The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-05-09MEETING OF THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2020 COMMERCE BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 DATE: MAY 9, 2000, 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MOUND CITY HALL ROLL CALL: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGENDA: 1. MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2000. 2. DISCUSSION: MAXWELL PROPERTY, VACANT LAND NEXT TO SUPER AMERCIA. 3. UPDATE -POST OFFICE RELOCATION. 4. UPDATE -BEARD GROUP. ADJOURNMENT. I=IRA MINUTES -SPECIAL MEETING - APRII, 25, 2000 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special session on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, at 7:00 p. m. , in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Chairperson Pat Meisel; HRA Board Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney John Dean, Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, James D. Prosser of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Others present: Kim Anderson, Alan Blackwell, Donny Bonnicksen, Jane & Walter Carlson, Suzanne Claywell, Steve Coddon, Ken & Sally Custer, Eric Funderburk, Tom Gray, Lome Ham, John Hubler, Pamela Janisch, Jackie & Peter Meyer, Dorothy & Bill Netka, Angie & Dan Patterson, Frank Weiland. Consent Agenda: All items listed under this Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so request, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Chairperson Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. 1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2000. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to approve the minutes of April 11, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.1 BUS TOUR FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Chairperson Meisel stated the Mound Visions Coordinator, Bruce Chamberlain, presented a memorandum to the HRA recommending the members consider a bus tour on a Saturday morning to look over housing projects and related projects performed by Metro Plains Development. This would be helpful for the HRA become more educated and give them a stronger background on projects that are similar to those being proposed for the City of Mound. He asked the HRA if they would be willing to consider such a tour. Bruce Chamberlain stated Metro Plains would be presenting its plans on May 8, 2000, so there would be some urgency to have this tour before that date. City Manager suggested inviting the Planning Commission on this tour as well. After discussion the HRA decided to invite the Planning Commission and the EDC (Economic Development Commission to accompany them on this tour. The tour will take place on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 4:00 P.M. Staff will notify the Commissions and arranged for the bus. MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 HRA Board Member Hanus asked about developments and questions that may arise. Bruce Chamberlain stated the City Planner, Loren Gordon, would be present possibly at the site to give statistics. He suggested this would be a very valuable experience because of the discussions that would be generated by the information received at the sites. HRA Board Member Brown asked if the tour would be going to Cannon Falls. Mound Visions Coordinator stated they would not because of the distance involved, although, he did suggest they could find similar developments regarding housing type and range of design closer to the Metro area. Chairperson Meisel polled the HRA with the May 2, 2000, date. HRA Board Members Brown and Weycker would be able to attend. HRA Board Members Hanus and Ahrens would make every effort to accommodate this appointment. Chairperson Meisel would be in attendance. HRA Board Member Brown agreed to videotape their tour for those who could not attend. Bruce Chamberlain will also provide written statistics as part of the documentation for this tour as well. 1.2 POST OFFICE RELOCATION UPDATE. 7imProsser of Ehlers & Associates presented an update. He stated the post office relocation is proceeding. He stated the post office was presented with a number of sites and they have narrowed it down to the Willette and United Properties site. He stated at this point they need to come to some terms with both owners. He stated the HRA is required to provide compensation at the real market value for the property. With that in mind, Mr. Prosser recommends the HRA proceed with eminent domain proceedings. He stated the HRA might not need this to complete this process, but it is something that should be in the works if negotiations with the owners fails. Mr. Prosser stated in some cases condemnation will give the property owner some tax advantages. Mr. Prosser is fairly confident the post office is on track, barring any unforeseen circumstances. HRA Board Member Hanus asked if for some reason this location did not work for the post office, would this property still be of value to the City and could it still qualify for TIF. Mr. Prosser stated the property would still qualify and it would still be a marketable piece of property for the City. Mound Visions Coordinator, Bruce Chamberlain, presented an e-mail sent to him on behalf of the post office (which he made copies for all HRA members) stating the post office is on a fast-track and they would appreciate the HRA's assistance in further expediting this matter. He stated the two things that they would like from the HRA are the Phase One 2 MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 Environmental Report and the Boundary, Survey. Mound Vision Coordinator asked the HRA if they would like to assist with this process. HRA Board Member Hanus asked what financial commitment this would require. Mound Visions Coordinator stated the Phase One Report would cost about $1,500 and the Boundary Survey would cost approximately $1,500. These figures seemed appropriate to the HRA Board. 1.3 LETTER FROM IIM PROSSER REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION ON PROPERTIES INVOLVED WITH POST OFFICE RELOCATION. The City Attorney addressed the issue of eminent domain, condemnation. HRA Board Member Weycker asked if Mr. Willette was aware of the HRA's position? Mr. Prosser stated he would make sure Mr. Willette is up to date before he is actually bound by any agreement. Chairperson Meisel stated she spoke with Mr. Willette and he would prefer to keep his property or work out some sort of land swap so he could build his laundrymat. Basically, he does not want the money. He would prefer to keep his property. HRA Board Member Hanus stated he would be willing to listen to Mr. Willette's ideas, although, the HRA may be put in a very complicated position allowing more time than the HRA can sacrifice for the downtown project. HRA Board Member Brown asked if the Williams store location would be a possible exchange for Mr. Willette. Mr. Prosser discussed the concept of bartering with Mr. Willette and concluded this type of scenario becomes very complex. He further stated if the HRA would try to become a so- called broker, this would put additional obligations on the HRA that they cannot meet. Mr. Prosser is sympathetic with Mr. Willette. Mr. Prosser suggested giving to Mr. Willette the list of the other post office sites that were considered and lettting him deal with his own real estate broker on an of those parcels. HRA Board Member Hanus stated the bartering concept would extend the development process and wipe out any thoughts of speeding up the post office project. Chairperson Meisel questioned the quick-take process as well as how long this would be tied up in the court system. The City Attorney stated this process of a quick-take is effective within 90 days from the date it begins. He stated the title to the property would pass to the HRA. Although, he 3 MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 stated the value of the property would be determined at a later date by the court. In the meantime, the property could be built upon and occupied. Chairperson Meisel is concerned about the expense of the legal expenses. She stated the transaction might not be a friendly one, causing even more legal fees. She suggested maybe the swapping of the land would be more desirable. HRA Board Member Brown suggested the site near Jubilee that the post office did not consider as another site that might work for Mr. Willette. It was suggested Mr. Willette take the proceeds from the sale of his property and buy the property that he is interested in, rather than having the HRA swap land. Chairperson Meisel stated the HRA's main concern with the downtown project at this time is to keep things moving along at an acceptable pace. The City Attorney stated the HRA could discontinue the condemnation process at any point if a negotiated price is reached on the property with the owners and that would stop the excessive amount of legal fees that could occur. He stated to remember that both parties would be paying legal fees and not just the HRA. HRA Board Member Weycker suggested we confront Mr. Willette and state the HRA needs to keep moving on the project, but it does not mean the condemnation process would not end at some point. She further stated the land swap exchange would take more time than the HRA could allow. Chairperson Meisel mentioned Mr. Willette is in favor of the redevelopment of Mound and looks forward to the process. HRA Board Member Ahrens stated she in not in favor of the condemnation, but she is in favor of the project. She reminded all members that the post office location is holding up the complete project, so holding up the project anymore, would not be appropriate at this time. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to accept the Resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings if deemed appropriate. RESOLUTION #00- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIItE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 4 MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 1.4 LETTER FROM TIM PROSSER REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT -MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE. Mr. Prosser stated the HRA has previously approved the downtown Mound development. He stated in the spring of last year, the Dodds brought a plan for redevelopment to the HRA's attention. He stated since that time the HRA has been working with the Dodds in order to prepare a plan and agreement for redevelopment. He stated the agreement is now ready for signing and thus allowing the process to move along. Mr. Prosser stated the agreement would be making the HRA commit to providing assistance to the Dodds subject to certain conditions. He stated this is not the final action regarding the agreement but merely some action to start the process. Chamberlain explained the land swap with the Dodds property and the City of Mound property located by the Coast to Coast. He also explained ownership before and after the swap. Mound Visions Coordinator stated the new store would be constructed by County Road 110, consisting of about 16,000 square feet. He stated there would be some right-of- way for Hennepin County for expansion of the street. He mentioned there would be temporary parking and it would guarantee permanent parking when the entire block is redeveloped. Chamberlain further presented a drawing of the proposed Mound Hardware. He noted it will be one story building with a traditional storefront. He stated there would be columns at the regular locations. He stated the overall width of the building would be 95 feet. The building would contain retractable awnings and lights located on the columns. The building would give the appearance of being atwo-story structure. He noted the building would be made from wood materials and would maintain the grand hotel character. HRA Board Member Ahrens suggested removing the panes in the windows and replacing them with display windows. Chamberlain stated that change had already been discussed. HRA Board Member Brown informed the HRA the Planning Commission was concerned this building would be only aone-story building, although, he does agree with the look being proposed of the building because it give a atwo-story appearance. The City Attorney reviewed the development agreement terms. He stated the Dodds and their attorney, as well as himself, have reviewed the agreement. He stated what has been presented in the packets tonight is a final draft and it is acceptable to the Dodds. He stated it is fairly complex. The contract addresses the land swap, the construction and improvements, as well as the economic assistance that would be provided to the developer by the HRA for this project. The City Attorney stated the building itself would have a minimum market value of $750,000. The land itself would have a $98,000 price to it. The total amount for the 5 MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 property would be valued at $848,000. The City Attorney stated this amount would start on January 1, 2001, and would remain through the tax increment time period. He stated the assessment section in the agreement notes this information. The City Attorney then detailed the economic assistance. He stated there would be a loan in the amount of $250,000. He stated the loan would payable in increments, and the final being paid when the building is 25 percent completed which would be determined by the Building Official. He further stated the loan would be repaid by the developer over a period of 25 years. This obligation would be secured by a note. The payments would consist of about $23,000 per year, plus 6.5 percent interest. The property would be secured by a contractual obligation to sue to collect if there is a failure to pay taxes. The City Attorney further stated shazed pazking would be terminated if failure to make the payments on the note existed as well. He mentioned once the building is underway, the building would be occupied and taxes would be paid, thus allowing the City to get their money back through tax increment. He ended stating the agreement has been reviewed by all necessary people. The City Attorney stated there aze two conditions to the agreement being finalized. One condition is the preliminazy plans for the building need to be approved and, secondly, abut- for analysis would need to be completed. HRA Board Member Hanus mentioned the but-for analysis is done on all TIF project and it is not a new concept being proposed to the HRA. HRA Boazd Member Brown stated he assured the Planning Commission last night that they will be seeing all items that need to come before them on the downtown redevelopment. The City Attorney stated the two main concerns for the Planning Commission would be the hardcover variance and the major subdivision. HItA Board Member Ahrens appreciated HRA Board Member Brown's attempt to make the Planning Commission awaze that they will not be excluded from the process. H1tA Boazd Member Hanus questioned the pazking agreement regarding its exclusive rights, but the City Attorney stated the agreement pertains to nonexclusive rights. HRA Board Member Hanus asked about shazed parking on odd hours of the days and would like this clarified. The City Attorney stated the agreement specifically states there are 20 spaces of pazking and it does not limit to business hours, although, the City Attorney will readdress this concern and report back on his findings. The City Attorney suggested the lot repairs provision could be reworded to suggest improvements as well. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to approve the Contract for Private Redevelopment, subject to the preliminary plat approval, the but-for analysis, and language changes to the shared parking and/or lot repairs sections of the Contract. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 6 .. ~ MOUND HRA MINUTES -APRIL 25. 2000 ADTO MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Kandis Hanson, City Manager Attest: Chairperson Meisel 7 ~: .. V - ~."~ (in t, ~ .: ~ ,. a `~ W J ' ^' . ~ i\ '+h t ~ '" , q ~ ! ; , a" t~ ~ ~ y ^ Pb t { ~ a~e ~ ~ 1 r }~ .~ ~ ' ~ i ~ I ~ . Y~` .. ~' ' ~1 ~ x ~~~ ~~~ . } l ~+ 'Y~r .. ~ { ~ ~ Y tF 1 ....~~~~3JII Yy ~`1 .. x ~ #~ ~ - Q ~ ~ Y ~g b ~ 1~,~ ~o LLI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . /~ 2. } yn ~ ,~. M y ~ +/ y i`. ~ n 1Y y(; ~ , ,~ t ~, ti try _ ~ '~ ;. ~ ~ ~ _ _ ,~,~~ . KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 04/27/2000 City of Mound Invoice Date Invoice No. 04/12/2000 Amount 1, 517.00 Account No. Description Amount 22999-010 Sent check to us 1,517.00 200 S Sixth Street Suite 470 337.9300 Minneapolis, Mn 55402 PaY One Thousand, Five Hundred Seventeen & No/100 Dollars Flrstar Bank Private Banking (612) X84-5100 607 Marquette Avenue, Mpls., MN 55402 75-Y522-910 DATE 04/27/2000 To City of Mound THE ORDER OF , 072401 AMOUNT 1, 517.00 ut~ a ^. , i K e n n edy G r av en 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (61.2) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 Ea~c htcp://www.ltennedy-graven.com Linda L. 1Vygard Bookkeeper Direct Dial (612) 337-9267 Email: lnygard@kennedy-graven.com May 4, 2000 Fran dark Acting .City -Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Refund Check Dear Fran:. Enclosed please find our refund check #72401 in the amount of $1,517.00. On the stub of your check #26474 dated 03/14/00 you included $1,517.00 to Balboa Project. This amount was to be paid directly to Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. for their invoice #535488 dated 01/25/00. When I received your check, I sent a check from Kennedy & Graven to Fredrickson & Byron to pay for their invoice. They in turn returned our check on 4/12/2000 stating that the City of Mound had already paid the invoice on 2/22/00. I am now returning the $1,517.00 back to you. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~ ~!V Linda L. Nygard Enclosures • Minneapolis 1100 International Crntn Lundon 900 Second Avenue South _ _ • ~ ' • Minneapolis, MN SS~U2-.1397 . FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. .,;.;r~rtaoct;~~,: cbtza 3a; -;emu r Jl:zicu Lin' F:L~ (612) 3~i -7U7`r Attorneys and Advisors \'V~rsaw www.fredlaw.com Direct Dial No. ~ ~ ; , ; ~ - - ~; r (612) 336-4136 ~.;. '#r . -; ~~~~' ~ t f °, '~ r- T11e19C11In8t1®~IaW.COnI April 12, 2000 ~. ~::; Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 ~. Enclosed please find our refund check #115564 in the amount of $1,517.00. This reflects the return of an overpayment that we received with your check #72270, dated 4/6/00. Invoice #535488 had already been paid on 2/22/00 by the City of Mound. ,. Thank you. _ _ ; ,: . .. , 1 -` ENTERED APR 2 4 2000 Sincerely, ~~~ ~~~4 Richard Fleischman Credit Representative Enc. ~• . ~+' ~~ \~w~ r ,~- `'' Y.° ~i ':~' i • .S~.f~. - -~ '' ~ , ~~ CITY OF MOUND ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 75-1664- ~` i%/ .5341 MAYWOOD R A ~~~'' r ~ `~ ~ s~~ ~ ' " ~~- MOUND, MINNESOT ~55D364 + : ' `~ ~;.: ~•PAY,TQ-THE ORDER OF ~''`'~:+~„ ' "~~ KE'J~~:~ (,'Y• .~ GhAGVE'td 'r':,- '~`',,, ;-~_~; ..__._.....__....._.. ~ ~ 9J FIVE TIIUv`~l,~:L'~ Si:V~'~ 17~".J~<c~ Tn1Kf1' :, _ J1t, ,.<. MARQU[7TE 6ANK MOUND ~~ "'.• ~~•u ~ ry ~4n~ i;U`i LU 166, 7~: 0 L 3"' 2 ~9ii• F S 5~-S~;i0-3100 1.517.Uu 02-OU BALt30A PROJECT RL%LiVED APR - 6 2000 CITY OF MOUND i :ou l,~~l~:oo c ~,o s~~ ~`' c~ ~:~~ a~ ~ ~• 0 ? ,~ (_ ^~^ FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. ~~~ Attorneys and Advisors Minneapolis London SDS-12-1606 Washington, DC P.O. Box 86 Affiliated Offices: Minneapolis, MN 55486-1606 Mexico City (612) 347-7000 Warsaw FAX (612) 347-7077 Montreal Tax ID No. 41-0971937 Toronto Vancouver Environmental & Real Estate Consulting Attn: John Dean 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS O° Q 4~ 1 3~ 2 0 Q n Matter No. 42124.0001 Matter Name: Kennedy & Graven INVOICE 542106 DATE 03/20/00 AMOUNT 244.00 BALANCE 244 .00'` TOTAL RECEIPTS LISTED 0.00 BALANCE OWING 244.00 If you should have any questions regarding your account, please call a client representative at (612) 336-4074. PLEASE REMIT THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT D ~ ~~'~ I' ppp14~ ~, INVOICE/STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 1 K e nn ed y G rav en 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 trkphone (612) 337-9310 fax http: //www.kennedy-graven.com GRACE A. KOEBNICK Legal Assistant Direct Dial (612) 337-9285 Email: glccebnick@kennedy-graven.com Apri121, 2000 Fran Clark Acting City Manager .City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Fran: Enclosed is another invoice from Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. relating to further work on Balboa. Please pay them directly. You have already paid an invoice from them in the past, but I believe this is for new work incurred in March and has not yet been paid. Our bookkeeping department discovered one time in the past where Mound paid us the balance owed to Fredrikson & Byron and then we had to refund it back. Please make sure they understand that this is from Fredrikson and should be paid directly to them. Sincerely, r.-t.~. Grace A. Koebnick g~ Enclosure ~a . . ~, 470 Pillsbury Center ~ 200 South Sixrh Srreer Minneapolis MN 55402 v C H A R T E R E D (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http:/ /vvww.kennedy-graven.co m GRACE A. KOEBNICK Legal Assistant Direct Dial (612) 337-9285 Email: skoebnick a kennedy-graven.com February 1, 2000 ~~ran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Fran: Enclosed is an invoice for payment by the city for services of Fredrikson & Byron relating to their review of the environmental and geotechnical reports for the "Metro 500 site". Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call. Sincerely Grace A. Koebnick g~ KOEBNG-U5536v1 MU195~ ~~~ ,. ^~^ FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. ", Attorneys and Advisors Environmental & Real Estate Consulting Attn: John Dean 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Minneapolis SDS- 12- 1606 London P.O. Box 86 Minneapolis, MN 55486-1606 Affiliated Offices: (612) 347-7000 Mexico City FAX (613) 3.17-7077 Warsaw Tax fD No. 41-11971937 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS OF 01/25/2000 Matter No. 42124.0001 Matter Name: Kennedy & Graven INVOICE 535488 DATE AMOUNT BALANCE 1,517.00 0.00 1,517.00 01/25/00 1,517.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS LISTED BALANCE OWING If you should have any questions regarding your account, please call a client representative at (612) 336-4074. PLEASE REMIT THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT INVOICE/STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ^~^ FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. "' Attorneys and .Advisors Environmental & Real Estate Consulting Attn: John Dean 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 For Professional Services Rendered Through 12/31/1999: RE: Kennedy & Graven (42124.0001) Total Amount Due for Fees: Total Due for Disbursements, Costs and Other Charges Total Amount Due This Invoice: Minneapoli, SDS-12-1606 London P.O. Box 36 Minneapolis, MN 55x86-1606 A~linted Of}ices: (6l2) 347-7000 Mexico Ciry FAX (612) 347-7077 Warsaw Tax ID No. 41-0971937 Invoice: 535488 January 25, 2000 $ 1,517.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,517.00 INVOICEISTATEMENT OF ACCOUNT Ke n n edy G r av en 470 Pillsbury Cenrer 200 Sourh Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax h t t p: / / w~vw. ke n nedy-grave n. co m CORRINE H. THO~ISON Attorney at I_aw Direct Dial (612) 3370217 email: cthomsonGkennedy-graven.com December 13, 1999 Fran Clark Acting City Manager City GiMGilrlu 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Mound HRA / Balboa Land Purchase 5377 Shoreline Drive Dear Ms. Clark: Enclosed is an invoice from STS Consultants Ltd in the amount of $3,895.46. This invoice is for engineering services associated with the Phase II environmental assessment for the above- referenced property. This is not the final billing; STS will send additional invoices for drilling, laboratory testing, field sampling and reporting. Please remit payment directly to STS Consultants. Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson Enclosure ce: Jim Prosser (w/o enc) John Dean (w/o enc) Bill Tepley (w/o enc) CAH-173104v1 MU 195-4 Please Remit To: STS CONSULTANTS LTD. P. O. Box 88596 Chicago, IL 60680-1596 TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT TO: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY CENTER 200 SO. SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 ATTN: CORRINE THOMSON Invoice Number: 999150 Invoice Date: NOVEMBER 19, 1999 Customer Code: 117250 Customer PO: STS Office: N STS Job Number: 6-97569.XB Bill Thru Date: 11/13/99 Zf you have questions regarding this invoice, please call WILLIAM B TEPLEY at (612) 315-6300 UNIT DESCRIPTION UNITS PRICE EXTENDED TOTAL RE: Phase II ESA & Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for 5377 Shoreline Drive, Mound, MN. Science Principal Engineer 2.00 Hours 116.00 232.00 Senior Consultant 26.00 Hours 98.00 2,548.00 Technical Project Staff 10.50 Hours 78.00 819.00 Sr. Environmental Technician 3.00 Hours 60.00 180.00 CADD Drafter 1.50 Hours 55.00 82.50 Mileage 54.00 Miles .44 23.76 Supplies 8.87 1.15 10.20 $3,895.46 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PLEASE REMIT ONE COPY OF INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT. A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 1/2~ PER MONTH (18~ ANNUALLY) WILL BE ADDED TO ALL INVOICES UNPAID AFTER 30 DAYS Please Remit To: STS CONSULTANTS LTD. P. O. Box 88596 Chicago, IL 60680-1596 TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT T0: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY CENTER 200 SO. SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 ATTN: CORRINE THOMSON Invoice Number: 999150 Invoice Date: NOVEMBER 19, 1999 Customer Code: 117250 Customer PO: STS Office: N STS Job Number: 6-97589.XB Bill Thru Date: 11/13/99 If you have questions regarding this invoice, please call WILLIAM B TEPLEY at (612) 315-6300 UNIT DESCRIPTION UNITS PRZCE EXTENDED TOTAL RE: Phase II ESA & Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for 5377 Shoreline Drive, Mound, MN. Science Principal Engineer 2.00 Hours 116.00 232.00 Senior Consultant 26.00 Hours 98.00 2,548.00 Technical Project Staff 10.50 Hours 78.00 819.00 Sr. Environmental Technician 3.00 Hours 60.00 180.00 CADD Drafter 1.50 Hours 55.00 82.50 Mileage 54.00 Miles .44 23.76 Supplies 8.87 1.15 10.20 3,895.46 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PLEASE REMIT ONE COPY OF INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT. A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 1/2~ PER MONTH (18~ ANNUALLY) WILL BE ADDED TO ALL INVOICES UNPAID AFTER 30 DAYS Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ~~ December 14, 1999 Mr. Gary Maxwell Balboa Center Limited Partnership 4600 Westbury Colleyville, TX 76034 RE: Petroleum Storage Tank Release Investigation and Corrective Action Site: Former Metro 500 Service Station, 5377 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound Site ID#: LEAK00013131 Dear Mr. Maxwell: Notice of Release The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been informed that a release of petroleum has. occurred from storage tank facilities which you own and/or operate. We appreciate your timely notification so this site can be handled in an efficient manner. Legal Obligations Federal and state laws require that persons legally responsible for storage tank releases notify the MPCA of the release, investigate the release and, if necessary, clean up the release. A person is considered legally responsible for a tank release if the person owned or operated the tank either during or after the release, unless specifically exempted under the law. If you believe that you are not legally responsible for this storage tank release, please contact the project manager listed below. If you are not legally responsible for the release, but hold legal or equitable title to the property where the release occurred, you may volunteer to take corrective action. Responsible persons and volunteers who take corrective action may be eligible for reimbursement for a major portion of the costs of corrective action. Tl~e legislature has established the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Account to reimburse responsible persons and volunteers. The account is administered by the Petro Board which is part of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Final decisions regarding the amount of reimbursement are made by the Petro Board. All questions about eligibility and reimbursement should be directed to the Petrofund staff at (651) 297-11 l9 or (651) 297-4203. Request to Take Corrective Action The MPCA staff requests that you take steps to investigate and, if necessary, clean up the release in accordance with the enclosed MPCA fact sheets. The site investigation must fully define the extent and magnitude of the soil and/or ground water contamination caused by the release. A report (excavation report and/or remedial investigation/corrective action design (RUCAD)) which details the results of the investigation or concludes that excavation was sufficient to clean up the release must be submitted to this office within 10 months of the date of this letter. Please refer to MPCA fact sheets for information pertaining to the amount of work needed at the petroleum release site(s). 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY) Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 % fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Gary Maxwell Page Two Sites with free product (free-floating petroleum), drinking water supply impacts, surface water tmpacts, indoor vapor impacts, fire or explosion hazards, ar ground water impacts which pose a significant threat to public health or the environment, are considered high priority for staff review. If one or more of these situations apply to your site, an RUCAD report must be submitted within 90 days. In addition, if you know or discover that there is free-product from a well, excavation, or borehole, you must notify the MPCA within 24 hours and IMMEDIATELY begin interim free product recovery. If you have not already done so, the MPCA recommends that you hire a qualified consulting firm registered with the Petrofund staff that has experience in conducting petroleum release site investigatsons and in proposing and implementing appropriate corrective actions. A list of registered contractors and consultants is available from the Petrofund staff. The MPCA reserves the right to reject proposed corrective actions if the requitements of the site investigation have not been fulfilled. Please note that, under Minn. R. 2890 (Supp. 1997}, you must solicit a minimum of two competitive proposals on a form prescribed by the Petro Board to ensure that the consulting costs are reasonable. Questions about bidding requirements should be directed to Petrofund staff. Required Response MPCA staff requests a response to this letter within 30 days. Please tell us whether you intend to proceed with the requested work. If you do not respond within this time frame, the MPCA staff will assume that you do not intend to comply, in which case the MPCA Commissioner may order you to take corrective action. Failure to cooperate with the MPCA in a timely manner may result in reduced reimbursement from the Petro Board. See Minn. R. 2890 (Supp. 1997). The enclosed fact sheets will provide you with the information necessary to complete a successful investigation and cleanup. If you have an} questions concerning this letter or need additional information, please contact me at (651) 297-8581. Please reference the above LEAK # in all correspondence. If you are calling long distance, you may reach the MPCA St. Paul office by calling (l -800) 657-3864. Sincerely, ~h JJJelil Abclella Project Manager Site Remediation Section Metro District AAaek Enclosures cc: Francene Clark-Leisinger, City Clerk, Mound Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, Mound Bill Tepley, STS Consultants, Maple Grove Greg Lie, Hennepin County Soiid Waste Officer 470 Pillsbury Center ~ 200 South Sixth Street ~ Minneapolis MN 55402 ~' (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax C H A R T E R E D http://www.kennedy-graven.com ~IOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 email: jdean@kennedy-graven.com December 1, 1999 Balboa Center Limited Partnership BY OVERNIGHT COURIER c/o CK Development Company 4600 Westbury Drive Collewille. Texas 76034 ATTN: Gary N. Maxwell Re: Balboa Center Limited Partnership/Mound HRA-Purchase Agreement; Mound, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Maxwell: This letter is to serve as notice to Balboa Center Limited Partnership that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the referenced Purchase Agreement, as amended, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound has determined that the conditions described in Section 6ii have not been satisfied, and consequently, it hereby terminates the Purchase Agreement. The HRA wishes to thank you for the cooperation and assistance you have provided it in the consideration of this site. Respectfully yours, ohn B. Dean JBD:gak cc: Paul Moe Fran Clark Jim Prosser JBD-172533v1 M U 195-4 ["_.~. November 30, 1999 Ms. Corrine H. Thomson, Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment -Former Metro West Service Station at 5377 Shoreline Drive and Adjoining Parcel in Mound, Minnesota; STS Project 97589-XB Dear Ms. Thomson: STS Consultants, Ltd. (STS) has completed the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) associated with the above-referenced site. This report provides a summary of site investigation activities and the results of the Phase II ESA. Copies of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation were forwarded to you with our report dated November 24, 1999. The results of the Phase II ESA identified petroleum impacts to soil and groundwater in the area of the former Metro West Service Station. The petroleum impacts appear to be associated with operation of the former service station. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will require an investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of the petroleum impacts identified. Additionally, petroleum and non- petroleum impacts were identified in several soil and groundwater samples obtained at the site. The source of these impacts is unknown; however, may be associated with the former "Lost Lake Dump" site. Details of the Phase II ESA and our recommendations are included in the body of this report. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please feel free to contact us at 612/315-6300. Sincerely, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. William B. Tepley Senior Project Manager WBT/dn Encs. C689B004.DOC Robert L. DeGroot, PG PE Principal Engineer 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 • Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547.612-315-6300 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment - Former Metro West Service Station and Adjoining Parcel 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The City of Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is considering purchasing the property located at 5377 Shoreline Drive and adjoining parcel for redevelopment. The adjoining property is located immediately to the west of an existing SuperAmerica gas station. The property consists of two parcels of land which are void of any structures or improvements. The Area Map of the site is shown on Figure 1, attached. STS completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the subject property. The Phase I ESA identified several items of concern which may affect the HRA decision regarding purchase of the property. These items include: • Environmental issues associated with the adjoining former Tonka Toys manufacturing facility, • Environmental issues associated with the Lost Lake dump, • Environmental issues associated with the former "Metro West" service station, and • Building construction issues associated with anticipated organic soils at the site. The two parcels appear to be down-gradient (direction southwest) of the former Tonka Toys facility based on review of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) files. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered retained STS to conduct a Phase II ESA and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the property to explore the items of concern identified. The scope of work was defined in a letter to Ms. Corrine Thomson, Attorney for Kennedy & Graven dated November 5, 1999. Outlined below is a description of the work completed and our preliminary recommendations for the site. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION STS completed six soil borings (B-1 through B-6) on the property on November 10 and 11, 1999. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to a depth of 26.5 feet below grade and borings B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 were drilled to depths of 36.5 to 41.5 feet. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Soil samples retrieved from the borings were screened with a MicroTIP photoionization detector (PID) for the presence of volatile organic compounds. The samples were screened following current MPCA guidelines for soil sample screening. Soil and groundwater samples were also obtained from the borings as outlined in STS' scope of work. Methods for completing the field investigation work are included in the Appendix. Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of approximately 3 feet in the initial boring completed on the former "Metro West" service station adjacent to B-1. STS was not able to determine the presence of underground storage tank(s) in this area with a magnetometer and recommended that backhoe test pits be completed. Authorization to conduct backhoe exploration was received from Ms. Corrine Thomson of Kennedy & Graven on November 12, 1999. On November 17, 1999, an environmental geologist of STS observed Stevens Drilling and Environmental Services (a subcontractor) dig several test pits in the area of the former service station, including where STS' drill rig encountered auger refusal. No underground storage tanks were identified by the backhoe exploration work at the locations examined. The auger refusal was due to abandoned underground piping associated with the former USTs. -2- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.0 PRELIMINARY PHASE II ESA RESULTS 3.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations generally consisted of 4.5 to 14.5 feet of partly organic silty clay or silty clay fill underlain by peat soils which extended to depths of 10 to 19.5 feet below grade. The peat thickness was greatest in boring B-5 located in the southwest corner of the property. Underlying the peat, soft to very stiff silty clays were generally encountered in the borings. Layers of sand were observed in the silty clays in borings B-4 and B- 6. In boring B-3, the peat was underlain by very loose silts and sands followed by stiff to very stiff silty clay soils. Crroundwater was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from 7 to 12 feet. 3.2 Soil Analyses Selected samples from borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-5 were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and diesel range organics (DRO). A sample from boring B-5 was also analyzed for pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals and polynucleaz aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sample analysis was targeted for specific compounds required by the MPCA for a Phase II dump assessment. The results of the laboratory analysis of soil samples are summarized in Table 1 below. The soil concentrations were compazed to MPCA draft Soil Reference Values (SRNs) and draft Soil Leaching Values (SLVs). The Tier 1 SRNs aze guidance values used to screen for direct contact of compounds to humans. The Tier 1 SLVs are guidance values used to screen for potential groundwater impacts from leaching of identified compounds through soil to groundwater. -3- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 1 Soil Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in mg/kg P Cow Qund....:: B 1 S#4 B-1 S#f~ B-2 I ~#S B-3 B-S 5~#.3.. SLV .......: _ SRV ::. .. Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 VOCs b 8260 acetone < < < < < 0.7 2500 benzene 2.9 < < < < 0.034 1.5 2-chlorotoluene < < < < < NE 436 cis-1,2- dichloroethene < < < < < 0.14 320 eth lbenzene 23 < < < < 4.7 190 iso ro 1-benzene 3.2 < < < < 18 135 n-bu lbenzene 4.7 < < < < NE 160 sec-butylbenzene 1.7 < < < < NE 150 -iso ro ltoluene 2.6 < < < < NE NE 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene < 0.012 0.012 < < 0.31 230 Naphthalene 5.2 0.0221 0.021 0.023 0.086 7.5 2 n- ro lnzene 12 < < < < - 135 toluene 12 < < < < 6.4 145 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 71 0.0171 < < 0.0181 NE 9 1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 23 0.0121 < < < NE 4 o-x lene 32 < < < < 45 122 m & x lene 88 < < < < 45 122 Methylene Chloride 1.1 a < 0.044 0.015 < 0.07 90 Pesticides, EPA 8081 - - - - < varies varies Herbicides, MDH List 1 - - - - < varies varies VOC -Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound ND =Not Detected NE =Not Established SRV = Soil Reference Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. SLV = Soil Leaching Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. Bold =exceeds SRV and/or SLV < =less than laboratory limit of detection 1 =result is ari estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -4- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 1-Continued Soil Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in mg/kg C~np+aund ...: S#4 S#8 ' B-3. S#3 SLV ::~ SR'S~ ', Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 PCBs b 8280 Arochlor 1016 - - - - <0.110 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1221 - - - - <0.062 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1232 - - - - <0.049 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1242 - - - - <0.066 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1248 - - - - <0.034 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1254 - - - - 0.103 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1260 - - - - <0.015 1.2 0.6 Metals Arsenic - - - - 3.88 14.6 12 Cadmium - - - - <0.22 3.0 26 Chromium 5.11 19.1 (CrVI) 66 (CrVI) Lead - - - - 12.1 NA 400 Mercu - - - - 0.0648 1.0 3 Selenium - - - - <0.802 1.5 174 Barium - - - - 38.0 822 2300 Silver - - - - <0.22 2.5 174 GRO - - - - - NE NE DRO 304 5.88 J <6.08 <5.92 251 NE NE VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound ND =Not Detected NE =Not Established SRV = Soil Reference Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. SLV = Soil Leaching Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. Bold =exceeds SRV and/or SLV < =less than laboratory limit of detection J =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -5- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.3 Soils Interpretation Benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, m & p xylene and methylene chloride were identified in sample B-4, S#4 at concentrations which exceeded the SLV and/or SRN. Several other VOC compounds were identified in the samples, but at concentrations below the SLV/SRNs. PCBs (Arochlor 1254) were reported at a concentration of 0.103 mg/kg (parts per million) in sample B-5, S#3. The laboratory results identified DRO in samples B-1, S#4 and B-5, S#3 at concentrations of 304 mg/kg and 251 mg/kg, respectively. No concentrations of pesticides or herbicides were reported in sample B-5, S#3. Several VOC compounds were also reported below the laboratory limit of detection but above the laboratory quantitation limits. 3.4 Groundwater Analysis Groundwater samples from all the soil borings were analyzed for VOCs, gasoline and diesel range organics (GRO/DRO). The DRO sample from boring B-4 was broken during shipping to the laboratory. VOC analysis could possibly identify some solvents which may have been disposed of in the Lost Lake Dump site (based on the Phase I ESA report) and select petroleum related compounds. A water sample from boring B-5 was also analyzed for PCBs, metals (As, Ba, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se), herbicides (1VIDA list 1), pesticides by EPA method 8081, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These parameters were targeted based on the MPCA VIC guidance documents for a dump assessment. Boring B-5 is anticipated to be the boring closest to the former Lost Lake dump, based on the aerial photography interpretation from the Phase I ESA work. -6- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Analysis results from the fixed base laboratory are summarized in Table 2 below. The results were compared to Health Risk Limit (HRL) concentrations set by the Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500). Table 2 Groundwater Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in µg/L f'ot~tpuund B»1 B»2 ' B-3 B~4 B-5 B-6 Blank HRL ___ Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 VOCs b 8260 acetone <100 <5 <5 <5 11.2 5.14 <5 700 benzene 1450 <0.15 <0.15 0.18 0.896 <0.15 <0.15 10 2-chlorotoluene <3 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.273 <0.15 <0.15 NE cis-1,2- dichloroethene <3 0.318 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NE eth bbenzene 54.8 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.188 <0.15 <0.15 700 iso ro 1-benzene 10.0 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.151 <0.15 <0.15 300 Meth 1 eth 1 ketone <14 <0.7 <0.7 <0.7 1.82 1.12 <0.7 4000 Meth 1 iso-bu 1 ketone 9.30 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.82 <0.4 <0.4 300 Na hthalene <16 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 0.908 <0.8 <0.8 300 n- ro lbenzene 39.8 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.328 <0.15 <0.15 NE toluene 20.1 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.892 <0.4 <0.4 1000 1,2,4 Trimeth bbenzene 112 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.96 <0.4 <0.4 NE 1,3,5 Trimeth lbenzene 32.3 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.897 <0.15 <0.15 NE 0-x lene 23.2 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.393 <0.15 <0.15 10000 m & P x lene 214 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.756 <0.4 <0.4 10000 Dichlorodifluoromethane <3 <0.15 <0/15 <0.15 1.26 <0.15 <0.15 1000 Chloromethane <3.4 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.254 NE Pesticides. EPA 8081 - - - - < - - varies Herbicides, MDH List 1 - - - - < - - varies VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound * - RAL =MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limit Bold =Exceeds HRL HRL =Health Risk Limit for Drinking Water -Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500) ' =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -7- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 2 -Continued Groundwater Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in µg/L C,otnpouun~l ;:: B-1 'B-2 B-~ ' B-4 l~ ~ ;: ' B b :: ..... ~~ Blank.::: HRL Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 PAHs 6 8270 - - - - < - - varies PCBs b 8082 Arochlor 1016 - - - - <0.466 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1221 - - - - <0.566 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1232 - - - - <0.193 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1242 - - - - 2.74 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1248 - - - - <0.2 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1254 - - - - 1.21 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1260 - - - - <0.2 - - 0.04 Metals Arsenic - - - - 4.1 - - 0.2* Cadmium - - - - 4.63 - - 4 Lead - - - - 4,180 - - 20* Mercury - - - - <0.13 - - 2* Selenium - - - - <3 - - 30 Barium - - - - 1,350 - - 2000 Nickel - - - - 16 - - 100 GRO 4,030 <50 <50 <50 52.4 <50 <50 NE DRO 2,830 190 254 - 6,070 437 - NE VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound * - RAL = MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limit Bold =Exceeds HRL HRL =Health Risk Limit for Drinking Water -Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500) ' =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -8- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.5 Groundwater Interpretation 3.5.1 Petroleum Impacts Groundwater impacts from petroleum related compounds were identified above the HRLs in one boring (B-1) located in the northwest corner of the property on the former Metro West service station parcel. The HRL for benzene of 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) was exceeded in the water sample obtained from B-1 (1,450 µg/L). Petroleum related compounds were also identified in several other borings but at concentrations below the HRLs. DRO and/or GRO impacts were identified in all of the borings. The highest DRO/GRO impacts were reported in water samples from borings B-1 and B-5. 3.5.2 Non-Petroleum Impacts The water sample analyzed from B-5 had no detects of PAHs or pesticides or herbicides. Several heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium and lead were identified in the water sample at concentrations which exceeded the MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limits (RAL) or the HRLs. PCBs (Arochlor 1242 and 1254) were detected in the water sample from B-5 at concentrations of 2.74 µg/L and 1.21 µg/L, respectively. The HRL for PCBs is 0.04 µg/L. The heavy metal and PCB exceedances may not be representative of the actual conditions at that location due to sediment in the water sample. Heavy metals/PCBs sorb to sediments. Non- petroleum VOCs were also identified in water samples obtained from several of the borings but at concentrations below the HRLs. -9- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The former Metro West service station is the likely source of the petroleum impacts observed in boring B-1. The soil conditions indicate that the impacted unit is likely a resource aquifer. A Remedial Investigation (RI) is required by the MPCA where a resource aquifer has been impacted above the HRI,s. The RI must identify the extent and magnitude of impacts to both soil and groundwater. Monitoring wells must be installed to define the magnitude and extent of the release and the stability of the plume. Natural biodegradation action must be determined. The results of the RI will determine whether active cleanup, groundwater monitoring or site closure is appropriate for this petroleum release site. Minnesota state law specifies tank owners and/or operators are responsible for cleanup of pollution caused by release(s) from tank systems. The State's Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund) can provide partial reimbursement to owners and/or operators for investigation and cleanup of a tank release determined to be adequate by the MPCA. A "Volunteer" may also qualify to be eligible for Petrofund investigation and cleanup costs associated with a tank release under certain conditions. Non-petroleum impacts were also identified in soil and/or groundwater samples obtained from the site. The source of the impacts are unknown, but may be associated with the former Lost Lake Dump. HRL exceedances were noted for PCBs and several metals. The extent of PCB and metals impacts is unknown. The project site could be entered into the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program to obtain a "No Association" and possibly a "No Action" letter for the identified non-petroleum releases. The VIC program can provide liability protection for non-responsible parties who voluntarily investigate and cleanup a site. -10- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 5.0 GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS The analysis and recommendations in this report are based on data included herein. The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of this report is limited to the specific project and location described herein and our description of the project represents our understanding of significant aspects in reference to the site. -11- APPENDIX Figure 1-Area Location Diagram Figure 2 -Soil Boring Location Diagram Methods Soil Boring Logs (B-1 through B-6) Laboratory Test Reports • US Filter • Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories • Northern Lake Service, Inc. Soil Sampling Soil and groundwater samples were obtained using a truck mounted D-50 drill rig. Soil samples were obtained using hollow stem augers and the split-barrel sampling procedure in general conformance with ASTM Specification D-1586, "Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils". The sampling equipment was decontaminated in Alconox wash with subsequent rinse with deionized water between samplings. Soil Screening Selected soil samples from the probes were screened for the presence of volatile organic compounds using a MicroTIP photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp calibrated to a benzene reference gas. Soil samples were placed in new quart size polyethylene freezer bags filled approximately halfway. Samples were broken up and head space allowed to develop. The probe of the PID was inserted into the bag and a reading of VOCs in the head space of the sample was obtained. The head space readings were recorded as PID meter units on the soil logs found in the Appendix. Sample Descriptions Soil texture was described using the Unified Soil Classification System based on field observations of the soil samples. Thickness of various soil layers was determined from observation of the soil probe cores. Notes of sample recovery, PID readings and other observations are included on the soil logs. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Groundwater Samuling Groundwater samples were obtained through temporary dedicated PVC monitoring wells placed in each of the completed borings. Groundwater samples were obtained from the temporary PVC monitoring wells using 1/4 inch inside diameter plastic tubing and a suction device. Each temporary monitoring well was purged prior to sampling. Laboratory Analyses Laboratory analyses were performed by United States Filter Corporation (US Filter). US Filter subcontracted Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories to complete the herbicide analysis (MDH List 1) on the soil and groundwater samples. The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis for soil samples was subcontracted to Northern Lake Service, Inc. The laboratory reports are included in the Appendix. Data Quality Objectives The samples analyzed by the laboratory were received by the laboratories on ice and in an acceptable condition. Reported concentrations of certain VOCs were "J-flagged" indicating results below the Reporting Limit were estimated concentrations. The laboratory method blanks were free of target analytes at detectable levels. The associated batch quality assurancelquality control (QA/QC) criteria were met with satisfaction. Probe Hole Locations A stadia survey was performed to determine the elevations of the borings. Elevations of the borings are reported to the nearest 1/10 foot on the soil boring logs. An assumed benchmark -2- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB elevation of 100.0 feet for the top nut of the fire hydrant located on the north side of Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the site was utilized for determining boring elevations. The borings were laid out by measuring from the existing roadways. -3- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 Subsurface Exploration .................................................................................... 2 3.0 Preliminary Phase II ESA Results .................................................................... 3 3.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions ......................................................... 3 3.2 Soil Analyses ....................................................................................... 3 3.3 Soils Interpretation ............................................................................... 6 3.4 Groundwater Analysis .......................................................................... 6 3.5 Groundwater Interpretation .................................................................. 9 3.5.1 Petroleum Impacts ..................................................................... 9 3.5.2 Non-Petroleum Impacts .............................................................. 9 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 10 5.0 General Qualifications ...................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX R689B004.DOC Page 1 of 1 FLEISINGER From: Dean, John B. <jdean~Kennedy-Graven.com> To: Fran Clark (E-mail) <fleisinger~msn.com>; Pat Meisel (E-mail) <pat~meiselwoodhobby.com> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:44 AM Subject: Special HRA Meeting I just heazd from Bill Tepley at STS. He says that he will not have the final report ready until sometime tomorrow. I told him that we absolutly needed it by no later than noon tomorrow in order to have it reviewed and available for the HRA tomorrow night. He is not sure that he can meet that deadline, but will try. I am not sure that we need to meet tonight. Please let me know if you think otherwise. 12/06/1999 MEMORANDUM November 29, 1999 TO: Fran Clark and Pat Meisel SUBJECT: Balboa Status Report. On Friday we received a more detailed geotechnical report on the site. I have messengered that report to John Cameron and asked for his comments. I called STS this morning to inquire about the status of the other reports, but have not heard back from them. Consequently, I do not know at this point whether we will be ready to meet this evening. I will messenger a copy of the STS geotechnical report to Fran. It might be a good idea to distribute copies to the HRA Board We should probably decide later this afternoon what to do about the meeting scheduled for tonight. John November 30, 1999 Ms. Corrine H. Thomson, Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment -Former Metro West Service Station at 5377 Shoreline Drive and Adjoining Parcel in Mound, Minnesota; STS Project 97589-XB Dear Ms. Thomson: STS Consultants, Ltd. (STS) has completed the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) associated with the above-referenced site. This report provides a summary of site investigation activities and the results of the Phase II ESA. Copies of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation were forwarded to you with our report dated November 24, 1999. The results of the Phase II ESA identified petroleum impacts to soil and groundwater in the area of the former Metro West Service Station. The petroleum impacts appear to be associated with operation of the former service station. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will require an investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of the petroleum impacts identified. Additionally, petroleum and non- petroleum impacts were identified in several soil and groundwater samples obtained at the site. The source of these impacts is unknown; however, may be associated with the former "Lost Lake Dump" site. Details of the Phase II ESA and our recommendations are included in the body of this report. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please feel free to contact us at 612/315-6300. Sincerely, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. William B. Tepley Robert L. DeGroot, PG PE Senior Project Manager Principal Engineer WBT/dn Encs. C689B004.DOC 10900 73'~ Avenue North, Suite 150 • Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547.612-315-6300 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Backgound ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 Subsurface Exploration .................................................................................... 2 3.0 Preliminary Phase II ESA Results .................................................................... 3 3.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions ......................................................... 3 3.2 Soil Analyses ....................................................................................... 3 3.3 Soils Interpretation ............................................................................... 6 3.4 Groundwater Analysis .......................................................................... 6 3.5 Groundwater Interpretation .................................................................. 9 3.5.1 Petroleum Impacts ..................................................................... 9 3.5.2 Non-Petroleum Impacts .............................................................. 9 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 10 5.0 General Qualifications ...................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX R689B004.DOC Phase II Environmental Site Assessment - Former Metro West Service Station and Adjoining Parcel 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The City of Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is considering purchasing the property located at 5377 Shoreline Drive and adjoining parcel for redevelopment. The adjoining property is located immediately to the west of an existing SuperAmerica gas station. The property consists of two parcels of land which are void of any structures or improvements. The Area Map of the site is shown on Figure 1, attached. STS completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the subject property. The Phase I ESA identified several items of concern which may affect the HRA decision regarding purchase of the property. These items include: • Environmental issues associated with the adjoining former Tonka Toys manufacturing facility, • Environmental issues associated with the Lost Lake dump, • Environmental issues associated with the former "Metro West" service station, and • Building construction issues associated with anticipated organic soils at the site. The two parcels appear to be down-gradient (direction southwest) of the former Tonka Toys facility based on review of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) files. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered retained STS to conduct a Phase II ESA and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the property to explore the items of concern identified. The scope of work was defined in a letter to Ms. Corrine Thomson, Attorney for Kennedy & Graven dated November 5, 1999. Outlined below is a description of the work completed and our preliminary recommendations for the site. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION STS completed six soil borings (B-1 through B-6) on the property on November 10 and 11, 1999. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to a depth of 26.5 feet below grade and borings B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 were drilled to depths of 36.5 to 41.5 feet. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Soil samples retrieved from the borings were screened with a MicroTII' photoionization detector (PID) for the presence of volatile organic compounds. The samples were screened following curcent MPCA guidelines for soil sample screening. Soil and groundwater samples were also obtained from the borings as outlined in STS' scope of work. Methods for completing the field investigation work are included in the Appendix. Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of approximately 3 feet in the initial boring completed on the former "Metro West" service station adjacent to B-1. STS was not able to determine the presence of underground storage tank(s) in this area with a magnetometer and recommended that backhoe test pits be completed. Authorization to conduct backhoe exploration was received from Ms. Corrine Thomson of Kennedy & Graven on November 12, 1999. On November 17, 1999, an environmental geologist of STS observed Stevens Drilling and Environmental Services (a subcontractor) dig several test pits in the area of the former service station, including where STS' drill rig encountered auger refusal. No underground storage tanks were identified by the backhoe exploration work at the locations examined. The auger refusal was due to abandoned underground piping associated with the former USTs. -2- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.0 PRELIMINARY PHASE II ESA RESULTS 3.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations generally consisted of 4.5 to 14.5 feet of partly organic silty clay or silty clay fill underlain by peat soils which extended to depths of 10 to 19.5 feet below grade. The peat thickness was greatest in boring B-5 located in the southwest corner of the property. Underlying the peat, soft to very stiff silty clays were generally encountered in the borings. Layers of sand were observed in the silty clays in borings B-4 and B- 6. In boring B-3, the peat was underlain by very loose silts and sands followed by stiff to very stiff silty clay soils. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from 7 to 12 feet. 3.2 Soil Analyses Selected samples from borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-5 were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and diesel range organics (DRO). A sample from boring B-5 was also analyzed for pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sample analysis was targeted for specific compounds required by the MPCA for a Phase II dump assessment. The results of the laboratory analysis of soil samples are summarized in Table 1 below. The soil concentrations were compared to MPCA draft Soil Reference Values (SRNs) and draft Soil Leaching Values (SLVs). The Tier 1 SRNs are guidance values used to screen for direct contact of compounds to humans. The Tier 1 SLVs are guidance values used to screen for potential groundwater impacts from leaching of identified compounds through soil to groundwater. -3- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 1 Soil Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in mg/kg `: Coro ougd P .....::; ~t4...: #8 _ _ S~5 ___ ~ #3 SLR?` .: SRV Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 VOCs b 8260 acetone < < < < < 0.7 2500 benzene 2.9 < < < < 0.034 1.5 2-chlorotoluene < < < < < NE 436 cis-1 2- dichloroethene < < < < < 0.14 320 eth bbenzene 23 < < < < 4.7 190 iso ro 1-benzene 3.2 < < < < 18 135 n-bu bbenzene 4.7 < < < < NE 160 sec-butylbenzene 1.7 < < < < NE 150 -iso ro ltoluene 2.6 < < < < NE NE 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene < 0.012 J 0.012 < < 0.31 230 Naphthalene 5.2 0.022 0.021 0.023' 0.086 7.5 2 n- ro lbenzene 12 < < < < - 135 toluene 12 < < < < 6.4 145 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 71 0.017 J < < 0.018 NE 9 1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 23 0.012 < < < NE 4 o-x lene 32 < < < < 45 122 m & x lene 88 < < < < 45 122 Methylene Chloride 1.1 a < 0.044 0.015 < 0.07 90 Pesticides, EPA 8081 - - - - < varies varies Herbicides, MDH List 1 - - - - < varies varies VOC -Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound ND =Not Detected NE =Not Established SRV = Soil Reference Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. SLV = Soil Leaching Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. Bold =exceeds SRV and/or SLV < =less than laboratory limit of detection ' =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -4- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 1-Continued Soil Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in mg/kg Ct~mpvund S#4. >;...5#$ >:.. S#~ ;: B ~ ;:; S#3 S1~`~` .........,,,.: SRV .... Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 PCBs b 8280 Arochlor 1016 - - - - <0.110 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1221 - - - - <0.062 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1232 - - - - <0.049 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1242 - - - - <0.066 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1248 - - - - <0.034 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1254 - - - - 0.103 1.2 0.6 Arochlor 1260 - - - - <0.015 1.2 0.6 Metals Arsenic - - - - 3.88 14.6 12 Cadmium - - - - <0.22 3.0 26 Chromium 5.11 19.1 CrVI 66 (CrVI) Lead - - - - 12.1 NA 400 Mercu - - - - 0.0648 1.0 3 Selenium - - - - <0.802 1.5 174 Barium - - - - 38.0 822 2300 Silver - - - - <0.22 2.5 174 GRO - - - - - NE NE DRO 304 S,gg <6.08 <5.92 251 NE NE VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound ND =Not Detected NE =Not Established SRV = Soil Reference Value -Draft Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. SLV = Soil Leaching Value -Drag Risk-Based Site Evaluation Manual, Tier 1 Conceptual Model, MPCA Site Response Section, 1997. Bold =exceeds SRV and/or SLV < =less than laboratory limit of detection J =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -5- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.3 Soils Interpretation Benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, m & p xylene and methylene chloride were identified in sample B-4, S#4 at concentrations which exceeded the SLV and/or SRN. Several other VOC compounds were identified in the samples, but at concentrations below the SLV/SRNs. PCBs (Arochlor 1254) were reported at a concentration of 0.103 mg/kg (parts per million) in sample B-5, S#3. The laboratory results identified DRO in samples B-1, S#4 and B-5, S#3 at concentrations of 304 mg/kg and 251 mg/kg, respectively. No concentrations of pesticides or herbicides were reported in sample B-5, S#3. Several VOC compounds were also reported below the laboratory limit of detection but above the laboratory quantitation limits. 3.4 Groundwater Analysis Groundwater samples from all the soil borings were analyzed for VOCs, gasoline and diesel range organics (GRO/DRO). The DRO sample from boring B-4 was broken during shipping to the laboratory. VOC analysis could possibly identify some solvents which may have been disposed of in the Lost Lake Dump site (based on the Phase I ESA report) and select petroleum related compounds. A water sample from boring B-5 was also analyzed for PCBs, metals (As, Ba, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se), herbicides (1VIDA list 1), pesticides by EPA method 8081, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These parameters were targeted based on the MPCA VIC guidance documents for a dump assessment. Boring B-5 is anticipated to be the boring closest to the former Lost Lake dump, based on the aerial photography interpretation from the Phase I ESA work. -6- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Analysis results from the fixed base laboratory are summarized in Table 2 below. The results were compared to Health Risk Limit (HRL) concentrations set by the Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500). Table 2 Groundwater Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in µg/L Cox~rpound B-1 B»2! B-3 B-4 B-S ! B»6 ~~ HRL Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 VOCs b 8260 acetone <100 <5 <5 <5 11.2 5.14 <5 700 benzene 1450 <0.15 <0.15 0.18 0.896 <0.15 <0.15 10 2-chlorotoluene <3 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.273 <0.15 <0.15 NE cis-1 2- dichloroethene <3 0.318 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NE eth lbenzene 54.8 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.188 <0.15 <0.15 700 iso ro 1-benzene 10.0 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.151 <0.15 <0.15 300 Meth 1 eth 1 ketone <14 <0.7 <0.7 <0.7 1.82 1.12 <0.7 4000 Meth 1 iso-bu 1 ketone 9.30 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.82 <0.4 <0.4 300 Na hthalene <16 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 0.908 <0.8 <0.8 300 n- ro bbenzene 39.8 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.328 <0.15 <0.15 NE toluene 20.1 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.892 <0.4 <0.4 1000 1,2,4 Trimeth lbenzene 112 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.96 <0.4 <0.4 NE 1,3,5 Trimeth lbenzene 32.3 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.897 <0.15 <0.15 NE 0-x lene 23.2 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 0.393 <0.15 <0.15 10000 m & P x lene 214 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.756 <0.4 <0.4 10000 Dichlorodifluoromethane <3 <0.15 <0/ 15 <0.15 1.26 <0.15 <0.15 1000 Chloromethane <3.4 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.254 NE Pesticides. EPA 8081 - - - - < - - varies Herbicides, MDH List 1 - - - - < - - varies VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound * - RAL =MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limit Bold =Exceeds HRL HRL =Health Risk Limit for Drinking Water -Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500) J =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -7- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Table 2 -Continued Groundwater Sampling Laboratory Test Results Mound Phase II ESA (Partial Listing) Concentrations in µg/L Comlwund ... B-1 8-2 B-3 ; B-4 B ~~ :.::. B-6, .. Trip Blank .:; HRL, Date Sam led 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/10/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 11/11/99 PAHs b 8270 - - - - < - - varies PCBs b 8082 Arochlor 1016 - - - - <0.466 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1221 - - - - <0.566 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1232 - - - - <0.193 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1242 - - - - 2.74 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1248 - - - - <0.2 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1254 - - - - 1.21 - - 0.04 Arochlor 1260 - - - - <0.2 - - 0.04 Metals Arsenic - - - - 4.1 - - 0.2 Cadmium - - - - 4.63 - - 4 Lead - - - - 4,180 - - 20* Mercury - - - - <0.13 - - 2 Selenium - - - - <3 - - 30 Barium - - - - 1,350 - - 2000 Nickel - - - - 16 - - 100 GRO 4,030 <50 <50 <50 52.4 <50 <50 NE DRO 2,830 190 254 - 6,070 437 - NE VOC- Volatile Organic Compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organics PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons GRO -Gasoline Range Organics PCBs -Polychlorinated biphenyls - =Not Analyzed for this compound * - RAL = MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limit Bold =Exceeds HRL HRL =Health Risk Limit for Drinking Water -Minnesota Department of Health (Minnesota Rules 4717.7500) ' =result is an estimated concentration (CLP-J-Flag), see laboratory report. -8- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 3.5 Groundwater Interpretation 3.5.1 Petroleum I facts Groundwater impacts from petroleum related compounds were identified above the HRLs in one boring (B-1) located in the northwest corner of the property on the former Metro West service station parcel. The HRL for benzene of 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) was exceeded in the water sample obtained from B-1 (1,450 µg/L). Petroleum related compounds were also identified in several other borings but at concentrations below the HRLs. DRO and/or GRO impacts were identified in all of the borings. The highest DRO/GRO impacts were reported in water samples from borings B-1 and B-5. 3.5.2 Non-Petroleum Impacts The water sample analyzed from B-5 had no detects of PAHs or pesticides or herbicides. Several heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium and lead were identified in the water sample at concentrations which exceeded the MDH Recommended Allowable Drinking Water Limits (RAL) or the HRLs. PCBs (Arochlor 1242 and 1254) were detected in the water sample from B-5 at concentrations of 2.74 µg/L and 1.21 µg/L, respectively. The HRL for PCBs is 0.04 µg/L. The heavy metal and PCB exceedances may not be representative of the actual conditions at that location due to sediment in the water sample. Heavy metals/PCBs sorb to sediments. Non- petroleum VOCs were also identified in water samples obtained from several of the borings but at concentrations below the HRLs. -9- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The former Metro West service station is the likely source of the petroleum impacts observed in boring B-1. The soil conditions indicate that the impacted unit is likely a resource aquifer. A Remedial Investigation (RI) is required by the MPCA where a resource aquifer has been impacted above the HRLs. The RI must identify the extent and magnitude of impacts to both soil and groundwater. Monitoring wells must be installed to define the magnitude and extent of the release and the stability of the plume. Natural biodegradation action must be determined. The results of the RI will determine whether active cleanup, groundwater monitoring or site closure is appropriate for this petroleum release site. Minnesota state law specifies tank owners and/or operators are responsible for cleanup of pollution caused by release(s) from tank systems. The State's Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Fund (Petrofund) can provide partial reimbursement to owners and/or operators for investigation and cleanup of a tank release determined to be adequate by the MPCA. A "Volunteer" may also qualify to be eligible for Petrofund investigation and cleanup costs associated with a tank release under certain conditions. Non-petroleum impacts were also identified in soil and/or groundwater samples obtained from the site. The source of the impacts are unknown, but may be associated with the former Lost Lake Dump. HRL exceedances were noted for PCBs and several metals. The extent of PCB and metals impacts is unknown. The project site could be entered into the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program to obtain a "No Association" and possibly a "No Action" letter for the identified non-petroleum releases. The VIC program can provide liability protection for non-responsible parties who voluntarily investigate and cleanup a site. -10- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB 5.0 GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS The analysis and recommendations in this report are based on data included herein. The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar conditions. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of this report is limited to the specific project and location described herein and our description of the project represents our understanding of significant aspects in reference to the site. -11- APPENDIX Figure 1-Area Location Diagram Figure 2 -Soil Boring Location Diagram Methods Soil Boring Logs (B-1 through B-6) Laboratory Test Reports • US Filter • Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories • Northern Lake Service, Inc. METHODS Soil Samaling Soil and goundwater samples were obtained using a truck mounted D-50 drill rig. Soil samples were obtained using hollow stem augers and the split-barrel sampling procedure in general conformance with ASTM Specification D-1586, "Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils". The sampling equipment was decontaminated in Alconox wash with subsequent rinse with deionized water between samplings. Soil Screenin Selected soil samples from the probes were screened for the presence of volatile organic compounds using a MicroTIP photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp calibrated to a benzene reference gas. Soil samples were placed in new quart size polyethylene freezer bags filled approximately halfway. Samples were broken up and head space allowed to develop. The probe of the PID was inserted into the bag and a reading of VOCs in the head space of the sample was obtained. The head space readings were recorded as PID meter units on the soil logs found in the Appendix. Samule Descriations Soil texture was described using the Unified Soil Classification System based on field observations of the soil samples. Thickness of various soil layers was determined from observation of the soil probe cores. Notes of sample recovery, PID readings and other observations are included on the soil logs. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB Groundwater Sampling Groundwater samples were obtained through temporary dedicated PVC monitoring wells placed in each of the completed borings. Groundwater samples were obtained from the temporary PVC monitoring wells using 1/4 inch inside diameter plastic tubing and a suction device. Each temporary monitoring well was purged prior to sampling. Laboratory Analyses Laboratory analyses were performed by United States Filter Corporation (iJS Filter). US Filter subcontracted Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories to complete the herbicide analysis (MDH List 1) on the soil and groundwater samples. The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis for soil samples was subcontracted to Northern Lake Service, Inc. The laboratory reports aze included in the Appendix. Data Oualitv Objectives The samples analyzed by the laboratory were received by the laboratories on ice and in an acceptable condition. Reported concentrations of certain VOCs were "J-flagged" indicating results below the Reporting Limit were estimated concentrations. The laboratory method blanks were free of target analyses at detectable levels. The associated batch quality assuranceJquality control (QA/QC) criteria were met with satisfaction. Probe Hole Locations A stadia survey was performed to determine the elevations of the borings. Elevations of the borings are reported to the nearest 1/10 foot on the soil boring logs. An assumed benchmark -2- Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB elevation of 100.0 feet for the top nut of the fire hydrant located on the north side of Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the site was utilized for determining boring elevations. The borings were laid out by measuring from the existing roadways. -3- MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Meisel, Chair Fran Clark, Executive Director FROM: John B. Dean DATE: August 12, 1999 RE: BalboalMaxwell Purchase Agreement I finally heard from the seller's attorney this morning regarding our proposed purchase agreement. He expressed two primary objections: 1. They intend the purchase price to be "net" of special assessments. 2. Rather than list the various contingencies, they simply want the HRA to have the right to terminate the agreement at its option within 90 days following execution. The first point may or may not be a problem depending on whether or not there are levied specials. Seller's attorney is checking. Fran, perhaps you can check as well. I don't think that the second point will be a problem either as long as the time frame is sufficiently long for us to make sure that we can satisfy all of our preconditions. Seller's attorney will be sending me his written comments in the next day or so. There may be more issues when I see those comments. The bottom line is that these matters can probably be resolved; and the time delay necessary to resolve them is probably in our favor. The attorney mentioned that his client was willing to delay closing into next year. Once the changes have been worked out between seller's attorney and myself, it will probably be necessary (depending on the changes) to bring the matter back to the HItA for final action. JBD-167330 MU195-2 PURCHASE AGREEMENT Final Mound, Minnesota 199 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, having its principal place of business at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota 55364 ("BUYER"), hereby agrees to the purchase of property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A. ("Property")from the undersigned BALBOA CENTER LIlVIITED PARTNERSHIP,, a Limited Partnership under the laws of the state of having its principal office at 4600 Westburry Drive Colleyville, TX, 76034("SELLER"), said SELLER agreeing to sell such Property to BUYER for the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) which BUYER agrees to pay in the following manner: Payment in full at the time of closing. THE CONDTITONS AND TERMS OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by BUYER, SELLER agrees to execute and deliver at the time of closing a warranty deed conveying marketable title to said Property, subject only to the following exceptions: (a) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; 2. POSSESSION-CONDITION SELLER agrees to deliver possession not later than the date of closing. 3. COSTS AND PRO RATIONS: SELLER and BUYER agree to the following pro rations and allocations of costs regarding this Agreement: a. Deed Tax. SELLER shall pay all state deed tax regarding a Warranty Deed and any other documents necessary to place record title in the condition warranted and to be delivered by SELLER under this Agreement. b. Taxes and Assessments. SELLER shall pay all real estate taxes due and payable in the years prior to the year of closing together with all penalties and interest thereon. Real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing will be prorated as of the date of closing. SELLER shall pay all special assessments due and payable and levied as of the date of closing. BUYER shall pay all special assessments levied on said Property after the date of closing. JBD-166726 1 MU195-2 SELLER makes no representation or warranty whatsoever concerning the amount of real estate taxes or assessments which shall be assessed or levied against the Property subsequent to the date of this Purchase Agreement. c. Recording Costs. SELLER shall pay the costs of recording all documents necessary to place record title in the condition warranted, and those recording costs necessary to place title in the SELLER. The BUYER shall pay the cost of recording all other documents. d. Closing Costs. Each party shall be responsible for its own closing costs. 4. SUBDIVISION OF LAND/LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO PROPERTY: If this sale constitutes or requires a subdivision of land owned by SELLER, SELLER shall pay all subdivision expenses and obtain all necessary governmental approvals. SELLER warrants that the legal description of the real property to be conveyed has been or will be approved for recording as of the date of closing. Both parties understand that all real estate taxes due and payable in the yeaz of closing will need to be paid as stated below at closing in order for a parcel or subdivision or lot split to be recorded. 5. TITLE: SELLER agrees and warrants that the BUYER shall receive "marketable title" at the time of transfer of the Property from SELLER to BUYER. Within a reasonable time after acceptance of this Purchase Agreement, SELLER shall fi~rnish to BUYER an abstract of title or registered property abstract, certified to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, state and federal judgment and liens and levied and pending special assessments. Buyer shall have 30 business days after receipt of the abstract to examine the same and to deliver written objections to title, if any, to SELLER. SELLER shall then have until the closing date to make title marketable at SELLER's cost. In the event that title to the Property cannot be made marketable, or is not made marketable to the SELLER by the closing date, then, at the option of the BUYER, this Agreement shall be null and void; neither party shall be liable to the other; any earnest money will be refunded, and the parties agree to sign a cancellation of this Agreement 6. DEFAULT: If the title to the Premises be found marketable or be so made within said time, and BUYER shall default in any of the covenants contained in this Agreement and continue into default for a period of thirty days, then and in that case, SELLER may terminate this Agreement, time being of the essence hereof. Either party shall have the right of enforcing the specific performance of this Agreement provided this Agreement shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. 7. CONTINGENCIES: This Purchase Agreement is subject to the following contingencies: a. Environmental. BUYER shall have 60 days from the date of this agreement to inspect the Property and to prepare or cause to have prepared all at BUYER's sole expense, such reports and studies as may in the BUYER"s judgment be necessary to determine whether the Property is free of contamination or pollution. BUYER may terminate this agreement if it is not satisfied that the Property is free of such pollution or contamination. JBD-166726 2 MU195-2 b. Soils. BUYER shall have 60 days from the date of this agreement to inspect the Property and to cause to have prepared such reports and studies as may in BUYER's judgment be necessary that the condition of the soils is such as to permit the use of the Property for its intended purpose. The BUYER may terminate this ageement if it is not so satisfied. c. Taz Increment District. It is a precondition to the BUYER's obligation to purchase the Property that a tax increment district be established which includes the Property. d. Financing It is a precondition to the BUYER's obligation to purchase the Property that the BUYER has been able to satisfy the legal requirements for the sale and issuance of tax increment obligations to pay the purchase price. BUYER shall have no obligation to proceed with the purchase if such financing is not available to finance the entire purchase price. e. Survey. BUYER is satisfied as the result of a survey of the Property prepazed at BUYER's expense that there aze no gaps, gores or overlaps or other matters disclosed by such survey which would impact upon the intended development of the Property. f. Comprehensive Plan: Closing shall not take place until the procedure procvided for in Nfinn. Stat. Section 462.356 has been completed. To assist the Buyer in the investigations described above, SELLER hereby gants to BUYER, its agents and designated representatives the right to enter upon the Property at reasonable times and from time to time after the date of this Ageement for the purposes of inspecting the Property. 8. WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM DISCLOSURE: The SELLER certifies that SELLER does not know of any wells on the described real Property. Provided however, if the Property does contain wells, the cost of sealing any wells required to be capped or sealed under Nfinnesota law will be borne by the SELLER. If the well is not sealed by the date of closing, SELLER shall escrow a sum equal to two times the bid price from a licensed well sealing contractor to complete the sealing process. SELLER shall prepare, execute and file any required well certificate at or before closing. If the Property has a septic system, SELLER agrees to provide water quality test results and/or septic system certification as required by state law or local ordinance. 8.1 LEAD BASED PAINT DISCLOSURE. BUYER acknowledges the receipt of a lead based paint disclosure on the attached Exhibit B. 9. OTHER GENERAL AND SPECIAL WARRANTIES: a. Right of Access: SELLER warrants that there is a right of access to the Property from a public right of way. b. Mechanic's Liens: SELLER warrants that, prior to the closing date, SELLER has made any and all payments in full for all labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing date in connection with JBD-166726 3 MU195-2 construction, alteration or repair of any structure on or improvement (including, but not limited to grading and landscaping, etc.) to the Property, if any. c. Removal of Debris: SELLER agrees to remove all debris and all personal property from the Property by date BUYER takes possession of the Property. d. Notices: SELLER warrants that SELLER has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance, or regulation. ff the Property is subject to restrictive covenants, SELLER warrants that SELLER has not received any notice from any person or authority as to a breach of the covenants. Any notices received by SELLER shall be provided to BUYER immediately. e. ENVIRONMENTAL WARRANTY: SELLER warrants that to the best of the SELLER'S knowledge no toxic or hazardous substances, including, without limitation, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyl, and any substance as defined or listed as "hazardous materials" or "toxic substances" or similarly identified in or pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601-9657, as now or later amended, "hazardous materials" identified in or pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1802, et seq., as now or later amended, "Hazardous Wastes" identified in or pursuant to The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq., as now or later amended, any chemical substances or mixture regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq., as now or later amended, any "toxic pollutant" under the Cleaz Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., as now or later amended, any hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7901 et seq., as now or later amended, and any hazardous or toxic substance or pollutant now or later regulated under any other applicable federal, state or local Environmental Laws, have been generated, treated, stored, released or disposed of, or otherwise deposited in or located on the Property, including without limitation, the surface and sub-surface waters of the Property, nor has any activity been undertaken on the Property which would cause the Property to become a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility within the meaning of, or otherwise, bring the Property within the ambit of, any of the aforementioned acts or any similar state law or local ordinance or any other Environmental Law. SELLER also warrants that to the best of SELLER's knowledge there are no substances or conditions in or on the Property which may support a claim or cause of action under any of the aforementioned acts or any ther federal, state or local environmental regulatory requirement and that no underground deposits which cause hazazdous wastes or underground storage tanks of any type are located on the Property. 11. SURVIVAL OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES: All of the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties hereto contained in this agreement shall survive the closing of the transaction contemplated herein and the delivery of any documents provided for herein and shall not be merged into any other agreement. 12. RISK OF LOSS If the Property is substantially damaged before the closing date so as to make its use for the intended purposes significantly more costly, this Purchase Agreement shall JBD-166726 q MU195-2 become null and void, at the BUYER's option. If such an event occurs, BUYER and SELLER agree to sign a Cancellation of Purchase Agreement within a reasonable time after such event takes place. 13. TIlVIE OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence in this Purchase Ageement. 14. CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: Closing shall take place at any location which is mutually acceptable to the parties. Closing shall occur not later than 4S days after all of the preconditions to closing have been satisfied or waived. Unless extended by the mutual agreement of the parties, this ageement shall be null and void if the closing has not taken place by December 31, 1999. 15. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS: BUYER and SELLER agree to cooperate with the other and their representatives regarding any reasonable requests made subsequent to the execution of this Purchase Agreement to correct any clerical errors in this Purchase Agreement and to provide any and all additional documentation deemed necessary by either party to effectuate the transaction contemplated by this Purchase Agreement. 16. NOTICES: Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with the Agreement if it is directed to the SELLER by delivering it personally to the SELLER; or if it is directed to the BUYER, by delivering it personally to an officer of the BUYER; or to either party if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or if transmitted to either party by facsimile, copy followed by mailed notice as above required; or if deposited by either party, cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed as follows: IF TO THE SELLER: Balboa Center Limited Partnership C/o CK Development Company 4600 Westbury Drive Colleyville, Texas 76034 ATTN: Gary N. Maxwell IF TO THE BUYER: Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota SS364 ATTN: Executive Director and City Manager AND COPY TO: John B. Dean KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Muineapolis, Minnesota SS402 JBD-166726 5 MU195-2 Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as aforesaid; provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, that the time for the response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one (1) business day after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, or in any manner above specified, ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such change. 17. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS: This Purchase Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the parties hereto. 18. EN7TRE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed by the parties shall constitute the entire ageement between SELLER and BUYER, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between SELLER and BUYER. This Purchase Agreement can only be modified in writing signed by SELLER and BUYER. 19. NOTICE: The attached notice is made a part of the Authority's offer to purchase. The undersigned, do hereby approve the above Agreement and the sale thereby made. Date: SELLER: BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: CK Development Company Its General Partner By: Gary N. Maxwell Its Vice-President JBD-166726 6 MU195-2 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND By: Its Chair By: Its Executive Director This instrument was drafted by: R:ENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (JBD) 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street 1Vrnneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612-337-9300 JBD-166726 7 MU195-2 NOTICE TO BALBOA CENTER T.iMiTF.D PARTNERSHIP You are hereby notified as follows: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound ("HRA") is a legal entity organized and operating in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 2. Among the powers conferred upon the HRA is the power of eminent domain. 3. The parcel of land which is the subject of the attached purchase agreement is located within the area of the City of Mound which the HItA has designated as a Redevelopment Project Area. 4. It is the intention of the HRA to acquire the subject property and to make it available for redevelopment. 5. In the event that the HRA and the owner are unable to reach mutually acceptable terms concerning the purchase of the subject property, is is the present intention of the HRA to take the steps necessary, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, acquire the subject property through the exercise of its power of eminent domain. JBD-166726 8 MU195-2 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street ~ Minneapolis MN_ 55402 '• (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax C H A R T E R E D http://www.kennedy-graven.com .JOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 email: jdean@kennedy-graven.com August 11, 1999 Mr. Paul Moe Faegre & Benson 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Balboa Center Limited Partnership Dear Mr. Moe: The Purchase Agreement between the above parties in the form enclosed herewith was approved last night by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound. I am in the process of having the Buyer execute multiple copies and will be forwarding them to you shortly. In the interim, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Respectfully yours, ~~ ohn B. Dean ~"~5~./ Enclosures cc: Bud Storm (w/encl) Bruce Chamberlain (w/encl) Fran Clazk (without encl) JBD-16.72ti6 M U 195-2 .. ~ R E P 0 R T Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 ~, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for 5377 Shoreline Drive in Mound, .Minnesota Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 5377 Shoreline Drive Mound, Minnesota 97589-XB November 24,1999 '..~ ~-- ~~ ` • ~ 1~ November 24, 1999 STS Consultants, Ltd. Solutions through Science & Engineering Ms. Corrine H. Thomson, Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for 5377 Shoreline Drive in Mound, Minnesota; STS Project 97589-XB Deaz Ms. Thomson: Pursuant to your request, we have completed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project. Our scope of work for this project was outlined in our proposal dated November 5, 1999. This report presents the results of the preliminary geotechnical evaluation only. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report will be submitted sepazately. INTRODUCTION The City of Mound is considering purchase of the project site for redevelopment. A preliminary geotechnical evaluation was requested to be performed in conjunction with the Phase II ESA. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to explore and preliminarily evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions with respect to building and pavement support. EXPLORATION PROGRAM Six soil borings were drilled at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 1 in the Appendix. STS laid out the borings in the field by taping from existing site features, and determined ground surface elevations relative to assumed elevation 100.0 feet for the top nut of the fire hydrant located on the north side of Shoreline Boulevazd adjacent to the site. The borings were drilled to depths of 26.5 to 41.5 feet below the existing ground surface using hollow stem augers and the split-barrel sampling procedure in general conformance with ASTM Specification D-1586, "Standazd Method of Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". The right hand columns of the boring logs include SPT N-values, unconfined compressive strengths for cohesive soil samples as estimated using a hand penetrometer, and photoionization detector (PID) readings obtained while screening samples in the field for the presence of volatile organic compounds. Groundwater levels measured during the drilling operations aze reported in the lower left corner of the boring logs. The profile soils are classified and described in accordance with the enclosed "Unified Soil Classification System" and "General 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 . Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547. (612) 315-6300. (612) 315-1836 Fax C Kennedy & Graven, Chartered STS Project 97589-XB November 24, 1999 Page 2 Notes" sheets. Other enclosures describing drilling and sampling procedures in further detail are also included in the Appendix. The generalized soil conditions at the project site consist of fill overlying post-glacial organic mazsh deposits overlying glacial till and outwash. The fill generally consists of non-organic sandy clay and silty sand containing varying quantities of concrete rubble, although the lower portion of the fill did include mixed organics in borings B-5 and B-6. A 6 inch concrete slab was encountered underlying the fill at a nominal depth of 8 feet in boring B-1. The fill is underlain by organic mazsh deposits that extended to depths ranging from 10 feet below the surface in B-2 to 19.5 feet in B-5. These marsh deposits consist of peat and organic clay with occasional layers of non-organic clay or silt. The marsh deposits appear to have been strengthened somewhat by consolidation under the weight of the overlying fill. The glacial deposits underlying the fill and marsh deposits include a combination of stiff to very stiff sandy clay till and loose to medium dense sand outwash, although the sand layers were absent in borings B-1, B-2 and B-5. Boring B-3 also included layers of very loose silt and silty fine sand between a depth of about 15 and 25 feet. Water was measured at depths ranging from 7.7 feet below the surface in boring B-5 to 13 feet in B-3. These water levels may not be representative of the actual groundwater table elevation due to the brief duration of the field work. Piezometers would need to be installed and monitored over time to more accurately define the groundwater table elevation. Long-term groundwater conditions will fluctuate due to variations in the amount of precipitation, surface runoff and infiltration. A summary of the soil/groundwater conditions encountered at the boring locations is given below: Ground Bottom of Fill Bottom of Organics Groundwater Boring Elev. ft. De th ft. Elev. ft. De th ft. Elev. ft. De th ft. Elev. ft. B-1 98.0 8.0 90.0 14.5 83.5 8.8 89.2 B-2 97.5 7.0 90.5 10.0 87.5 12.1 85.4 B-3 99.0 4.5 94.5 14.5 84.5 13.0 86.0 B-4 98.6 4.0 94.6 14.5 84.1 12.0 86.6 B-5 98.3 14.5 83.8 19.5 78.8 7.7 90.6 B-6 97.2 7.5 89.7 14.5 82.7 11.7 85.5 ~~ Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ~ STS Project 97589-XB November 24, 1999 Page 3 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The buried organic deposits encountered in the borings are highly compressible under the stress increases associated with imposed building loads or the placement of additional fill. The use of conventional footing foundations for building support would require that the organic deposits be completely removed from beneath the building footprint and replaced with compacted engineered fill material. Alternatively, the buildings could be supported using deep foundations such as driven piles or helical piers. A structural floor slab supported by the deep foundation system would also be required for this alternative. If the site grades are not to be raised significantly, it should be possible to support the pavements on the existing fill soils without the need for extensive soil corrections, although some long-term pavement settlements should be anticipated due to secondary consolidation of the buried organic deposits. The magnitude of such settlements will be dependent on the amount of additional fill material that is placed. Preliminary foundation and pavement support recommendations are presented in the following sections. Spread Footing Foundations The existing fill and buried organic marsh deposits must be completely excavated and replaced with compacted engineered backfill to provide adequate support for conventional spread footing foundations. Estimated excavation depths/excavations for removal of the unsuitable soils would be as tabulated previously for the "Bottom of Organics" at the boring locations. The excavations will need to be dewatered to permit observation of the excavation base for adequate removal of unsuitable soils and for placement of structural backfill under dry working conditions. Such dewatering can likely be accomplished using a system of trenches and sump pits pumped out using submersible pumps. Excavation side slopes on the order of 1.SH:1 V to 2.OH:1 V should be stable for short-term conditions during excavation and backfilling. The excavation should be laterally oversized beyond the outside building edges at least 5 feet plus one foot horizontally for each vertical foot of fill required below the slab-on-grade elevation. To facilitate fill placement and compaction within the anticipated wet and relatively soft excavation conditions, the replacement backfill should consist of select granular material containing less than about 8% passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve for the first 5 feet of fill placed in the excavation. Above that depth, suitable common borrow material which is free of organics, vegetation and excessive debris and rubble may be used. Based on the borings, portions of the existing fill soils on the site may be suitable to use as engineered backfill for building support. ~` Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ~ STS Project 97589-XB November 24, 1999 Page 4 However, portions of the fill are organic and contain debris and rubble that are not likely to be suitable for reuse as engineered backfill. Engineered fill material should be placed in 9 to 12 inch thick loose lifts compacted to at least 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density. The fill should be moisture conditioned to within t3% of the optimum water content to facilitate compaction to the specified density and limit the amount of post- construction fill settlement. Spread footings supported on properly selected, placed and compacted structural fill may be proportioned using a maximum, net allowable soil beazing pressure of 3,000 psf. Exterior footings and those in unheated azeas should be supported at a minimum depth of 4 feet below the exterior grade elevation to provide adequate frost protection. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet, and isolated column footings a minimum width of 3 feet, independent of bearing pressure considerations. We estimate that spread footings designed as recommended herein and supported on suitable structural fill overlying non-organic subgrade soils will undergo maximum total settlements of about 1 inch. The amount of differential settlement between comparably sized and loaded foundations should be about one-half this amount. A conventional floor slab-on-grade may be used for this building support alternative. The removaUreplacement alternative discussed herein might also require special measures related to excavation and disposal of petroleum-impacted soils, particulazly for excavations in the vicinity of boring B-1. Detailed recommendations concerning environmental considerations during soil correction operations are beyond the scope of this report. Deep Foundations The deep foundation alternatives considered appropriate for this project include driven pile foundations and helical piers. Helical piers, also referred to as screw anchors, consist of one or more helical steel plates welded to small diameter steel shafts that aze screwed through the unsuitable compressible soils to derive their support in underlying bearing strata. Atypical helical pier configuration consists of one 8, 10 and 12 inch helix installed to achieve a design load of about 10 tons per pier. For this project, we estimate that the 8-10-12 inch helix combination should attain an allowable load of 10 tons per pier for an average pier length of about 30 feet below existing grade. For higher capacity deep foundations, wood piles or concrete filled steel pipe piles should be considered. The maximum design load for wood piles is usually about 25 tons, whereas 10 to 12 Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ~~` STS Project 97589-XB November 24, 1999 Page 5 inch diameter concrete filled steel pipe piles could be used for design loads on the order of 50 to 100 tons. None of the borings for this preliminary exploration extend to the depths necessary to properly evaluate either driven wood or steel pipe pile foundations. If driven piles are to be used, deeper borings should be drilled to evaluate pile foundations once more specific design information becomes available. If the site development plan calls for replacing more than 1 or 2 feet of additional fill, it is likely that the pile capacities would need to be increased above the building design loads to account for negative skin friction due to consolidation of the organic deposits. A structural floor slab supported by the deep foundation system would also be required for this alternative. Pavement Support If the site development requires minimal placement of additional fill material, pavements constructed above the existing site soils would likely experience long-term settlements on the order of 1 or 2 inches. Flexible pavements supported on the existing clay fill soils could be designed using an estimated R-value of 10. The subgrade prepazation should include stripping surficial root mat and topsoil, and proofrolling the subgrade to check for the presence of any soft or loose zones where additional excavation is required. Engineered fill material should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given previously in this report. If more than 1 or 2 feet of new fill is required in the paved areas, long-term settlements of several inches may occur, with larger settlements for increasing fill thicknesses. The amount of post- =' construction pavement settlement can be reduced by placing the new fill eazly in the construction sequence and delaying pavement construction until several months after fill placement. The amount of settlement can be further reduced by placing a surcharge fill above the proposed final grades to preconsolidate the organic subgrade soils, then removing the surchazge prior to pavement construction. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS This report has been prepared in order to aid in the preliminary evaluation of this property and to assist the owner in assessing the feasibility of site development. The scope is limited to the specific project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation chazacteristics. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are preliminary and based upon the data obtained from the soil borings at the time when performed at the specific locations indicated on the location diagram. The subsurface information obtained for this preliminary exploration may ~` Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ~ STS Project 97589-XB November 24, 1999 Page 6 not be adequate for final design of the project. Once further details of the proposed site development are known, we should be consulted for recommendations of additional exploration needed for proper evaluation of geotechnical considerations. SUMMARY We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Mound and Kennedy & Graven on this project. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any quest~aris concerning this report, or if you require further assistance in any way. Respectfully, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. ~~~ ~ M. Bruce Smith, P. . Senior Project Engineer James H. Overtoom, P.E. Principal Engineer MBS/dn Encs. C689B003.DOC STS Changed Conditions Clause ~~ DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS The following is a suggested standard clause for unanticipated subsurface conditions: The owner had a subsurface exploration and testing program performed by a geotechnical consultant. The results of this program are contained in the consultant's report. The consultant's report presents conclusions on the subsurface conditions based on their interpretation of the data obtained in the exploration. The contractor acknowledges that they have reviewed the consultant's report and any addenda thereto, and that their bid for earthwork operations is based on the subsurface conditions, as described in that report. The contract parties recognize that a subsurface exploration does not disclose all conditions as they actually exist and further, conditions may change, particularly groundwater conditions, between the time of subsurface exploration and the time of subsurface construction operations. In recognition of these facts, this clause is made part of the contract and provides a means of equitable additional compensation to the contractor if adverse unanticipated conditions aze encountered and found to be materially different than reasonably expected as represented in the contract documents. If at any time during earthwork, paving, foundation, and underground construction operations, the contractor encounters conditions that they consider to be materially different than those anticipated by the geotechnical consultant's report, contractor shall promptly and before such conditions are disturbed notify the owner's representative in writing of the condition and shall • explain: (1) how subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differ materially from those indicated in the contract, or, (2) what unknown physical conditions were encountered that are of an unusual nature and differ materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this contract. The owner's representative will promptly initiate an investigation of the alleged differing site conditions. The contractor will provide access to the conditions and fully cooperate with the investigation. Upon completion, the owner's representative will issue a findings report with a recommendation on merit. Conversely, if owner's representative observes subsurface conditions which aze different than those anticipated by the foundation consultant's report, he will also promptly notify the contractor. If a differing site condition claim has been found to have merit, negotiations will commence between the owner and the contractor to arrive at an equitable change is contract price for the necessary additional work or for reduction in work because of the unanticipated conditions. The contractor agrees that unit prices listed in the bid aze applicable in computing equitable adjustments for additional or reduced work under the contract. For changed conditions for which unit prices aze not listed, the additional work will be paid for on a time and material basis. • • LEGEND B-~ BORING LOCATIONS. • BM BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT. ASSUMED ELEV. 100.0 FT. SITE LOCATION. ~ ,' ~ / ~ \~ i ~~ ' ~ ~i~ ~ .~4•~i~ ~ / ~v ~ i ,cz, i _ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~,W~' i \ ~ ~ \ ~ o ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ , i i ~ ~ ~ ~~ BM i i ~ ~ ~ i I / , I 1 ~ I I I I 1 I ' I I i I ~ I I I 1 I J 1 CYPRESS LANE SITE DIAGRAM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM PLAT OF SURVEY FOR TONKA CORPORATION, \ IN BLOCK 4 SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT F HENNEPIN CO. BY CORDON R. COFflN DATE012/23/1968. \ 1 1 1 \ ~"~ Y '~ \ 0 30' 60' ~\ SCALE:1'=60' a SIX 4I z 0 a '~ 'w ,, a d w ~ F was `~a~° m w wxwz W ~ ~ ~ o ~ a x ~ ~ > a~A~ ew zz ~z J .Yi ~~ 97589X8 srs aea- cT~ G6898001.DWG ~- AS SHOWN ncurt 'a. 1 APPENDIX 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Changed Condition Clause Boring Location Diagram Boring Logs General Notes Unified Soil Classification Standazd Field Procedures Standazd Boring Log Procedures ASTM Specification D-1586 Subgrade Protection Guideline Subgrade Stabilization Guideline Earthwork Procedures OWNER LOG OF BORING NUMBER B_~ Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered 1 sTS ~„~„~ ~. PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT-ENGINEER Phase II ESA 8 Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota ~ a ,UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 3 4 5 LL LL ° a zr i W ~ U ~ o t + ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ > „ a Z z_ ~ o ~ z o o PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X- - - ~- - - ~ to zo ao ao so , , O w w a w d w a ~ 0 K ~~ ~ ~ w STANDARD v, w ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +98.0 Z m ~ ~ = w a o ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. ~0 20 30 40 50 Silty Gay, some sand & gravel, concrete fragments 1 ~ -brown -hard to stiff - (CL) -FILL 2 1 ~ 2 SS 3 * ' S .5 Silty clay, some sand -green gray -stiff - (CL) - , 3 SS FILL 5 Note: Petroleum odor. 28 ® * S ' 4 SS 7.5 color change to black -strop petroleum odor ?~ :*:.~;;. g.p Concrete slab Fine Fibrous peat -dark brown - (Pt) '' `` ,' 5 SS , , , 53 ~ ~ ~ ~. .~ +. .~ ~. .~ b ~ ~ i . , ~~ i ~ 4 .~ ~. i .~ ~. .~ ' ~' ~~ ~' 14.5 ~ Silty clay, little sand 8 gravel -gray -firm to very 6 ~ stiff - (CL) -Glacial till 5 2 ~ I I ~ 7 SS 13 1 ~ * n I A I I I ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ I L 7 G n ~ The 0 ~ n u _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ - ...continued ,~ ~ appro~dmete ~, 4~es ~~~ ~ types. ~ ~, ~ ~ ,~ be _ * Cat - brated STS - Pene JOB N0 I - meter 975ti9- B S - HEET N - 0. 1 F 2 OWNER LOG OF BORING NUMBER B_~ Kennedy 8 Graven, Chartered ` PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT-ENGINEER - srsco~~rwouua. Phase II ESA 8 Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION ~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 5377 Shoreline Blvd Mound Minnesota TONS/FT.2 ., , a 3 4 5 ~ ~ a 0 z PLASTIC WATER LIpU1D Z ~ ZQ F Q LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % ~ o a y Y DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ~ ~ ~-- - - ~- _ - w w ~ w ~ > „ o o to 20 3o ao 50 o w ~ ii'. ii' o ° ~ ~ w STANDARD m N O it SURFACE ELEVATION +98 0 (Continued) 2 m = w ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. . ~ ~ a o to 20 30 ao 50 8 SS Silty Gay, little sand & gravel -gray -firm to very stiff - (CL) -Glacial till 2 * 26.5 End of boring at 26.5 feet. * Cal orated Penetr meter Advanced borehole using 3 1/4" ID hollow stem augers to full depth. All samples placed in zip-closure polyethylene bags, and screened with TIP photoionization detector, equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp source and calibrated to a benzene reference. Background PID readings = 0 to 3 PID meter units. Grouted borehole with high solids bentonite grout upon completion. The stratication lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. wL 8.8 feet BORING STARTED 11/11/99 STS OFFICE Minnee 115 Area - 06 Po wL BORING COMPLET;; ENTEREO SHEET NO. OF H 1/99 ~ j 2 2 WL RIG/FOREMAN APP'O BY STS JOB NO. D-50MH WBT 97589-XB OWNER Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B_2 1 srscor,s~~~a~xa_ PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8~ Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota a ,UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT 2 3 4 5 _ o ~ a a ~ z w w ~ w ~ ~ o w t + ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ > „ ¢ a ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ o o f- PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % ~ - - ~- - - ~ io 20 3o ao so O w ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ D D ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +97.5 z ~ ~ = w a o ® PENE RA ION BLOWS/FT. ~0 20 3o ao w Partly organic silty Gay, some sand -dark brown - SS very stiff - (CL) -FILL 1 Color change to brown at 1 foot. 0 * S ' 2 SS ~ .0 1 * 2 SS Silty Gay, some sand -green gray -stiff - (CL) - with sand seams -FILL 1 3 SS 2 * S 7.0 ' Amorphous peat, trace fine sand -dark brown - SS " ` 4 ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~, ~~ ,, ."..` 10.0 ' Silty clay, little sand 8~ gravel -gray -stiff to very Stiff - (CL) -Glacial till 5 SS 1"saturated sand seams 2 . \ S Color change to brown ~ 9 6 SS 0 * Color change to gray ,' 7 SS 4 2 S ~ I ...continued * Cal braced P meter i The stratificafiorl roes roprasaM the approxNnate bolxWary Nrles helaveen soil types: in siw, gls transitlorl mey be gradual. STS JOB NO. 97589-XB SHEET NO. OF 1 2 e I OWNER LOG OF BORING NUMBER B_2 Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered 1 PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT-ENGINEER srs ~„g„~„~ ~, Phase II ESA 8~ Preliminary Geotechnical Eva ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 5377 Shoreline Blvd Mound Minnesota TONS/FT2 ., , a 3 4 5 a LL ~ 0 2 ~ PLASTIC WATER LIOUID Z ~ Z F ~ LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % ~ - - ° a N DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ng ~- - - ~ rc ~ i i= S ir ^ o o to 20 3o ao 50 o w a a a 0 ~ ~ OF V STANDARD w SURF Z _ ~ ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. N m v, ~ ACE ELEVATION +97.5 (Continued) ~ ~ a o to 20 30 40 50 Silty Gay, little sand & gravel -gray -stiff to very S SS stiff - (CL) -Glacial till g * 26.5 End of boring at 26.5 feet. * Cal brated Penetr meter Advanced borehole using 3 1!4" ID hollow stem augers to full depth. All samples placed in zip-closure polyethylene bags, and screened wkh TIP photoionization detector, equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp source and calibrated to a benzene reference. Background PID readings = 0 to 3 PID meter units. Grouted borehole with high solids bentonite grout upon completion. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition maybe gradual. WL 12.1 feet BCR BORING STARTED 11H1l99 STS OFFICE Minnea Its Area - 06 ~ wL BORING COMPLETE; ENTERE SHEET NO. OF '11~ D j 2 2 WL RIG/FOREMAN APPt) BY STS JOB NO. D~OMH WBT 97589-XB OWNER Kennedy & Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-3 1 sTSConsultarltatw. PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8c Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota a ~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.Z 3 4 e Z _~ >Q a W w J o w J dy w J w Z QN w J Y ~ ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ }~ „ a Z _Z ~ o ~ ~ O p PLASTIC WATER LIpUID LIMIT % CONTENT % lIM1T % X- - - -~- - - ~ 10 20 30 40 50 O w a 0 0 ~ w STANDARD ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +99.0 = m ~ J i w a o ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. 10 20 30 40 50 Silty clay, some sand & gravel, concrete fragments b h 1 ~ - rown - ard - (CL) -FILL 3 * 10 2 SS 3 .5 = Organic silty Gay, black -very stiff to firm - (OL) = 3 SS = 3 S = i = 4 SS = 4 - .5 '* Silty clay, some sand 8~ gravel -gray -soft - (CL) ~ 5 ~ 10.5 , Fine Fibrous peat -dark brown - (Pt) 5 SS ~, ~~ ~, - ~ r ~ 6 . . . ~, ~~ ~, S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i , ~ , 14.5 Clayey partly organic silty sand -black -saturated 6 SS ~• :. 15.5 -very loose - (SM) 3 Sift -gray -saturated -very loose - (ML) 6 ~ 6 19.5 Fine to very fine sand, little to some sift -gray - saturated -very loose - (SM) , 7 SS 2 ' ~ ~ = 24.5 .; •:. •,. I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...continued * Cal brated Pene meter The stradRcetion taxis represent the approximate holsWary Ines lxitween sal types: in situ, the Uansition may be gradual. STS JOB N087589-XB SHEET NO. , OF 2 -` OWNER Kennedy S Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B~ --- "'"' 1 srs ~„~n~ ~, PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8 Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota a ~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSJFT.2 3 4 5 ~ ~ ~ z a ~ U -a- o z ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ > " a Zoo ~ ~ o o PLASTIC WATER LIOUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X- - - •- - - ~ ~0 20 3o ao 50 o w W a W a W a ~ 0 Q ~ d U r STANDARD ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +99.0 (Continued) t ~ _°, a o ® ~ENET~TION ~ OWS~ . 8 SS Fine to very fine sand, trace sik -gray -saturated - bose - (SP) -with thin cayey sand (SC) seams 6 S ~ SS ~ t ~ 9 4 Q S ~ • ~':• 34.0 S Siky clay, little sand 8< gravel -gray -stiff to very , stiff - (CL) -Glacial till 0 SS 1 37 ~ * 11 SS 10 5 1.5 3 i 7 i i End of boring at 41.5 feet. Advanced borehole using 31/4" ID hollow stem augers to full depth. All samples placed in zip-closure polyethylene bags, and screened with TIP photoionization detector, equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp source and plibrated to a benzene reference. Background PID readings = 0 to 3 PID meter units. Grouted borehole with high solids bentonke grout upon completion. * Cal tuated Pene eter i The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. ~ WL ~ 13.0 feet BORING STARTED 11H0/99 STS OFFICE Minneapolis Area - 06 ~ WL ~ BORING COMPLETED 11/10/99 ENTERED BY DCJ SHEET NO. OF 2 2 C WL o RIGIFOREMAN DSOMH APP'0 BY tNBT STS JOB NO. 97589-XB OWNER Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B~ 1 sTS consanana ~, PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8~ Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota i ,a UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 3 4 5 F- i` a i a i~ w V F o e ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ > „ a Z _z O o S ~ o o PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X- - - •- - - ~ +o zo 3o ao 50 w W a W a W a ~ 0 p F, ~ O U F- w STANDARD w ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +98.6 z m ~ ~ = w a a ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. to 20 3o ao so Fine to coarse sand, some gravel, concrete 1 ~ fragments -brown -moist -loose - (SM) -FILL 0 S 6 2 SS 0 .0 2 SS = Organic silty Gay, black -very stiff to very soft - 0 _ (OL) ' SS = 4 3 _ 0 SS 4 = 0 * I - 9.5 ~~ 10.0 Si cla ,some sand & ravel - ra -soft - CL ` ' ` 10.5 10 feet 5" seams of Fine fibrous peat r;< 5" organic 1 si cla -dark ra - OUGH 5 ~ , , , ... ine I rous peat - a town - 0 * * , , , I ` ~ ` ,~ `,'~ I `~ ,~ `, 1 I , I I ~ ` ~ - 14.5 Silty clay, little sand & gravel -gray -very stiff - 6 SS (CL) -Glacial Till 0 * ~13 7 SS 0 21.0 * ^ 7 SS Fine to coarse sand, and gravel, trace silt -brown - 0 ^ saturated -medium dense - (S1IV) 1 ~ ~ d 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - d ti S n 7 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...continued * Cal brated Penetr meter - - C j The straliriCetlon rues the appro~dmate bourWaiy foes between aai types: in situ, Me transiBon may be gradual. c STS JOB NO. 97589-XB SHEET NO. OF 1 2 OWNER LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-4 I(` ~~ I Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered 1 PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT-ENGINEER STS ~„~„~ ~, Phase II ESA 8 Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION NED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH V 5377 Shoreline Blvd. Mound Minnesota TONS/FT , , , a a s s , s w z i ~ PLASTIC WATER LIQUID _ ~ ~ LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % ~ ~ o a y } DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -~- - - ~ ~ ~i Z w ~ w ~ w ~ } „ O p 10 20 30 40 50 o w ~ a a ~ 0 V ~ ~ G F ~ w STANDARD it i m = w ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT ~, w SURFACE ELEVATION +98.6 (Continued) ~ ~ d o . 10 20 8 SS Fine to coarse sand and gravel trace sik -brown - 3 o a o s o ' , , 6.0 saturated -medium dense - (SV1Q 0 8 SS Silty Gay, little sand & gravel -gray -stiff to very sfrff - (CL) -Glacial Till 0 S I I I 9 SS 0 '14 ,\ Flne to warse sand, little gravel, trace silt -brown 10 SS -saturated -medium dense - (SP) ~y 0 Advanced borehole using 3 114" ID hollow stem augers to full depth. All samples placed in zip-closure polyethylene bags, and screened with TIP photoionization detector, equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp source and calibrated to a benzene reference. Background PIDreadings = 0 to 3 PID meter units. Grouted borehole with high solids bentonite grout upon completion. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. °i 0 WL 12 feet BORING STARTED 11/10/99 STS OFFICE Minneapolis Area - 06 J WL BORING COMPlET11 ENTERED SHEET NO. OF O /10/99 D~ 2 2 z _ ~ ~- RIG/FOREMAN APP'D BY STS JOB NO. m D.S' OMH WBT 97589-XB 1 1 I ( I I 1 1 1 I I t OWNER Kennedy 8~ Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-S 1 sTS ~„~„~ ~, PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8~ Preliminary Geotechnical Eva ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota ~ o_ ~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 3 4 5 ° ~ ~ w a ~ U ~ w ~ ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ~ _ a Z _i O 0 ~ ~ o ~ PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X- - - •- - - ~ to 20 3o ao 50 ~ w m ~ ~ ~ a, ~ y v ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +98.3 Z ~ ~ = I j a o ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. to 20 3o ao 50 1 SS Silty day, some sand & gravel, concrete fragments 1,p -brown -hard - (CL) -FILL 1 * 1 ~ Fine to coarse sand, some gravel, little sift, 4 concrete fragments -brown -moist -medium 1 dense - (SM) -FILL 2 SS 10 2 .5 Sandy clayey silt -green gray -moist -medium S dense to very loose - (SM/ML) -FILL ~ 1 3 S 1 .~ S 4 SS 1 9.0 4 SS FILL: Mixed peat & silty sand -dark brown -moist - 1 S very loose to dense - (Pt) & (SM) , \ 5 SS , 30 2 / / ~ 14.5 . Amorphous peat -dark green - (Pt) , SS ~• •! ~• 6 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ I ~..` ~, i .` ~..` ~. ` ~ . . .` ~..` ~~ .` ~~ 19.5 Silty day, little sand r3< gravel -gray -firm to very 7 SS stiff - (CL) - Gladal till 1 * ~ 1 1 I I 1 ~ S I ~ > ~ ~ 6 3 ii ...continued * Cal brated Pene meter The stretification rsies represent the appre>drtlete baaldery tees between sod types: in sRu, the trensdion may be predial. 0 STS JOB N097589-XB SHEET NO. 1 OF 2 OWNER Kennedy & Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-6 ~ sTS conet,na~ts ~. PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8 Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota a ~, UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 3 4 5 _ LL ~ ° j Z a ~ U ~ 0 t ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ r „ ~ a Z _z ~ O S ~ O p ~ PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X- - - ~- - - ~ 10 20 30 40 50 W J o w J a J a J a ~ 0 O~ ~ w STANDARD w ~ SURFACE ELEVATION +97.2 z m ~ .~ = w a o ® PENETRATION BLOWS/FT. t0 2p 30 40 50 Fine to coarse sand, some silt, little gravel -brown 1 SS -moist -medium dense - (SM) -FILL 0 S 2.5 ~ Mixed silty sand & silty clay -brown -moist -loose - (SM) & (CL) -FILL 2 SS 0 ~ .5 , Slightly organic silty clay, trace sand, roots, 3 SS concrete fragments -dark brown -very soft - (CL) - FILL 0 S 7.5 4 SS Organic silty Gay -dark gray -very soft - (OL) ..~ ~. 8.5 0 SS Silty Gay, little sand -gray -very soft - (CL) 4 0 S 10.0 Fine fibrous peat -brown - (Pt) S ~• •~ ~• 5 S ~ ~ ~ 0 . .. ~ ~..~ ~, .~ ~..~ S ~ ~ ~ .. . ~~ ~' ~~ 14.5 Silty Gay, some sand -gray -soft to firm - (CL) , 6 SS 0 I ` ~ 19.5 Fine to very fine sand, trace sift -gray -saturated - 7 S medium dense - (SP) -with thin clayey sand (SC) 1 S seams 0 S ~ .. ... ,.. ...continued Ca raced _ Pene t _ meter _ _ _ _ i Ttle stratlfication tines rgxosent Ule approldrtlete bouWary Gies between sai types: h situ, the trarlaMion may be yratlual. STS JOB NO. 97589-XB SHEET NO. OF 1 2 OWNER Kennedy & Graven, Chartered LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-6 1 srscor~,ltaotsua. PROJECT NAME Phase II ESA 8i Preliminary Geotechnical Eval ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ation STS Consultants, Ltd. SITE LOCATION 5377 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, Minnesota a ~, UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.2 3 4 5 F IL ~ ° ~ ~ W a ~ U ~ W ~ ESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ~ „ a Z _2 ~ ~ Sir o o PLASTIC WATER LIQUID LIMIT % CONTENT % LIMIT % X •- - - ~ io zo so ao so i] w a ii'. a v ~~ O~ STANDARD it SURFACE ELEVATION +97.2 (Continued) ~ °~° a ii ® ZPENET~TION ~ OWS/F7'. 8 SS 0 • ~:. 26.0 8 SS Fine sand, trace silt -gray -saturated -medium 0 dense-(SP) S 11 ~.~.~ 28.0 Silty clay, little sand & gravel -gray -very stiff - S (CL) -Glacial till I~ SS ''1 9 0 ~, * ` ` S ' ~ Sand seams and zones of (SM) , SS 2 22 10 3 * 36.5 End of boring at 36.5 feet. Advanced borehole using 3 1/4" ID hollow stem augers to full depth. All samples placed in zip-closure polyethylene bags, and screened with TIP photoionization detector, equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp source and calibrated to a benzene reference. Background PID readings = 0 to 3 PID meter units. Grouted borehole with high solids bentonite grout upon completion. * CaI brated Penetr meter The stratication lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. WL ~ 11.7 feet BORING STARTED 11/10/99 STS OFFICE Minneapolis Area - 06 ' WL i BORING COMPLETED 11H1/99 ENTERED BY DCJ SHEET NO. OF 2 2 WL RIG/FOREMAN D-SOMH APP'D BY WBT STS JOB NO. 97589-XB STS General Boring Log Notes ~~ DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS : Split Spoon- 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D. PA: Unless otherwise noted ~ HS ST : Shelby Tube-2" O.D., RB : Unless otherwise noted FT : AS: Auger Sample pg; WS : Wash Sample VS: OS : Osterberg Sampler - 3" Shelby Tube PM BS : Bulk Sample from Exposed Material HA: CS : Continuous Sample Tube Description Of Components Also Percent of Dry Present in Sample Weight Trace 1-9 Little 10-19 Standazd Penetration Test N-value: Total blows for last foot of penetration of a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler driven by a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches, except where otherwise noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WCI : Wet Cave In WS: While Sampling DCI : Dry Cave In WD: While Drilling BCR : Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR : Afer Casing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs aze the levels measured in the boreholes at the time indicated. In relatively pervious soils (e.g. sands and gravels), the indicated groundwater levels aze considered reliable. In relatively impervious soils (e.g. silts and clays), the indicated groundwater levels may not be reliable. For boreholes or wells in low permeability soils, relatively long periods of time aze usually required for the groundwater to obtain an equilibrium position. Generally, a more accurate determination of water levels can be made from monitoring wells or piezometers sensing aquifers of interest with readings over a period of weeks to months. GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY: Coarse grained or granular soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they aze generally described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine grained soils have less than 50°6 of their dry weights retained on a No. 200 sieve; they are generally described as: clays, silty clays, or clayey silts if they are cohesive and silts if they are non-cohesive. Granulaz soils are also described on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils aze described on the basis of their strength, consistency and plasticity. Major Component of Sample Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay Size Range Over 12 in. (200 mm) 12 inches to 3 inches (200 mm to 75 mm) 3 inches to #4 sieve (75 mm to 4.76 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.76 mm to 0.074 mm) Passing #200 sieve (0.074 mm to 0.002 mm) Passing #200 sieve Smaller than 0.002 mm CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Power Auger - 4 1/4" unless otherwise noted Hollow Stem Auger Tri-Cone Rotary Bit Fish Tail Bit Diamond Coring Bit Vane Shear Pressuremeter Test, In-Situ Hand Auger Some 20-34 And 35-50 RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS: Unconfined Compressive Strength, SPT N-Value u is Consistency lows/ft Relative Density 0.25 Very Sofr 0-3 Very Loose 0.25-0.49 Sofr 4-9 Loose 0.50-0.99 Medium (Firm) 10-29 Medium Dense 1.00-1.99 Stiff 30-49 Dense 2.00-3.99 Very Stiff 50-80 Very Dense 4.00-8.00 Hazd > 80 Extremely Dense > 8.00 Very Hazd STS Soil Classification System ~~ UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Group Major Divisions Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Symbols 'L :vl GW Well gaded gavels, gavel-sand a '^ 0~ r~~~: l N N e mixtures, lisle or no fines B ~ C, = U greater tia~ 4; C = ~r~ benseen l rn+d 3 w p .. • ; ~ r ` N ~ ~' g ° ~ ~ ~ ,,.. ~ ~ GP Poorly graded gavels, gavel-satd ~ „ a Not meeting all gadation requirements for GW y ~ ~ •H U m1xtU(CS, IIUIC OT n0 fines N 'C ~7 u u N " $ p et C7 o z a y ~ Silty gavels, gavel-sand-clay u u y h H ~ Atterberg Ilinlt5 below ~ GM mixtures = S N h y "A" line or P.I. less than Above "A' line with c x ~ .°e a ,5 $ a ° o „ o a' t j ~ 4 P.I. between 4 a~ 7 = a ,~ ~ ~ Z v t7 ~ ' arc borderline cases ~ ~ ~ ' < o° v Clayey gavels, gavel-sand- clay 1? c .5 3 ~ o Atterberg limits above requiring use of dual o ~ ~ ~ ~ mixtures E = ~? ~ °? ~ line with P.I. greate symbols E N u ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, M. ~ c p~ p~ ) ~ "' CJ 6 II H v ~ little or n0 fines v ~ ~ C, _ - reart~ eban 6; C, _ between I and 3 D.. 8 ~wz0.o . " " w ~ ~ ~ y v a o ~ SP Poorly gaded sands. gravelly ~ ,,, ~ 0 3 Not mee all ndation irements for SW ~g 8 ~N ~ ~ c u sands, traces or no fines `o ~ c ~ g ~!.. H fq ,.. u " '~ q g o N U y ~ Atterberg 11m1C5 below l i i ~ ~ ~ $ ~ SM Silty sands, sand and silt mixtures •°+ g, ,~ c ~ u "A" line or P.I. less than ott ng n ~ p hatched zone with P I ~ = ,~., ~ ~ ~ c a ~ atl 4 . . ~, S v c ~ ~ ~ r,, . between 4 a~ 7 are ~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ '^ ~ ~ ' SC Clayey sands, saw and clay ~ N ~ 5 •. 1r ^~ g tr $, o 0 € Atterberg limits above "A" li i h P I borderline cases g < E mixmr<s ~ H ,,, ~ ,,, ne w t . . greate requiring ttse of dual ti a A A 'y than 7 symbols Inorganic silo, rock flour, silty or Liquid Limit Plasticity Chart ML clayey find :ands or clayey sets with sli ht lastici ~ ,~ o Inorganic clays of low to medium ., a ~ C l d i i l 50 h L ty. grave ays, san y plast c y c $ ~ ~ cla s sil ela lean cla s .~° r+ 'g ' 40 m x ~ E Organic silts and organic stay clays ~ ti OL of low lastici 30 ~ ~ p ty ~ ~ '~" .~~ ~ InoiganlC ants mIC8000U5 Or y 2!) (fit Or MH , , MH diatomaceous fine silty soils. elastic a silts of hi h acstic' 10 CL 7 ad Inorgantc clays of high ptuticity, CL~AL a u ~0 o CH fat clays 0 10 20 ~, O1d0 50 60 70 80 90 100 o '^ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Llquid Limit,'/. q H ~ GH Organic Clays, silts Or tilt at-d Clay ~ v mixtures of medium to high For classification of fine-grained soils a~ fine fraction of coarse- n lastici gained soils. o N Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Attcrberg Limits plotting in hatched area are borderline classifications STS Sampling Procedures ~` Auger Sampling (AS) In this procedure, soil samples are collected from cuttings off of the auger flights as they are removed from the ground. The samples are typically retained in sealed jars or plastic bags, then shipped to a laboratory for further examination and testing. Such samples provide a general indication of subsurface conditions; however, they do not provide undisturbed samples, nor do they provide samples from discrete depths. Split-barrel Sampling (SS) - (ASTM Standard D-15861 In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 1.375-inch LD., .2-inch.0 D., .split barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by means of a..140 pound.hammer.falling 30 inches. ~_ =: i The value of the Standard Penetration Resistance, N, is obtained,by :counting the number of blows of the hammer over the final 12 inches of driving. -This value provides a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. The indication is qualitative only, because many factors such as soil composition, gravel and cobble content, type of hammer, sample depth and groundwater seepage pressure can significantly affect the Standard Penetration Resistance N Value. Results in similar soils obtained by drill crews using different rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-spoon assemblies may not correlate directly. A representative portion of the- recovered. sample is placed in a sample jar, labeled and then shipped to a laboratory for further analysis and testing. Shelby Tube Sampling Procedure (ST) - (ASTM Standard D-15871 In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, athin-walled steel seamless tube with a beveled cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into -the soil and then pulled to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. This procedure is typically used to sample firm to hard cohesive soils. Two-inch diameter tubes are generally utilized. Three-inch diameter tubes are occasionally utilized to sample softer soils where minimally disturbed samples are desired. The tubes are sealed, labeled, and then shipped to a laboratory for extrusion, further analysis and testing. .- Bulk Sample (BSl Bulls samples are typically obtained by .hand tool digging .:into °soil - ~or sock :deposits that are exposed at the ground surface or within an excavation (walls or bottom). Bulk samples are typically retained in sealed jars or plastic bags. Continuous Sample Tube (CSl This type of sampling device consists of 5-ft. sections of thin wall tubes .or .split-barrel .pipes which are capable of retrieving continuous columns of soil in 5-ft. maximum increments. Because of a continuous slot in the sampling tubes, the sampler allows field determination of stratification boundaries and containerization of soil samples from any sampling depth within the S-ft. interval. This sampler is used inside ahollow-stem auger and is advanced slightly ahead of the auger head as the auger is turned into the soil. Split barrel samples are typically opened in the field. Recovered soil is logged and representative samples retained in sealed jars. Tube samples are sealed, labeled and shipped to a laboratory for extrusion and testing. STS Laboratory Index Test Procedures ~~ Water Content (Wc) (ASTM 2216) The water content of a soil is the ratio of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of the dry soil. Generally, the soil is dried in a conventional or microwave oven. Water content is commonly expressed as a percentage. Hand Penetrometer (Oo) In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a soil is estimated, to a maximum value of 4.5 tons per squaze foot (tsf), by measuring the resistance of a representative portion of a cohesive soil sample .to. penetration: by: a_1/4-inch .diameter, spring- calibrated cylinder. Results from penetrating into a stone or obviously disturbed portions of the sample are generally disregarded. Hand penetrometer testing has been. carefully correlated with unconfined compressive strength tests, and when performed correctly provides a useful and a relatively simple testing procedure in which soil strength can be quickly and reliably estimated. Unconfined Compression Test (Ou) (ASTM D 2166) In the unconfined compression strength test, a undisturbed cylinder of cohesive soil 2 to 3 inches in diameter with a height of 4 to 6 inches is loaded axially until failure or until a 20 stain has been reached, whichever occurs first. It provides an indication of the samples undrained sheaz strength. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 318) Atterberg Limits tests provide a measure of a cohesive soils plasticity. The liquid limit is the water content at which a 1/2-inch wide groove that is cut into a shallow cup of remolded soil closes with 25 lOmm drops of the cup. The plastic limit is the water content below which the soil no longer behaves as a plastic material based on behavior of rolled soil ribbons. The Plasticity Index is the difference between the liquid and plastic limits. . ize Analvsis (ASTM D 422 Grain size analyses aze performed to determine the distribution of particles by weight for a soil sample. The distribution of particles larger than 0.075 mm (retained on a No. 200 sieve) is determined by sifting a dried and broken soil sample through a series of generally smaller sieves, then weighing the retained portions. If specified, the distribution of particles smaller than 0.075 mm is also determined using a hydrometer to determine particle dispersion and settlement within water. Classification of Samples In conjunction with the sample testing program, retained soil samples are examined in our laboratory and are classified on the basis of their texture and plasticity in accordance with the United Soil Classification System (LTSCS). The soil descriptions on the boring logs are in conformance with this system and the estimated group symbols according to this system are included in pazentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A separate sheet entitled "STS Soil Classification System" provides a brief explanation of this system of soil classification and is also included in the Appendix. STS Subsurface Exploration Procedures ~~ Hand Auger Drilling (HA) In this procedure, asplit-barrel sampler or Shelby tube is driven into the soil by repeated blows of a sledge hammer or a guided drop hammer. After the sampler is driven to the desired sample depth, a soil sample is retrieved. The hole is then advanced by manually turning and withdrawing a hand auger until the next sampling depth increment is reached. This hand auger drilling between sampling intervals helps to clean and enlarge the bore hole in preparation for obtaining the next sample. Casing is not utilized to maintain an open bore hole. Power Auger Drilling (PA In this type of drilling procedure, solid-stem, continuous flight helical augers are used to advance the bore holes. Normally 4 1/4-inch diameter augers are utilized. They are turned and hydraulically advanced and withdrawn by an engine powered drill rig mounted on a skid, truck or all-terrain vehicle. In auger drilling, casing and drilling mud are not utilized to maintain open bore hole. Hollow Stem Auger Drilling (HS) In this drilling procedure, continuous flight augers having open stems are used to advance the bore holes. Typically, the hollow stem auger has a 6 to 8-inch outside diameter and a 2 1/4 to 4 1/4-inch inside diameter. The open stem allows the sampling tool to be used without removing the augers from the bore hole. Hollow stem augers thus provide support to the sides of the bore hole during the sampling operations. Drilling fluid is normally not used with this method. otarv Bit~Drillin In employing rotary drilling methods, various cutting bit types~~and bit diameters are rotated and pushed hydraulically to advance the bore holes. In this process, near surface casing and/or drilling fluids are used to maintain open bore holes. The drilling fluid typically consists of a soil-water-mix, a bentonite-soil slurry or a colloidal gel-soil slurry that is. circulated down through the drill rod and bit and up the bore hole annulus with drill cuttings. Diamond Core Drilling (DB) Diamond core drilling is used to sample hard, cemented formations such as rock. In this procedure, a double tube (or triple tube) core barrel with diamond teeth cuts an annular space around a cylindrical column of the material being sampled. The sample is retrieved by a catcher just above the bit. Samples recovered by this procedure are placed in sturdy containers in sequential order from top to bottom. 1 ' STS Sam lin Procedures ~ ~~ p 9 ~~ 61Y~SICAN SOCIET7[ FOH TESTING AND ~uremmrerer.a Standard ~Ilethod !or PENETRATION TEST AND SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLIN(ir OF $OILS1 Th1s standard ffi issued under the fixed designation D 1888; the number immediately following the deslgtiatton indioetea the year of origin adoption or, 1n the Dees of revision, the year of the lest revision. A number 1a parentheses indicates the year of last reappravaL A eupersori epsilon (E) 1ndloete8 an editorial cbarrge shoe the lest revision or reapprovaL This method hss been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense sad for • listing in the DOD Inds: of Speaiflcatitons ai ' Standards. 1:~.. ~ 1.1 Thffi method describes the proce- dure, generally known as the Standard Penetration Test (8PT), for driving a split-barrel sampler to obtain a repre- sentative soIl sample and a measure of the resistance of the soli to penetration of the sampler. 1.2 This standard msy involve haz- ardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems assoafated with its use. It is the responsibility of whoever uses this standard to consult and establish ap- propriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of reg- ulatory limitations prior to use. For a apeoifio precautionary statement, see 8.4.1. 1.3 The values stated la lnah-pound units are to be regarded as the stan- dard. It. APnliaable Doatunenta 2.1 ASTM Standards: D2487 Test Method for Classification of Soils for $nglneering Purposes2 D2488 Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- MaaualProoedure)2 D4220 Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples2 strikes and through which the ham- Intervals of sampler penetration (s mer energy passes into the drill rods. 7.3). 3.2 cathead-the rotating drum or windlass in the rope-cathead lift sys- tem around which the operator wraps a rope to lift and drop the hammer by successively tightening and loosening the rope turns around the drum. 3.3 drill rods-rods used to transmit downward force and torque to the drill bit while drilling a borehole. 3.10 number of rope turns-the tot contact angle between the rope and t. oathead at the beginning of the open tor's rope slackening to drop the hay mer, divided by 380° (see Fig. 1). 3.11 sampling rods-rods that oe sect the drive-weight assembly to t sampler. Drill rods are often used f this purpose. 3.4 drive-weight assembly-a device consisting of the hammer, hammer fall guide, the anvil, and any hammer drop system. 3.8 hammer that portion of the drive-weight assembly oonslstiag of the 140 t 2 Ib <83.8 t 1 1~ impact weight which' is successively lifted and dropped to provide the energy that so- oompllshes the sampling and penetra- tion. 3.8 hammer drop eystemthat por- tion of the drive-weight assembly by which the operator aaoomplishes the lifting and dropping of the hammer to produce the blow. 3.7 hammer fall guide•-that part of the drive-weight assembly used to guide the fall of the hammer. 3.8 N-value-the blowaouat repre- sentation of the penetration resistance of the soil. The N-value, reported in blows per foot, equals the sum of the number of blows required to drive the sampler over the depth interval of 8 to 18 ia. (180 to 480 mm) Case 7.3). 3.1 anvil--that portion of the drive- 3.9 AN-the number of blows ob- weight assembly which the hammer twined from each of the 6-in. (180-mm) 3.12 8PT-abbreviation for Stands Penetration Test, a term by which c gineers commonly refer to tI method. 4.1 This method provides a eo11 ss pie for identification purposes and laboratory tests appropriate for s obtained from a sampler that me~y p duos large shear strata disturbance the sample. 4.2 This method fs used ezteasiv is a great variety of geOteohnioel ploratioa prq~eats. Many local oorr< tions sad widely published oorre bons which relate 8PT blowoouat, N-value, and the engineering beha~ of earthworks sad foundation available. rThis method >e under tbs )urisdlogoa of e dommlttas D-18 on 8011 and Aoot sad L the d reep0ae1biltty pf eubo0mmiass D18.02 en 8e ~6 and Related lrbld Testfn8 for 8011 tavee hone. ~urreat edition approved Sept. 11, 1+ Published November 1084. OrlQaal>, pubv u D1686-a8T. Iwst previous D168f (1p74). a vol 0! STS Standard Boring Log Procedures ~~ In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, common procedures are followed regarding field logs, laboratory data sheets and samples. Field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations and are intended to document field test data, subsurface observations, sampling depths. and exploration procedures. Samples obtained in the field aze generally subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory by more experienced soil technicians, engineers or geologists. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field boring logs and laboratory sample descriptions, classifications and test data. The engineer then uses judgment and experience in interpreting this data and compiling it into the final boring •logs; ~ -t~:s ~-a•~ result, differences between the field and final boring logs may exist described in the text of the report, as appropriate. The descriptive terms and symbols used on the:logs :aze:.described on the attached sheet, entitled: "General Boring Log Notes". We follow a common practice of the geotechnical engineering profession by generally not including field logs and laboratory data sheets in our engineering reports. We do this because the field logs do not represent the engineer's final opinions on appropriateness of field descriptions of conditions encountered in the exploration and testing work. On the other hand, we are aware that certain contractors and subcontractors submitting bids or proposals on work might have an interest in studying these documents before submitting a bid or proposal. For this reason, the field logs are retained is our office for review after authorization by our client. We welcome interpretation questions and an opportunity to explain how the information was obtained and why any boring log changes were made in the preparation of our final logs and report. Samples taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are retained in our laboratory for sixty days and then aze eventually disposed unless special disposition is requested by our client. Samples retained over a long : period~of _time;: even .in. sealed jars, are subject to moisture loss which changes the density and -strength::of ..cohesive. soil-generally increasing soil strength from that which was originally°encountered-in~~the•,field. Since these samples are then no longer representative of the moisture, density and strength conditions initially encountered, potential observers of these samples should recognize this factor if considering sample re-examination weeks or months after samples were retained. ..... i ASTM Designation: D 1586 ' &. Apparatus &.1 Drilling Equipment-Any dril- ling equipment that provides at the time of sampling a suitably clean open hole before insertion of the sampler and ensures that the penetration test 1s performed on undisturbed soil shall be aooeptable. The following places of equipment have proven to be suitable for advancing a borehole in some aub- surfaoe conditions. 8.1.1 Drag, Chopping, and Fishtail Bits, less than 8.8 in. (182 mm) and greater than 2.2 1n. (S8 mm) 1n diamet• er may be used in ool~unction with open-hole rotary drilling or casing- advancement drilling methods. To avoid disturbance of the underlying soil, bottom discharge bits are not per- mitt~ed; onlq side discharging bits are permitted. 5.1.2 Roller-Cone Bits, less than 8.5 ln. (182 mm) and greater than 2.2 in. (86 mm) in diameter may be used in con,Junction with open-hole rotary drilling or casing-advancement drill- ing method8 !f the drilling fluid dis- charge is deflected. 5.1.3 Hollow-Stem Continuous Flight Augers, with or without a cen- ter bit assembly, may be used to drill the boring. The inside diameter of the hoIIow-stem augers shall be less than 8.8 1a. (182 mm) and greater than 2.2 ln. (88 mm). 8.1.4 Solid, Continuous Flight, Bucket and Head Augers, lase than 8.8 1n. (182 mm) sad greater than 2.2 in. (88 mm) in d18~meter may be used if the soil on the aide of the boring does not Dave onto the sampler or sampling rods during sampling. . 8.2 Sampling Rods-Flush point steel Brill rods shall be used to connect the split-barrel sampler. to the drive- weight assembly. The sampling rod shall have a stiffness (moment of iner- tia) equal to or greater than LhaL of parallel wall "A" rod (a steel rod which has an ~ outside diameter' of 146 fn. (41.2 mm) and an inside diameter of 1K 1n. (28.8 mm). NOTE 1-Aeoeat research and comparative testing lndiaates the hype rod used, with stiffaeee ranghlg from •A• else rod t0 •N" size rod, will usually have a negligible effect oa the N-values to depths of at ]east 100 R (30 m). 8.3 Split-Barrel Sampler-The sam- pler shall be ooastruoted with the di- mensions indicated 1n Ffg. 2. The driv- Lflg shoe shall be of hardened steel and shall be replaced or repaired when it becomes dented or distorted. The use of liners to produce a constant inside diameter of 1',~ in. (3S mm) 1s permit- ted, but shall be noted on the penetra- tion record if used. The use of a sample retainer basket is permitted, and should also be noted on the penetra- tion record 1f used. NOTE 2-Both theory and available teat data suggest that N-values may increase between 10 Lo 3096 when Ifaers are used. 6.4 Drive-weight Assembly: 8.4.1 Hammer and Anvil-The ham- mer shall weigh 140 t 2 lb (83.5 t 1 kg) and shall be a solid rigid metallic mass. The hammer shall strike the an- vA and make steel on steel contact when it is dropped. A• hammer fall guide permitting a free fall shall be used. Hammers used with the cathead and rope method shall have an unim- peded overlift capacity of at least 4 in. (100 mm). For safety reasons, the use of a hammer assembly with an Inter pal anvil Is encouraged. NOTE 3-It 1s suggested that the hemmer fall guide be permanently marked to enable the opera- tor or mspecWr to Judge the hammer drop height. 8.4.2 Hammer Drop System Rope- cathead, trip, semi-automatic, or auto- matic hammer drop systems may be used, providing the lifting apparatus will not cause penetration of the sampler while re-engaging and lifting the hammer. 8.8 Accessory $quipment-Acoes- sorlea Such as labels, sample ooatain- ers, data sheets, and groundwater lev- el measuring devices shall be provided in atxordanoe with the requirements of the project and other ASTM stan- dards. 6. Drilling[ Procedure 8.1 The boring shall be advanced in- crementally to permit Intermittent or continuous sampling. • ~ Teat intervals and looatlona are normally stipulated by the project engineer or geologist. Typically, the intervals selected are 6 ft (1.8 m) or leas In homogeneous strata with test and sampling locations at every change of strata. 8.2 Aqq drilling Procedure that pro- vides a suitablq clean and stable hole before Insertion of the sampler and as- sures that the penetration test 1s per- formed oa essentially undisturbed soil shall be saoeptable. Each of the follow- ing procedures have proven to be ac- ceptable for some subsurface condi- tions. The subsurface conditions anti- cipated should be considered when se- lecting the drilling method to be used. 8.2.1 Open-hole rotary drilling method. 8.2.2 Continuous flight hollow-stem auger method. 8.2.3 wash boring method. 8.2.4 Continuous flight solid auger method. 8.3 Several drilling methods produce unacceptable borings. The process of betting through an open tube sampler and then sampling when the desired depth is reached shall not be permit- ted. The continuous flight solid auger method shall not be used for advano- Lng the .boring below a water table or below the upper confining bed of a confined non-cohesive stratum that is under artesian pressure. Casing may not be advanced below the sampling elevation prior Lo sampling. Advancing a boring with bottom discharge bits 1s not permissible. It is not permissible to advance the boring for subsequent insertion of the sampler solely by means of previous sampling with the SPT sampler. 8.4 The drilling fluid level within the boring or hollow-stem augers shall be maintained at or above the in situ groundwater level at all times during drilling, removal of drill rods, and sampling. ?. SampllniC sad Testiaa Procedure 7.1 After the boring has been ad- vanced to the desired sampling eleva- tion sad .excessive cuttings have been removed, .prepare for the test with the .following sequence of operations. 7.1.1 Attach the eplitbarrel sampler to the samplin$ rods and lower into borehole. Do -not allow the sampler to drop onto the soil to be sampled. 7.1.2 Position the hammer above and attach the anvil to the top of the .....sampling rods....Th1s may be done.. be- , fore the .sampling rods and sampler are lowered into the borehole. 7.1.3 Rest the dead weight of the sampler, rods, anvil, sad drive weight on the bottom of the boring and aPPI.Y a seating blow. If excessive cuttings are encountered at the bottom of the boring, remove the sampler and sum- . piing rods from the boring and remove the cuttings. 7.1.4 Mark the drill rods in three auocessive 8-ia. <0.18-m) increments 1 ASTM Designation: D 1586 ., so that the advance of the sampler un- der the impact of the hammer can be easily observed for each 6-in. (O. i S-m) Increment. 7.2 Drive the sampler with blows from the 140-1b (83.5-kg) hammer and count the number of blows applied in each 8-in. <0.1 S-m) increment until one of the following occurs: 7.2.1 A total of SO blows have been applied during any one of the three 8-1n. (0.1 S-m) increments described in 7.1.4. 7.2.2 A total of 100 blows have been applied. 7.2.3 There Ls no observed advance of the sampler during the application of 10 successive blows of the hammer. 7.2.4 The sampler is advanced the complete 18 in. (0.43 m) without the limiting blow counts occurring as de- scribed in 7.2.1, 7.2.2, or 7.2.3. 7.3 Record the number of blows re- quired to effect each 6 in. (0.15m) of penetration or fraction thereof. The first 8 in. is considered to be a seating drive. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 8 in. of penetration is termed the "standard penetration resistance", or the "N-value". If the sampler is driven less than 18 ln. (0.45 m), as permitted 1n 7.2.1, 7.2.2, or 7.2.3, Lhe number of blows per each complete 8-in. (0.1 S-m) increment and per each partial incre- ment shall be recorded.on the boring log. For partial increments, the depth of penetration shall be reported to the -nearest. 1 in. (28 mm), in .addition. to the number of blows. If the sampler advances below the bottom of the bor- ing under the static weight of the drlli rods or the weight of the drill rods plus the static weight of the hammer, Lh1s information. should be noted on the boring log. 7.4 The raising and dropping of the 140-1b (83.5-kg) hammer shall be ac- complished using either of the follow- ing two methods: 7.4.1 By<using a trip, automatic, or semi-automatic hammer drop •system which lifts the 140-1b (83.3-kg) ham- mer and allows it to drop 30 t 1.0 in. (0.78 m t 2S mm) unimpeded. 7.4.2 By using a cathead to pull a rope attached to the hammer. When the cathead and rope method is used the system and operation shall con- form to the following: 7.4.2.1 The cathead shall be easen- ttsily free of rust, oil, or grease and have a diameter 1n the range of 8 to 10 1n. (150 to 2S0 mm). 7.4.2.2 The cathead should be operated at a minimum speed of rota- tion of 100 RPM, or the approximate speed of rotation shall be reported on the boring log. 7.4.2.3 No more than 2k rope turns on the cathead may be used during the performance of the penetration test, as shown in Fig. 1. NOTE 4-The operator should generally use either Ili of 2X rope turns, depending upon whether or not the rope Domes off the top (1 jf turns) or the bottom <21( Lorne) of the cathead. It !s generally known and accepted that 2jf or more rope turns conelderab>.y Impedes the [all of the hammer and should not be used to perform the test. The cathead rope should be maintained In a relstively dry. clean, and unfrayed oomllWon. 7.4.2.4 For each hammer blow, a 30-in. (0.78-m) lift and drop shall be employed by the operator. The opera- tion of pulling and throwing Lhe rope shall be performed rhythmically with- out holding the rope at the top of the stroke. 7.3 Bring the sampler to the surface and open. Record the percent recovery or length of sample recovered. De- scribe the soil samples recovered ss to composition, color, stratification, and condition, then place one or more rep- resentative portions of the sample into sealable moisture-proof containers (Jars) without ramming or distorting gt>,y apparent stratification. Seal each container to prevent evaporation of soil moisture. Affix labels to the con- tainers bearing ,Job designation, bor- ing number, sample depth, and the blow count per 6-in. (0.16-mj incre- ment. Protect the samples against ex- treme temperature changes: If there Ls a soil change within the sampler, make a far for each stratum and note its location in the sampler barrel. 8. Revort 8.1 Drilling information shall be recorded in the field and shall include the following: 8.1.1 Name and location of ,Job, 8.1.2 Names of crew, 8.1.3 Type and make of drilling machine, 8.1.4 Weather conditions, 8.1.5 Date and time of start and finish of boring, 8.1.8 Boring number and location (station and coordinates, if available and applicable), 8.1.7 Surface elevation, !f available, 8.1.8 Method of advancing and cleaning the boring, 8.1.9 Method of keeping boring open, 8.1.10 Depth of water surface and drilling depth at the time of a noted loss of drilling fluid, and time and date when reading or notation was made, 8.1.11 Location of strata changes, 8.1.12 Size of casing, depth of cased portion of boring, 8.1.13 Equipment and method of driving sampler, 8.1.14 Type of sampler and length and inside diameter of barrel (note use of liners), 8.1.1 S 81ze, type, and section length of the sampling rods, and 8.1.16 Remarks. 8.2 Data obtained for each sample shall be recorded in the field and shall include the following: 8.2.1 Sample depth and, if utllized, the sample number, 8.2.2 Description of soli, 8.2.3 Strata changes within sample, 8.2.4 Sampler penetration and re- covery lengths, and 8.2.3 Number of blows per 8-in. (0.1 S-m) or partial increment. 9. Predsioa sad Bias 9.1 Variations in N-values of 100% or more have been observed when us- ing different standard penetration test apparatus and -drillers- for •aQJacent borings in the same soil formation. Current opinion, based on field experi- ence, indicates that when using the same apparatus and driller, N-values in the same soil can be reproduced with a coefficient of variation of about 1096. 9.2 The use of faulty equipment, such as an extremely massive or dam- aged anvil, a rusty cathead, a low speed cathead, an old, oily rope, or massive or poorly .lubricated .rope sheaves can significantly contribute to differences in N-values obtained be- tween operatordrill rig systems. 9.3 The variability in N-values pro- duced by different drill rigs and opera- tors may be reduced by measuring that part of the hammer energy deliv- ered into the drill rods from the sam- pler and a(l,Justing N on the basis of comparative energies. A method for energy measurement and N-value ad- ,Justment is currently under develop• went. .. ~ ASTM Designation: D 1586 A t Z A '"'z--Rope aerator here s ,~ Catfiead Section A-A (a) aatnterolookwlss rotation aDpr~ma~17 114 turns (b) ofoakwlse rotation apprwdmatsu $S4 turns Ooerator here O Section 8-B lia. 1 Detiaitions of u.• Sambar of dope Tnras and the eagle for (a) CoaaLsrataokwise location and. (b) eloetrLe 7totati•a of tha Catheaa E 1 ~_, ~ ~.:-: G a • l.o w $.o m. cae to eo ronU H ~ 18.0 to a0.0 m. (0.487 to 0.78$ aq c - 1.a78 t o.ooa w. (a4.9a t o.la mm) D ~ 1.00 t 0.08 - 0.00 fa. (88.1 t 1.8 - 0.0 mm) _ .0.10 ! 0.0$ fa. (14.84 t O.fiB mm) F . $.00 t 0.08 - 0.00 >o. <80.8 t 1.E - O.O mm) a • le.o• to $s.o• The 11i in. (a8 mm) htside diameter split Darrel my De used with a 18-sage wall thlolmeas split 11ner. The penetrating end of the drive shoe may ~ sti6htl' rowed. Petal or plastb retainers mqy be used to ntafa sori samples. rca. t Sp11t-a.rnl sampler The emerban t for Testins and lratsrials takes ao i ~1~~ ~• ~ aR7 > ~ti asserted in oonneotloa with aRY ism mentwnsd i this standard. IIsers ar Lh1s standard are •zpress>,y advised that determination er the vslldtf, of aqT suoh patent rights, and the risk of infrlogement of sun rishta, are eathro>,y their awn responsibutty. This standard L sup)eot to twlsba at aN time DT the rsspoos>bls teohafoal sommittes am mast bs reviewed suety five Lean and Li ltot 1ev1s•d. either rani . peavd or wtthdntm. Your oommsnv an invited either for revision of this standard or for addltlonal standards and ahauld bs addlwssd to IISTY HeadQuareere Tour aommeots will reoeiv •art1t1 oomslderatian at a msthtg of the r•sponslbls Leohafoal aommtttes, whbh Tat mq attend. If T~ feel that Tau' oaament have not reostved a rah. bearing Tou should make Tarr views kmwa to the ASTI[ 0ommiaes an Standards, 1910 Hass St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19108. ooaHla~a9wPa~ STS Subgrade Protection Guideline ~~ Care should be exercised to minimize disturbance and degradation of subgrade soils for foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements and areas to be filled. Water should not be allowed to pond on the surface of exposed subgrade soils, as this could cause a softening of the subgrade, particularly when subjected to construction traffic. Disturbed or softened subgrade soils should be removed to a suitable undisturbed subgrade prior to fill or concrete placement. Wet subgrade conditions may result from precipitation, runoff and groundwater seepage through excavation walls and bottom. Precipitation risk can be minimized by scheduling ~ construction for drier seasons. The subgrade should be sloped to drainage ditches and sumps to minimize water accumulations. Runoff from adjacent azeas should be eliminated by use of berms and ditches to channel water away. Groundwater seepage may be minimized by use of dewatering systems such as wells and/or groundwater isolation systems such as cutoff walls or trenches. Dewatering wells and/or groundwater isolation systems aze recommended where upwazd seepage is likely to cause the subgrade to loosen and become "quick" or where lateral seepage may erode the face soil or cause "piping" of fines from the soil matrix as exhibited by muddy or silt laden water. If moisture or disturbance sensitive subgrade soils and wet conditions aze expected and construction of facilities bearing on the subgrade will not promptly protect the subgrade soils, then consideration should be given to protecting the subgrade by promptly placing appropriate combinations of a geotextile, a gravel base course and a lean concrete mud mat over the prepazed and approved subgrade. Geotextiles should be considered for use to sepazate the subgrade and gravel where subgrade soils aze at risk of migrating into the gravel base course. A suitably designed gravel base course should help surchazge the subgrade and act as a drainage layer for removing water accumulations. A lean concrete or flowable fill mud mat with a thickness of several inches or more may be placed directly on the subgrade if upwazd seepage does not exist. If base drainage is needed, a lean concrete or flowable fill mud mat may be placed over a gravel base course. A mud mat will help to isolate water, provide surchazge against loosening and will provide a stable surface which is resistant to disturbance from construction traffic. Sump and pump systems or dewatering wells should be used to remove any accumulating water or water pressure in the gravel base course. In any azeas where unsuitable conditions develop despite protection measures, subgrade stabilization should be performed as described in a separate sheet entitled "STS Subgrade Stabilization Guideline" . ,~ STS Subgrade Stabilization Guideline ,~~ Subgrade stabilization may be required if zones of unsuitable soil are encountered upon excavating to the subgrade level or if subgrade degradation occurs from construction traffic, moisture accumulations, freeze-thaw cycles or other causes. Caze should always be used to minimize disturbance and degradation of subgrade soils below foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements and fill areas. Water should not be allowed to pond on the surface of exposed subgrade soils, as this could cause a softening of the subgrade, particularly when subjected to construction traffic. Detrimental groundwater seepage should not be allowed to soften or loosen the subgrade. Unsuitable subgrade soils that are encountered or subgrade soils that become disturbed or softened after exposure should be improved prior to concrete or new material placement. The unsuitable soils should either be properly compacted in place (if feasible based on material type, moisture content and thickness), or over-excavations should extend through the unsuitable soils to remove them to an underlying competent soil stratum. If improvement by over-excavating is performed, footing walls can be extended deeper and supported at the level where suitable soil is encountered. Alternatively, the over- excavations can be backfilled to the design level using either a suitable compacted structural fill material or a flowable cementitious fill. If the over-excavations aze backfilled using structural soil fill, the over-excavations should extend a minimum of 3 feet horizontally from each edge of the footing for each foot of fill required below the footing base. The structural soil fill should be placed, compacted and tested in accordance with a separate document entitled STS Earthwork Guideline. Generally, awell-graded granulaz material is more suitable for stabilization work than cohesive soils. If anopen-graded granulaz material is planned as the bacl~ill and the new subgrade or surrounding soils contain zones of cohesionless fine sands or silts which may migrate into the open-graded backfill, then an appropriately designed geotextile should be utilized to sepazate the stabilization material from the subgrade and surrounding trench soils. Failure to provide such separation may cause lost ground from surrounding soils and detrimental settlements. Horizontal over-excavation is unnecessary if footing walls are extended to the lower suitable subgrade level or if flowable fill is used to backfill the over-excavated azea. Flowable fill should have a sufficient Portland cement and/or fly ash content to achieve 28 day unconfined compressive strengths in the range of 50 to 200 pounds per square inch (psi). ~~ . ~.. . ~ s STS Earthwork Guideline ~~ Fill or backfill required on the project should consist of anon-frozen, non-organic granular material, aggregate or natural soil that is free of debris and particles larger than 25 percent of the loose lift thickness. The natural water content of cohesive fill soil at the time of compaction should generally be within -2 to +3 percent of the optimum water content as determined by the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D-698). Difficulty in obtaining the desired degree of compaction is expected for soil that is too dry or too wet. The water content should be adjusted by sprinkling if too dry or by scarifying and aerating if too wet. Blending with an additive such as fly ash or drier soil may also help produce an acceptable water content. Fill or backfill which is relatively uniform should be used on the project. Non-uniform materials or =~ mixing two or more materials will reduce the degree of certainty in the test results and will tend to cause variable compressibility of the fill. Fill or backfill should be placed on a firm, checked subgrade in horizontal lifts with a loose thickness not greater than 12 inches for granular material and 9 inches for cohesive soil. It should then be compacted with equipment that is suited to the soil type and compaction requirements. Normally, vibratory roller or plate compactors are better suited for .granular soils, while a sheepsfoot or other "kneading" type of compactors are more effective in cohesive soils. Lighter, hand-propelled compactors should generally be utilized to compact backfill within 5 feet of structures unless the structure is designed to resist expected lateral pressures from use of heavier compactors. When using lighter, hand-propelled compactors, a maximum loose lift thickness of 8 inches should be used for granular material and 6 inches for cohesive soil. Unless stated otherwise in the report text, fill or backfill that supports foundations, floor slabs that are loaded in excess of 400 psf, and roadway pavement that is subjected to concentrated automobile or truck traffic should be compacted to a dry density of 95 % or more of the maximum dry density determined by Standard Proctor tests (ASTM D-698) on representative samples of the fill material. Fill or backfill that supports lightly loaded floor slabs, sidewalks or pavement that is subjected to dispersed automobile traffic should be compacted to a dry density of 90 % or more of the maximum dry density determined by Standard Proctor tests on representative samples of the fill material. Compaction tests may be considered satisfactory if the average of five consecutive tests on similarly compacted material exceeds the required compaction and no individual test is more than 2% below the required percentage of compaction. Proper compaction is generally difficult to achieve near the edge of a slope or embankment fill due to lack of confinement. For this reason, we recommend that the compacted fill or backfill zone extend horizontally beyond the edge of foundations a minimum of 1 foot at the subgrade level and then with depth at a minimum slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Fill material acceptability, subgrade preparation and testing for suitability, fill placement and fill compaction should be monitored continuously or at least regularly by a qualified soils technician whom reports to the geotechnical engineer for the project. Compaction density for structural fill should be tested at a minimum frequency of once per 5000 frz of fill area or once per 200 yd3 of compacted material placed unless stated otherwise in our report. In non-structural fill areas, testing frequencies may be reduced in half. 470 Pillsbury Center ~ - , 200 South Sixth Street ~ Minneapolis MN 55402 • (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax H A`< R T E R E D hccpa/www.kennedy-graven.com CORxINE H. THONISON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (6l2) 337-9217 email: cthomson~cukennedy-graven.com November 23, 1999 Fran Clazk Q tin!- ~'itt~ l~~~r.~r-.a.- City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Mound HRA /Balboa Land Purchase Dear Ms. Clazk: Enclosed is an invoice from STS Consultants Ltd in the amount of $1,600.00. This invoice is for the Phase I environmental assessment that the company performed on the property at 5377 Shoreline Drive, at the request of the HRA. Please remit payment directly to STS Consultants. Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson Enclosure cc: Jim Prosser (w/o enc) 1 CAH-172288v 1 MU195-1 Please Remit To: STS CONSULTANTS LTD. P. O. Box 88596 Chicago, IL 60680-1596 TERMS: DUE UPON RECEIPT TO: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY CENTER 200 SO. 6TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 ATTN: MS. CORINNE THOMSON RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at 5377 Shoreline Drive, Mound, MN. Total Contract Amount Percent Complete - 100.00% Less Previous Invoiced Amount • Total Amount Due PLEASE REMIT ONE COPY OF INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT. A FINANCE CHARGE OF 1 1/2% PER MONTH (18% ANNUALLY) WILL BE ADDED TO ALL INVOICES UNPAID AFTER 30 DAYS Invoice Number: Invoice Date: Customer Code: Customer PO: STS Office: STS Job Number: Bill Thru Date: 998893 NOVEMBER 19, 1999 117250 N 6-97589.XA 11/13/99 If you have questions regarding this invoice, please call GARY J RATHBUN E7J~- at (612) 315-6300 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $.00 $1,600.00 C H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http: //www. kenn edy-grave n. co m CORRINE H. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9217 email: cthomson@kennedy-graven.com November 12, 1999 BY FAX AND MAIL Paul S. Moe, Esq. Faegre & Benson LLP 2300 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 RE: Property at 5377 Shoreline Drive, Mound, Minnesota Dear Mr. Moe: The purpose, of this letter is to advise you concerning the status of the HR.A's environmental investigation of the property covered by the Purchase Agreement between the Mound HRA and Balboa Center Limited Partnership. As you know, the HRA completed its Phase I investigation, and has begun a Phase II investigation. We expect the Phase II investigation to be completed prior to November 27, 1999. At this time, the HRA has not determined that the matters and conditions disclosed to date are satisfactory. The HRA regards the environmental condition of the property to be a critical component to its determination as to whether its purchase of the property is feasible. Accordingly, HRA waives the 60-day contingency in paragraph 6.i. of the Purchase Agreement; the HRA expressly reserves its right to exercise the contingency in paragraph 6.ii. of the Purchase Agreement on any ground, including without limitation, that the environmental condition of the property makes the purchase of the property not feasible. Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson cc: John Dean Fran Clark, City of Mound CAH-171794 MU195-4 470 Pillsbury Center ®® ~~tt pp~~ _ . - - ~ 200 South Sixth Street A~Y.~,~~~16i ~~~' ~ ,~ ~99~ . Minneapolis MN 55402 _, ~~ (612) 337-9300 telephone ~ (612) 337-9310 fax C H A R T E R E D http://www.kennedy-graven.com CORRINE H. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9217 email: cthomson@kennedy-graven.com October 20, 1999 BY FAX AND MAIL Paul S. Moe, Esq. Faegre & Benson LLP 2300 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 RE: Title Opinion and Objections Parcel 1: The West 143.3 feet of Block 4, lying North of the South 453.36 feet thereof, Shirley Hills, Unit F, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 860787). Parcel 2: All of Block 4, except the Southerly 300 feet thereof and except that part of the West 143.3 feet thereof lying North of the South 453.36 feet thereof and except the East 225.00 feet thereof, Shirley Hills, Unit F, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 862532) Dear Mr. Moe: On behalf of the City of Mound, I have reviewed a commitment to issue title insurance prepared by First American Title Insurance Company effective July 30, 1999 at 7:00 a.m. The commitment purports to cover the above described property, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota and indicates that the fee owner of the property, as of July 30, 1999 is Balboa Center Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership subject, however, to the following limitations: Mortgage, Assignment, Security Agreement and Financing Statement executed by Balboa Minnesota Co., a Minnesota corporation, in favor of Home Savings Association, dated July 26, 1985, filed July 30, 1985, as Document No. 1661579, Office of the Registrar of Titles, in the original amount of $1,000,000.00. (as to Parcel 2 and additional land). The commitment includes an endorsement insuring over that exception. If the City elects not to purchase title insurance, the City will require that a satisfaction or release of the mortgage be recorded. 2. Reservations of minerals and mineral rights by the State of Minnesota as shown by recitals on the certificates of title. The City will accept title subject to the State's interest. ROCKLC-170114 MU195-4 Paul S. Moe, Esq. October 20, 1999 Page 2 of 3 3. Use restrictions as set forth in Warranty Deed dated March 22, 1985, filed March 27, 1985, as Document No. 1634375 (as to Parcel 1). The restrictions prevent Parcel 1 from being used for the purpose of a convenience type food store with the sale of self service gasoline until March 22, 2005. The City will accept title subject to that restriction. 4. Highway right of way in favor of Hennepin County as shown on Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 15, Plat 68, filed July 5, 1985, as Document Number 1656002, said plat filed pursuant to Resolution filed as Document No. 979240. The City will accept title subject to the county's interest. 5. Highway and drainage easements together with right of access acquired by tlz ~`ozk~t>~ ~ f Hennepin as set forth in Final Certificate dated October 15, 1990, filed October 15, 1990, as Document No. 2130148. The City will accept title subject to the county's interests. 6. Memorandum of Agreement, and the easements, terms, conditions and obligations contained therein, dated December 10, 1984, filed February 25, 1985, as Document No. 1629672, Office of the Registrar of Titles, and as Document No. 4970032, Office of the County Recorder. We require that we be provided a copy of the purchase agreement referenced in Document No. 1629672. The City reserves further objection pending review of that agreement. 7. Taxes payable in the year 1999 in the amount of $1,908.78 are half paid as to Parcel 1. PID No. 13-117-24-34-0063. Base tax $1,908.78, non-homestead. Taxes payable in the year 1999 in the amount of $3,767.48 are half paid as to Parcel 2. PID No. 13-117-24-34-0075. Base Tax $3,767.48, non-homestead. The City will require payment of the 1999 taxes as provided in the City's purchase agreement with Balboa Center Limited Partnership. 8. Matters shown on survey by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc., dated January 28, 1998, Job No. 97-041 a. Overhead utility lines which cross the properties. There is no easement of record for the utility lines. b. Easement filed as Document No. 1656002 is not depicted on survey. c. Land description on survey certification does not match the land description of record. The City requires a revised survey depicting Easement Document No. 1656002 certified to the legal description of record. The City reserves the right to make further objections, pending receipt of the survey. 9. The City also requires that the seller provide a standard form Seller's Affidavit at closing and any other documents that the title company may reasonably require in order to delete ROCKLC-170114 MU195-4 Paul S. Moe, Esq. October 20, 1999 Page 3 of 3 the exceptions at Schedule B -Section II, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16 of the title commitment. Sincerely, ,~ ~.- Corrine H. Thomson cc: John Dean Fran Clark, City of Mound ROCKLC-170114 MU195-4 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www. kennedy-graven.com .TORN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 email: jdean@kennedy-o aven.com September 27, 1999 1~ ran l;iark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: HRA/Balboa Purchase Agreement. Dear Fran: ~~~ ~ ~;,~,. P ~~~'~' ~,~~ ~~~ Enclosed please find an executed original of the referenced agreement. Please retain the agreement in the files of the HRA. We are working on the title and environmental issues and will keep the HRA informed as to the status. The agreement has a'"drop dead" date of November 27, 1999. Please schedule the item for the agenda of the last HRA meeting before November 27 so that it can make the election to proceed or not. Sometime in mid-November, it will also be a good idea to begin to make arrangements for the C'';r~~ to loan the HRA the purchase price. Respectfully Yours, B. Dean db >sure JBD-169340 MU195-4 PURCHASE AGREEMENT Final Mound, Minnesota ~~, 1999 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, having its principal place of business at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota 55364 ("BUYER"), hereby agrees to the purchase of property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A. ("Property") from the undersigned BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Limited Partnership under the laws of the State of Texas having its principal office at 3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 404, Dallas, TX 75024 ("SELLER"), said SELLER agreeing to sell such Property to BUYER for the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) which BUYER agrees to pay in the following manner: a. Five thousand dollars ($5,000) as earnest money, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and which shall be held and disbursed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. b. The balance of the purchase price in cash or by certified or cashier's check or wire transfer of immediately available funds on the closing date. THE CONDITIONS AND TERMS OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by BUYER, SELLER agrees to execute and deliver at the time of closing a limited warranty deed conveying marketable title to said Property, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; and b. Easements, reservations and restrictions of record, if any. 2. POSSESSION-CONDITION: SELLER agrees to deliver possession not later than the date of closing. 3. COST5 AND PRO RATIONS: SELLER and BUYER agree to the following pro rations and allocations of costs regarding this Agreement: a. Deed Tax. SELLER shall pay all state deed tax regarding the Deed and any other documents necessary to place record title in the condition warranted and to be delivered by SELLER under this Agreement. b. Recording Costs. BUYER shall pay the cost of recording all other documents, including the deed to be delivered by SELLER to BUYER. JBD-166726 1 MU195-2 c. Taxes and Assessments. SELLER shall pay real estate taxes due and payable in 1999 and special assessments certified for payment with such taxes, if any. BUYER shall pay all real estate taxes due and payable in 2000 and special assessments certified for payment with such taxes. BUYER shall assume all special assessments levied or pending with respect to said Property on the date of closing. SELLER makes no representation or warranty whatsoever concerning the amount of real estate taxes or assessments which shall be assessed or levied against the Property subsequent to the date of this Purchase Agreement. d. Title Insurance Commitment Costs. SELLER shall pay all service charges for obtaining the title insurance commitment with respect to the Property described in Section 4. e. Title Insurance Premium. BUYER shall pay all premiums required for any owner's or mortgagee's title insurance policy issued in connection with this transaction. f. Closing Costs. SELLER and BUYER shall each pay one half (1/2) of any closing fee payable to Title Company with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 4. TITLE: Within a reasonable time after acceptance of this Purchase Agreement, SELLER shall furnish to BUYER a title insurance commitment covering the Property. BUYER is responsible for purchasing title insurance for the Property. BUYER shall have 30 business days after receipt of the commitment (but in no event less than 30 days after the date on this Purchase Agreement) to examine the same and to deliver written objections to title, if any, to SELLER. SELLER shall be allowed 60 days after the making of BUYER's objections to cure the same, but shall have no obligation to do so. Pending such cure, the closing specified under Section 14 shall be postponed to the extent necessary to accommodate such time period. Upon such cure, the closing shall be held on the later of (a) the closing date specified under Section 14; or (b) the first business day occurring 10 days after the date such cure is completed. If such cure is not completed within said 60 day period, BUYER shall have the option to do any of the following: a. Terminate this Agreement, whereupon the earnest money shall be returned to BUYER. b. Waive one or more of its objections and proceed to closing. 5. DEFAULT: If BUYER shall default in any of the covenants contained in this Agreement, SELLER may terminate this Agreement, time being of the essence hereof. Either party shall have the right of enforcing the specific performance of this Agreement provided this JBD-166726 2 MU195-2 Agreement shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. 6. CONTINGENCIES: The obligations of BUYER under this Agreement are contingent upon each of the following: i. On or before a date that is 60 days after the date of this Agreement, BUYER shall have determined that the matters and conditions disclosed by the reports, investigations and tests received or performed by BUYER pursuant to Section 8 are satisfactory to BUYER in its sole discretion. ii. On or before November 27, 1999, BUYER shall have determined, in its sole discretion, that the purchase of the Property is feasible and authorized by law. If any conditions in this Section 6 have not been satisfied on or before the applicable date set forth above, BUYER may terminate this Agreement by notice to SELLER on or before the applicable date, in which event the earnest money shall be returned to BUYER. The conditions in this Section 6 are specifically stated and for the sole benefit of BUYER. BUYER in its discretion may unilaterally waive (conditionally or absolutely) the fulfillment of any one or more of the conditions, or any part thereof, by notice to SELLER. 7. WELL DISCLOSURE: SELLER certifies that SELLER does not know of any wells on the described real Property. 8. RIGHT OF ENTRY: During the period between the mutual execution and delivery of this Agreement and the closing or earlier termination of this Agreement, BUYER and its employees, agents and independent contractors shall have the right to enter the Property during normal business hours and upon reasonable prior notice to SELLER to inspect the same, perform surveys, environmental assessments, soil and other tests and for other investigations and activities consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. BUYER shall restore any damage to the Property caused by such inspection and shall indemnify and hold SELLER harmless from all liabilities incurred by SELLER and arising out of any such entry. The foregoing indemnity shall survive termination of this Agreement. BUYER shall deliver to SELLER copies of any reports BUYER obtains in connection with such inspection within a reasonable time after the same are received by BUYER. 9. WARRANTIES: a. Mechanic's Liens: SELLER warrants that, prior to the closing date, SELLER has made any and all payments in full for all labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing date in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure on or improvement (including, but not lunited to grading and landscaping, etc.) to the Property, if any. b. Notices: SELLER warrants that SELLER has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance, or regulation. If the Property is subject to restrictive covenants, SELLER warrants that SELLER has not JBD-166726 3 MU195-2 received any notice from any person or authority as to a breach of the covenants. Any notices received by SELLER prior to closing shall be provided to BUYER promptly. 10. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES: BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT WILL HAVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND ACCEPTS THE RISK THAT ANY INSPECTION MAY NOT DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL MATTERS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. SUBJECT ONLY TO THE TERMS OF SECTIONS 3 AND 9, BUYER AGREES TO ACCEPT THE PROPERTY IN ITS "AS IS" "WHERE IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS" CONDITION AT CLOSING WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATION OR W?-ItRANTY WHATSOEVER INCLUDING AS TO MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF SET-OFF OR REDUCTION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE. 11. SURVIVAL OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES: All of the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties hereto contained in this Agreement shall survive the closing of the transaction contemplated herein and the delivery of any documents provided for herein for a period of six months and shall not be merged into any other agreement. 12. RISK OF LOSS: If the Property is substantially damaged before the closing date so as to make its use for the intended purposes significantly more costly, this Purchase Agreement shall become null and void, at the BUYER's option, provided that BUYER notifies SELLER of such termination within five days of the Property damage. If such an event occurs, BUYER and SELLER agree to sign a Cancellation of Purchase Agreement within a reasonable time after such event takes place. 13. TIME OF ESSENCE: Tune is of the essence in this Purchase Agreement. 14. CLOSING DATE AND LOCATION: Closing shall take place at any location which is mutually acceptable to the parties. Closing shall occur on January 5, 2000. 15. NOTICES: Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with the Agreement if it is directed to the SELLER by delivering it personally to the SELLER; or if it is directed to the BUYER, by delivering it personally to the BUYER; or to either party if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or if transmitted to either party by facsimile, copy followed by mailed notice as above required; or if deposited by either party, cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed as follows: IF TO THE SELLER: Balboa Center Limited Partnership C/o CK Development Company 4600 Westbury Drive Colleyville, Texas 76034 ATTN: Gary N. Maxwell IF TO THE BUYER: JBD-166726 4 MU195-2 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 ATTN: Executive Director and City Manager AND COPY TO: John B. Dean KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as aforesaid; provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, that the time for the response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one (1) business day after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, or in any manner above specified, ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such change. 16. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS: This Purchase Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the parties hereto. 17. ASSIGNABILITY: BUYER may not assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of SELLER, which consent maybe given or withheld by SELLER in its discretion. 18. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19. SEVERABILITY: If any term of this Agreement or any application thereof shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any other application of such term shall not be affected thereby. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between SELLER and BUYER, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between SELLER and BUYER. This Purchase Agreement can only be modified in writing signed by SELLER and BUYER. 21. NOTICE: The attached notice is made a part of the Authority's offer to purchase. JBD-166726 c~ MCT195-2 The undersigned do hereby approve the above Agreement and the sale thereby made. Date: ~ `lv SELLER: BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: CK Development Company Its General Partner By: Gar N. Maxwe Its Vice President HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND THE CITY OF MOUND By. Its Chair Its Executive Director This instrument was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (JIiD) 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612-337-9300 M1528231.03 JBD-166726 6 MU195-2 NOTICE TO BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP You are hereby notified as follows: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound ("HRA") is a legal entity organized and operating in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 2. Among the powers conferred upon the HRA is the power of eminent domain. 3. The parcel of land which is the subject of the attached purchase agreement is located within the area of the City of Mound which the HRA has designated as a Redevelopment Project Area. 4. It is the intention of the HRA to acquire the subject property and to make it available for redevelopment. 5. In the event that the HRA and the owner are unable to reach mutually acceptable terms concerning the purchase of the subject property, is the present intention of the HRA to take the steps necessary, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, acquire the subject property through the exercise of its power of eminent domain. JBD-166726 7 MU195-2 EXHIBIT A Legal Descriution of the Property The land referred to is situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, and is described as follows: Parcel 1: (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 860787) The West 143.3 feet of Block 4, lying North of the South 453.36 feet thereof, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 860788) All of Block 4 except the Southerly 300 feet thereof and except that part of the West 143.3 feet thereof lying North of the South 453.36 feet thereof and except the East 225.00 feet thereof, Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. M 1:528231.03 JBD-166726 8 MU195-2 FAX COVERSHEET C/TY OF MOUND 5341 MA YWOOD ROAD MOUND, MlN 55364 PHONE: 612-472-0600 FAX: 612-472-0620 M~ ~~~ TO: O ~ a- FAX: ~ ~ oZ.' SO ~O ~'~s~~~ FROM: ~~R'N t^~ ~.A'~~ 9,~ p C DATE: GI wag' / ~ . TOTAL PAGES PURPOSE: For your information Take appropriate action As you requested As we discussed For your approval REMARKS: Review and return Reply to sender Other (see remarks) - ~- OT-13-99 11:22 ~~ bran: From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN . , +6123379310 T-930 P.01/04 F-114 The attached draft has been reviewed and approved by Bud Storm. ~I ~ axed him the legal description inf~~rmation you sent me; a d he will incorporate it in the final letter that he is prep~ipg on his letterhead. The text will be the same as the atta~h~d draft. .~ ., Please review it and call Pat to see if she wants to see your copy. ~;:t~ld Bud that if he didn't hear from you by around 2:00 to ~~ ahead and send the letter {fax an~~ marl}. ~ called 11~j~I ' well earlier and told him that it was coming; and Bud is ~ 'ng to call him when the letter is sE:nt. Y have rp~etings at the Metropolitan Airport Commission all afterno~r~, but ~ will try to check back with you before 4:30. John OT-23-99 11:22 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN . i . } +6123379310 T-930 P.03/04 F-124 DISCUSSION DRAFT } 1u1 23 19~~9 y ~ . CK Davzlo~rr~nt Co./8alboa Center Limited Partnership 4600 Westlaur~ Ihivc Colleyvillc,: TIC 76034 Attn: Gary ,M~well. Re: [some:~ie ~cription of site] Deaz Mr. l1~I;~x~well: r The undersigt~d represents the Ciry of Mound and tbC Mound Housing and Redevelop~te t Authority ("Authority") in connection with thz negotiation and acguisition,Pf~roperties in the downtown area of Mound. In that rapa~c:it~, I have reviewed the possibility of acquisition of the referenced site by the Author}ty;iand it is my intention to recommend to the Authority that it submit a purchase o#~fe~` in the form of a purchase agreement. I will be rc~.~o amending to the Authority that the purchase agreement contain a purchase prig of $SQO, ,all of which would be payablz at closing, and that the purchase would be cuntingent marketable title, satisfactory znvironmcntal and coils review. Closing would occt'tr, rider my recommendation, once those mattars have been satisfizd or waived. Uq r my recommendation, aclosing this Fall would saem likely. The purchase agreement w d also contain other provisions customary in uans:ictions of this nature. Although tie ~ecision to make any offer rests exclusively with the Authority's governing body, it is my belief that the Authority will approvz my recommendation. ., a i I would lil~~ ty have the Authority consider this matter at a meeting on August 3, 1999. If approved, l~tz ~Aathority would direct the preparation of a forma! purchase agreement which it w~ul~i then consider on or before August 10. Huwever, ~efpte proceeding, it is important to know whether the property is still available, aitdfif so, whether the tetnts outlined above would, be s~:riously considerzd by your organ;za~ion. It would b~ appreciated if you could provide me with that information by Tuesday, July 27. . , 16D-166339 MU19~-Z OT-23-99 11:22 From-KENNEDY i GRAVEN +6123379310 T-930 P.04/04 F-124 _ ~ ThanJc you for{your consideration ~f ibis manor. i . , s 4 1 .i ,~ j 18D-166337 ML195-2 • EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO. 6110 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE 140 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 (612) 930-3100 • Fax (612) 935-0862 Watts (888) 411-1134 July 23, 1999 CK development Co./Balboa Center Limited Partnership 4600 Westbury Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 Attn: Gary Maxwell Re: City of Mound, Mn. 5377 & 54XX Shoreline Drive P. I. D. Number 13-117-24-34-0063 & 0075 Dear Mr. Maxwell: The undersigned represents the City of Mound and the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("Authority") in connection with the negotiation and acquisition of properties in the downtown area of Mound, Minnesota. In that capacity, I have reviewed the possibility of acquisition of the referenced site by the Authority and it is my intention to recommend to the Authority that it submit a purchase offer in the form of a purchase agreement. I will be recommending to the Authority that the purchase agreement contain a purchase price of $500,000.00, all of which would be payable at closing, and that the purchase would be contingent on marketable title, satisfactory environmental and soils review. Closing would occur, under my recommendation, once those matters have been satisfied or waived. A closing this Fall would seem likely. The purchase agreement would also contain other provisions customary in transactions of this nature. • Although the decision to make any offer rests exclusively with the Authority's governing body, it is my belief that the Authority will approve my recommendation. I would like to ]cave the Authority consider this matter at a meeting on August 3, 1999. If approved, the Authority would direct the preparation of a formal purchase agreement which it would then consider on or before August 10, 1999. Successfully servin 9 our clients since 1972 However, before proceeding, it is important to know whether the property is still available, and if so, whether the terms outlined above would be considered by your organization. It would be appreciated if you could provide me with that information by Tuesday, July 27, 1999. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this matter. Stuart "Bud" Storm, SR/WA President ~CC,'. 't~~cac.L ~~~a1~2c-a~t.~ Qtk~" i~E\ Sal, OT-ZT-99 11:13 +61Z33T9310 T-08Z P.03/03 F-Z96 2NFo • • c x nsultal~rr c~Annt ItiOU W85TBUJrtYDBIVS COLd.FYvIZI.I{- TBacAS 7tio3a t I sat in m : ~ yaut cesrar~tordattce to me crated Idy 2,1999 in which ~a ~~ ' ~ ont P~P~Y ~ Shorntma Driver Sb the Cysy aef'D4oirttd Y 5ati'cer as8edv for s re~pa~iac~by~ l~duy J ~ , 2 1999 io yoe>r lettrr of ~caest: I fast te-aa ~ ~ th qou ~ yarr lector. I6swe t~oate! ~6f4i ~ A+~erous ti~+CSttSiCtte f~7~ tl7B prCHOV$ >ldattttSer t ~ esf the CitY's utrenst tit out Ia>tid I ltanYly had 1;~~ vp hopt arsd as You ktDW I~eavt hs+eo ~~lS ~c'ty tot sak. We have boar quatiag 59.D0 pea square faoL $ ttttttlhar e~wd bar the se:ve~al I~ sstcs iacladittg the Pearti~ase of zbe Post Office m Ainemd I em ao of ~ Cunard Patois bra ltsve Bracey Gtreited panrtets in tfeir deal and doabc tilrar i wilt be abk to spealr to $ ,~aa Qa stscdr short rtodea W hat I cai et0 as the Gatotet Piaster is ro 8~ you a:isvranee that l will twt sot cm ~~ t>~ that I haw 5ar the paesperty eeatl.d=r A>q;,est 9,1999 rt: allaw the city / Autbotitp time to me arc oa your reooamet~~ From-KENNEDY i GRAUEN i J1tly 26.1 , 9 f •i Ayir,~. Stoat ~ ~ tar '~ 1 ~~5~ ;1 Swicaa Corttp~y 6110 8hn ~~' ~ atitilo lip >fdrnnmeo~ '; sob SS3a3 ~ ~ Air. Storm .. , t e~ ~ ~ ~ io ~ r~ry ~, a patfiar (not es toe Ciimotal Paltmrr) by ssytpS that tha et8'cr wand be oerxpnhlo ~ o ~ it so canaidraed a tta o8'er. By that I taean ts:ot the C~'~Avthraisy aW! cbtam acy rests oc ralsoear a i ;} e:o~ and the Sails will sot bo ~~ W Ply ~ silQa~ccrt rloainS c-0am. I w~oWd fvrtl~r trspe~ a n t~ time:~ame far then tt~actleat m as oa ~ to aP tba p:opesry .fce; o, aceidcd Deciod oFnene I}lere a a ~ ~ d it>un tt,q be cif bt~t to my P$tstors t~s doss twt involvo arty maaertary corssideraaian. As 7 ttndar the tox tars s-o quite bQ+e6cist >a sonars v~p Wl tinder iLc tlsrtlat d WuQt>mtldtlCtl 1 d0 sot believe the ~ atiat fsos a take plea but mere}yr !5r the C.iry b thneattc eo eto 9o if aegotitxiamr arc .~ ~~ ~ : t ~ ~ ~ canQder tfe~s es pos~7sie gtbatrLrnaAt to ya,r ofhr. ~~ vhal i~ ~ ass rf~ re+~ra Please caD tao a[ (E t ~ 788.6b~! . Ptaao lei ine hear fiaa yon after ehr Au~ttst 3, ~g 8incao>~, ~Y YteerPreeza. C K t]evd~ C>~oI Fn Balboa C.es ,~ :~ r i~~ "~ ~ ... Cocstpsrty Parotetsmp ~ vv: • 470 Pillsbury Center ' 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 ~~ (612) 337-9300 telephone ~' ~~r~Iy~D ..,~ _ _ , (612) 337-9310 fax AUG 51999 C H A R T E R E D http://www.kennedy-graven.com -' JOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 e111a11: idean(a~kennedv-eraven.com August 4, 1999 Bud: Last night the Mound HRA authorized me to prepare a purchase agreement for the Balboa Limited Partnership property. The agreement will be considered by the HRA at its 8/10 meeting. The HRA also was favorably disposed to make the statement requested by the owner that the property is needed for redevelopment, and would be acquired by eminent domain if a negotiated sale can not be worked out. Obviously, the acquisition timing and purchase price would be affected by such a process. would you please eom~municate the status of the matter to Mr. Maxwell. John cc: Fran, Pat, Bruce JBD-166855 M U 195-2 JUL-29-99 THU 10:17 EVERGREEN IANDSERVICES FAX N0, 9350862 P. O1 ~~ Evergreen Land Services Company 6110 Slue Circlt Drive, Suite #140 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 612-930-3100 Fax: G12-93S-0862 W attar 1-888-41 l - 1134 TRL~Cr7PlER TR.~NSItii1TTAL Date: July 29, 1999 Please deliver the following pages tn: Cary Mmcwell 1%az it 817-581-1?I n From: Bud Storm l~~xz ~i 612-935-D<YG2 Message: Got yo:~r last fox and the white was trot. We are still on truck tv take the matter tv the LIRA on August 3rd As I verbally told you, if we reach un agreement 1 would. put in writing that the City has the right of condemnation but neither the H1tA, nor myself, can make any representations ac tv whether such action by the City would provide the sellers any taz benef ts. Alta want to let you know we are working ora a purchase agreement in anticiputi~» z of IRA approval. Any gtrestio~u• please call or fax nae.. 7'hariks. You will receive 1 pages of copy including this page. If you do not receive a full and clear transmission, please cwztact this office immediately at 612-930-3100. Thank you. BCC: Pat, Fran, Brucc & John Poat-it" F ax yJote 7671 Dace ~ L~ ~~- To ~ t / / ~-l w~ From CoJDept. Co. Phone N Phono S Fax # ~ ~ ~ w Ft~x u PAS Ca~V~ G~ P`t oR -tEu- rec. July 28, 1999 Bud: You might want to consider a brief response to Maxwell acknowledging his letter and letting him know that we are still on track to take the matter to the HRA on the 3rd As to the condemnation request, I would suggest that you tell him that you will ask the HRA to consider it; but that neither you nor the HRA will make any representations as to whether such an action by the HRA would provide the sellers .any tax benefit. I spoke with Bruce Chamberlain this morning, and we are going to work on a draft agreement right away. John cc: Pat, Fran, Bruce. APPRAISAL Si1~1ARy Client: The City of Mound c/o Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 Property Appraised: Co7mnercial Real Estate - A vacant parcel of B-1 zoned land at 54XX Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota Appraisal Scope - S~urnnazy valuation approach to produce a Market Value estimate so the real estate may be purchased in fee. A Complete Appraisal process with the Sales Comparison Approach to value was used to derive the final value estimate. Date of Valuation: May 19, 1998 Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Name of Owner: Balboa Minnesota Co. aka Benton Center LTD Partnership Date of Inspection: May 19, 1998 Property Data: Zoning - B-1 Site Area - 68,138 square feet Topography - Level & open, 5% wetland Highest and Best Use: Commercial development w/retail bldg or restaurant Value Conclusion by Sales Conq~arison Approach: $477,000 Appraiser: Eric Bjorklund 7 o~a~~ APID R~cErrP I~S'I012Y oorrr. Goldman were all part of the subject's recent ownership history. Welsh Companies was appointed by the courts to manage the facility when it was in receivership the five or so years prior to the most recent transfer of ownership. Welsh in fact still continues to manage the facility for the new property owners. At any rate, the subject is physically non-contiguous land, with a different zoning designation than the industrial facility, which the (adjacent) property owner apparently never chose to use for excess parking, or to sell and separately develop something else on. Should the property be placed for sale, the marketing period, at the appraised opinion of value, should be about three to six months. Paul Bickford, the Welsh Companies Broker who manages the subject for the property owner, reports that he receives calls from time to time inquiring about whether the land is for sale. LEGAL DFSC1tTP'~ION That part of Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F lying West of the East 224 feet thereof, and North of the South 300 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. REAL ~r*A'i'F' TAX IlTION Taxpayer: Balboa Minnesota Company Fee Owner: Balboa Minnesota Company Address: 5377 & 54XX Shoreline Drive, Mound, MN 55364 Property I.D. Number: 13-117-24-34-0063 & 0075 Assessors Market Value: $109,000 combined total Taxes: $5,897.26 combined total Special Assessments: $940.34 combined total Total Tax and Assessment Burden: $6,837.60 Unpaid Balance of Special Assessments: Not applicable. Subject is appraised as if unencim~bered by any liens. l1 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 17, 1998 Mr. Gary Maxwell 4600 Westbury Drive Colleyville, Texas 76034 Re: Dear Gary: Balboa Property -City of Mound, Minnesota Pursuant to our telephone conversation of April 16, 1998, the City of Mound is interested in purchasing the property owned by Balboa west of the SuperAmerica station and east of the Lost Lake property along Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) in the City of Mound. As I stated in our phone conversation, the City will need to have an appraisal done on the property prior to further negotiations with you on the possible purchase. This should take approximately 2-3 weeks. After that time, I will call you as to what the next steps should be in our negotiation process. Thank you for sending the fax on the comparable sales data you received. We will use this information as part of our research on the property. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me at 612-472-0609. Sincerely Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager ® printed on recycled paper RECEIVED ~~~ - 3 X998 4600 Westbury Drive Colleyville, Tezas 76034 March 30, 1998 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Several times over the last two years in conversations with Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington Koegler Group I have heard that the City of Mound intended to purchase a tract of land owned by Balboa Center Limited Partnership. This tract is south of County Road 15 and adjacent to the canal. I have even been provided concept drawings showing planned new development on this site. Despite these discussions, no offers or even inquiries have ever originated from the City. While the tract we own is not listed and is not on the market, diligent people have located us from time to time to approach us about our interest in selling the site. Recently, a local investor of substance has contacted us through a real estate agent to inquire about the tract's availability. I am loath to expend this gentleman's time only to have the City attempt to preempt a sale later. As such I would very much like to request the City to indicate their interest at this time. If I have not heard from you by the fifteenth of April, I am going to assume that any interest the City may have had previously has faded. You may reach me at (817) 581-6375 or by fax at (817) 581-1210. I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Gary N. Maxwell Vice-President CK Development Corp. General Partner for Balboa Center Limited Partnership • ~i Q To: Kandis Hanson, City Manager -Mound From: Jim Prosser W Subject: Post Office Relocation Date: Apri126, 2000 FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC The Mound Economic Development Commission has raised concerns regarding the potential use of eminent domain to acquire property for the Post Office relocation. This memo responds to those questions. Question: What is the background to the Post Of)ice relocation? Answer: The City purchased the Post Office site in order to permit the construction of a greenway as part of the downtown redevelopment. The Post Office retained a lease on the property which extends through October of 2002. Because of greenway grant requirements, it is necessary for the Post Office to be relocated prior to the end of the lease. The City Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has offered to assist the Post Office in this relocation. Question: Why should the City assist with this relocation? Answer: If the Post Office is not relocated prior to early summer of 2001, the City stands to lose grant funds to complete the greenway project. In order to relocate within this time flame, it is necessary to identify a site by the end of May, 2000. Additionally, it has been the objective of the city and the business community that the Post Office be located tin the downtown area. If the Post Office does not find a relocation site in Mound, it may relocate outside of the city. Question: What prior efforts have been made to relocate the Post Off ce? Answer: Initially, it was expected that the Post Office would become part of the redevelopment in either Auditors Road or the Langdon districts. However, the Post Office relocation requirements and the proposal for the redevelopment of these sites were not compatible from a market, financial or design perspective. Consideration was then given to relocating the Post Office to the commercial portion of the school site. Two problems were identified with this option. First, planning for this site would require agreement about the land use for the balance of the school site. It did not appear reasonable to expect that agreement about the land use would be reached prior to mid summer. Second, it is likely that the use of this parcel prior to agreement about the balance of the school site would significantly increase acquisition cost. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 jim@ehlers-inc.com Page 2 May 1, 2000 Question: How was the United Properties/Willette site selected? Answer: Given the limited time available to complete the relocation, the HR.A directed that a contingency plan be developed. That plan included identifying and evaluating all reasonable relocation sites within Mound. A total of nine sites were evaluated using criteria that included zoning, cost, accessibility, benefit to retail and traffic. All acceptable sites were reviewed with the Post Office. The Post Office indicated a preference for the United Properties site. In addition, this site appears to be the best fit from a land use perspective. Question: Why does the City need to use eminent domain to acquire this property? Answer: The City is taking prudent action to keep its options open in the acquisition of this property. A commercial real estate broker has already initiated discussions with both property owners. These discussions will continue even if and when eminent domain actions aze filed. The action can be terminated if agreement between the parties can be reached. However, there are several advantages for both the owner and the City to filing at this time including: Filing an action at this time will help assure that the property will be available for construction of a new Post Office within the required time frame. If the City and the owner are unable to agree to terms of the acquisition, then the courts will determine the fair mazket value. This is important because the City and the Post Office aze required to pay fair market value for the property. (This amount is different, and usually higher, than the assessed value used for tax purposes.) The City and the Post Office cannot pay more than the fair mazket value. Therefore if the owner believes the land is worth more than the fair mazket value as determined by an appraisal, then the court's intervention is useful. Owners whose properties aze acquired under condemnation or threat of condemnation are given extra time to reinvest the capital gains for tax purposes. Question: Will the owners be adequately compensated for their property? Answer: Yes. State law, as well the U.S. Constitution, require that the owners receive fair and just compensation for property acquired by governmental bodies. The City will comply with all acquisition requirements and guidelines. C:U4yFiles~PostOfficeQ&A LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 jim@ehlers-inc.com FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC 0 To: Kandis Hanson From: Jim Prosser W Subject: Development Agreement with The Beard Group Inc. ~ Date: 5/5/00 The preliminary development agreement with The Beard Group Inc. expires on 5/15/00. It was anticipated that this preliminary agreement would be replaced with a final development agreement prior to this date. A final development agreement is not yet ready for HRA consideration. A number of factors have contributed to the delay in completing this final development agreement. These factors primarily relate to information required by the developer to determine the project's financial feasibility. The Beard Group has indicated their intention to seek an extension of the preliminary development agreement. The HRA may be asked to consider this request at their meeting on May 9, 2000. It is the recommendation of the project team that efforts to finalize the development agreement with the Beard Group continue but that no extension be granted. The basis of this recommendation is as follows: The final development agreement should be completed for HRA consideration within the next 30 days. If an extension would be granted, that extension should be conditional. Developing and negotiating those conditions would consume time that would otherwise be directed at completing the final development agreement. From a practical pont of view, both the HRA and the Beard Group have sufficient incentives to complete the final development agreement. The time and cost to recruit, evaluate and progress a new developer to the present development stage provides adequate motivation for the HRA and the Beard Group. It should be noted that this project has proven to be more complex that most traditional redevelopment projects. The complexities are related to the roadway relocation, the need for other public improvements, complex land title issues and unique land use regulations (including shore line and watershed rules). These issues should be resolved within the next thirty days. LEADERS I N PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 jim@ehlers-inc.com