served L T R L L T R T L T T Maximum Queue (ft)192 349 214 322 346 621 347 189 105 126 265 289 Average Queue (ft)95 197 27 207 239 208 159 21 0 46 155 130 95th Queue (ft)166 314 105 312 338 410 291 186 0 100 232 226 Link Distance (ft)2317 2659 2481 2481 2083 2083 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)450 250 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)5 0 1 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)8 3 12 22 4 0 Intersection: 1: Cedar Ave & CSAH 50 Movement NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served R L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)312 324 347 442 262 33 Average Queue (ft)139 193 207 102 89 1 95th Queue (ft)301 302 318 254 189 16 Link Distance (ft)2063 2063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 1 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 1 3 2 0 Intersection: 2: Flagstaff Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T T R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft)250 136 8 17 20 156 Average Queue (ft)84 6 0 1 2 32 95th Queue (ft)199 73 5 9 12 112 Link Distance (ft)2481 2554 2105 459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 Page 500 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4 Intersection: 3: Flagstaff Ave & 200th Street W Movement EB EB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft)93 44 33 Average Queue (ft)43 12 6 95th Queue (ft)80 29 25 Link Distance (ft)1308 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 400 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Fairgreen Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB SB SB Directions Served L T LT R Maximum Queue (ft)74 9 496 198 Average Queue (ft)26 0 167 105 95th Queue (ft)57 0 554 206 Link Distance (ft)2554 783 Upstream Blk Time (%)7 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 150 Storage Blk Time (%)18 5 Queuing Penalty (veh)50 4 Intersection: 5: CSAH 50 & Pilot Knob Road Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T R LTR L LT R Maximum Queue (ft)339 230 194 26 257 272 178 39 191 205 163 Average Queue (ft)189 82 93 4 149 152 72 10 90 107 66 95th Queue (ft)297 150 168 17 245 244 138 31 161 171 127 Link Distance (ft)2517 2517 2335 2335 1148 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 325 275 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 3 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 0 0 0 0 Page 501 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5 Intersection: 6: Pilot Knob Road & 208th Street Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L R LT L Maximum Queue (ft)221 43 122 83 74 Average Queue (ft)76 16 38 12 17 95th Queue (ft)152 42 84 52 51 Link Distance (ft)668 833 1816 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)375 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Eaton Ave & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB WB NB SB Directions Served L T L LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)33 4 29 59 116 Average Queue (ft)5 0 7 13 38 95th Queue (ft)21 3 23 40 86 Link Distance (ft)2335 1223 710 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Page 502 of 635 Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 04/23/2024 Farmington North Site SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 6 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T R L Maximum Queue (ft)98 243 236 136 54 196 196 62 255 153 41 162 Average Queue (ft)33 113 124 55 16 109 91 22 135 60 6 71 95th Queue (ft)76 199 205 103 42 175 168 47 219 119 23 127 Link Distance (ft)2710 2710 1830 1830 1162 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Intersection: 8: Demark Ave/Akin Rd & CSAH 50 Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft)161 51 Average Queue (ft)72 17 95th Queue (ft)139 40 Link Distance (ft)1739 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Flagstaff Ave & West Access Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)147 38 Average Queue (ft)70 5 95th Queue (ft)116 24 Link Distance (ft)718 5894 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 119 Page 503 of 635 Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Quantification Page 504 of 635 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)Version 7 June 2021 Download the guide: Help - Data Management Calculator Guidance - Important Information Tool Sheets Calculator Notes https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting There are three primary steps in completing a GHG inventory. Each emissions source also has these three steps. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-small-business-and-low-emitters-guide The Calculator uses U.S.-specific cross-sector emission factors from the Emission Factors Hub . Many industrial sectors also have process-related emissions sources that are specific to their sector. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program provides guidance and tools that can aid in the calculation and reporting of these emissions: (C) Data must be entered in the units specified on the data entry sheets. Use the "Unit Conversions" or "Heat Content" sheets if unit conversion is necessary prior to entering data into the Calculator. Fire Suppression Quick Data Entry Navigation (2) COLLECT: The second step is to collect data for the defined annual period. This step is typically the most time consuming, since the data can be difficult to gather. This Calculator has help sheets with suggestions and guidance for each emissions source and a general help sheet for data management. Click the drop down menu boxes below to navigate to these sheets. (3) QUANTIFY: The third step is to calculate emissions. This Calculator is designed to complete the emissions quantification step for you. Once the user enters data in this MS Excel spreadsheet, the emissions will be calculated and totaled on the "Summary" sheet. (A) Navigate to the data entry sheets using the drop down menu in the dark grey cell below and then clicking on the "Go To Data Entry Sheet" button. On the data entry sheets enter data in ORANGE cells only. (B) This Calculator has several "Tool Sheets" with useful reference data such as unit conversions, heat contents, and emission factors. Click on the buttons below to go to the appropriate Tool Sheet. The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator") is designed as a simplified calculation tool to help organizations estimate and inventory their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US-based operations. All methodologies and default values provided are based on the most current Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Documents and the Emission Factors Hub . The Calculator will quantify the direct and indirect emissions from sources at an organization when activity data are entered into the various sections of the workbook for one annual period. (1) DEFINE: The first step in completing a GHG inventory is to determine the boundaries and emissions sources included within those boundaries. After you have defined your organizational and operational boundaries, you can use the questions on the "Boundary Questions" worksheet to help you determine which emissions sources are relevant to your business. Go to Boundary Questions (D) If more guidance is needed, you can reference the emission factor data sources found on the "Emission Factors" sheet. Emission sources of all seven major GHGs are accounted for in the inventory and in this Calculator: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The Calculator allows the user to estimate GHG emissions from scope 1 (direct), scope 2 (indirect), and some scope 3 (other indirect) sources. Before entering data, please: 1) Enable Macros and 2) Familiarize yourself with the Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Small Business & Low Emitters. Unit Conversions Heat Content Emission Factors Page 505 of 635 The GHG Protocol also provides guidance on calculating emissions from industrial processes. Page 506 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Data CenterNatural Gas Use 1 Natural Gas 70 MMBtu GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Fuel Type Units Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2Page 507 of 635 Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 68,226 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 3,714.2 70.3 6.8 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 3,714.2 70.3 6.8 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 3,714.2 70.3 6.8 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 3.7 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2Page 508 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Guidance (C) Enter annual data in ORANGE cells as appropriate for the selected option. Option 1. Material Balance Method: Enter organization-wide total gases stored and transferred (by gas) in Table 1. - Choose the appropriate gas from the Gas drop down menu. - Inventory Change = difference of gas stored in inventory from beginning to end of reporting period. (Includes only gas stored on-site (i.e. cylinders) and not gas contained within equipment). - Transferred Amount = gas purchased minus gas sold/disposed during reporting period. -- Gas purchased includes: Purchases for inventory, as part of equipment servicing (not from inventory), within purchased equipment, and gas returned to the site after off-site recycling. -- Gas sold/disposed includes: Returns to supplier, sales or disposals (including within equipment), and gas sent off-site for recycling, reclamation, or destruction. - Capacity Change = capacity of all units at beginning minus capacity of all units at end of reporting period. (can be assumed to be capacity of new units minus capacity of retired units). Table 1. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Material Balance Gas Gas Inventory Transferred Capacity CO2 Equivalent GWP Change Amount Change Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) R-410A 2,088 22.5 46,980.0 R-410A 2,088 303.3 633,215.2 Option 2. Material Balance Method (Simplified): Enter organization-wide total gases in units (by gas) in Table 2. - Choose the appropriate gas from the drop down menu. - New units are those installed during reporting period (do not include any data for new units pre-charged by supplier), disposed units were disposed of during the reporting period, and existing units are all others. - Charge/Recharge = gas added to units by organization or a contractor (do not include pre-charge by manufacturer). - Capacity = sum of the full capacity for all units (do not include new units pre-charged by manufacturer). - Amount recovered = total gas recovered from all retired units. Table 2. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Simplified Material Balance Gas Gas Existing Units CO2 Equivalent GWP Charge Capacity Recharge Capacity Recovered Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) (A) HFC, PFC, CO2, and SF6 refrigerants from facilities and vehicles are required to be included in the GHG inventory. Ozone depleting substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, are regulated internationally and are typically excluded from a GHG inventory or reported as a memo item. (B) Select ONE of the three options with which to estimate emissions. Options range from most preferred method (Option 1) to least preferred method (Option 3). If option 3, screening method, is used and emissions are determined to be significant when compared to other emission sources, then one of the other methods should be applied to calculate emissions more accurately. New Units Disposed Units Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)1 of 3Page 509 of 635 Option 3. Screening Method: Enter refrigerant information for each unit or group of units (by refrigerant) in Table 3. - Select the "Type of Equipment" (closest available) and "Gas" from the drop down box. - Enter amount of refrigerant added to new units by the organization (not pre-charged amount from manufacturer). - Enter refrigerant capacity (by equipment type and refrigerant) for all units operating and disposed during reporting period. -- If data entered for multiple units, sum the capacities or charge quantity for all like units. - See example entry in first row (GREEN Italics ). Table 3. Source Level Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Screening Method New Units CO2 Charge Operating Disposed Equivalent (kg)Units Units Emissions (kg)(kg)(kg) Bldg-012 Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 675 1000 0.5 0.25 6,792.2 Reference Table: Type of Equipment and Default Capacity Ranges (Lower to Upper Range) for Table 3 Domestic Refrigeration Domestic refrigeration units (capacity 0.05 to 0.5 kg) Stand-Alone Commercial Stand alone commercial applications (capacity 0.2 to 6 kg) Medium/Large Commercial Medium and large commercial refrigeration units (capacity 50 to 2,000 kg) Transport Refrigeration Transportation refrigeration units (capacity 3 to 8 kg) Industrial Refrigeration Industrial, food processing and cold storage units (capacity 10 to 10,000 kg) Chillers Commercial chillers (default capacity 10 to 2,000 kg) Residential/Commercial A/C Residential and commercial units, including heat pumps (capacity 0.5 to 100 kg) Car A/C Units Passenger car A/C units (capacity 0.5 kg) Capacity -- For each unit added or removed during reporting period, multiply its capacity by a usage factor (0.0 to 1.0). For example, if the equipment was installed in June, multiply by 0.5 or (6/12), if it was installed in September you would multiply by 0.33 (4/12). -- If capacity of unit(s) is not known, use upper value of default capacity provided in the Reference Table below. Source ID Type of Equipment Gas Gas GWP EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)2 of 3Page 510 of 635 Light-Duty Truck A/C Units Light-duty truck A/C units (capacity 1.5 kg) GHG Emissions 308.5 Notes: 1. CO2 emissions estimated using emission factors provided in Table 3 of the Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression and Industrial Gases. (Dec 2020). 2. GWPs are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Refrigeration and AC Equipment EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)3 of 3Page 511 of 635 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Single-famil Electricity Use 1 MROW (MRO West)10,754 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,812.2 1.3 0.2 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 10,754 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,812.2 1.3 0.2 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 5.4 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 0.0 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2 Page 512 of 635 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2 Page 513 of 635 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 0 metric ton 0 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 1 metric ton 422 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 0 metric ton 0 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 1 metric ton 139 GHG Emissions (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2 Page 514 of 635 Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 139 Landfilled - Combusted 422 Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 0.6 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2 Page 515 of 635 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)Version 7 June 2021 Download the guide: Help - Data Management Calculator Guidance - Important Information Tool Sheets Calculator Notes The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator") is designed as a simplified calculation tool to help organizations estimate and inventory their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US-based operations. All methodologies and default values provided are based on the most current Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Documents and the Emission Factors Hub . The Calculator will quantify the direct and indirect emissions from sources at an organization when activity data are entered into the various sections of the workbook for one annual period. (1) DEFINE: The first step in completing a GHG inventory is to determine the boundaries and emissions sources included within those boundaries. After you have defined your organizational and operational boundaries, you can use the questions on the "Boundary Questions" worksheet to help you determine which emissions sources are relevant to your business. Go to Boundary Questions (D) If more guidance is needed, you can reference the emission factor data sources found on the "Emission Factors" sheet. Emission sources of all seven major GHGs are accounted for in the inventory and in this Calculator: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The Calculator allows the user to estimate GHG emissions from scope 1 (direct), scope 2 (indirect), and some scope 3 (other indirect) sources. Before entering data, please: 1) Enable Macros and 2) Familiarize yourself with the Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Small Business & Low Emitters. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting There are three primary steps in completing a GHG inventory. Each emissions source also has these three steps. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-small-business-and-low-emitters-guide The Calculator uses U.S.-specific cross-sector emission factors from the Emission Factors Hub . Many industrial sectors also have process-related emissions sources that are specific to their sector. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program provides guidance and tools that can aid in the calculation and reporting of these emissions: (C) Data must be entered in the units specified on the data entry sheets. Use the "Unit Conversions" or "Heat Content" sheets if unit conversion is necessary prior to entering data into the Calculator. Fire Suppression Quick Data Entry Navigation (2) COLLECT: The second step is to collect data for the defined annual period. This step is typically the most time consuming, since the data can be difficult to gather. This Calculator has help sheets with suggestions and guidance for each emissions source and a general help sheet for data management. Click the drop down menu boxes below to navigate to these sheets. (3) QUANTIFY: The third step is to calculate emissions. This Calculator is designed to complete the emissions quantification step for you. Once the user enters data in this MS Excel spreadsheet, the emissions will be calculated and totaled on the "Summary" sheet. (A) Navigate to the data entry sheets using the drop down menu in the dark grey cell below and then clicking on the "Go To Data Entry Sheet" button. On the data entry sheets enter data in ORANGE cells only. (B) This Calculator has several "Tool Sheets" with useful reference data such as unit conversions, heat contents, and emission factors. Click on the buttons below to go to the appropriate Tool Sheet. Unit Conversions Heat Content Emission Factors Page 516 of 635 The GHG Protocol also provides guidance on calculating emissions from industrial processes. Page 517 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Technology Natural Gas Use 3,000,000 Natural Gas 171,600 MMBtu GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Fuel Type Units Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2Page 518 of 635 Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 167,251,462 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 9,105,169.6 172,269.0 16,725.1 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 9,105,169.6 172,269.0 16,725.1 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 9,105,169.6 172,269.0 16,725.1 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 9,114.5 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2Page 519 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Guidance (C) Enter annual data in ORANGE cells as appropriate for the selected option. Option 1. Material Balance Method: Enter organization-wide total gases stored and transferred (by gas) in Table 1. - Choose the appropriate gas from the Gas drop down menu. - Inventory Change = difference of gas stored in inventory from beginning to end of reporting period. (Includes only gas stored on-site (i.e. cylinders) and not gas contained within equipment). - Transferred Amount = gas purchased minus gas sold/disposed during reporting period. -- Gas purchased includes: Purchases for inventory, as part of equipment servicing (not from inventory), within purchased equipment, and gas returned to the site after off-site recycling. -- Gas sold/disposed includes: Returns to supplier, sales or disposals (including within equipment), and gas sent off-site for recycling, reclamation, or destruction. - Capacity Change = capacity of all units at beginning minus capacity of all units at end of reporting period. (can be assumed to be capacity of new units minus capacity of retired units). Table 1. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Material Balance Gas Gas Inventory Transferred Capacity CO2 Equivalent GWP Change Amount Change Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) R-410A 2,088 22.5 46,980.0 R-410A 2,088 303.3 633,215.2 Option 2. Material Balance Method (Simplified): Enter organization-wide total gases in units (by gas) in Table 2. - Choose the appropriate gas from the drop down menu. - New units are those installed during reporting period (do not include any data for new units pre-charged by supplier), disposed units were disposed of during the reporting period, and existing units are all others. - Charge/Recharge = gas added to units by organization or a contractor (do not include pre-charge by manufacturer). - Capacity = sum of the full capacity for all units (do not include new units pre-charged by manufacturer). - Amount recovered = total gas recovered from all retired units. Table 2. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Simplified Material Balance Gas Gas Existing Units CO2 Equivalent GWP Charge Capacity Recharge Capacity Recovered Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) (A) HFC, PFC, CO2, and SF6 refrigerants from facilities and vehicles are required to be included in the GHG inventory. Ozone depleting substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, are regulated internationally and are typically excluded from a GHG inventory or reported as a memo item. (B) Select ONE of the three options with which to estimate emissions. Options range from most preferred method (Option 1) to least preferred method (Option 3). If option 3, screening method, is used and emissions are determined to be significant when compared to other emission sources, then one of the other methods should be applied to calculate emissions more accurately. New Units Disposed Units Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)1 of 3Page 520 of 635 Option 3. Screening Method: Enter refrigerant information for each unit or group of units (by refrigerant) in Table 3. - Select the "Type of Equipment" (closest available) and "Gas" from the drop down box. - Enter amount of refrigerant added to new units by the organization (not pre-charged amount from manufacturer). - Enter refrigerant capacity (by equipment type and refrigerant) for all units operating and disposed during reporting period. -- If data entered for multiple units, sum the capacities or charge quantity for all like units. - See example entry in first row (GREEN Italics ). Table 3. Source Level Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Screening Method New Units CO2 Charge Operating Disposed Equivalent (kg)Units Units Emissions (kg)(kg)(kg) Bldg-012 Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 675 1000 0.5 0.25 6,792.2 Reference Table: Type of Equipment and Default Capacity Ranges (Lower to Upper Range) for Table 3 Domestic Refrigeration Domestic refrigeration units (capacity 0.05 to 0.5 kg) Stand-Alone Commercial Stand alone commercial applications (capacity 0.2 to 6 kg) Medium/Large Commercial Medium and large commercial refrigeration units (capacity 50 to 2,000 kg) Transport Refrigeration Transportation refrigeration units (capacity 3 to 8 kg) Industrial Refrigeration Industrial, food processing and cold storage units (capacity 10 to 10,000 kg) Chillers Commercial chillers (default capacity 10 to 2,000 kg) Residential/Commercial A/C Residential and commercial units, including heat pumps (capacity 0.5 to 100 kg) Car A/C Units Passenger car A/C units (capacity 0.5 kg) Capacity -- For each unit added or removed during reporting period, multiply its capacity by a usage factor (0.0 to 1.0). For example, if the equipment was installed in June, multiply by 0.5 or (6/12), if it was installed in September you would multiply by 0.33 (4/12). -- If capacity of unit(s) is not known, use upper value of default capacity provided in the Reference Table below. Source ID Type of Equipment Gas Gas GWP EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)2 of 3Page 521 of 635 Light-Duty Truck A/C Units Light-duty truck A/C units (capacity 1.5 kg) GHG Emissions 308.5 Notes: 1. CO2 emissions estimated using emission factors provided in Table 3 of the Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression and Industrial Gases. (Dec 2020). 2. GWPs are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Refrigeration and AC Equipment EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)3 of 3Page 522 of 635 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Technology Electricity Use 3,000,000 MROW (MRO West)60,600,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66,563,040.0 7,211.4 1,030.2 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 60,600,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 66,563,040.0 7,211.4 1,030.2 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 30,414.0 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 0.0 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2 Page 523 of 635 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2 Page 524 of 635 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 17,100 metric ton 8,103,006 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 0 metric ton 0 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 27,000 metric ton 2,677,860 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 0 metric ton 0 GHG Emissions (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2 Page 525 of 635 Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 2,677,860 Landfilled - Combusted 8,103,006 Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 10,780.9 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2 Page 526 of 635 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)Version 7 June 2021 Download the guide: Help - Data Management Calculator Guidance - Important Information Tool Sheets Calculator Notes https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting There are three primary steps in completing a GHG inventory. Each emissions source also has these three steps. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-small-business-and-low-emitters-guide The Calculator uses U.S.-specific cross-sector emission factors from the Emission Factors Hub . Many industrial sectors also have process-related emissions sources that are specific to their sector. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program provides guidance and tools that can aid in the calculation and reporting of these emissions: (C) Data must be entered in the units specified on the data entry sheets. Use the "Unit Conversions" or "Heat Content" sheets if unit conversion is necessary prior to entering data into the Calculator. Fire Suppression Quick Data Entry Navigation (2) COLLECT: The second step is to collect data for the defined annual period. This step is typically the most time consuming, since the data can be difficult to gather. This Calculator has help sheets with suggestions and guidance for each emissions source and a general help sheet for data management. Click the drop down menu boxes below to navigate to these sheets. (3) QUANTIFY: The third step is to calculate emissions. This Calculator is designed to complete the emissions quantification step for you. Once the user enters data in this MS Excel spreadsheet, the emissions will be calculated and totaled on the "Summary" sheet. (A) Navigate to the data entry sheets using the drop down menu in the dark grey cell below and then clicking on the "Go To Data Entry Sheet" button. On the data entry sheets enter data in ORANGE cells only. (B) This Calculator has several "Tool Sheets" with useful reference data such as unit conversions, heat contents, and emission factors. Click on the buttons below to go to the appropriate Tool Sheet. The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator") is designed as a simplified calculation tool to help organizations estimate and inventory their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US-based operations. All methodologies and default values provided are based on the most current Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Documents and the Emission Factors Hub . The Calculator will quantify the direct and indirect emissions from sources at an organization when activity data are entered into the various sections of the workbook for one annual period. (1) DEFINE: The first step in completing a GHG inventory is to determine the boundaries and emissions sources included within those boundaries. After you have defined your organizational and operational boundaries, you can use the questions on the "Boundary Questions" worksheet to help you determine which emissions sources are relevant to your business. Go to Boundary Questions (D) If more guidance is needed, you can reference the emission factor data sources found on the "Emission Factors" sheet. Emission sources of all seven major GHGs are accounted for in the inventory and in this Calculator: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The Calculator allows the user to estimate GHG emissions from scope 1 (direct), scope 2 (indirect), and some scope 3 (other indirect) sources. Before entering data, please: 1) Enable Macros and 2) Familiarize yourself with the Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Small Business & Low Emitters. Unit Conversions Heat Content Emission Factors Page 527 of 635 The GHG Protocol also provides guidance on calculating emissions from industrial processes. Page 528 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Data CenterNatural Gas Use 2,968,000 Natural Gas 169,770 MMBtu GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Fuel Type Units Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2Page 529 of 635 Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 165,467,446 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 9,008,047.8 170,431.5 16,546.7 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 9,008,047.8 170,431.5 16,546.7 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 9,008,047.8 170,431.5 16,546.7 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 9,017.2 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2Page 530 of 635 Scope 1 Emissions from Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Guidance (C) Enter annual data in ORANGE cells as appropriate for the selected option. Option 1. Material Balance Method: Enter organization-wide total gases stored and transferred (by gas) in Table 1. - Choose the appropriate gas from the Gas drop down menu. - Inventory Change = difference of gas stored in inventory from beginning to end of reporting period. (Includes only gas stored on-site (i.e. cylinders) and not gas contained within equipment). - Transferred Amount = gas purchased minus gas sold/disposed during reporting period. -- Gas purchased includes: Purchases for inventory, as part of equipment servicing (not from inventory), within purchased equipment, and gas returned to the site after off-site recycling. -- Gas sold/disposed includes: Returns to supplier, sales or disposals (including within equipment), and gas sent off-site for recycling, reclamation, or destruction. - Capacity Change = capacity of all units at beginning minus capacity of all units at end of reporting period. (can be assumed to be capacity of new units minus capacity of retired units). Table 1. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Material Balance Gas Gas Inventory Transferred Capacity CO2 Equivalent GWP Change Amount Change Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) R-410A 2,088 22.5 46,980.0 R-410A 2,088 303.3 633,215.2 Option 2. Material Balance Method (Simplified): Enter organization-wide total gases in units (by gas) in Table 2. - Choose the appropriate gas from the drop down menu. - New units are those installed during reporting period (do not include any data for new units pre-charged by supplier), disposed units were disposed of during the reporting period, and existing units are all others. - Charge/Recharge = gas added to units by organization or a contractor (do not include pre-charge by manufacturer). - Capacity = sum of the full capacity for all units (do not include new units pre-charged by manufacturer). - Amount recovered = total gas recovered from all retired units. Table 2. Organization-Wide Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Simplified Material Balance Gas Gas Existing Units CO2 Equivalent GWP Charge Capacity Recharge Capacity Recovered Emissions (lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) (A) HFC, PFC, CO2, and SF6 refrigerants from facilities and vehicles are required to be included in the GHG inventory. Ozone depleting substances, such as CFCs and HCFCs, are regulated internationally and are typically excluded from a GHG inventory or reported as a memo item. (B) Select ONE of the three options with which to estimate emissions. Options range from most preferred method (Option 1) to least preferred method (Option 3). If option 3, screening method, is used and emissions are determined to be significant when compared to other emission sources, then one of the other methods should be applied to calculate emissions more accurately. New Units Disposed Units Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)1 of 3Page 531 of 635 Option 3. Screening Method: Enter refrigerant information for each unit or group of units (by refrigerant) in Table 3. - Select the "Type of Equipment" (closest available) and "Gas" from the drop down box. - Enter amount of refrigerant added to new units by the organization (not pre-charged amount from manufacturer). - Enter refrigerant capacity (by equipment type and refrigerant) for all units operating and disposed during reporting period. -- If data entered for multiple units, sum the capacities or charge quantity for all like units. - See example entry in first row (GREEN Italics ). Table 3. Source Level Refrigeration Gas CO2 Equivalent Emissions - Screening Method New Units CO2 Charge Operating Disposed Equivalent (kg)Units Units Emissions (kg)(kg)(kg) Bldg-012 Domestic Refrigeration HFC-32 675 1000 0.5 0.25 6,792.2 Reference Table: Type of Equipment and Default Capacity Ranges (Lower to Upper Range) for Table 3 Domestic Refrigeration Domestic refrigeration units (capacity 0.05 to 0.5 kg) Stand-Alone Commercial Stand alone commercial applications (capacity 0.2 to 6 kg) Medium/Large Commercial Medium and large commercial refrigeration units (capacity 50 to 2,000 kg) Transport Refrigeration Transportation refrigeration units (capacity 3 to 8 kg) Industrial Refrigeration Industrial, food processing and cold storage units (capacity 10 to 10,000 kg) Chillers Commercial chillers (default capacity 10 to 2,000 kg) Residential/Commercial A/C Residential and commercial units, including heat pumps (capacity 0.5 to 100 kg) Car A/C Units Passenger car A/C units (capacity 0.5 kg) Light-Duty Truck A/C Units Light-duty truck A/C units (capacity 1.5 kg) Capacity -- For each unit added or removed during reporting period, multiply its capacity by a usage factor (0.0 to 1.0). For example, if the equipment was installed in June, multiply by 0.5 or (6/12), if it was installed in September you would multiply by 0.33 (4/12). -- If capacity of unit(s) is not known, use upper value of default capacity provided in the Reference Table below. Source ID Type of Equipment Gas Gas GWP EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)2 of 3Page 532 of 635 GHG Emissions 308.5 Notes: 1. CO2 emissions estimated using emission factors provided in Table 3 of the Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression and Industrial Gases. (Dec 2020). 2. GWPs are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Refrigeration and AC Equipment EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 3.0)3 of 3Page 533 of 635 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Data CenterElectricity Use 2,968,000 MROW (MRO West)59,953,600 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65,853,034.2 7,134.5 1,019.2 <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 59,953,600 0.0 0.0 0.0 65,853,034.2 7,134.5 1,019.2 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 30,089.6 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 0.0 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet. Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2 Page 534 of 635 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2 Page 535 of 635 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 16,918 metric ton 8,016,574 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 0 metric ton 0 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 26,712 metric ton 2,649,296 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 0 metric ton 0 GHG Emissions (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 2 Page 536 of 635 Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 2,649,296 Landfilled - Combusted 8,016,574 Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 10,665.9 EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)2 of 2 Page 537 of 635 Appendix D: Agency Project Correspondence Page 538 of 635 Farmington west Industrial AUAR MCE #: 2024-00287 Page 1 of 5 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: Farmington west Industrial AUAR Project Proposer: Kimley-Horn Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge, excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology) TRS: T114 R20 S26, T114 R20 S35 County(s): Dakota DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: State EAW Project Description: The project includes the development of a technology park with associated utilities. Existing Land Uses: The majority of the existing land is being used for agricultural purposes. Other land uses include residential and undeveloped. Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Farmland, unmanicured vegetated areas anticipated to be impacted Waterbodies Affected: Wetlands and waterways present within the study area. Potential temporary wetland impacts may occur due to the development of buildings and utilities. Groundwater Resources Affected: N/A Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Species of Special Concern No Comments No Further Review Required Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review 3/21/2024 12:44 PM Page 539 of 635 Farmington west Industrial AUAR MCE #: 2024-00287 Page 2 of 5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 March 21, 2024 Project ID: MCE #2024-00287 Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55114 RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Farmington west Industrial AUAR See Cover Page for location and project details. Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn), As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Given the project details provided on the cover page, I do not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features. To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all seven of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April- November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. 3/21/2024 12:44 PM Page 540 of 635 Farmington west Industrial AUAR MCE #: 2024-00287 Page 3 of 5 For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location and the project description provided on the cover page. If project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Jim Drake Jim Drake Natural Heritage Review Specialist James.F.Drake@state.mn.us Links:USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html 3/21/2024 12:44 PM Page 541 of 635 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0080558 Project Name: Farmington West Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).   Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The  Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.   Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance  on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural  Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Page 542 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   2 of 15 1. 2. We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to  access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below), which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the  Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of  certain activities to support these determinations. If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes  valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter. If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional  guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter. Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys, although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.              Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then  project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed  species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated  IPaC species list report for your records.  If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must  determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records.  Page 543 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   3 of 15 3. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office  for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. Northern Long-Eared Bats Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. This species hibernates in caves or mines only during the winter. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the hibernation season is considered to be November 1 to March 31. During the active season (April 1 to October 31) they roost in forest and woodland habitats. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well  as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human- made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected.  Examples of unsuitable habitat include: Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas, Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas), A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees. If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the  following activities are proposed: Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year, Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine, Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine, Construction of one or more wind turbines, or Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Page 544 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   4 of 15 Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC  species list report for your records.  If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,  the federal project user will be directed to either the range-wide northern long-eared bat D-key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit Administration Indiana bat/ Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter.  Please note: On November 30, 2022, the Service published a proposal final rule to reclassify the northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On January 26, 2023, the Service published a 60-day extension for the final reclassification rule in the Federal Register, moving the effective listing date from January 30, 2023, to March 31, 2023. This extension will provide stakeholders and the public time to preview interim guidance and consultation tools before the rule becomes effective. When available, the tools will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website (https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long- eared-bat-myotis-septentrionalis). Once the final rule goes into effect on March 31, 2023, the 4(d) D-key will no longer be available (4(d) rules are not available for federally endangered species) and will be replaced with a new Range-wide NLEB D-key (range-wide d-key). For projects not completed by March 31, 2023, that were previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key, there may be a need for reinitiation of consultation. For these ongoing projects previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key that may result in incidental take of the northern long-eared bat, we recommend you review your project using the new range-wide d-key once available. If your project does not comply with the range-wide d-key, it may be eligible for use of the Interim (formal) Consultation framework (framework). The framework is intended to facilitate the transition from the 4(d) rule to typical Section 7 consultation procedures for federally endangered species and will be available only until spring 2024. Again, when available, these tools (new range-wide d-key and framework) will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website. Whooping Crane Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”   Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should bald or golden eagles occur within or near the project area please contact our office for further coordination. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the Page 545 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   5 of 15 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and  the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. State Department of Natural Resources Coordination While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands Page 546 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   6 of 15 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 (952) 858-0793 Page 547 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   7 of 15 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0080558 Project Name:Farmington West Project Type:Commercial Development Project Description:Project Bengal, LLC is proposing to develop the study area from existing farmland to a technology park or industrial uses. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@44.64702835,-93.1855690781996,14z Counties:Dakota County, Minnesota Page 548 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   8 of 15 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 Page 549 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   9 of 15 ▪ MAMMALS NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: This species only needs to be considered if the project includes wind turbine operations. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Endangered Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered BIRDS NAME STATUS Whooping Crane Grus americana Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC, NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 Experimental Population, Non- Essential INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. Page 550 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   10 of 15 1. 2. 3. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. 1 2 3 Page 551 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   11 of 15 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 1. 2. 3.  no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) 1 2 3 Page 552 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   12 of 15 For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8329 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 20 Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9439 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9603 Breeds elsewhere PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Page 553 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   13 of 15 ▪  no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Grasshopper Sparrow BCC - BCR Prothonotary Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Semipalmated Sandpiper BCC - BCR Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Page 554 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   14 of 15 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PSS1Cd FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1C RIVERINE R2UBFx FRESHWATER POND PUBH Page 555 of 635 Project code: 2024-0080558 04/23/2024 13:34:25 UTC   15 of 15 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Kimley-Horn Name:Cole Kiernan Address:767 Eustis Street City:Saint Paul State:MN Zip:55774 Email cole.kiernan@kimley-horn.com Phone:6124009099 Page 556 of 635 Farmington west Industrial AUAR MCE #: 2024-00287 Page 4 of 5 3/21/2024 12:44 PM Page 557 of 635 Farmington west Industrial AUAR MCE #: 2024-00287 Page 5 of 5 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 3/21/2024 12:44 PM Page 558 of 635 Appendix E: Environmental Review Map Page 559 of 635 BB rr ee nn nnaannPPaatthh MM ee aa dd oo ww ll aa rr kk WW aa yy Es s e x A v e Es s e x A v e 208th St W208th St W 221122tthh SStt WW Fl a g s t a f f A v e Fl a g s t a f f A v e Fa i r g r e e n A v e Fa i r g r e e n A v e Ea t o n A v e Ea t o n A v e Lakeville BlvdLakeville Blvd PPiilloott KKnnoobb RR dd 211th St W211th St W 220055 tt hhSSttWW Spruc eSpruc e StSt UUppppeerr 221100tthhSSttWW EE rrii nn C C ttCCllaa ii rr ee CC tt AA k k ii nn RR dd GGee mmiinnii TT rr ll EE a a ss tt vv ii ee ww AA vv ee Ab b e y Ab b e y Ln Ln GGaabb aa rr dd ii nn ee LL nn 200th St W200th St W 220044tthh SS tt WW EE vv ee rr hh ii ll ll AAvvee GG aalllliiffrr ee yy WW aa yy EEvv ee nn ss oo nn gg AA vv ee 209th St W209th St W 220033rrddSStt WW 210th St W210th St W EE nn gg ll ii ss h h AAvvee 11 99 88 tt hh SS tt WW EE xx cc ee ll ss ii oo rr LL nn EErriicckkss oo nn P P aa tt hh JJuulliieettDDrr MMaaccbb ee tt hhCCiirr Flaxton LnFlaxton Ln EE n n rr ii g g h h tt WW a a yy EE dd mm oo nn tt oo n n AA vv ee EE ss ccoorr ttTT rrll FFrr oo ss tt CC tt DD uu nn bb aa r r AA vv ee LL aa nnggffoorrdd LLnn CCyypprree ss ss DD rr GGaallvv eessttoo nn PPll EE aa ss ttOOaakkss DD rr 216th St W216th St W217th St W217th St W 220th St W220th St W 4067 4147 4055 4997 4144 4114 4127 4145 This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, whichretains ownership of the imagery. It is being provid ed by Dakota Countyund er the terms of that license. Und er that license, Dakota County isallow ed to provid e access to the “Offline Copy Ad d -On forGovernment”, on which this image services is based , at 6-inchresolution, six months after the capture d ate, provid ed the useracknowled ges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of Environmental Review Map NE of 212th Street West and Flagstaff Avenue Farmington, MN Review Date: May 1, 2024 Aerial Photo: 2022 Copyright 2024, Dakota CountyThis d rawing is neither a legally record ed map nor a survey and is not intend ed to beused as one. This d rawing is a compilation of record s, information and d ata locatedin various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area show n,and is to be used for reference purposes only. Dakota County is not responsible forany inaccuracies herein contained . If d iscrepancies are found please contact theDakota County Environmental Resources Department. Legend Pipelines Railroad s ! Hazard ous WasteGenerators !Wells GOW Sites Solid Waste Facilities DC Site Inventory MPCA WIMN SitesProgram Name !.Multiple Programs "Air Quality "Environmental Review "Feed lots "Hazard ous Waste !Investigation and Cleanup !Pollution Prevention !Solid Waste !Stormwater #SSTS #Tanks #Water Quality 0 1 20.5 Miles Pa g e 5 6 0 o f 6 3 5 Appendix F: City of Farmington Water and Sanitary Sewer Plans Page 561 of 635 Page 562 of 635 Page 563 of 635 Page 564 of 635 Appendix G: Agency Comment Responses Page 565 of 635 1 Introduction Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5c, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically responding to each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed. The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began July 9, 2024, and comments were accepted through August 8, 2024. Five (5) comment letters were received from government agencies. Responses to those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix H. 1. Dakota County Comment Response Environmental Resources We have the following comments as submitted in the initial draft review period. The lost, buried wells need to be actively searched for (Dakota County has offered their magnetometer survey services), found, and sealed. Project Bengal, LLC should reach out to this department to coordinate efforts to find these wells and have them sealed by a licensed well contractor. Taxpins 140350025011 and 140260085012 both likely have older lost, unsealed wells. Page 7 of the AUAR proposal states, “If unidentified wells are found, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health must be contacted…”. Dakota County has delegated authority from the MN Department of Health to regulate well sealing activities. Please do not reach out to MPCA or MDH regarding any unsealed wells in Dakota County and instead reach out to Dakota County Environmental Resources. Additionally, in regards to section 11.a., due to the shallow depth to water (2 ½ to 40 feet) below the site and its location within the Farmington DWSMA mapped as moderately vulnerable, chemicals used on the site can impact groundwater. Consider native plantings, adequate thickness of high quality top soil and drought tolerant grass like fescue that will reduce the need for irrigation, lawn care chemicals and fertilizers. Consider winter-smart design of parking lots to reduce deicing salt and its impacts to aquatic life and water quality. Keep angle of sun in mind to ensure it reaches and melts critical icy patches. Consider the direction of prevailing winter wind to prevent drifting snow, plant trees to create a living snow fence. Implement pavement alternatives such a permeable pavements. Minimized the flow of meltwater across roads and parking lots to mitigate refreezing across roads. Comment noted. The Final AUAR will reflect that Dakota County should be contacted if unidentified wells are found. Pa g e 5 6 6 o f 6 3 5 2 The current best reference for geologic information at this site was published in 2023; C-57, Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota. The Dakota County Delegated Well Program also reviewed previous environmental audits, historic plat maps, sanborns, historic aerial photography, well construction records, well sealing records and/or well disclosure statements that Dakota County has available for taxpins 140260051030, 140260085011, 140260085012, 140260090010, 140350025011, and 146319000010. There are three areas of longstanding habitation evident beginning with the 1916 plat map (see 1916 plat map below with those areas circled in red). There are five wells that were correctly identified in the draft AUAR as well as a couple that may be improperly buried and should found and also sealed. • Taxpin 140350025011 has had habitation since at least 1916 but only has a single well record for a well that was drilled in 1994 (Unique Well # 540204). The presence of a farmstead here since 1916 is strong evidence that there is likely an additional well, the status of which is unknown, at this property somewhere on or near the nursery. • Taxpin 140260085012 has had habitation since 1916, and has a single well record (Unique Well # W05400) that was disclosed to the Department of Health in 2012. This well predates the well code, but it is unclear by how many years. It is possible there is an older buried well at this site based on the length of habitation. • Taxpin 140260085011 has also had habitation since 1916 and has an older sealed well (Unique Well # H304659) and an active in-use domestic water supply well (Unique Well # W05399). • Taxpin 140260051030 has an active irrigation well (Unique Well # 768804). • Crews should be notified of the presence of wells and they should be protected from damage and contamination if encountered, both of which may increase sealing costs. If any additional wells are discovered during redevelopment, they should be examined by a licensed well contractor or a Dakota County well inspector to determine the status. A magnetometer is the best, sometimes only way to locate wells that are below grade. Dakota County can help locate and mark wells using a magnetometer by calling 952- 891-7537. Magnetometers work best on a clear site free from large metal obstruction. A Dakota County well inspector must be present during any well searches to rule out the presence of a possible well mentioned above. Information about property transfer requirements as they pertain to wells is on our webpage at https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/HomeProperty/SellingProperty/WellRequirements. Comment noted. The Final AUAR will note that there may be improperly buried wells within the study area. Transportation Pa g e 5 6 7 o f 6 3 5 3 Comment Response Page 60 – Please Include Flagstaff Avenue to the Existing Conditions opening paragraph. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 60 – The roadway network description for CSAH 50 should include a statement that the highway is a two-lane divided highway east of CSAH 23 to about 0.7 miles west of Flagstaff Avenue. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 61 – The first bullet point should identify: • that County plans identify CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) extending south to the future alignment of CSAH 70 (on the existing 220th Street West alignment), and • that County plans identify the future designation of most of 220th Street West as CSAH 70 between Lakeville and existing CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue) once a full connection between 220th Street and CSAH 23 occurs. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 61 – The descriptions of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) figures should be updated in this section to match the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Table 3 which contains AADTs for 2023 that are available on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Traffic Mapping Application. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 61 – CSAH 50 speed limits varies depending upon location. The speed limit is 50 miles per hour (MPH) from CSAH 23 to 1450 feet east of CSAH 23. The speed limit is 55 MPH from 1450 feet east of CSAH 23 to CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue). This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Traffic Impact Analysis Section 3.1, Physical Characteristics - The roadway network description for CSAH 50 should include a statement that the highway is a two-lane divided highway east of CSAH 23 to about 0.7 miles west of Flagstaff Avenue. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Section 4.2, Future Traffic Forecasting – Table 4: AADT Growth Analysis states, “that a 1.5% annual growth rate is most appropriate for the area based on the projections.” The use of a single growth factor of 1.5% for all roadways has potential to underestimate forecast traffic volumes on CSAH 31, CSAH 23 and 200th Street West considering growth rates in Table 4 for these roadways range from 2.3% to 4.0%. County staff strongly recommends a sensitivity test to confirm mitigation recommendations and to verify no additional mitigations are needed for the development scenarios. Comment noted. It is anticipated that mitigation would remain similar to what was analyzed in the AUAR considering some roadways had lower growth and some had higher growth rates. Growth Rates should be updated with each iteration of the AUAR. Section 5.1, Analysis Scenarios – On Table 7, please clarify the Condition 2 Roadway Network assumption. Is the “new connection to CSAH 50 across from Pilot Knob Road” intended to mean the south leg of the Pilot Knob Road and CSAH 50 intersection, or something other? This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 6 8 o f 6 3 5 4 Comment Response Section 5.5, Design Year (2040) No-Build and 5.8 Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 – The first paragraph of these two sections reference Exhibit 2 as the geometry used. Exhibit 2 is of existing geometry. The south leg at CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road is anticipated to be in place by 2027 (TIA 4.1 Future Background Development and Roadway Changes). The first paragraph of these two sections should be updated to clarify northbound approach at CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road is assumed in place for these analysis scenarios. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. The County Road (CR) 64 (200th Street West) and Flagstaff Avenue intersection is noted in all conditions as being monitored for possible “signalization or another change in traffic control.” As noted in the TIA, traffic volumes are not likely to be at a level warranting signalization. Continued monitoring for potential change in intersection control would likely then involve consideration of types of control other than signalization. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. The CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 (south junction) intersection mitigation identifies for all conditions (No-Build, Scenario 1 Build, and Scenario 2 Build) an additional westbound left turn lane and an additional southbound turn lane as improvement mitigations. Considering the level of intersection reconstruction required to add these turn lanes, an analysis to evaluate the operational and queuing results for an alternative mitigation that, instead, extends the existing southbound and westbound turn lanes seems appropriate to confirm mitigation approach. An alternate mitigation scenario with extended turn lanes has been added to the Final AUAR. The CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 (south junction) intersection mitigation improvements that install additional southbound and westbound turn lanes may result in the need for conversion of the CSAH 23 and 210th Street West intersection and/or the CSAH 50 and Gateway Drive intersection from full access to partial access (3/4 or right-in/right-out) considering the proximity to the CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 intersection. Comment noted. The CSAH 50 and Fairgreen Avenue intersection mitigation identifies conditions for Scenario 1 Build and Scenario 2 Build to monitor this intersection for potential change in traffic control to address the side street delay. As noted in Section 5.12 Design Year (2040) Scenario 2, “the intersection is unlikely to meet signal warrants so alternative mitigation recommendations may need to be explored.” If traffic volumes are not at a level warranting signalization, partial access considerations (3/4 or right-in/right-out) may be an applicable mitigation if safety and operational issues arise. Comment noted. Land Conservation Please consider protecting the hydrological and habitat connections of the Middle Creek Conservation Focus Area through careful site design. The thoughtful placement of buildings, Comment noted. Pa g e 5 6 9 o f 6 3 5 5 Comment Response parking areas, and impervious surfaces outside of the Middle Creek Conservation Focus Area is encouraged. Please consider the use of native grasses and native vegetation to buffer wetlands, protect hydrologic corridors, and avoid the fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Portions of the project area are included in the Vermillion River - Middle Creek Unit Conservation Focus Area (CFA) identified in the 2020 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. Using Figure 6 from the Environmental Review document, the two areas outlined in black correspond to the two areas outlined in red on the following Middle Creek CFA map. 2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment Response Land Use Part of the project area is mapped as Rosemount Outwash with Excellent to Good Quality potential for sand and gravel mining. Has previous mining completely removed this source of aggregate, or is there still the potential for mining in the project area? If so, we encourage the utilization of these aggregate resources prior to development. Comment noted. Stormwater We appreciate that the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan for the proposed development. Comment noted. Water Appropriation Pa g e 5 7 0 o f 6 3 5 6 Comment Response Water demand under Scenario 1 is 1.85 MGD, which appears to be constant throughout the year. The City’s firm capacity is referenced as 6.62 MGD (of which the excess capacity available is 1.29 MGD), but when averaged through the year, only 2.73 MGD is allowed under their permit. An amendment to the City’s appropriation permit would be required to pump a higher annual volume, and it may be difficult to obtain large increases in water appropriation volume due to the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 Subd.5). Proximity to the Vermillion River and its protected status as a trout stream, and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers show that pumping in many areas of the city could be unsustainable. Additionally, the data center being planned at the Farmington Technology Park located in the southeast corner of the city is planning to use municipal water as well. Please begin early coordination with the DNR to explore what information is needed to estimate available volumes. Information about the amendment to the City’s appropriation permit has been added to the Final AUAR. The City will coordinate with the DNR regarding water demand. Because of the probable challenges with groundwater availability, the reliance on reclaimed water may be very important. Empire WWTP effluent is listed as 10-11 MGD. Are there estimates on how much of this is feasible to use for enough to provide the cooling needed, or would the effluent need to be mixed with groundwater? Would that change seasonally in summer versus winter? Would cooling towers be used to facilitate re-use of the water? More details are necessary to understand whether this re-use could adequately reduce the demand for groundwater. More information on water demand has been added to the Final AUAR, see Section 12. The project area is within the Vermillion River Watershed and within the vicinity of designated trout streams, which are protected by the DNR. Additional regulation and review may be required when permitting within five miles of a designated trout stream. This has been added to the Final AUAR. Cumulative Potential Effects It is unclear to what extent the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supply. It is important to evaluate if the cumulative increase in water use will be sustainable to the existing aquifer. The City is coordinating with both projects to evaluate water infrastructure needs. The City will coordinate with the DNR on any permits that are needed. Pa g e 5 7 1 o f 6 3 5 7 3. Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Comment Response Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. I have reviewed this project pursuant to the responsibilities given to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council by the Private Cemeteries Act (MS 307.08), and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MS 138.31-.41). There are no known or suspected burial cemetery sites that may be affected by this project. Comment noted, thank you for your review. 4. Metropolitan Council Comment Response Water Resources Effects on Infrastructure The Draft AUAR does not contain sufficient information to evaluate if the regional wastewater conveyance and treatment system has adequate capacity to provide wastewater service for each development scenario as described. The Council is reviewing the flow projections and capacity of the regional wastewater collection and treatment system in this area, along with potential impacts to the system and the long-term service area of the Empire wastewater treatment plant. We need additional information in order to adequately evaluate the proposed industrial wastewater flow for its impact to treatment processes and permit compliance. Additional information is required from the applicant related to wastewater quality and flow variability in order to fully evaluate the request. In particular, waste streams with high concentrations of salts such as chloride and sulfate could impact future treatment plant permit limits and need to be evaluated once wastewater chemical composition has been established. Further information on water demand has been added to Section 12 in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 7 2 o f 6 3 5 8 Comment Response It is our understanding that the wastewater flow will be to the east, to a future City of Farmington trunk sewer on Pilot Knob Road, by which it will connect to the MCES system at Interceptor 7103-1. Forecasts indicate this interceptor will be at greater than 80% capacity with ultimate build-out of the service area in Farmington and Lakeville with typical area generation rates for suburban development. The proposed land use described in the AUAR will generate a significantly higher rate of wastewater than expected for suburban development, which could pose a concern for long-term interceptor capacity. The impact on the capacity availability could limit the system’s ability to support planned development in other cities with planned utilization of the interceptor, as approved in the existing 2040 comprehensive plans. Further information on water demand has been added to Section 12 in the Final AUAR. The potential cumulative impacts from other planned developments with high volume of wastewater discharge also need to be evaluated. Storage and peak attenuation may need to be considered as stated in the AUAR. These mitigation approaches may not be sufficient to address the impacts described above. The City is coordinating with proposed developments to evaluate water infrastructure needs. The Council is currently in discussions with multiple data center projects in Dakota County and the supply of wastewater effluent may not be adequate to serve all these projects. Reclaimed wastewater treatment process byproducts could affect treatment processes, effluent quality, and permitting that would need to be thoroughly evaluated. Comment noted. Page 44 notes that “A Water Use Appropriations Permit would be obtained if permanent dewatering is determined to be necessary for construction of development in Scenario 1 and 2.” Please clarify what is meant by “permanent dewatering” – is dewatering expected in perpetuity or only during the construction phase of the project? There is not permanent dewatering anticipated. Dewatering would occur during the construction of underground utilities and be discontinued post construction. The AUAR also notes that the development will be supplied by water from the City of Farmington and discusses how Scenarios 1 and 2 would impact current City of Farmington water supply system capacity. However, the AUAR does not discuss how Scenarios 1 and 2 would impact the City of Farmington’s capacity to supply planned future water demand in stages (2030, 2040) including residential use by a growing population. This information will help to meet the AUAR purpose of providing information about the anticipated staging of developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. Further information on water demand has been added to Section 12 in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 7 3 o f 6 3 5 9 Comment Response Climate Council staff encourages the project proposer to commit to the use of native plants in landscaping and stormwater features, and to select plants that will be resilient to the anticipated climate trends. Additionally, staff encourages the incorporation of additional green infrastructure such as pervious pavers and green roofs to further mitigate the anticipated increases in precipitation and large rain events. Comment noted. Land Use The proposed project site is already guided as Industrial and Mixed-Use (Commercial/industrial) in the City’s 2040 Plan. However, the northern portion of this AUAR is currently outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Before approval of a sanitary sewer extension, the City will need amend the 2040 Plan to change the staging from outside the MUSA to within the current 2030 MUSA. Comment noted, the need for a Comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide the MUSA has been noted in the Final AUAR. Greenhouse Gases The discussion of GHG emissions is adequate; however, there appears to be a math error in Table 15. The table indicates that Scenario 2 will produce 28,167 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year, yet the numbers add up to 19,992 tons of CO2 equivalent per year. The subsequent notes also indicate that the grid-based wind and solar will only be used for Scenario 1, yet it is included for both scenarios in Table 15. These issues should be corrected. The developer should commit to tree replacement beyond city minimums to further offset the projected GHG footprint of the project and should consider the use of onsite solar panels to reduce the project’s off-site energy needs. Table 15 has been revised in the Final AUAR. Surface Water Features Removal of approximately 20 acres of forest/woodland is proposed. Where removal cannot be avoided, Council staff recommends replacement with native tree stands. Additionally, with an increase of more than 100 acres of lawn and landscape, the Council recommends selecting and installing vegetation that is native, drought-tolerant to reduce irrigation needs, and chloride- tolerant or chloride-friendly. Comment noted. Landscape design within the site will be evaluated in later design stages. A specific tree replacement plan will be created and approved by the City prior to development. The project Pa g e 5 7 4 o f 6 3 5 10 Comment Response proposer will also implement a chloride management plan for the proposed development Traffic Mitigation Functional Classification should be confirmed for each roadway described; the proposer refers to comprehensive plans which may not reflect the most up to date information. To best describe existing functional classification today, refer to the most up to date resource: Roadway Functional Class Review (arcgis.com) This has been updated in the Final AUAR. The existing and planned non-motorized facilities which run through or adjacent to the project site should be described and considered in the transportation section of the AUAR. The presence of existing and planned facilities should be considered in the mitigation measures as well. If facilities are provided as outlined in the Farmington 2040 Plan, this could serve as a mitigation to traffic growth for local commuting options as residential development occurs around the AUAR site. The City of Farmington and Dakota County are planning to construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail along the east side of Pilot Knob Road (C.S.A.H. 31) between 212th St W (C.S.A.H. 50) and 195th St W (C.S.A.H. 64). The project will eliminate the need for pedestrians to cross Pilot Knob Road to use the existing trail. It will also improve safety, mobility and connectivity for those walking or biking. This has been noted in the Final AUAR While there currently is no existing transit near the subject site, the preparer should acknowledge the planned Red Line BRT station sited at 215th and Cedar Avenue, approximately 1-mile from the project site. The Red Line BRT extension is currently not considered in the current revenue funding scenario for the region; however, if development, such as this one, drives future demand, the extension could become feasible and provide mitigation for future traffic impacts. The Red Line study is available for reference: This has been noted in the Final AUAR. 5. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Comment Response Cover sheet: “Daft” should read “Draft”. This has been revised in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 7 5 o f 6 3 5 11 Comment Response Page 9, Table 2: Under Project Design, please revise text to indicate that water efficient design will be incorporated as well (for landscape vegetation choices, landscape irrigation, appliances, equipment). This has been added in the Final AUAR. Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise text indicating that Developer: a) Shall use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to Water Resource buffers. b) Consider using native plants and perennials adjacent to other landscaping areas. This has been noted in the Final AUAR Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise third bullet point to read: “Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements” This has been revised in the Final AUAR Page 13, Table 3 (and associated Figure 6 on Page 15): According to Guidance, the AUAR should include Circular 39 wetland typing. Wetland type is not able to be distinguished from an aerial photography review. The AUAR should incorporate an approved onsite wetland delineation. A summary of the onsite wetland delineation is included in Section 12 of the Final AUAR. Page 14, Table 4: Under Green Infrastructure, please revise text to read “vegetated swales” instead of “swales”. This has been revised in the Final AUAR Page 20, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization narrative: A Water Quality Corridor is noted along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area. This should be corrected to state that the Water Quality Corridor extends through the eastern portion of the AUAR study area. It should also be noted that there is a Tributary Connector along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area and a Principal Connector just outside the northern boundary of the AUAR study area. Each type of waterway classification has its own specific vegetated buffer or setback requirements that could have an impact to development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR. This has been added in the Final AUAR. Page 20, Farmington Surface Water Management Plan narrative: While the narrative lists requirements associated with Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17, it does not include the amount of acreage of Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands present onsite in accordance with the Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map. Include acreage of Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands onsite. Wetland classifications according to the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan have been added to Table 11 in the Final AUAR. Page 22: The note about the VRWJPO should be removed in its entirety. Jurisdictional authority of VRWJPO is listed in table 6. The City was issued an MPCA MS-4 permit on 10/20/21 and they have their own Ordinances or requirements that apply to Water Resources that are consistent with the VRWJPO Standards. This has been removed in the Final AUAR. Page 31: The last sentence of paragraph 3 “Approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City” should be eliminated since it’s noted in our previous comment that the City’s Ordinance and requirements are consistent with VRWJPO Standards. This has been removed in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 7 6 o f 6 3 5 12 Comment Response Page 33, Figure 12: These findings were not incorporated within previous tables and figures referencing onsite wetlands (Table 3, Figure 6). A total wetland area (23.5 acres) is included in Table 3. Figure 6 has been updated in the Final AUAR to reflect the delineated wetlands. Page 39, Wastewater: The AUAR identifies a discharge rate of 700,000 gallons per day under Scenario 1. The proposed discharge rate would account for six percent of the Empire WWTP’s daily average flow. As a result, the applicant is strongly advised to incorporate water recycling within its operations to reduce this impact on wastewater capacity for the region. Comment noted. Potential for water recycling has been evaluated in later design stages. Page 42: During Construction: The first sentence, after aquatic ecosystems, should contain the text “per City of Farmington Design Standards”. The remaining bullet points should be eliminated as they appear to be specific to a different project. This has been revised in the Final AUAR. Page 42: Post Construction: The last sentence indicates that there are six BMP’s associated with the project. Is there an exhibit which shows these locations? The proposed basins are being worked through during the site development to optimize site flow, grading, and drainage. There are no finalized pond locations at this point. The proposed basins aim to replicate the existing drainage patterns on site. Page 43: Third sentence. There appears to be a word missing after “routed”. This has been revised in the Final AUAR. Page 43: Fifth sentence. Are there thresholds for the elements described (like cadmium and chromium) that are specific to post construction runoff criteria? Doesn’t this statement relate to wastewater discharge? This has been an error in statement and has been removed from the Final AUAR. Page 43: Second paragraph. Please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed” text located after “determined by City of Farmington”. This has been revised in the AUAR. Page 43: We recommend revising the mitigation of winter salt statement to read: “To mitigate winter salt use, each project proposer will develop a chloride management plan with every project that requires an NPDES permit”. This has been revised in the AUAR. Page 44: Water Appropriation: The last paragraph indicates that MCES may be able to provide reclaimed water for industrial process. The VRWJPO supports reusing water to conserve regional groundwater supplies. However, construction of a pipeline from the WWTP to this site would be a significant cost and undertaking and may make the project infeasible. Staff have also been informed that if reclaimed water were used for these types of processes, it would require additional water treatment prior to use, which may would also add cost and may make this less feasible or infeasible. This option should be explored further to determine its viability. Options for use of reclaimed water will be evaluated for feasibility in later design stages. Pa g e 5 7 7 o f 6 3 5 13 Comment Response Page 45: 2nd paragraph: a) Does the first sentence need to be revised to read 11.8 MGD instead of 11.8 MGY? b) Does the last sentence “The City’s water appropriation capacity should be sufficient for both scenarios” mean that if the AUAR is approved, the City of Farmington must construct 2.5 MG of water storage facilities prior to this proposed development? Because the project will be phased, the water demands will increase overtime to the ultimate flow. This means the project could get through the first year to two years of operation without water storage improvements being required for the ultimate buildout. Page 68: under Water Resources, please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization” in the first text table group. This has been revised in the Final AUAR. Page 68: under Water Resources, please revise text to read “Chloride Management Plans will be Implemented per any State and Local Guidelines or Requirements”. This has been revised in the Final AUAR. Pa g e 5 7 8 o f 6 3 5 Appendix H: Agency Comments Page 579 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 July 30, 2024 Tony Wippler City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN-55024 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Farmington West Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). Physical Development staff has reviewed this document and have the following comments. Environmental Resources We have the following comments as submitted in the initial draft review period. The lost, buried wells need to be actively searched for (Dakota County has offered their magnetometer survey services), found, and sealed. Project Bengal, LLC should reach out to this department to coordinate efforts to find these wells and have them sealed by a licensed well contractor. Taxpins 140350025011 and 140260085012 both likely have older lost, unsealed wells. Page 7 of the AUAR proposal states, “If unidentified wells are found, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health must be contacted…”. Dakota County has delegated authority from the MN Department of Health to regulate well sealing activities. Please do not reach out to MPCA or MDH regarding any unsealed wells in Dakota County and instead reach out to Dakota County Environmental Resources. Additionally, in regards to section 11.a., due to the shallow depth to water (2 ½ to 40 feet) below the site and its location within the Farmington DWSMA mapped as moderately vulnerable, chemicals used on the site can impact groundwater. Consider native plantings, adequate thickness of high quality top soil and drought tolerant grass like fescue that will reduce the need for irrigation, lawn care chemicals and fertilizers. Consider winter-smart design of parking lots to reduce deicing salt and its impacts to aquatic life and water quality. Keep angle of sun in mind to ensure it reaches and melts critical icy patches. Consider the direction of prevailing winter wind to prevent drifting snow, plant trees to create a living snow fence. Implement pavement alternatives such a permeable pavements. Minimized the flow of meltwater across roads and parking lots to mitigate refreezing across roads. The current best reference for geologic information at this site was published in 2023; C-57, Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota. The Dakota County Delegated Well Program also reviewed previous environmental audits, historic plat maps, sanborns, historic aerial photography, well construction records, well sealing records and/or well disclosure statements that Dakota County has available for taxpins 140260051030, 140260085011, 140260085012, 140260090010, 140350025011, and 146319000010. There are three areas of longstanding habitation evident beginning with the 1916 plat map (see 1916 plat map below with those areas circled in red). Page 580 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 There are five wells that were correctly identified in the draft AUAR as well as a couple that may be improperly buried and should found and also sealed. • Taxpin 140350025011 has had habitation since at least 1916 but only has a single well record for a well that was drilled in 1994 (Unique Well # 540204). The presence of a farmstead here since 1916 is strong evidence that there is likely an additional well, the status of which is unknown, at this property somewhere on or near the nursery. • Taxpin 140260085012 has had habitation since 1916, and has a single well record (Unique Well # W05400) that was disclosed to the Department of Health in 2012. This well predates the well code, but it is unclear by how many years. It is possible there is an older buried well at this site based on the length of habitation. • Taxpin 140260085011 has also had habitation since 1916 and has an older sealed well (Unique Well # H304659) and an active in-use domestic water supply well (Unique Well # W05399). • Taxpin 140260051030 has an active irrigation well (Unique Well # 768804). • Crews should be no�fied of the presence of wells and they should be protected from damage and contamina�on if encountered, both of which may increase sealing costs. If any addi�onal wells are discovered during redevelopment, they should be examined by a licensed well contractor or a Dakota County well inspector to determine the status. A magnetometer is the best, some�mes only way to locate wells that are below grade. Dakota County can help locate and mark wells using a magnetometer by Page 581 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 calling 952-891-7537. Magnetometers work best on a clear site free from large metal obstruc�ons. A Dakota County well inspector must be present during any well searches to rule out the presence of a possible well men�oned above. Information about property transfer requirements as they pertain to wells is on our webpage at https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/HomeProperty/SellingProperty/WellRequirements. Transportation Page-Specific Comments • Page 60 – Please Include Flagstaff Avenue to the Existing Conditions opening paragraph. • Page 60 – The roadway network description for CSAH 50 should include a statement that the highway is a two-lane divided highway east of CSAH 23 to about 0.7 miles west of Flagstaff Avenue. • Page 61 – The first bullet point should identify: o that County plans identify CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) extending south to the future alignment of CSAH 70 (on the existing 220th Street West alignment), and o that County plans identify the future designation of most of 220th Street West as CSAH 70 between Lakeville and existing CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue) once a full connection between 220th Street and CSAH 23 occurs. • Page 61 – The descriptions of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) figures should be updated in this section to match the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Table 3 which contains AADTs for 2023 that are available on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Traffic Mapping Application. • Page 61 – CSAH 50 speed limits varies depending upon location. The speed limit is 50 miles per hour (MPH) from CSAH 23 to 1450 feet east of CSAH 23. The speed limit is 55 MPH from 1450 feet east of CSAH 23 to CSAH 31 (Denmark Avenue). Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Comments • Section 3.1, Physical Characteristics - The roadway network description for CSAH 50 should include a statement that the highway is a two-lane divided highway east of CSAH 23 to about 0.7 miles west of Flagstaff Avenue. • Section 4.2, Future Traffic Forecasting – Table 4: AADT Growth Analysis states, “that a 1.5% annual growth rate is most appropriate for the area based on the projections.” The use of a single growth factor of 1.5% for all roadways has potential to underestimate forecast traffic volumes on CSAH 31, CSAH 23 and 200th Street West considering growth rates in Table 4 for these roadways range from 2.3% to 4.0%. County staff strongly recommends a sensitivity test to confirm mitigation recommendations and to verify no additional mitigations are needed for the development scenarios. • Section 5.1, Analysis Scenarios – On Table 7, please clarify the Condition 2 Roadway Network assumption. Is the “new connection to CSAH 50 across from Pilot Knob Road” intended to mean the south leg of the Pilot Knob Road and CSAH 50 intersection, or something other? • Section 5.5, Design Year (2040) No-Build and 5.8 Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 – The first paragraph of these two sections reference Exhibit 2 as the geometry used. Exhibit 2 is of existing geometry. The south leg at CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road is anticipated to be in place by 2027 (TIA 4.1 Future Background Development and Roadway Changes). The first paragraph of these two sections should be updated to clarify northbound approach at CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road is assumed in place for these analysis scenarios. Page 582 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis (Section 6.7) Mitigation Plan Comments • The County Road (CR) 64 (200th Street West) and Flagstaff Avenue intersection is noted in all conditions as being monitored for possible “signalization or another change in traffic control.” As noted in the TIA, traffic volumes are not likely to be at a level warranting signalization. Continued monitoring for potential change in intersection control would likely then involve consideration of types of control other than signalization. • The CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 (south junction) intersection mitigation identifies for all conditions (No-Build, Scenario 1 Build, and Scenario 2 Build) an additional westbound left turn lane and an additional southbound turn lane as improvement mitigations. Considering the level of intersection reconstruction required to add these turn lanes, an analysis to evaluate the operational and queuing results for an alternative mitigation that, instead, extends the existing southbound and westbound turn lanes seems appropriate to confirm mitigation approach. • The CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 (south junction) intersection mitigation improvements that install additional southbound and westbound turn lanes may result in the need for conversion of the CSAH 23 and 210th Street West intersection and/or the CSAH 50 and Gateway Drive intersection from full access to partial access (3/4 or right-in/right-out) considering the proximity to the CSAH 23 and CSAH 50 intersection. • The CSAH 50 and Fairgreen Avenue intersection mitigation identifies conditions for Scenario 1 Build and Scenario 2 Build to monitor this intersection for potential change in traffic control to address the side street delay. As noted in Section 5.12 Design Year (2040) Scenario 2, “the intersection is unlikely to meet signal warrants so alternative mitigation recommendations may need to be explored.” If traffic volumes are not at a level warranting signalization, partial access considerations (3/4 or right-in/right-out) may be an applicable mitigation if safety and operational issues arise. Land Conservation Please consider protecting the hydrological and habitat connections of the Middle Creek Conservation Focus Area through careful site design. The thoughtful placement of buildings, parking areas, and impervious surfaces outside of the Middle Creek Conservation Focus Area is encouraged. Please consider the use of native grasses and native vegetation to buffer wetlands, protect hydrologic corridors, and avoid the fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Page 583 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 Portions of the project area are included in the Vermillion River - Middle Creek Unit Conservation Focus Area (CFA) identified in the 2020 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. Using Figure 6 from the Environmental Review document, the two areas outlined in black correspond to the two areas outlined in red on the following Middle Creek CFA map. Page 584 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 Page 585 of 635 Physical Development Division P 952-891-7000 F 952-891-7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952-891-7007 or Georg.Fischer@co.dakota.mn.us Sincerely, Georg T Fischer, Director Physical Development Division cc: Commissioner Mike Slavik, District 1 Tom Novak, Interim County Manager Page 586 of 635 1 Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 July 31, 2024 Tony Wippler Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Tony Wippler, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Farmington West Industrial Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the project area located in Dakota County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Page 17, Land Use. Part of the project area is mapped as Rosemount Outwash with Excellent to Good Quality potential for sand and gravel mining. Has previous mining completely removed this source of aggregate, or is there still the potential for mining in the project area? If so, we encourage the utilization of these aggregate resources prior to development. 2. Page 43, Stormwater. We appreciate that the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan for the proposed development. 3. Page 44, Water Appropriation. Water demand under Scenario 1 is 1.85 MGD, which appears to be constant throughout the year. The City’s firm capacity is referenced as 6.62 MGD (of which the excess capacity available is 1.29 MGD), but when averaged through the year, only 2.73 MGD is allowed under their permit. An amendment to the City’s appropriation permit would be required to pump a higher annual volume, and it may be difficult to obtain large increases in water appropriation volume due to the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 Subd.5). Proximity to the Vermillion River and its protected status as a trout stream, and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers show that pumping in many areas of the city could be unsustainable. Additionall y, the data center being planned at the Farmington Technology Park located in the southeast corner of the city is planning to use municipal water as well. Please begin early coordination with the DNR to explore what information is needed to estimate available volumes. 4. Page 44, Water Appropriation. Because of the probable challenges with groundwater availability, the reliance on reclaimed water may be very important. Empire WWTP effluent is listed as 10-11 MGD. Are there estimates on how much of this is feasible to use for Page 587 of 635 2 supplementing the water supply of the industrial development? Are water temperatures low enough to provide the cooling needed, or would the effluent need to be mixed with groundwater? Would that change seasonally in summer versus winter? Would cooling towers be used to facilitate re-use of the water? More details are necessary to understand whether this re-use could adequately reduce the demand for groundwater. 5. Page 44, Water Appropriation. The project area is within the Vermillion River Watershed and within the vicinity of designated trout streams, which are protected by the DNR. Additional regulation and review may be required when permitting within five miles of a designated trout stream. 6. Page 48, Rare Features. A Natural Heritage (NH) Review request was submitted to the DNR on March 21, 2024 through Minnesota Conservation Explorer (MCE #2024-00287), and a response was received that day. The response letter can be found in Appendix D. This review found no records of state-listed species or other rare natural features near the project area. However, the DNR recommended that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15 to minimize potential impacts to roosting bat species of special concern, which can be found throughout the state. Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System in April 2024 per license agreement LA2024-006 for the study area and area within a one-mile radius for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species. The review did not identify any records of state listed species . Please refer to the March 21, 2024 NH letter for coordination regarding state-listed species. 7. Page 66, Cumulative Potential Effects. It is unclear to what extent the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supply. It is important to evaluate if the cumulative increase in water use will be sustainable to the existing aquifer. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document . Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us CC: Lisa Workman, Project Bengal, LLC Equal Opportunity Employer Page 588 of 635 Letter 1 161 Rondo Ave, Suite 919 Saint Paul, MN 55103 MIAC.Culturalresources@state.mn.us Date: 07/26/2024 Tony Wippler City of Farmington 6512806822 twippler@farmingtonmn.gov Project Name: Farmington West Industrial AUAR Submitter’s Project ID: Known or Suspected Cemeteries ☐ Platted Cemeteries ☐ Unplatted Cemeteries ☐ Burial File ☐ Authenticated Burial Notes/Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. I have reviewed this project pursuant to the responsibilities given to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council by the Private Cemeteries Act (MS 307.08), and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MS 138.31-.41). There are no known or suspected burial cemetery sites that may be affected by this project. Recommendations Page 589 of 635 Letter 2 ☐ Not Applicable ☒ No Concerns ☐ Monitoring ☐ Avoidance ☐ Phase Ia – Literature Review ☐ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey ☐ Phase II – Evaluation ☐ Phase III – Data Recovery ☐ Other If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office. Sincerely, Isaac Weston Cultural Resource Manager Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 161 Rondo Avenue, Ste. 919 Saint Paul MN 55103 Office: 6515392202 Work: 6125128391 isaac.weston@state.mn.us Page 590 of 635 Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer August 1, 2024 Tony Wippler, Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: City of Farmington – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Farmington West Industrial Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22968-2 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Dear Tony Wippler: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Farmington West Draft AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the AUAR is incomplete, and the proposed project raises major issues related to impacts on and the regional wastewater system. Specifically: Item 12. Water Resources Effects on Infrastructure (Roger Janzig, roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us), (John Chlebeck, 651-602-4527) The Draft AUAR does not contain sufficient information to evaluate if the regional wastewater conveyance and treatment system has adequate capacity to provide wastewater service for each development scenario as described. The Council is reviewing the flow projections and capacity of the regional wastewater collection and treatment system in this area, along with potential impacts to the system and the long-term service area of the Empire wastewater treatment plant. We need additional information in order to adequately evaluate the proposed industrial wastewater flow for its impact to treatment processes and permit compliance. Additional information is required from the applicant related to wastewater quality and flow variability in order to fully evaluate the request. In particular, waste streams with high concentrations of salts such as chloride and sulfate could impact future treatment plant permit limits and need to be evaluated once wastewater chemical composition has been established. It is our understanding that the wastewater flow will be to the east, to a future City of Farmington trunk sewer on Pilot Knob Road, by which it will connect to the MCES system at Interceptor 7103-1. Forecasts indicate this interceptor will be at greater than 80% capacity with ultimate build-out of the service area in Farmington and Lakeville with typical area generation rates for suburban development. The proposed land use described in the AUAR will generate a significantly higher rate of wastewater than expected for suburban development, which could pose a concern for long-term interceptor capacity. The impact on the capacity availability could limit the system’s ability to support planned development in other cities with planned utilization of the interceptor, as approved in the existing 2040 comprehensive plans. The potential cumulative impacts from other planned developments with high volume of wastewater discharge also need to be evaluated. Storage and peak attenuation may need to be considered as Page 591 of 635 Page - 2 | August 1, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL stated in the AUAR. These mitigation approaches may not be sufficient to address the impacts described above. The AUAR states that effluent water from the Empire wastewater treatment plant may be used for industrial process water. This is not currently a service that is available through MCES and significant evaluation to determine whether this is feasible is something that has not been conducted at this time. This feasibility evaluation is unlikely to be completed within a timeframe sufficient to be used in the proposed development in the near term. The infrastructure and governance structure does not currently exist to provide reclaimed water or effluent water service to outside entities. A service model will first need to be developed and run through a public input process before this type of service could be provided. The Council is currently in discussions with multiple data center projects in Dakota County and the supply of wastewater effluent may not be adequate to serve all these projects. Reclaimed wastewater treatment process byproducts could affect treatment processes, effluent quality, and permitting that would need to be thoroughly evaluated. The Council also offers the following comments related to corrections to content other items for your consideration: Item 7 Climate: (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373) Council staff encourages the project proposer to commit to the use of native plants in landscaping and stormwater features, and to select plants that will be resilient to the anticipated climate trends. Additionally, staff encourages the incorporation of additional green infrastructure such as pervious pavers and green roofs to further mitigate the anticipated increases in precipitation and large rain events. Item 10 Land Use (Patrick Boylan 651-602-1438) The proposed project site is already guided as Industrial and Mixed-Use (Commercial/industrial) in the City’s 2040 Plan. However, the northern portion of this AUAR is currently outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Before approval of a sanitary sewer extension, the City will need amend the 2040 Plan to change the staging from outside the MUSA to within the current 2030 MUSA. Item 18 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs): (MacKenzie Young-Walters, 651-602-1373) The discussion of GHG emissions is adequate; however, there appears to be a math error in Table 15. The table indicates that Scenario 2 will produce 28,167 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year, yet the numbers add up to 19,992 tons of CO2 equivalent per year. The subsequent notes also indicate that the grid-based wind and solar will only be used for Scenario 1, yet it is included for both scenarios in Table 15. These issues should be corrected. The developer should commit to tree replacement beyond city minimums to further offset the projected GHG footprint of the project and should consider the use of onsite solar panels to reduce the project’s off-site energy needs. Item 12a.i. Surface Water Features (Steve Christopher 651-602-1033) Removal of approximately 20 acres of forest/woodland is proposed. Where removal cannot be avoided, Council staff recommends replacement with native tree stands. Additionally, with an increase of more than 100 acres of lawn and landscape, the Council recommends selecting and installing vegetation that is native, drought-tolerant to reduce irrigation needs, and chloride-tolerant or chloride-friendly. Item 20c. Traffic Mitigation (Joe Widing, 651-602-1822) Functional Classification should be confirmed for each roadway described; the proposer refers to comprehensive plans which may not reflect the most up to date information. To best describe Page 592 of 635 Page - 3 | August 1, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL existing functional classification today, refer to the most up to date resource: https://metrocouncil.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4e02270f13944fe1b9f600123e29618 a The existing and planned non-motorized facilities which run through or adjacent to the project site should be described and considered in the transportation section of the AUAR. The presence of existing and planned facilities should be considered in the mitigation measures as well. If facilities are provided as outlined in the Farmington 2040 Plan, this could serve as a mitigation to traffic growth for local commuting options as residential development occurs around the AUAR site. While there currently is no existing transit near the subject site, the preparer should acknowledge the planned Red Line BRT station sited at 215th and Cedar Avenue, approximately 1-mile from the project site. The Red Line BRT extension is currently not considered in the current revenue funding scenario for the region; however, if development, such as this one, drives future demand, the extension could become feasible and provide mitigation for future traffic impacts. The Red Line study is available for reference: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/Transit/CederAvenueBRT/Documents/RedLineImplementationPlan UpdateFinalReport.pdf The Council will not take formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1438 or via email at patrick.boylan@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Farmington\Letters\Farmington 2024 Farmington West Industrial AUAR 22968-2.docx Page 593 of 635 From:Alison Harwood To:Payne, Ashley; Bunge, Leila Subject:Fw: Farmington 2024 Farmington West Industrial AUAR 22968-2 Date:Thursday, August 8, 2024 4:01:37 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image005.png PhoneIcon,City1pt_433fa8b9-8d95-4a9b-bfb2-ccc295480c2b.png LocationIcon,City1pt_226abbd5-5bec-4888-888d-c73f80199477.png Logo-500x194_de1528c2-7348-4386-a5a0-ca9248fd61e3.png image586295.png Hi Ashley and Leila, See below from Met Council on Farmington West. Thanks, Alison Alison Harwood​​​​, CMWP Director, Natural Resources 612.360.1320 (o) ‑ 540 Gateway Blvd Burnsville , MN 55337 wsbeng.com For a list of WSB employee licenses and certifications visit here. This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. ​If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended ​recipients is strictly prohibited. WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result ​of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. From: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 3:18 PM To: Alison Harwood <aharwood@wsbeng.com> Cc: Deanna Kuennen <dkuennen@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: FW: Farmington 2024 Farmington West Industrial AUAR 22968-2 EXTERNAL EMAIL Please see below for additional comments received from the Met Council. Please forward on as necessary. Tony Wippler Planning Manager Main: 651-280-6800 | Direct: 651-280-6822 430 Third St. Farmington, MN 55024 From: Boylan, Patrick <Patrick.Boylan@metc.state.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 9:01 AM Page 594 of 635 To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Cc: Ross, Lanya <Lanya.Ross@metc.state.mn.us> Subject: Farmington 2024 Farmington West Industrial AUAR 22968-2 Hi Tony, A mea culpa on this one for you – in drafting the letter last week to you, I left out the following technical comments from Water Supply: Page 44 notes that “A Water Use Appropriations Permit would be obtained if permanent dewatering is determined to be necessary for construction of development in Scenario 1 and 2.” Please clarify what is meant by “permanent dewatering” – is dewatering expected in perpetuity or only during the construction phase of the project? The AUAR also notes that the development will be supplied by water from the City of Farmington and discusses how Scenarios 1 and 2 would impact current City of Farmington water supply system capacity. However, the AUAR does not discuss how Scenarios 1 and 2 would impact the City of Farmington’s capacity to supply planned future water demand in stages (2030, 2040) including residential use by a growing population. This information will help to meet the AUAR purpose of providing information about the anticipated staging of developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. My apologies. We can cover this and some wastewater thoughts I have in our brief meeting-before-the-meeting (you and I) Patrick Patrick Boylan, AICP he/him/his Planning Analyst | Local Planning Assistance Metropolitan Council 390 Robert St N, St. Paul MN 55101 P. 651-602-1438 | C. 612-730-1922 metrocouncil.org | facebook | twitter From: Dingle, Sandi <sandi.dingle@metc.state.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 6:05 PM To: TWippler@FarmingtonMN.gov Cc: Tod Sherman <tod.sherman@dot.state.mn.us>; Wulff, Wendy <Wendy.Wulff@metc.state.mn.us>; Sventek, Judy <judy.sventek@metc.state.mn.us>; Boylan, Patrick <Patrick.Boylan@metc.state.mn.us>; ReviewsCoordinator <ReviewsCoordinator@metc.state.mn.us> Subject: Farmington 2024 Farmington West Industrial AUAR 22968-2 The attached letter is being sent to you electronically on 8/1/2024. Sandi Dingle Program Technical Specialist | Regional Planning sandi.dingle@metc.state.mn.us Page 595 of 635 P. 651.602.1312 | C. 651.329.0373 390 North Robert Street | St. Paul, MN | 55101 | metrocouncil.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 596 of 635 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588 7/23/2024 Mr. Tony Wippler Planning Manager, City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Farmington West Industrial Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated June 2024 The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Farmington West Industrial Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review June 2024 (AUAR) by Kimley-Horn. Staff has reviewed this scoping document and have the following comments: 1) Cover sheet: “Daft” should read “Draft”. 2) Page 9, Table 2: Under Project Design, please revise text to indicate that water efficient design will be incorporated as well (for landscape vegetation choices, landscape irrigation, appliances, equipment). 3) Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise text indicating that Developer: a) Shall use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to Water Resource buffers. b) Consider using native plants and perennials adjacent to other landscaping areas. 4) Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise third bullet point to read: “Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements” 5) Page 13, Table 3 (and associated Figure 6 on Page 15): According to Guidance, the AUAR should include Circular 39 wetland typing. Wetland type is not able to be distinguished from an aerial photography review. The AUAR should incorporate an approved onsite wetland delineation. 6) Page 14, Table 4: Under Green Infrastructure, please revise text to read “vegetated swales” instead of “swales”. 7) Page 20, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization narrative: A Water Quality Corridor is noted along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area. This should be corrected to state that the Water Quality Corridor extends through the eastern portion of the AUAR study area. It should also be noted that there is a Tributary Connector along the northern boundary of the AUAR study area and a Principal Connector just outside the northern boundary of the AUAR study area. Each Page 597 of 635 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 2 type of waterway classification has its own specific vegetated buffer or setback requirements that could have an impact to development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR. 8) Page 20, Farmington Surface Water Management Plan narrative: While the narrative lists requirements associated with Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17, it does not include the amount of acreage of Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands present onsite in accordance with the Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map. Include acreage of Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands onsite. 9) Page 22: The note about the VRWJPO should be removed in its entirety. Jurisdictional authority of VRWJPO is listed in table 6. The City was issued an MPCA MS-4 permit on 10/20/21 and they have their own Ordinances or requirements that apply to Water Resources that are consistent with the VRWJPO Standards. 10) Page 31: The last sentence of paragraph 3 “Approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City” should be eliminated since it’s noted in our previous comment that the City’s Ordinance and requirements are consistent with VRWJPO Standards. 11) Page 33, Figure 12: These findings were not incorporated within previous tables and figures referencing onsite wetlands (Table 3, Figure 6). 12) Page 39, Wastewater: The AUAR identifies a discharge rate of 700,000 gallons per day under Scenario 1. The proposed discharge rate would account for six percent of the Empire WWTP’s daily average flow. As a result, the applicant is strongly advised to incorporate water recycling within its operations to reduce this impact on wastewater capacity for the region. 13) Page 42: During Construction: The first sentence, after aquatic ecosystems, should contain the text “per City of Farmington Design Standards”. The remaining bullet points should be eliminated as they appear to be specific to a different project. 14) Page 42: Post Construction: The last sentence indicates that there are six BMP’s associated with the project. Is there an exhibit which shows these locations? 15) Page 43: Third sentence. There appears to be a word missing after “routed”. 16) Page 43: Fifth sentence. Are there thresholds for the elements described (like cadmium and chromium) that are specific to post construction runoff criteria? Doesn’t this statement relate to wastewater discharge? 17) Page 43: Second paragraph. Please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed” text located after “determined by City of Farmington”. 18) Page 43: We recommend revising the mitigation of winter salt statement to read: “To mitigate winter salt use, each project proposer will develop a chloride management plan with every project that requires an NPDES permit”. Page 598 of 635 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 3 19) Page 44: Water Appropriation: The last paragraph indicates that MCES may be able to provide reclaimed water for industrial process. The VRWJPO supports reusing water to conserve regional groundwater supplies. However, construction of a pipeline from the WWTP to this site would be a significant cost and undertaking and may make the project infeasible. Staff have also been informed that if reclaimed water were used for these types of processes, it would require additional water treatment prior to use, which may would also add cost and may make this less feasible or infeasible. This option should be explored further to determine its viability. 20) Page 45: 2nd paragraph: a) Does the first sentence need to be revised to read 11.8 MGD instead of 11.8 MGY? b) Does the last sentence “The City’s water appropriation capacity should be sufficient for both scenarios” mean that if the AUAR is approved, the City of Farmington must construct 2.5 MG of water storage facilities prior to this proposed development? 21) Page 68: under Water Resources, please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization” in the first text table group. 22) Page 68: under Water Resources, please revise text to read “Chloride Management Plans will be Implemented per any State and Local Guidelines or Requirements”. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this AUAR. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jeff Dunn Travis Thiel VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer VRWJPO Administrator Kelly Perrine VRWJPO Senior Watershed Specialist Page 599 of 635 1 Alison Harwood From:Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Sent:Monday, July 1, 2024 8:46 AM To:Alison Harwood Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL]Automatic reply: Pending Review: Project Review Application for Farmington West Industrial AUAR EXTERNAL EMAIL FYI. Tony Wippler Planning Manager Main: 651-280-6800 | Direct: 651-280-6822 430 Third St. Farmington, MN 55024 From: MN_ADM_OSA_Project_Reviews <OSA.Project.Reviews.ADM@state.mn.us> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 1:47 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Automatic reply: Pending Review: Project Review Application for Farmington West Industrial AUAR Thank you for contacting the Office of the State Archaeologist. If you would like a project reviewed, please complete the Project Review Request Form located on our website at: https://mn.gov/admin/archaeologist/government/project- review/. You can then send the form and relevant materials to OSA.Project.Reviews.ADM@state.mn.us and we will initiate the review process. Please be aware that due to increased workloads, reviews are taking longer than the usual 30 days for archaeological reviews, and 45 days for cemetery reviews. We appreciate your patience! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV You don't often get email from osa.project.reviews.adm@state.mn.us. Learn why this is important Page 600 of 635 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Advertisement for bids for the Rambling River Center Project Meeting: Regular Council - Oct 07 2024 INTRODUCTION: The Agreement with JLG Architects for schematic design through construction phase for the Rambling River Center (RRC) project was approved by City Council on May 6, 2024. This includes construction and bid documents. The Plans and Specifications are complete; thus, it is time to authorize the Advertisement for Bids. DISCUSSION: Plans and Specifications have been developed based on the Agreement that was approved on May 6. This includes the full scope of proposed renovation work as outlined in the planning study completed by JLG Architects and Kraus-Anderson facility condition assessment items identified at the RRC. The planning study and facility condition assessment items are attached. Renovations include, but not limited to: (1) converting part of the existing garage into a fitness room; (2) replacing the roof and all exterior doors and windows; (3) installing new roof top mechanical units, ductwork, and zoning; (4) adding two new gender-neutral restrooms; (5) relocating the main entry; and (6) constructing a new outdoor patio off the banquet room. New interior finishes include flooring, ceiling tile, and painting. The project includes alternates that can be added to the base bid if funds allow. Alternates include removal of fin tube radiation, arbor at the patio, arbor outside fitness room on current garage apron, acoustic ceiling baffles, acoustic wall baffles, and ceiling fans in the banquet room, and folding panel partition in the Empire Room. authorize and Specifications and Plans approve to process the the in step next The is Advertisement for Bids. The City is required to advertise for bids and receive sealed bids as the project will exceed $175,000. Page 601 of 635 The project schedule is as follows: Joshua Lawrenz, Building Official, reviewed the construction documents and issued a Plan Review Letter to JLG Architects. The comments in the Plan Review Letter are being addressed by JLG Architects and responses provided to the Building Official. The City Attorney reviewed the front-end documents for the specifications several times and found them to be acceptable. BUDGET IMPACT: As of the final construction documents, the estimated total construction cost is $1,961,133 and estimated total project cost is $2,314,137. The estimated total project cost includes construction plus design contingency and soft costs. Soft costs include architect / engineering fees, permits, testing / inspections, furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE). The project will be funded by the $740,000 remaining in the FY 2023 Community Project Funding grant, donation of $50,000 from Minnwest Bank for the construction of the outdoor patio, and $1,758,000 in tax abatement bonds. Thus, the amount available for the project is $2,548,000. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Plans and Specifications and authorize the Advertisements for Bids for the Rambling River Center Project. ATTACHMENTS: Rambling River Center City Council Approved Master Plan Kraus-Anderson Facility Condition Assessment Work Page 602 of 635 JANUARY 2024 SENIOR CENTER PLANNING STUDY CITY OF FARMINGTON Pa g e 6 0 3 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary and Study Participants 1 PROJECT PROCESS Background, Process and Outcomes 2 CONTEXT Project Location 4 EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS Surrounding Area 5 CURRENT USE OF FACILITY Occupancy plan 6 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS Building Exterior and Structure 7 Entry and Multi-purpose spaces 8 Admin and Fitness Spaces 9 Kitchenette, Ping Pong, Train and Arts/Crafts Rooms 10 Garage 11 Banquet Room and Kitchenette 12 CONCEPT DRAWING Overall Concept Plan 13 South Area Plan and Description 14 North Area Plan and Description 15 PROJECT PHASING AND COSTS Phasing diagram and description 16 Summary of costs by phase 17 INSPIRATION IMAGES Building Interior 18 Building Exterior 21 APPENDIX Kraus-Anderson facility condition assessment 23 RRC Newsletter - Programs and Event Calendar 27 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Farmington was seeking to develop a master plan for the Rambling River Center to better accommodate current and planned programming. The Rambling River Center was founded in 1982 and currently occupies the original Farmington City Hall and Police Station that was constructed in 1969. The space was renovated as the senior center after the city moved to a new facility. The site includes a green space and parking lot, and is adjacent to public parking that serves the adjacent commercial businesses. The study began in 2023 with an on-site kick-off meeting and tour. A series of input sessions were held with staff and users to understand their existing and future needs. The JLG team distilled the information gathered at these sessions to create a facility program document that outlined the existing spaces and their square footage, and required area to meet program needs. Multiple concept plan options were prepared and reviewed by the City of Farmington and Rambling River Center staff . Revisions were made based on the feedback. After a fi nal direction was established, construction cost estimates were prepared. The proposed concept plan maintains the overall layout of the building while updating and expanding desired amenities to serve the senior community of Farmington and surrounding area. The project will improve facilities that are most used, provide a more welcoming entry, improve accessibility and enhance the site for outdoor functions. Key components that were desired by the members were an expanded and improved fi tness center, better lounge space for coff ee and conversation, more spaces for varied programming including cards, games, and other activities. Staff noted the need for a more inviting and functional main entry, improved accessibility and more visibility to see activities within the building. RAMBLING RIVER CENTER STUDY PARTICIPANTS Kellee Omlid Parks and Recreation Director, City of Farmington Missie Kohlbeck Recreation Supervisor, City of Farmington Stacey Popp RRC Program Assistant, City of Farmington Jeremy Pire Parks & Facilities Supervisor, City of Farmington Ted Novak Facilities Maintenance Worker, City of Farmington Pa g e 6 0 4 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 2 PROJECT PROCESS BACKGROUND The Rambling River Center (RRC) is a drop in facility providing programming for adults ages 50 and older. Membership is not required, but is encouraged. Additional fees are required for non-members to participate in programming. The facility operates from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. Members of the RRC have access to fi tness equipment during facility operating hours and activities include a coff ee cafe, book club, classes in arts and crafts, fi tness and wellness, and other events. A copy of their newsletter is included in the appendix. The north end of the building includes a large multipurpose room that is available for the public to rent for events. The Board Room is used occasionally by city staff for meetings. The Open Door food pantry has a pop-up event monthly with distribution out of the garage space and bread delivery occurs weekly for members to take items home. The building is located at 325 Oak Street in the downtown business district, close to other businesses. Originally constructed in 1969 as a city hall and library and later used as the city hall and police station, the building has been home to the senior center for 15 years and fi nishes and equipment are in need of updating and replacement. Prior to this master planning study, an evaluation of current building conditions was completed by Kraus-Anderson and recommendations are included in the end of the study in the appendix. Goals for this planning study include creating a facility that will: • Be welcoming and open • Accessible to all • Be updated and easy to maintain • Support the wide variety of activities • Allow greater participation by seniors • Enhance fi tness and wellness opportunities PROCESS This planning study provides information and options for potential modifi cations within the building and surrounding site. The overall building conditions were reviewed and recommendations were developed for general building improvements to meet the needs of the community. MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT KICK-OFF 10/03/2023 JLG met with City and RRC staff . At this initial meeting, we discussed the goals of the study and set the direction for this planning study. From this meeting, JLG prepared a work plan which outlined key dates, steps in the process, and set expectations and outcomes. Deliverables: Meeting minutes, project schedule, project goals STAKEHOLDER INPUT 10/31/2023 Our team gathered input from City and RRC staff and conducted one stakeholder input meeting to gain insight from the senior center users. This helped us better understand and evaluate health, wellness, recreational, and social activities in the building and learn what users would like to include in the future development of the building Deliverables: Meeting minutes, summary/analysis of input CONCEPT OPTIONS 11/16/2023 From the facility program, JLG developed a building layout option with several variations that showed potential renovations or reconfi guration of spaces. These were reviewed with the City and RRC staff to determine which option would best serve the community now and into the future. From this discussion, a fi nal option – which had a combination of features from the various alternatives – was developed. This now becomes the framework for the new Rambling River Center. Deliverables: Meeting minutes, preliminary options, refi ned program and concept plan FINAL PLANNING DIRECTION 12/2023 In December, the Rambling River Center Advisory Board and Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the concept plan. They reviewed the scope of the work for renovation and discussed elements of the plan that are a priority. Their discussion included consideration for phasing work for the uses that are most needed. Their comments regarding phasing are incorporated into the fi nal plan and cost estimate and will be a basis for a future design and construction work. By providing a realistic cost in phases, the Parks & Recreation Commission and Rambling River Center Advisory Board can plan a long term budget to roll out each phase of the master plan. STUDY REPORT PRESENTATION 01/2024  At the completion of the study, JLG will present the recommendations to the Farmington City Council. Deliverables: Conceptual plan and other data for public communication and presentation Pa g e 6 0 5 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 3 OUTCOMES What we learned is that members value opportunities to come together in small and large groups for conversation, support, and learning. Members want a lobby area for welcoming people into the facility and a space to have coff ee available (they like their capuccinos!). There is a desire for more small gathering spaces throughout the facility, spaces to foster conversations. They appreciate multiple activities occurring at the same time and having options for activities. This might include a card game, or arts/craft activity. It might be listening to a speaker or having a program on topics of daily living. It may be gathering for an outing or working on the model railroad. More room for exercise activity is needed and space for fi tness classes to meet is important. The fi tness equipment is well-used but needs more space to function well. Having access to an outdoor space in good weather is desireable for outdoor lunches and activities. The following pages provide an analysis of the existing facility and a proposed concept plan, developed in collaboration with the city and RRC staff , with input from users. Pa g e 6 0 6 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 4 FARMINGTON CONTEXT +: <    +:< +: <   6358&(67 :(679,(:3$5. 5$0%/,1*5,9(53$5. 9(50,//,215,9(5 5$0%/,1*5,9(53$5. 5$0%/,1* 5,9(5 &(17(5 2$.67 7 +  6 7 1 Pa g e 6 0 7 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 5 EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS SITE The city of Farmington is south of the Minneapolis / St. Paul metro area, and has a population of 23,600 residents. The Vermilion River bounds the city to the north and west border. CITY OF FARMINGTON The Rambling River Center is located in the central part of downtown. The building is comprised of two wings, the primary functions of the facility face Oak Street, and a banquet facility wing extends to the north. The front entry is along Oak street, and is not directly accessed from the parking lot which is at the back of the building. A sidewalk connects the facility parking lot to the front door. There are multiple doors around the building, including two at the front of the building which creates confusion at the main entry. There is a second entrance to the banquet room that can be accessed from the facilities parking lot. Another exit egress door routes to the public parking lot along the west side of the building. With multiple doors, it is diffi cult to secure and monitor building access. The site does have some green space at the northwest area of the building but this space is not readily accessible from the building directly. Users would need to walk around the building from east or west entry doors to this space. The parking lot provides space for 10 cars, including two accessible spaces. Additional parking is located on Oak Street in front of the building and on a public parking lot to the west. Zoning A-1 (Agriculture) R-1 (Low Density Residential) R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential) R-3 (Medium Density Residential) R-4 (High Density Residential) R-D (Downtown Residential) MUCR (Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential) B-1 (Highway Business) B-2 (Downtown Business) B-3 (General Business) SSMU (Spruce Street Mixed-Use) MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial) I (Industrial) P/OS (Parks/Open Space) * *Rambling River Center RAMBLING RIVER CENTER Pa g e 6 0 8 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 6 CURRENT USE OF FACILITY dŽŝůĞƚ ϭϴ Ϯϱϵ^& DƵůƚŝͲƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ϭ ϭ͕Ϯϱϰ^& WƌŝŶƚZŽŽŵ ϭϭ ϭϰϳ^& ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ϵ ϯϯϯ^& 'ĂƌĂŐĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϭϰ Ϯ͕ϭϮϭ^& WŝŶŐWŽŶŐ ϳ ϭϰϮ^& DĞĐŚ ϭϯ ϰϭϮ^& ZĞĐĞƉƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞ ϭϮ Ϯϱϳ^& sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϮϮ ϱϴ^& dƌĂŝŶ ϲ ϰϮϳ^& ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϭϲ ϭϲϭ^& <ŝƚĐŚĞŶ ϱ ϮϱϬ^& ĂŶƋƵĞƚ ϰ Ϯ͕Ϭϭϭ^& sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ Ϯϯ ϱϭ^& ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϭϱ ϱϱϵ^& sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ Ϯϭ ϵϰ^& ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ ϭϵ ϭ͕Ϯϯϲ^& dŽŝůĞƚ ϭϳ ϮϱϬ^& sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϮϬ ϵϱ^& >ŝďƌĂƌLJ ϯ Ϯϲϴ^& ĚŵŝŶKĨĨŝĐĞ ϭϬ ϱϬϭ^& &ŝƚŶĞƐƐ Ϯ ϲϴϬ^& ƌĂĨƚZŽŽŵ ϴ ϳϵϬ^& &>KKZZ^,h EhDZ ED Z KhWEz >^^/&/d/KE ;/,WdZϯͿ / &hEd/KEK&^W &>KKZZWZ KhWEd ^& >s>Ϭϭ ϭ DƵůƚŝͲƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ϭ͕Ϯϱϰ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ Ϯ &ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϲϴϬ^& Ͳϯ yZ/^ZKKD ϱϬ ϯ >ŝďƌĂƌLJ Ϯϲϴ^& Ͳϯ >/ZZzͲZ/E'ZKKD ϱϬ ϰ ĂŶƋƵĞƚ Ϯ͕Ϭϭϭ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ ϱ <ŝƚĐŚĞŶ ϮϱϬ^& Ͳϯ </d,E͕KDDZ/> ϮϬϬ ϲ dƌĂŝŶ ϰϮϳ^& Ͳϯ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϳ WŝŶŐWŽŶŐ ϭϰϮ^& Ͳϯ yZ/^ZKKD ϱϬ ϴ ƌĂĨƚZŽŽŵ ϳϵϬ^&  hd/KE>Ͳ>^^ZKKD ϮϬ ϵ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ϯϯϯ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ ϭϬ ĚŵŝŶKĨĨŝĐĞ ϱϬϭ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϭ WƌŝŶƚZŽŽŵ ϭϰϳ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϮ ZĞĐĞƉƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞ Ϯϱϳ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϯ DĞĐŚ ϰϭϮ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϭϰ 'ĂƌĂŐĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ Ϯ͕ϭϮϭ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϭϱ ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϱϱϵ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϭϲ ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϭϲϭ^& ^^KZzh^ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϭϳ dŽŝůĞƚ ϮϱϬ^& /E/Ed>h^ hEKhW/^W Ϭ ϭϴ dŽŝůĞƚ Ϯϱϵ^& /E/Ed>h^ hEKhW/^W Ϭ ϭϵ ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ ϭ͕Ϯϯϲ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ ϮϬ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϵϱ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ϯϭ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϵϰ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ ϮϮ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϱϴ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ϯϯ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϱϭ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ >s>Ϭϭ ϭϮ͕ϯϱϱ^& 15Storage 559 SF 23Vest 51 SF 4Banquet 2,011 SF 5Kitchenette 250 SF 8Craft Room 790 SF 13Mechanical 412 SF 9Conference 333 SF 19Corridor 1,236 SF 1Multi-purpose 559 SF 10Admin Offi ces 501 SF 3Library 268 SF 2Fitness 680 SF 7Ping Pong 142 SF 14Garage/Storage 2,121 SF 6Train 427 SF 17Toilets 250 SF 18Toilets 259 SF 20Vest 95 SF 21Vest 94 SF 22Vest 58 SF 16Stor 161 SF 12Recept/Offi ce 257 SF 11Print Rm 147 SF &>KKZZ^,h> EhDZ ED Z KhWEz >^^/&/d/KE ;/,WdZϯͿ /,WdZϭϬ K>&ͺ&ŝ džĞĚ KĐĐƵƉĂŶƚŽƵŶƚ&hEd/KEK&^W &>KKZZWZ KhWEd ^&WZK͘>K &dKZ;K>&Ϳ ^&WZK͘ D^hZDEd KhWEd>K &/y^d^ Dy͘K͘>K >s>Ϭϭ ϭ DƵůƚŝͲƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ϭ͕Ϯϱϰ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ ϭϱ Ed EŽ ϴϰ Ϯ &ŝƚŶĞƐƐ ϲϴϬ^& Ͳϯ yZ/^ZKKD ϱϬ ϱϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϭϰ ϯ >ŝďƌĂƌLJ Ϯϲϴ^& Ͳϯ >/ZZzͲZ/E'ZKKD ϱϬ ϱϬ Ed EŽ ϲ ϰ ĂŶƋƵĞƚ Ϯ͕Ϭϭϭ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ ϭϱ Ed EŽ ϭϯϱ ϱ <ŝƚĐŚĞŶ ϮϱϬ^& Ͳϯ </d,E͕KDDZ/> ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ Ϯ ϲ dƌĂŝŶ ϰϮϳ^& Ͳϯ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ Ϯ ϳ WŝŶŐWŽŶŐ ϭϰϮ^& Ͳϯ yZ/^ZKKD ϱϬ ϱϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϯ ϴ ƌĂĨƚZŽŽŵ ϳϵϬ^&  hd/KE>Ͳ>^^ZKKD ϮϬ ϮϬ Ed EŽ ϰϬ ϵ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ϯϯϯ^& Ͳϯ ^^D>zͲtͬK&/y^d/E'Ͳ hEKEEdZd ϭϱ ϭϱ Ed EŽ Ϯϯ ϭϬ ĚŵŝŶKĨĨŝĐĞ ϱϬϭ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϱϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϰ ϭϭ WƌŝŶƚZŽŽŵ ϭϰϳ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϱϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϭ ϭϮ ZĞĐĞƉƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞ Ϯϱϳ^&  h^/E^^Z ϭϱϬ ϭϱϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ Ϯ ϭϯ DĞĐŚ ϰϭϮ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ Ϯ ϭϰ 'ĂƌĂŐĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ Ϯ͕ϭϮϭ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϴ ϭϱ ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϱϱϵ^& ^Ͳϭ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ Ϯ ϭϲ ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ ϭϲϭ^& ^^KZzh^ ^^KZz^dKZ'͕D, Yh/WDEdZKKD ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ 'ZK^^ EŽ ϭ ϭϳ dŽŝůĞƚ ϮϱϬ^& /E/Ed>h^ hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ ϭϴ dŽŝůĞƚ Ϯϱϵ^& /E/Ed>h^ hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ ϭϵ ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ ϭ͕Ϯϯϲ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ ϮϬ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϵϱ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ Ϯϭ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϵϰ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ ϮϮ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϱϴ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ Ϯϯ sĞƐƚŝďƵůĞ ϱϭ^& /Zh>d/KE hEKhW/^W Ϭ Ͳ Ͳ EŽ >s>Ϭϭ ϭϮ͕ϯϱϱ^&ϬϬ ϯϮϵ Pa g e 6 0 9 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 7 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS BUILDING STRUCTURE AND EXTERIOR The Rambling River Center is constructed of concrete masonry and steel with brick and stucco façade. An addition was added to the original brick building and there are some interior rooms with exposed brick. Some interior walls are concrete masonry and some are metal stud and drywall. To create openings in any load bearing walls will require added steel lintels. There are narrow windows around the exterior of the building. The roof was replaced in 2018, but was poorly done and requires ongoing maintenance. PHOTO ONE Main Entry to Rambling River: The main facade has two entry doors from its previous use as a city hall and police station. Signage is placed over the current main entry but the facade does not provide a welcoming appearance. There is very little overhang or protection from the weather for people entering the building. Garage Entry: The facility has a four-stall garage and one garage stall is needed for the senior center van; other stalls are used for city vehicles and by Open Door for periodic food distribution. The area in front of the garages is a large concrete apron and drive which does not allow for any green space at the front of the building. PHOTO TWO: Parking Lot: The parking lot on the east side of the building does not access the front entry. Visitors must walk the sidewalk along the building to get to the main entrance or enter from a back door which is not visible to staff at the main entry. Visitors can access the multipurpose/banquet room from the parking lot. Parking is limited so members and visitors also park at the front and west sides. PHOTOS THREE AND FOUR: Green Space: A generous grass yard along the west side of the banquet space is used occasionally for leisure activities. A well building sits within the space and will be removed in 2024 which will provide more usable green space. There is currently no direct access to this green space from the building and no hardscape area where tables and chairs can be placed. There is currently a fi re hydrant in the yard which would remain. Pa g e 6 1 0 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 8 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS A B DC BUILDING INTERIOR Interior spaces are constructed of concrete block and metal stud/drywall. Ceilings are typically ceiling tile with lay-in light fi xtures. Flooring throughout is a combination of luxury vinyl and carpet. Overall the facility is in good condition but dated in many areas. The main building entrance is on Oak Street and faces south. The reception desk is located here and this hall provides access to the multipurpose room and remainder of the facility. PHOTOS ONE, TWO, AND THREE As you enter the facility, you walk through a main vestibule, with a raised ceiling. The vestibule includes bulletin board display and space for handouts. The main reception desk is just inside the door but this space is small and people standing at the desk can block access. The reception desk does not provide visibility to the back entry or activity within the facility. Visitors can check in at the digital check-in scanner, and staff at the reception desk greets visitors. The main offi ce is accessed behind the reception desk. This is a secure offi ce. The multi-purpose room is located adjacent to the entrance, and is accessed from the main hallway. There are schedules for activities displayed at the entry to the multi-purpose space. A display of greeting cards that members of the facility make is also in the main hallway. This hall continues around to the main spaces in the building. PHOTO FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX: The multi-purpose room is used for meetings and fi tness classes. One part of the room includes a card table for puzzles and puzzle library for members to use. A book library is located within the multi-purpose room and has books that can be borrowed. There is limited lounge seating in the library, and also near the puzzle table. The multi-purpose room can seat 40 people for an event. They also have movie screenings in this space. This area is fairly closed off so activities taking place are not visible to others in the building.  ϭ DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊ key plan Pa g e 6 1 1 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 9 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS A B DC BUILDING INTERIOR PHOTOS ONE, TWO, AND THREE The Recreation Supervisor’s offi ce along with a small offi ce/meeting room is accessed through the multipurpose room. A print room with paper storage is also near the Recreation Supervisor’s offi ce and accessed only from the multipurpose room. Having these offi ces away from the center of activity is good but access can be a challenge when an activity is going on in the multipurpose room. A board room is also in that part of the facility, with access from the o ffi ce area and the main hallway along with a door directly to the exterior. This space is used for meetings and small groups. PHOTOS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX: A storefront with generous window is the entry to the fi tness room. This space is the original city hall council chambers, and has brick and wood panel walls. There are multiple pieces of fi tness equipment in this room. Sport fl ooring was added when the space was converted to a senior center. The mechanical systems do not provide adequate circulation for the activity that happens here and the size of the space limits the number of pieces of equipment and types of fi tness activities that can happen here. Visitors store their shoes in the former entry vestibule, this space has generous ceiling, and could be better used.  ϭ DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊ key plan Pa g e 6 1 2 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 10 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS DC BUILDING INTERIOR The east wing of the facility includes functions that are accessed through this small kitchenette/coff ee area. This area was the former police station and the former holding cells and small storage spaces remin as storage to serve the arts & craft room and train room. PHOTO ONE The small kitchen near the fi tness center is used for coff ee service and snack pantry. This is also the entry to the ping pong room and garage. It serves as a hallway to activity spaces in the east part of the building. PHOTO TWO The ping pong room also provides access to the train room. This room is a build out within the garage. The space is functional but not very inviting. PHOTO THREE The train room is located in the former police detention area and is a key feature of the building where kids often visit to see the trains. There is a direct exit door located from the train room which is in poor condition and in need of replacement. PHOTO FOUR The arts & crafts room is used for a variety of activities, this room includes table and chairs for large groups, and millwork storage for all of the craft supplies that are there but lacks a sink.  ϭ DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊ key plan Pa g e 6 1 3 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 11 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS A B DC BUILDING INTERIOR PHOTOS ONE AND TWO The four vehicle garage is used for the RRC van along with other city vehicles. The unfi nished space also has a storage room used for seasonal items and the space above this storage room and the ping pong room (seen in photo at right) provides additional storage space. PHOTOS THREE AND FOUR In additon to the garage doors, there is a exit door which is near the main entry and a door that enters the building through the ping pong room. The east end of the garage contains the sprinkler riser for the building.  ϭ DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊KD /EdEWKZ/'>D key plan Pa g e 6 1 4 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 12 EXISTING BUILDING ANALYSIS A B DC BUILDING INTERIOR The multipurpose room/banquet room is a major component of the facility. The room is used for a variety of programming including fi tness classes for the RRC and is available for rent for large gatherings and events. A dedicated entry is useful for delivery of catering food and party supplies. The ceiling is an open structure system with luxury vinyl fl ooring so there is no acoustical control within the room and the space can be very loud. PHOTOS ONE AND TWO There is a direct outdoor access to the banquet room, the large room includes table and chairs for large groups, and has AV features for presentations. There are men’s and women’s restrooms accessible directly from this room. There is storage for tables and chairs used in the banquet room located at the north end of the room. PHOTOS THREE AND FOUR There is a kitchenette within the banquet room. The kitchenette is available for use when the banquet space is rented to the public. The room is also used for bread delivery for members of the RRC. This room has walls that do not extend up fully to the roof deck and the pass-through partition is an accordian wood that provides only a visual barrier so sound between the prep kitchen and the banquet space is a concern. In addition to storage rooms at the north end of the multipurpose room, there is a small room with an organ and displays of historical items. This room is rarely used and items could be located elsewhere in order to be more visible.  ϭ DK>KZ/'/EWK/Ed͊ key plan Pa g e 6 1 5 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 13 OVERALL CONCEPT While the existing building provides some great spaces for the Rambling River Center, the overall layout is chopped up by many small rooms and the building lacks clear circulation and visibility to activities taking place. The main goals were to make the building more open and welcoming, improve access and accessibility, and enhance program spaces for fi tness and games along with coff ee and casual conversation. The new layout will provide more openness and visibility on the interior and enhance the sense of welcome for members and visitors. The outdoor green space will be improved and patio spaced added with direct access from the banquet room. More detailed descriptions of the proposed changes are noted on the following pages. RENOVATION CONCEPT Multi-purpose Room 1032 sf 68 occupants (tables / chairs) 147 (chairs only) Game Room 573 sf 28 occupants Work Room 124 sf 1 occupant 2ǕFH 200 sf 2 occupants Board Room 310 sf 10 occupants0HFK 348 sf Men Women Library 376 sf 7 occupants Coats 2ǕFH 102 sf 1 occupant Lobby 528 sf 1 occupant Fitness 1046 sf 20 occupants Toilet Craft Room 755 sf 37 occupants Train Room 588 sf 5 occupants .LWFKHQ 185 sf 3 occupants Men Women Toilet Storage Storage Storage Storage Banquet Room 2,153 sf 120 occupants (tables / chairs) 143 (chairs only) Entry Arbor Patio Seating 5HFUHDWLRQODZQ 6FUHHQHOHPHQW Trellis Garage NewMainEntry SocialSpace SocialSpace Pa g e 6 1 6 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 14 CONCEPT PLAN - SOUTH Multi-purpose Room 1032 sf 68 occupants (tables / chairs) 147 (chairs only) Game Room 573 sf 28 occupants Work Room 124 sf 1 occupant 2ǕFH 200 sf 2 occupants Board Room 310 sf 10 occupants0HFK 348 sf Men Women Library 376 sf 7 occupants Coats 2ǕFH 102 sf 1 occupant Lobby 528 sf 1 occupant Fitness 1046 sf 20 occupants Toilet Craft Room 755 sf 37 occupants Train Room 588 sf 5 occupants Storage Storage Storage Entry Arbor Garage OVERALL CONCEPT These are the highlights of the new layout: • The new main entry moves to the other vestibule and a nice open area is created with the reception desk and offi ce in what is currently the fi tness room. • The lobby area has space for a coff ee machine and some lounge seating for a more welcoming feel and visibility. • The wall with double doors added leads to where the reception and offi ce was previously located. This will provide open space for the library and quiet lounge area. • The old vestibule could have coat racks and would serve the multipurpose room. Doors here would be exit only. • The enclosed library is removed from the multipurpose room, creating a larger space with a folding divider so it can be used as one large room or two smaller rooms for activities. • The workroom and one smaller offi ce are removed to create a game room for noisier activities like a pool table and ping pong table with adequate clearances for play. The space could also have some seating for those waiting to play or watching. • A hallway is added back to the offi ce and the workroom. The Board room remains but the exterior door is removed and a window added here. • Heading down the hall toward the Arts & Crafts room, the hallway (where the coff ee area was previously) is opened up and 3 of the 4 garage stalls are used to create a larger fi tness room. The sprinkler riser will be enclosed and the room will have coat hanging and shoe cubbies for users. The garage doors would be removed and replaced with big windows for lots of natural light. • Outside of the fi tness room, a single occupant accessible toilet room has been added for easy access to the main area and fi tness space. • One garage stall remains along with the storage room. • In the train area, the old holding cells and plumbing chase are removed to create a more open area. • Exterior improvements at the south side of the building would include an arbor and weather canopy over the new main entry to provide shade and protection. In addition, as garage spaces are replaced with the fi tness room, concrete drive can be removed and additonal landscaping added at the front of the building. Pa g e 6 1 7 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 15 CONCEPT PLAN - NORTH 2ǕFH 200 sf 2 occupants Board Room .LWFKHQ 185 sf 3 occupants Men Women Toilet Storage Banquet Room 2,153 sf 120 occupants (tables / chairs) 143 (chairs only) Patio Seating 5HFUHDWLRQODZQ 6FUHHQHOHPHQW Trellis OVERALL CONCEPT These are the highlights of the new layout: • Heading toward the north, the door separationg the north and south areas has shifted to allow use of the multipurpose/banquet room without access to the remainder of the facility. A new single occupant accessible toilet room has been added and the kitchen shifted to support this. The kitchen will have walls run all the way up to the deck and a better counter door added to provide better sound control. • The banquet room remains about the same size but storage has been consolidated to make it more fl exible for storing tables and chairs. The vestibule has been removed to improve the fl ow of this space. • Two of the windows in the multipurpose/banquet room have been replaced with doors to access a patio for dining and events. • The outdoor green space would include screening and additional landscaping to create a more inviting outdoor space for RRC activities, programs and rentals. Pa g e 6 1 8 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 16 PHASES OF DESIGN PHASE 1A The main phase of renovations includes relocating the main entry to the facility, at the former entrance to the council chambers. Making the new entry includes reception offi ce and desk to greet visitors. A lobby space with coff ee bar area and opening the east wall to a new library area with built-in shelving. The other major construction for this phase is moving the fi tness room to the garage. This will include replacing overhead doors with windows, raising the fl oor, providing a new HVAC system and fi nishes. A new single use restroom will be added near the fi tness room. The changes to the north end of the multipurpose/banquet room storage and vestibule will be part of this initial phase. The addition of a patio space adjacent to the multipurpose/banquet room is also part of this phase along with installation of new doors to access the patio space. Replacement of the aging doors on the west side of the building are also included. Landscaping to enhance the main outdoor green space around the new patio will also be part of this phase. PHASE 1B The exterior improvements that correspond with the new entry location include an arbor and covered canopy to enhance the main entry point along with removal of concrete entry drive and replacement with landscaping to soften the look of the main facade. PHASE 2 A new single use restroom is added to the multipurpose/banquet room New walls for the kitchen are also at this phase along with updates to millwork and appliances. PHASE 3 The remaining updates to the lounge area include the library lounge, a new opening with double door leads to the library space where millwork for bookcase and display cabinets. The multi-purpose room modifi cations and added game room are also part of this phase. PHASE 4 The remaining work to clear out the old jail cells and open up the train room would be completed in Phase 4. PROJECT PHASING AND COSTS Multi-purpose Room 1032 sf 68 occupants (tables / chairs) 147 (chairs only) Game Room 573 sf 28 occupants Work Room 124 sf 1 occupant 2ǕFH 200 sf 2 occupants Board Room 310 sf 10 occupants0HFK 348 sf Men Women Library 376 sf 7 occupants Coats 2ǕFH 102 sf 1 occupant Lobby 528 sf 1 occupant Fitness 1046 sf 20 occupants Toilet Craft Room 755 sf 37 occupants Train Room 588 sf 5 occupants .LWFKHQ 185 sf 3 occupants Men Women Toilet Storage Storage Storage Storage Banquet Room 2,153 sf 120 occupants (tables / chairs) 143 (chairs only) Entry Arbor Patio Seating 5HFUHDWLRQODZQ 6FUHHQHOHPHQW Trellis Garage Phase 4 Phase 3 Phase 1A Phase 1A Phase 2 Phase 1A AAAAAA Phase 1B - Landscaping Pa g e 6 1 9 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 17 COSTS BY PHASE PHASE 1A Demolition cost $50,000 Construction cost $725,000 Design contingency (10%) $77,500 Construction contingency (10%) $77,500 Soft costs (20%) $155,000 Total Budget Phase 1A $1,085,000 PHASE 1B (EXTERIOR WORK) Demolition cost $5,000 Construction cost $140,000 Design contingency (10%) $14,500 Construction contingency (10%) $14,500 Soft costs (10%) $14,500 Lower due to exterior work Total Budget Phase 1B $188,500 PHASE 2 Demolition cost $10,000 Construction cost $55,000 Design contingency (10%) $6,500 Construction contingency (10%) $6,500 Soft costs (20%) $13,000 Total Budget Phase 2 $91,000 PHASE 3 Demolition cost $25,000 Construction cost $250,000 Design contingency (10%) $27,500 Construction contingency (10%) $27,500 Soft costs (20%) $55,000 Total Budget Phase 3 $385,000 PHASE 4 Demolition cost $8,000 Construction cost $42,000 Design contingency (10%) $5,000 Construction contingency (10%) $5,000 Soft costs (10%) $5,000 Lower due to limited work Total Budget Phase 4 $65,000 Total Budget All Phases $1,814,500 PROJECT PHASING AND COSTS Multi-purpose Room 1032 sf 68 occupants (tables / chairs) 147 (chairs only) Game Room 573 sf 28 occupants Work Room 124 sf 1 occupant 2ǕFH 200 sf 2 occupants Board Room 310 sf 10 occupants0HFK 348 sf Men Women Library 376 sf 7 occupants Coats 2ǕFH 102 sf 1 occupant Lobby 528 sf 1 occupant Fitness 1046 sf 20 occupants Toilet Craft Room 755 sf 37 occupants Train Room 588 sf 5 occupants .LWFKHQ 185 sf 3 occupants Men Women Toilet Storage Storage Storage Storage Banquet Room 2,153 sf 120 occupants (tables / chairs) 143 (chairs only) Entry Arbor Patio Seating 5HFUHDWLRQODZQ 6FUHHQHOHPHQW Trellis Garage Phase 4 Phase 3 Phase 1A Phase 1A Phase 2 Phase 1A AAAAAA Phase 1B - Landscaping Pa g e 6 2 0 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 18 INSPIRATION IMAGES DC BUILDING INTERIOR The following pages provide some idea images for some of the proposed modifi cations. Adding glass to open up spaces, millwork to provide display and storage, and comfortable furniture for both passive and active functions will create a more inviting and functional space for the Rambling River Center. PHOTO ONE Built-in millwork can provide open shelving and locking base and upper cabinets. This makes a nice space for displaying objects and for book display in the library lounge and board room. PHOTO TWO In this changing room, cubbies along the wall are for visitors to leave their shoes and clothes during fi tness activities. A bench built in next to it is useful for sitting while putting shoes on. PHOTO THREE The suggestion for a display case was considered by members of the facility. A similar built-in type of cabinet located in a hallway would provide space for artwork and other items to be displayed. PHOTO FOUR In this multi-purpose room a movable partition is used to create separate spaces as is being suggested in the RRC multipurpose room. The movable wall is designed to fi t into a wall space and the track for the partition is recessing in the ceiling. Two separate entry doors are important when the room is used in both sides. PHOTO FIVE Glass can be added to visually separate spaces while still creating a sense of openness and allowing visibility into areas to see activities taking place. Film or graphics can be added to the glass for more visual privacy. Pa g e 6 2 1 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 19 INSPIRATION IMAGES DC BUILDING INTERIOR PHOTOS ONE AND TWO Comfortable lounge furniture creates spaces for casual conversation and interaction. These can focus around a fi replace, television or coff ee area and provide a warm and welcoming space for interaction. PHOTOS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE The fi tness area can include both cardio and weight training equipment and should also provide adequate space for stretching and workouts that do not involve equipment. Windows into the space from the rest of the building (like those shown in photos 3 and 5) provide a way to monitor use of the space and see activity in the fi tness area. In photo 4, large windows provide natural ligtht and views to the outside (similar to what could be done with the RRC and replacing the overhead doors in the garage area, proposed for the fi tness space. In photo 5, the exposed ceiling structure is painted white to keep things bright and acoustical panels help with sound control. This approach could be used in both the multipurpose/banquet space and the fi tness area. Pa g e 6 2 2 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 20 INSPIRATION IMAGES DC BUILDING INTERIOR PHOTO ONE A kitchenette/coff ee area can provide a great space for coff ee and snacks. This area is part of an open lounge area. PHOTO TWO In this example, the pool table is part of the main lounge area. Chairs in this area allow others to watch the action. PHOTO THREE In this facility, the game area has space for ping pong and pool tables (as proposed for the game room in the RRC) and has barn doors that allow it to be opened up to the adjacent lounge space. PHOTO FOUR In this multi-purpose room, a movable partition is used to create separate spaces as is being suggested in the RRC multipurpose room. This example also shows doors leading to a patio space as proposed for the banquet space at the RRC. Pa g e 6 2 3 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 21 INSPIRATION IMAGES BUILDING EXTERIOR Ideas for millwork through out the facility are an important part of the renovation concept and delivering spaces that function well for activities. PHOTOS ONE, TWO, AND THREE A covered canopy at the entry can help identify the main door to patrons and visitors and provide some protections from the weather. A pergola or arbor structure can make the building look less institutional. Having space for landscaping and plantings at the front of the building also helps to soften the front facade and make it more welcoming. Pa g e 6 2 4 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 22 APPENDIX KRAUS-ANDERSON FACILITY CONDITION ANALYSIS 2023 PARTICIPATION RATES JAN - FEB 2024 NEWSLETTER WITH PROGRAMS AND EVENT CALENDAR Pa g e 6 2 5 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 23 WƌŽũĞĐƚ ŝƚLJŽĨ&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ KǁŶĞƌͬƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ ŝƚLJŽĨ&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶ <WƌŽũĞĐƚη &ĂĐŝůŝƚLJƐƐĞƐƐĞĚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŝŐŝƚŝnjĞĚ^ŝƚĞ ZĞƉŽƌƚ/ƚĞŵη ƌĞĂŽĨǁŽƌŬ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ;^ŚĞĞƚEĂŵĞͿ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨǁŽƌŬ ZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ ƵƌƌĞŶƚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ ƌŝƚŝĐĂůŝƚLJ /ŶƐƚĂůůĞĚLJĞĂƌ džƉĞĐƚĞĚzĞĂƌƐŽĨ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ ZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ zĞĂƌ YƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ hŶŝƚŽĨŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ hŶŝƚWƌŝĐĞ ŽƐƚƐ;,ĂƌĚΘ^ŽĨƚс͘ϮϱйͿ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϬ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;ĂƐƚͿ ^ĞĂůŽĂƚ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϱ͕ϭϬϬ ^& ΨϬ͘ϱϬ Ψϯ͕ϭϴϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϱ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;tĞƐƚͿ ^ĞĂůŽĂƚ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϱ ϭϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϮ͕ϬϬϬ ^& ΨϬ͘ϱϬ Ψϭϯ͕ϳϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϬ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;ĂƐƚͿ ƐƉŚĂůƚͬŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐͲDŝůůĂŶĚ KǀĞƌůĂLJ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϱ͕ϭϬϬ ^& Ψϰ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϱ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϱ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;tĞƐƚͿ ƐƉŚĂůƚͬŝƚƵŵŝŶŽƵƐͲDŝůůĂŶĚ KǀĞƌůĂLJ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϱ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ ^& Ψϰ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϭ͕ϬϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϴ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ 'ĂƌĂŐĞƉƌŽŶϱϬdžϱϬ ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ ϰϬ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ ^&Ψϲ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϭ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϬ ϬϮͲ^ŝƚĞǁŽƌŬͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬƐƚĞƉƐͬƌĂŝůƐ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ;ƌĞĂŬ&ŝdž/ƚĞŵͿ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϭϴ ϯϬ ϮϬϰϴ ϭ ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞ ΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϭϮ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϮ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ DhůŽĐŬ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ;ƌĞĂŬ&ŝdž/ƚĞŵͿ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϲϰ ϱϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϭ ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞ Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϱ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϯ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϰ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϱ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϵ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚŐůĂƐƐ;ϭͿϲdžϴ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϭ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϲ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϭϴ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌͬƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϰ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽŽƌͬǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϮ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ŽƵďůĞŽŽƌ;ϭͿϲdžϴ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ Ϯ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϭϮ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϯ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ 'ĂƌĂŐĞŽŽƌƐ;ϰͿϭϬdžϭϮ͛ ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϱϱ ϮϬϯϱ ϰ  Ψϲ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϰ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ 'ůĂƐƐŽŽƌǁŝƚŚ'ůĂƐƐWĂŶĞů ŽŽƌƐ;džƚĞƌŝŽƌͿͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϮϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϳ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁ;ϭͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϴ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϲϴϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϳ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁ;ϭͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϴ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϰϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϴ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁϮdžϮ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϰ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϴ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁϮdžϮ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϰ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψϱϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϭϵ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϮͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϯϲ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϯ͕ϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϭϵ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϮͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϯϲ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψϰϵϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϬ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϳͿϯdžϲ͛tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϮϲ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϭ͕ϴϭϯ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϬ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϳͿϯdžϲ͛tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϮϲ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϳϯϯ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϯ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϯdžϲ;ϱͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϵϬ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϴ͕ϰϯϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϯ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϯdžϲ;ϱͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϵϬ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕Ϯϯϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϵ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϰdžϴ;ϲͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϵϮ ^& Ψϳϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϴ͕ϬϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϵ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϰdžϴ;ϲͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ WĂŶĞͬWĂŶĞƐͬ/'h ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϴϬ ϰϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϵϮ >& Ψϭϭ͘ϬϬ ΨϮ͕ϲϰϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϰ͕ηϱϰϭ͕ηϱϯϮ ϬϱͲdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ƌŝĐŬĨĂĐĂĚĞ dƵĐŬƉŽŝŶƚŝŶŐ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϲϴ ϲϬ ϮϬϮϴ ϭ ůůŽǁĂŶĐĞ Ψϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϴ͕ϳϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϳ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ KĨĨŝĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƉLJƌŽŽŵƐ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϰϵϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϲ͕ϱϯϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϱ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌͬ,ĂůůǁĂLJ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϵϱϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ ΨϯϮ͕Ϭϲϯ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϴ͕ηϱϳϭ͕ηϱϳϯ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϱϴϬ ^& ΨϭϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϳϮ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϮ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ĞůůƐ;ϮͿͲKĨĨŝĐĞĂŶĚdƌĂŝŶZŽŽŵ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϯϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϰ͕ϯϴϴ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϭ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ZĞĐZŽŽŵ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ Ϯϴ ϮϬϮϴ ϭϬϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϯ͕ϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϰ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ >ŝďƌĂƌLJ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϵ ϮϬ ϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕ϮϮϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϰϭ͕ϭϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϮ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ tĞŝŐŚƚƌŽŽŵ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϵ ϮϬ ϮϬϮϵ ϵϬϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ ΨϯϬ͕ϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϬ͕ηϱϲϳ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ <ŝƚĐŚĞŶĞƚƚĞ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϬ ϱϬϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϭϲ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϱ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ĂŶƋƵĞƚƌŽŽŵ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϬ Ϯ͕ϯϬϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ Ψϳϳ͕ϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϲ͕ηϱϲϰ ϬϳͲ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ƌƚƐĂŶĚƌĂĨƚƐĐĞŶƚĞƌ ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ŝŐŚƚ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϱ ϴϴϬ ^& ΨϮϳ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϵ͕ϳϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϳ ϭϭͲ&ŝƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ &ŝƌĞƌŝƐĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϬϬ ϱϬ ϮϬϱϬ ϭ  ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϲϮ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϳϲ ϭϮͲWůƵŵďŝŶŐ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐ&ŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϱ Ϯϱ ϮϬϯϬ ϭ  Ψϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϲ ϭϮͲWůƵŵďŝŶŐ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ tĂƚĞƌ,ĞĂƚĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϴ ϭ  ΨϮ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮ͕ϱϬϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϴ ϭϱͲůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ d^ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϭϵϲϴ ϯϱ ϮϬϮϱ Ϭ  Ψϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨͲ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϵ ϭϱͲůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůWĂŶĞůĨŽƌZdh͕,ĞĂƚĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϬ ϱϬ ϮϬϲϬ ϭ  Ψϳ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϵ͕ϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϱ ϭϱͲůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ 'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŽƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϭϵϲϰ ϯϱ ϮϬϮϱ Ϭ  Ψϯϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨͲ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϯ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ &Ͳ͍͍͍ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϵϲϴ ϰϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϭ  Ψϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϬ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ Dh ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϬϬ ϯϬ ϮϬϯϬ ϭ  Ψϱ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϲ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϲ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZdhͲƵŶŝƚϰ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬ ϮϬϮϲ ϱ dŽŶ Ψϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϬ͕ϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϮ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZdhͲƵŶŝƚϱ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬ ϮϬϮϲ ϱ dŽŶ Ψϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϬ͕ϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϭ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZdhͲϮ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϬ ϱ dŽŶ Ψϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϬ͕ϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϳ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZdhͲϯ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϬ ϱ dŽŶ Ψϯ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϬ͕ϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϴ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ hŶŝƚŚĞĂƚĞƌĨŽƌŐĂƌĂŐĞͲ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϬ ϯϬ ϮϬϰϬ ϭ  Ψϭ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϰϲ ϭϯͲ,s^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ tŝŶĚŽǁŝƌĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϭͲ>Žǁ ϮϬϬϬ ϭϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϭ  ΨϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϲϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϯϬ ϬϲͲZŽŽĨ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZŽŽĨZŽŽĨͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϳ ϵ͕ϱϯϮ ^& ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϵϳ͕ϴϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϵ ϬϲͲZŽŽĨ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZŽŽĨZŽŽĨͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϳ Ϯ͕ϯϰϯ ^& ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϳϯ͕Ϯϭϵ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϭ ϬϲͲZŽŽĨ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZŽŽĨZŽŽĨͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϳ ϭϰϬ ^& ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϰ͕ϯϳϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϮϭ ϬϲͲZŽŽĨ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲZŽŽĨWůĂŶ ZŽŽĨZŽŽĨͲZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϳ ϭϮϬ ^& ΨϮϱ͘ϬϬ Ψϯ͕ϳϱϬ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϲϯ ϭϲͲƵĚŝŽͬsŝƐƵĂů ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ sͬƐĞƌǀĞƌƐͲEŽŽŽůŝŶŐͲ>sŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϯͲ&Ăŝƌ ϮͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϮϬϭϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬϯϱ ϭϮ͕ϲϳϬ ^& Ψϯ͘ϬϬ Ψϰϳ͕ϱϭϯ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ^s ϭϳͲůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶ ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJĂŵĞƌĂƐͲϵ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϮͲ'ŽŽĚ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬ ϮϬϯϲ ϵ  ΨϮ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬ ΨϮϴ͕ϭϮϱ ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌ ηϱϱϳ ϭϱͲůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌͲ&ůŽŽƌWůĂŶƐ ^ǁŝƚĐŚŐĞĂƌ ĂƉŝƚĂůZĞƉůĂĐĞ ϰͲWŽŽƌ ϯͲ,ŝŐŚ ϭϵϲϴ ϱϬ ϮϬϮϱ ϭ  Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψϵϯ͕ϳϱϬ KRAUS-ANDERSON FACILITY CONDITION ANALYSIS Pa g e 6 2 6 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 24 ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϵ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϭ ϮϬϯϮ ϮϬϯϯ ϮϬϯϰ dŽƚĂů;ǁŝƚŚ/ŶĨ͘Ϳ ^ƵŵdŽƚĂůƐ͗ϭ͕ϴϯϵ͕ϴϵϮΨ ηZ&͊ ηZ&͊ ηZ&͊ Ϯ͕ϳϱϰ͕ϰϯϳΨ ϯ͕Ϯϯϯ͕ϭϴϯΨ ϭ͕ϭϲϲ͕ϭϳϲΨ ϭ͕ϰϭϴ͕ϳϮϰΨ ϲϮϱ͕ϱϬϬΨ Ϯ͕ϭϵϲ͕ϲϵϱΨ ηZ&͊ Ύ/ŶĐůƵĚĞƐĨŽƌ;ŝŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶͬĞƐĐĂůĂƚŝŽŶͿĂƐƐŚŽǁŶďĞůŽǁ ϭ͘ϭϬ  ϭ͘ϮϬ  ϭ͘Ϯϱ  ϭ͘Ϯϵ  ϭ͘ϯϮ  ϭ͘ϯϱ  ϭ͘ϯϴ  ϭ͘ϰϭ ϭ͘ϰϰ  ϭ͘ϰϳ  KƌĚĞƌŽĨKƉƐ &ŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐ DĞƚŚŽĚ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϵ ϮϬϯϬ ϮϬϯϭ ϮϬϯϮ ϮϬϯϯ ϮϬϯϰ dŽƚĂů;ǁŝƚŚ/ŶĨ͘Ϳ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W Ψϯ͕ϱϬϲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϯ͕ϱϬϲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W Ψϭϱ͕ϭϮϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭϱ͕ϭϮϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W Ψϲ͕ϴϳϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϲ͕ϴϳϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭϲ͕ϭϮϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭϲ͕ϭϮϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϴ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϴ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮ͕ϭϳϳ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϮ͕ϭϳϳ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϯϭϵ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϯϭϵ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰϴϰ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰϴϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϳϭ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϳϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰ͕ϯϱϰ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϰ͕ϯϱϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϲϯϵ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϲϯϵ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭϱ͕Ϯϯϴ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭϱ͕Ϯϯϴ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮ͕Ϯϯϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϮ͕Ϯϯϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϭϬ͕ϴϴϰ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϭϬ͕ϴϴϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϭ͕ϱϵϲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϭ͕ϱϵϲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϯ͕ϮϮϬ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϯ͕ϮϮϬ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϯ͕ϰϬϲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϯ͕ϰϬϲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϭϴϴ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϭϴϴ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϭ͕ϯϯϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϭ͕ϯϯϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰϭ͕ϯϲϭ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰϭ͕ϯϲϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϵϯ͕ϱϮϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϵϯ͕ϱϮϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϱ͕ϲϲϬ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϱ͕ϲϲϬ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϰ͕ϯϱϰ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϰ͕ϯϱϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϱϰ͕ϯϱϭ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϱϰ͕ϯϱϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϰϬ͕Ϭϵϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϰϬ͕Ϭϵϱ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϮ͕ϳϴϭ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϮ͕ϳϴϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϭϬϰ͕ϳϵϰΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϭϬϰ͕ϳϵϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮ͕ϱϯϭ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϮ͕ϱϯϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨϮ͕Ϭϲϯ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϮ͕Ϭϲϯ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϵ͕Ϯϴϭ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨϵ͕Ϯϴϭ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϳϱϬ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϳϱϬ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϳϱϬ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϰ͕ϳϱϬ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϳ͕ϴϰϰ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϳ͕ϴϰϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϳ͕ϴϰϰ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϮϳ͕ϴϰϰ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W Ψϲϴϴ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ Ψϲϴϴ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ zĞĂƌ ϭ͘W ΨϭϬϯ͕ϭϮϱ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨͲ ΨϭϬϯ͕ϭϮϱ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨǁŽƌŬ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;ĂƐƚͿ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;tĞƐƚͿ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;ĂƐƚͿ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ>Žƚ;tĞƐƚͿ 'ĂƌĂŐĞƉƌŽŶϱϬdžϱϬ ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬƐƚĞƉƐͬƌĂŝůƐ DhůŽĐŬ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚŐůĂƐƐ;ϭͿϲdžϴ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌͬƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽŽƌͬǁŝƚŚƐŝĚĞŐůĂƐƐ ŽƵďůĞŽŽƌ;ϭͿϲdžϴ 'ĂƌĂŐĞŽŽƌƐ;ϰͿϭϬdžϭϮ͛ 'ůĂƐƐŽŽƌǁŝƚŚ'ůĂƐƐWĂŶĞů tŝŶĚŽǁ;ϭͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁ;ϭͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁϮdžϮ tŝŶĚŽǁϮdžϮ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϮͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϮͿϯdžϲ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϳͿϯdžϲ͛ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ;ϳͿϯdžϲ͛ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϯdžϲ;ϱͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϯdžϲ;ϱͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϰdžϴ;ϲͿ tŝŶĚŽǁƐϰdžϴ;ϲͿ ƌŝĐŬĨĂĐĂĚĞ KĨĨŝĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƉLJƌŽŽŵƐ ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌͬ,ĂůůǁĂLJ ĂƚŚƌŽŽŵƐ ĞůůƐ;ϮͿͲKĨĨŝĐĞĂŶĚdƌĂŝŶZŽŽŵ ZĞĐZŽŽŵ >ŝďƌĂƌLJ tĞŝŐŚƚƌŽŽŵ <ŝƚĐŚĞŶĞƚƚĞ ĂŶƋƵĞƚƌŽŽŵ ƌƚƐĂŶĚƌĂĨƚƐĐĞŶƚĞƌ &ŝƌĞƌŝƐĞƌ ƌŝŶŬŝŶŐ&ŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ tĂƚĞƌ,ĞĂƚĞƌ d^ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂůWĂŶĞůĨŽƌZdh͕,ĞĂƚĞƌ 'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŽƌ &Ͳ͍͍͍ Dh ZdhͲƵŶŝƚϰ ZdhͲƵŶŝƚϱ ZdhͲϮ ZdhͲϯ hŶŝƚŚĞĂƚĞƌĨŽƌŐĂƌĂŐĞͲ tŝŶĚŽǁŝƌĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ ZŽŽĨ ZŽŽĨ ZŽŽĨ ZŽŽĨ sͬƐĞƌǀĞƌƐͲEŽŽŽůŝŶŐͲ>sŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJĂŵĞƌĂƐͲϵ ^ǁŝƚĐŚŐĞĂƌ K-A Condition Analysis continued Pa g e 6 2 7 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 25 2023 Rambling River Center Info. Program Participation Per Month Active Membership By Month Tops Program # of Participation Jan. – Sept. 2023 January 1,045 January 349 Day Old Bread/Sweets Pick Up 1,947 February 1,045 February 345 Fitness Classes (combined) 1,824 March 1,424 March 359 Fitness Center Visits 1,561 April 1,347 April 371 Coffee Guys 685 May 1,377 May 363 Bingo 611 June 1,313 June 352 Card Games 280 July 1,213 July 356 Trips 222 August 1,114 August 367 Luncheons 202 September 1,347 September 369 Dulcimers 183 Total 11,267 NA The program participant numbers are the larges groups. You can see that fitness-based programing is a large interest for our members. It is second only to free food. If to see all of our program numbers I can send you a spreadsheet. Rambling River Rental Totals Month 2023 Banquet Rm Nicolai Board Rm Ross Rm Red Slipper Rm Empire Rm Garage January 14 1 8 4 0 1 0 February 17 2 8 6 0 1 0 March 25 8 8 8 0 1 0 April 25 11 8 6 0 0 0 May 24 1 11 8 2 2 0 June 27 2 10 4 0 7 4 July 15 1 7 1 0 5 1 August 17 3 12 1 0 0 1 September 15 0 9 1 0 4 1 Totals 179 29 81 39 2 21 7 2023 PARTICIPATION RATES Pa g e 6 2 8 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 26 651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY 1 Rambling River Center Hours 7:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m. M-F Fitness Hours 7:30 a.m.–3 p.m. M-F Contact Info. 651-280-6970 325 Oak St. Farmington, MN 55024 FarmingtonMN.gov RRC Advisory Board Members Rachel Edwards Mary Garlets Pat Hennen Marge Koski Judy Janke Pennie Page Blanche Reichert Recreation Supervisor Missie Kohlbeck MKohlbeck@FarmingtonMN.gov Rec. Program Assistant Stacey Popp SPopp@FarmingtonMN.gov RAMBLING RIVER CENTERTHE RIVERJanuary/February 2024 CAP - Meals on Wheels 612-940-9590 Transit Link Rides 651-602-5465 Senior Linkage Line 1-800-333-2433 “Committed to providing quality programs and services, while encouraging the involvement of adults over age 50 in the Farmington Community.” Minnwest Bank Donation Surprise Neil Anderson, Market President of Minnwest Bank, surprised the Rambling River Center Advisory Board at their December 11 meeting with a check for $50,000 to build an outside patio complete with patio furnishings. Their generosity made our talkative advisory board speechless. Thank you so much Minnwest Bank; we are grateful for your ongoing support! We look forward to enjoying a beautiful day outside with our friends. Once again, we are reminded that one of the best parts of living in Farmington, is the abundance of residents and businesses willing to assist us with our mission. Registering and Checking In with Rectrac The Rambling River Center is in the process of moving to a new registration program. This means that you can now pay for memberships, events, trips and even fundraisers with a credit/ debit card! Another great feature is that you can now register online at home by going to https://webtrac.farmingtonmn.gov. Current members already have an account. The email listed on your membership is both your login and your password for your account. The check in system will look different, so please be patient and we will all learn together. Finally, for those interested, there is a mobile app you can download to your phone.o e Scan here to access registration JAN - FEB 2024 NEWSLETTER WITH PROGRAMS AND EVENT CALENDAR Pa g e 6 2 9 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 27 651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY 3651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY2 Day Date Time Deadline Cost F March 8 5 p.m.–10:30 p.m. Feb. 29 $67/m, $77/nm “Kickin’ It Irish” Sheldon Theater, Red WingÌ RRC Van This is a family-friendly show featuring jaw-dropping talent led by Dublin native, Cormac Ó Sé, from the original company of Riverdance. Kickin’ It Irish highlights traditional and contemporary Irish step dancing, and music featuring world class musicians in Irish bodhran, whistle, flute, fiddle, guitar, and accordion., We will stop at the St. James Hotel for dinner; the meal is on your own. Activity Level Scale This scale is an approximate guide of the activity and physical ability required for a class or a trip. Ì- Passive ÌÌ- Active ÌÌÌ- Vigorous TRIPS & TOURS Gregory Popovich’s Comedy Pet Theater Sheldon Theater, Red WingÌ RRC Van Enjoy Ukrainian circus performer Gregory Popovich and the extraordinary talents of his performing pets. You will see world class jugglers, Diamond the Shetland Pony and over 20 performing pets including house cats and dogs (all rescued from shelters), geese, white doves and parrots. We will stop at Kelly’s Tap House after the show for dinner; the meal is on your own. Day Date Time Deadline Cost Su Feb. 25 1:30– 7 p.m. Jan. 31 $67/m,$77/nm MN Germans and Their ContributionsÌÌ Motorcoach We will meet our guide in Minneapolis for an insightful look at the history of German migration in MN. As of the 2000 census, Germans were the largest single immigrant group in MN history. Learn about the Christmas tree, breweries, Minnesota 13, grasshoppers, and amazing bakeries. Lunch will be at Gluek's; choose from schweineschnitzle spaetzle (center-cut pork encrusted with seasoned rye bread crumbs and fried over spaetzle) or walleye fish n' chips. Hocokata Ti and Shakopee HistoryÌÌ Motorcoach We will tour Hocokata Ti [ho-cho-kah-tah-tee] in Shakopee. This is the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community’s (SMSC) cultural center and gathering space. It's mission is to educate visitors about the Dakota people. Lunch is at Ruby’s Family Restaurant. Enjoy a small salad, soup, half sandwich, and dessert. Then we are off to the Scott County Historical Museum. Take time to explore the artifacts and archives that reveal the story of Scott County. Day Date Time Deadline Cost Th Feb. 22 9 a.m.–4:15 p.m. Jan. 22 $82 m/$92 nm Day Date Time Deadline Cost Th Jan. 25 9 a.m.–4:15 p.m. Jan. 4 $87 m/$97 nm Tasty Tuesdays Tasty Tuesdays are short trips made to restaurants in surrounding communities using our van. Fee is for the van only, meals are on your own. $8/m, $18/nm Deadline: Friday prior to each trip Muddy Waters Prescott, Wi Jan. 9 10:30 a.m. Morgan’s Farm to Table Burnsville Jan. 23 10:30 a.m. Olive Garden Burnsville Feb. 13 10:30 a.m. )SSPMXXPI;SSHǻVI,VMPP Eagan Feb. 27 10:30 a.m. Day Date Time Deadline Cost Tu March 5 9:15 a.m.–5:30 p.m. Jan. 29 $95/m, $105/nm “Hank & My Honky Tonk Heroes” Paramount Theatre, St. CloudÌ Motorcoach Lunch will be at D. Michael B’s. Choose from seven layer meatloaf or walleye sandwich with french fries. Next we head to the theater. This astonishing show is more than a tribute, it also pays tribute to the stars that influence Hank. You will smile, cry, clap your hands and stomp your feet with excitement for this country music show. Love Letters with Don Shelby Chanhassen Dinner TheaterÌ RRC Van Don and Nancy play the roles of Andrew Makepeace Ladd III and Melissa Gardner. Both born to wealth and position, Andrew and Melissa are childhood friends whose lifelong correspondence begins with birthday party thank-you notes and summer camp postcards and continues for some 50 years. Guests are invited to stay after the show for a short Q & A with Don and Nancy. Meal is included. Irish Influence in St. PaulÌÌ Motorcoach We will meet a professional step-on tour guide for a fun and informative day in St. Paul. The Irish immigrants influenced the city’s architecture, politics, religion and more. Lunch will be at O'Malley's Irish Pub in Woodbury. Enjoy the handmade booths, bar and fireplace all built in memory of Tim O'Malley. Choose from homemade Sheppard’s pie or fish & chips when registering. Day Date Time Deadline Cost Su Feb. 11 3:30 -8:30 p.m. Jan. 31 $87/m,$97/nm Day Date Time Deadline Cost Tu April 9 9:30 a.m. -3:30 p.m. March 4 $90/m, $100/nm TRIPS & TOURS Pa g e 6 3 0 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 28 651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY 5651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY4 HEALTHY LIVING HEALTHY LIVING Day CLASS Time Instructor M Move with Mary 9 a.m. Mary Garlets M/Th Core 10 a.m. Jeff Spillman M Walk/Bike 11 a.m. Jeff Spillman Tu Chair Yoga 10:10 a.m. Stacey Popp W Cardio 1 p.m. Stacey Popp W Move with Mary 11:30 a.m. Mary Garlets F Chair Yoga 9 a.m. Mary Garlets Free Member Fitness Classes Whether it be COVID, caregiving, or the weather, we don’t want you to miss your workout! Now you can choose to work out in person or on zoom. Zumba Gold Zumba Gold is an easy-to-follow program that lets you move to the beat at your own speed. The Zumba Gold Live it Up! System is the total-body wellness program that feels like a party while it re- vitalizes your mind and body. No dance experience is necessary. Now available: punch cards for purchase for members only. Instructor: Stacey Popp Day Time Cost Tu 9:15 a.m. $5/m, $8/nm Instructor: Jeff Spillman Day Time Cost M 11 a.m. Free/m, $5/nm Instructor: Jessica Christenson Day Dates Time Cost W Jan. 10, 17, 24, 31 5 p.m. $28/m, $38/nm W Feb. 7, 14, 21, 28 5 p.m. $28/m, $38/nm Yoga The beauty of yoga practice - whether it’s your first time or your 20th year, you always start with what you have and nothing more. We will meet in the RRC Banquet Room. Instructor: Stacey Popp Day Dates Time Cost F Ongoing 1 p.m. Drop in $5/m, $8/nm Cross Country Skiing/Walking Club We will walk until there is snow. We will meet at the banquet room each Monday to discuss locations. Regularly Scheduled Activities Check out the calendar pages for dates and times on regularly scheduled activities such as: coffee guys, dulcimers, pinochle, bingo, recycled cards, day old bread, woodworking and more! Instructor: Stacey Popp Day Time Cost W 1 p..m. Free/m, $5/nm Cardio Strength This 45 minute class will have 15-20 minutes of cardio followed by strength training with weights for the upper body & lower body; you can do this standing, seated or optional floor. All levels are welcome. The first cardio session can also be done in the chair. Wear comfortable clothing and fitness shoes. Do you have a Rambling River Story you’d like to share? We’d love to hear it! You can call or email Missie at 651-280-6971 or mkohlbeck@farmingtonmn.gov. Meditation We will discuss the benefits of meditation and how to practice it. Then we will go into a 20-minute medi- tation together. Peace can be amplified with more people, so join us for your health and wellness. Led by Beth Abkes-Moore, layperson with 7 years of daily meditation experience. Thursdays at 11 a.m., check with the RRC for dates. A Rambling River Story -Kathy Gunderson My story began in the summer of 2012 when I retired andstarted volunteering at the front desk of the Rambling River Center. I found that I enjoyed it and got to meet lots of people and it kept me up to date as to what activities were happening. My firends would say, “How come you know so many people?” and I’d reply that it’s because I met them through the Rambling River Center. In 2014, we started a Mountain Dulcimer Club with only 4 people meeting on Mondays at the Center. Over the years we’ve had as many as 16; we have 12 at the present time. Our group goes out into the community to entertain, mostly at other senior centers, the care center, etc. We truly enjoy what we are doing and the friendships we’ve made over the years are wonderful. (Once a year, Missie asks us to play a concert at the Rambling River Center, usually in September. If you don’t know what a dulcimer is (I didn’t until I started playing), you can come check us out Mondays at 1 p.m. and listen to a song or two. I if you find you have a need for things to do, I encourage you to get involved at the senior center, there are many activities going on, as well as opportunities to volunteer. Try us out you! You will find many friendly faces, happy to greet you. On Going Rambling River Center Fundraisers Did you know when you shop at Happy Harry’s and mention the Rambling River Center that 10% of your purchase comes back to us? Shop local and mention us! Your paper shredding can earn the Rambling River Center money all year long at our #ShredRight4Good container collection fundraiser. $10 a ticket is good for two grocery bags of documents to be shredded at the Rambling River Center. Pa g e 6 3 1 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 29 651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY 7651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY6 CLASSES PROGRAMS Thursdays with a Movie This is a great event to invite a friend to check out the RRC as movies are free for everyone. All movies are shown at 1 p.m. Day Date Title Th Jan. 18 About My Father Th Feb. 15 Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris Book Club We started a book club, if you are interested, join us! Nicolai Board Room Day Date Time Title Cost W Jan. 17 1:30 p.m. The Book Woman of Troublesome Creek By Kim Michele Richardson Free/m, $5/nm W Feb 21 1:30 p.m. The Lincoln Highway By Amor Towles Free/m, $5/nm Much At Lunch Party Sponsored by Trinity Health Enjoy lunch and entertainment, and maybe even a little dancing. Don’t miss it! Deadline to register is 1 week prior. Day Date Theme Time Menu Time W Jan 31 Vinny Rose 12 p.m. Tator Tot Hotdish $12/m, $17 nm W Feb. 28 Ross Suter 12 p.m.2YǾIXXE Sand- wich $12/m, $17 nm Day Date Time Cost W Ongoing 1 p.m. Free/m,, $5/nm Day Date Time Cost F Now-Mar. 15 9-10 a.m. Free Coffee Cafe Now Open Free and open to everyone! We will enjoy treats, conversation and of course, coffee. A great way to meet new people. NEW De-stress with Adult coloring Many people enjoy a noticeable reduction in stress. Completed pictures will be laminated and dis- played in the hallway. RRC Closed For The Holidays Monday, January 1 Monday, January 15 Monday, February 19 Cost is per date: $6/m, $16/nm Register 1 week prior to class. Day Date Time Craft Th Jan. 18 12:30 p.m. Luminary Candle Holders Crafts with Cricut Join us in creating these adorable crafts! Celebrate Valentines with Singing Hearts Sponsored by the Legacy of Farmington. Enjoy coffee, dessert and music at the RRC! Avoiding Fraud Crucial Conversations Wendy Boos from Premier Bank, will be here to educate you on protecting your information and accounts, how to avoid scams, and tools to assist you on making your payments more secure. Downsize and Declutter Crucial Conversations Does the thought of moving overwhelm you? Our presenter, Lisa Dunn, has been a real estate agent since 2003. She specializes in working with seniors in the Twin Cities metro area. There is a lot of real estate and downsizing information available, most of it is inaccurate, or too general to apply to you, which may leave you feeling overwhelmed. Lisa will show you how to cut through all the noise and de- sign a move strategy that will work for you. Get an update on the real estate market, the best strategy for preparing your home for the market and real in- formation you can use in this fun, engaging seminar. Day Date Time Cost Tu Ongoing 11:30 a.m. Free/m, $5/nm Women’s Coffee Enjoy a cup of coffee with others with women’s topics of discussion. NEW TIME Frustrated with Dating? Just in time for Valentines Day Check out this class! Are you Single, Divorced, Widowed? Are you having dating/relationship frustrations? We will offer you guidance, education, and support for you in your personal journey, including assisting you with your profile if you are using dat- ing sites. We will also discuss what you are looking for in someone/a significant other! Who do you want to give your rose to? Laura and Dana have SZIVȴȉ]IEVWMRXLIHEXMRKERHVIPEXMSRWLMT industry. Day Date Time Cost Th Jan. 25 1 :30 p.m. Free/m, $5/nm Fall Prevention Wellness Wisdom Did you know most falls can be avoided and you can reduce your risk of falls with light exercise? Join us to learn tips to help you reduce your risk for falls. Day Dates Time Deadline Cost M Feb. 12 1:30 p.m. Feb.. 10 $6/m, $12/nm Day Date Time Cost Th Feb. 29 1:30 p.m. Free/m, $5/nm Day Date Time Cost M Feb. 12 6 :30- 8 p.m. Free/m, $5/nm Day Date Time Cost Th Jan. 11 1 :30 p.m. Free/m, $5/nm Mary Vanorny & The Two Tap Trio Sponsored by Trinity Health Systems Back by popular demand we will en- joy the sounds of Mary Vanorny on the fiddle along with the rest of her trio on a flute and guitar. We will eat appetizers. Of course there will be green beverages. Day Dates Time Deadline Cost Th Mar .14 12:30 p.m. Mar. 11 $6/m, $12/nm Pa g e 6 3 2 o f 6 3 5 JLG 23148 | © 2024 JLG ARCHITECTSRAMBLING RIVER CENTER PLANNING 30 651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY 9651-280-6970 • FARMINGTONMN.GOV • RECREATION, RELAXATION AND COMMUNITY8 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 11:00 Meditation 1:00 Begin Dulcimer 7:00 Model Railroad Club 2 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Chair Yoga 10:00 Cribbage 1:00 Yoga National Wear Red Day 5 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers 6 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 7 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:15 Christmas in Duluth 10:00 Medicare Counseling 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 5:00 Yoga 8 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 11:00 Meditation 1:00 Begin Dulcimer 7:00 Model Railroad Club 9 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Chair Yoga 9:00 Coffee Cafe 10:00 Cribbage 10:30 Bingo 1:00 Yoga 12 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 9:30 Advisory Board 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers 6:30 Frustrated with Dating 13 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 10:30 Olive Garden 11:00 Fitness Class Demo 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 14 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:15 Christmas in Duluth 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 1:30 Valentines wiht Singing Hearts 5:00 Yoga 15 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 1:00 Begin Dulcimer 1:00 Movie Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris 1 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Chair Yoga 9:00 Coffee Cafe 10:00 Cribbage 1:00 Yoga 19 CLOSED 20 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 3:00 The Open Door Food Distribution 21 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 1:30 Book Club 5:00 Yoga 22 9:00 Hocplatah To 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 11:00 Meditation 1:00 Begin Dulcimer 23 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Chair Yoga 9:00 Coffee Cafe 9:45 Zoom Training 10:00 Cribbage 10:30 Bingo 1:00 Yoga 26 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers 27 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 10:30 Doolittles 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 28 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 10:00 Fold Newsletter 11:30 Move with Mary 12:00 Much at Lunch 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 5:00 Yoga 29 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 1:00 Begin Dulcimer 1:30 Downsize/ Declutter Deadline fir Kickin It FEBRUARY CALENDARJANUARY CALENDAR Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 4 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:00 Meditation 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 5 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Coffee Cafe 9:00 Chair Yoga 10:00 Cribbage 10:30 Bingo 1:00 Yoga 8 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers 9 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 10:30 Muddy Waters 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 10 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 1:00 Defensive Driving 5:00 Yoga 11 9:00 iPhone Settings 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 1:30 Fall Prevention 7:00 Model Railroad Club 12 CLOSED 15 CLOSED 16 9:00 Taking Screen Shots 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 11:00 Fitness Class Demo 11:30 Women’s Coffee3:00 1:00 The Open Door Food Distribution 17 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 1:30 Book Club 5:00 Yoga 18 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 10:30 Million Dollar Quartet 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 12:30 Crafts with Cricut 1:00 Movie About My Father 19 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Coffee Cafe 9:00 Chair Yoga 10:00 Cribbage 10:30 Bingo 1:00 Yoga 22 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers Deadline for Hocokatah Ti 23 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 10:30 Mergan’s Farm to Table 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 24 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 5:00 Yoga Deadline for Much At Lunch 25 9:00 MN Germans 10:00 Pinochle 10:00 Core 11:45 Fitness Ctr Orientation 1:30 Avoiding Scams 26 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Coffee Cafe 9:00 Chair Yoga 10:00 Cribbage 10:30 Bingo 1:00 Yoga 29 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 9:00 Move with Mary 10:00 Core 11:00 Walk/Ski Club 12:00 Recycled Cards 1:00 Dulcimers Deadline for Hank & My Honky Tonk 30 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 31 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 12:00 Much at Lunch 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring 5:00 Yoga Deadline for Popvich Pets and Love Letter with Don Shelby 1 CLOSED 2 9:15 Zumba Gold 10:10 Chair Yoga 11:30 Women’s Coffee 1:00 Woodcarvers 3 9:00 Day Old Bread 9:00 Coffee Guys 11:30 Move with Mary 1:00 Cardio 1:00 Coloring Pa g e 6 3 3 o f 6 3 5 Pa g e 6 3 4 o f 6 3 5 Project City of Farmington Facility Condition Assessments Owner/Customer City of Farmington KA Project # Facility Assessed Multiple Building Digitized Site Report Item#Area of work Description of work Resolution Quantity Unit of measure Unit Price Costs (Hard Only) Senior Center #534 05-Exterior Enclosure Door Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #525 05-Exterior Enclosure Door Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #536 05-Exterior Enclosure Door with side glass Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #518 05-Exterior Enclosure Door/side glass Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #524 05-Exterior Enclosure Door/with side glass Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #552 05-Exterior Enclosure Double Door (1) 6x8 Doors (Exterior)- Replace 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000 Senior Center #523 05-Exterior Enclosure Garage Doors (1) 10x12’Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000 Senior Center #554 05-Exterior Enclosure Glass Door with Glass Panel Doors (Exterior)- Replace 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Senior Center #547 05-Exterior Enclosure Window (1) 3x6 Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 18 SF $ 75.00 $ 1,350 Senior Center #547 05-Exterior Enclosure Window (1) 3x6 Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 18 LF $ 11.00 $ 198 Senior Center #519 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows (2) 3x6 Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 36 SF $ 75.00 $ 2,700 Senior Center #519 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows (2) 3x6 Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 36 LF $ 11.00 $ 396 Senior Center #540 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows (7) 3x6’Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 126 SF $ 75.00 $ 9,450 Senior Center #540 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows (7) 3x6’Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 126 LF $ 11.00 $ 1,386 Senior Center #553 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows 3x6(5)Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 90 SF $ 75.00 $ 6,750 Senior Center #553 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows 3x6(5)Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 90 LF $ 11.00 $ 990 Senior Center #539 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows 4x8(4)Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 128 SF $ 75.00 $ 9,600 Senior Center #539 05-Exterior Enclosure Windows 4x8(4)Windows- Replace Pane/Panes/IGU 128 LF $ 11.00 $ 1,408 Senior Center #544, #541, #532 05-Exterior Enclosure Brick facade Tuckpointing 1 Allowance $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 Senior Center #575 07-Interior Construction Corridor/Hallway Flooring, paint, ceiling tile 950 SF $ 20.00 $ 19,000 Senior Center #568, #571, #573 07-Interior Construction Bathrooms Flooring, paint, clg tile, fixt.580 SF $ 50.00 $ 29,000 Senior Center #566, #564 07-Interior Construction Arts and Crafts center Light switching, ceiling tile 880 SF $ 10.00 $ 8,800 Senior Center #576 12-Plumbing Drinking Fountain Capital Replace 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500 Senior Center #533 13-HVAC Exhaust fan (1)Capital Replace 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500 Senior Center #560 13-HVAC MUA Capital Replace 1 EA $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500 Senior Center #526 13-HVAC RTU- unit 4 Capital Replace 5 Ton $ 3,300.00 $ 16,500 Senior Center #522 13-HVAC RTU- unit 5 Capital Replace 5 Ton $ 3,300.00 $ 16,500 Senior Center #531 13-HVAC RTU-2 Capital Replace 5 Ton $ 3,300.00 $ 16,500 Senior Center #527 13-HVAC RTU-3 Capital Replace 5 Ton $ 3,300.00 $ 16,500 Senior Center #538 13-HVAC Unit heater for garage-Capital Replace 1 EA $ - $ - Senior Center #530 06-Roof Roof A Roof- Replace 9,532 SF $ 25.00 $ 238,300 Senior Center #529 06-Roof Roof B Roof- Replace 2,343 SF $ 25.00 $ 58,575 Senior Center #521 06-Roof Roof C Roof- Replace 140 SF $ 25.00 $ 3,500 Senior Center #521 06-Roof Roof D Roof- Replace 120 SF $ 25.00 $ 3,000 Senior Center SV 17-Electronic Safety and Security Security Cameras- 5 Capital Replace 5 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 12,500 Senior Center #557 15-Electrical Switchgear Capital Replace 1 EA $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000 Total Hard Cost Only $ 617,403 Soft Costs (20%)123,481$ Total Project Cost 740,884$ #518 is current front entrance door; not previously included in renovation cost Construction Contingency (10%)74,088$ #524 is future front entrance door; not previously included in renovation cost Total with Contingency 814,972$ #538 - Shown as no cost; assume relocation of existing unit heater Roof replacement is included in this as of now Pa g e 6 3 5 o f 6 3 5