City Council Worksession

South St. Paul WORKSESSION AGENDA SSP City Hall 125 3rd Avenue North Training room Monday, October 25, 2021 7:00 pm AGENDA: 1. 151 Concord Exchange South – Development Interest 2. Library Preservation Project – Lois Glewwe Letter 3. Future Library Site Modification 4. Drover Wall Art Discussion 5. Seidls Lake Lift Station Transformer Location 6. Council Comments & Questions A COUNCIL WORK SESSION REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2021 1 DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: Ryan Garcia ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: 151 Concord Exchange S – Developer Interest DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: We’re looking for the EDA to discuss and form consensus around the following topics: • Is there EDA support for the development of the property? • If so, does the EDA support the proposed general development characteristics (building size/character, site design)? • If so, is the EDA supportive of staff negotiating a development agreement consistent with the terms proposed by the developer? If not, what changes would the EDA suggest to the development and/or proposed terms? Overview: Staff has been approached by a development team that is interested in developing an approximately 5,000 square foot commercial building on the east side of South Concord Exchange, on EDA-owned vacant property located between ProTouch Painting and VMS Prosthetics. The developer is seeking EDA feedback and response to the concept, which proposes that the commercial building would be leased to one or more commercial tenants (currently undefined/no pre-lease commitments). At this stage, the developer has submitted a Letter of Intent and very basic development concept sketch. However, we do not want to advance the concept any further without receiving guidance and feedback from the EDA about the proposed sale and development of the EDA-owned property as proposed by the developer. Background of the Development Site: The EDA-owned property totals approximately 0.4 Acres and is a “double frontage” lot with visibility on both Concord Street and Concord Exchange. The property was acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of South St. Paul (HRA) in late 2011, as we understand it for the purposes of long-term land banking and assembly with adjacent properties. From the late 1800s through the time the HRA acquired the property, it appears that the property consisted of a variety of structures (residential in the early days, followed by commercial) until demolition of the single remaining commercial structure in 2012 by the HRA. The property has remained vacant since and has been zoned “North Concord Mixed-Use” for the past two-plus decades. The HRA conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prior to its acquisition which indicated previous usage included an automobile mechanic and a history of underground and above ground fuel storage tanks, however a Phase II was not conducted at that time. About the Proposed Development and the Developer: Although quite preliminary, the developer proposes development of the site to a multi-tenant commercial building situated towards the Concord Exchange side of the property. The developer is focused on establishing the development to meet the anticipated demand for retail amenities driven by the reconstructed Concord Street, the growing business park, and the new residential development springing up along Concord Exchange. The developer, a general contractor team of Carlos Cortes-Arriza and Orlando Ponce (Orlando is also a residential real estate agent), have been active in South St. Paul in recent years, however all of their SSP experience has been in the single-family residential market (including a few Rediscover SSP projects). This would be the developer’s first commercial new construction project. The developer is proposing to self-finance the project and to general contract the construction themselves (both partners are involved in the construction industry). They have indicated that they anticipate a total development cost of approximately $400,000 ($80/ square foot), which Staff feels is conservative, however the developers are both in the construction industry themselves and believe that they can appreciate efficiencies in both material pricing and labor pricing. Letter of Intent/Developer’s Proposal: The developer has submitted a letter of intent to purchase the EDA properties for $20,000 ($1.14/sf), which is presumably significantly below market value (no appraisal has been conducted, however vacant infill lots in the southeast metro are listing generally between $3/sf - $6.25/sf). They have justified this pricing by pointing to the amount of risk they perceive in attempting to lease commercial space in a relatively soft and unproven commercial market along Concord Street. Frankly, this developer is unproven and it would be a tremendous leap of faith on the EDA’s part to grant them ownership and development rights under any proposal, let alone by essentially giving those rights away. By subsidizing the land cost this significantly, we’re lowering the bar for a development partner that has no proven history of performing as a commercial developer, and that so far has not presented what – if any - extraordinary public benefit would be realized by this project. Certainly we should look for opportunities to facilitate development in challenging circumstances, but in every case we should be diligent and thoughtful in making such decisions. Staff would suggest that if the EDA is willing to entertain the lowered acquisition cost, we should articulate specifically any expectations we’d have of the developer / the development in exchange for that lowered acquisition cost. The developer proposes that the facility will house multiple commercial tenants, and have speculated that a “small restaurant” and “tobacco shop” would be among their targets. They do not have specific tenants committed at this stage, so likely these are just “ideas”, but again this raises a specter of caution – the developer should be motivated (and have the wherewithal) to engage a commercial broker to help them find the best (read: highest rent) tenant for the facility rather than to speculatively build the building and “take what they can get” which is how they appear to be approaching this. Ultimately, Staff is willing to work with this developer but would suggest that a Development Agreement provide for, at minimum, the following: - Increased acquisition cost. - Pre-leasing contingency. Do not close the sale until developer has at least one five-year lease with a tenant falling into the “permitted uses” category in the CGMU district. Potentially, the EDA could be even more specific about this (identify a particular range of desired – or prohibited - uses) if so desired.  - Financing/underwriting contingency. This is a relatively customary element of preliminary diligence for our deals, however to date we have seen no documentation relating to the project (or the developer’s) financial viability. Receipt, review, and approval of pro forma and lending/financial capacity for the project should be a prerequisite to closing. Attachments: Orientation Map Site Concept Sketches Orientation Map  Site Concept Sketch (not to scale) Concord Exchange Elevation Concept Concord Street Elevation Concept North Elevation (facing Pro-Touch) Perspective Image A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2021 2 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION Prepared by: Joel Hanson, City Administrator ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: PROVIDE DIRECTION AS TO THE COUNCIL’S SUPPORT FOR A LEGACY GRANT APPLICATION AS OUTLINED IN LOIS GLEWWE’S LETTER OF OCTOBER 19, 2021 OVERVIEW: Please see letter from Lois Glewwe attached. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A DATE: October 19, 1921 TO: Mayor Francis, City Council members and Joel Hanson, FROM: Lois Glewwe RE: Legacy Grant for 1927 SSP Library Building I have what I hope you will find to be exciting news about the 1927 SSP Public Library building. I have been working with Andrea Pizza, who prepared the successful application to put the old Cenex building on the National Register, and she has been very helpful in advising me how best to proceed with a possible application to do the same for our historic 1927 library. The goal of the citizens working on this project is to ultimately protect the building from future demolition and to enhance its value to potential buyers by achieving recognition of its historic significance. Briefly, the hope is that we will be able to successfully apply for a Legacy Grant of $10,000 to hire an architectural historian to evaluate the building in order to determine whether it meets the criteria for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. I have obtained a nonprofit fiscal agent for the project in the Minnesota Independent Scholars Forum. They have received several Legacy grants and I have been a member for many years. They will provide the grant administrator and one of their members, who has written many successful Legacy grant applications, will prepare our application. I will provide the architectural historian with the narrative history of the building as well as helping with access to floor plans, etc. Throughout all of the discussions about the building since 2017, the Council has made it clear that the plan is to save the building even if it is no longer used as our library. While being on the National Register of Historic Places does not make it impossible to demolish a building, the evaluation of the building, which is needed before applying for that status, will provide potential buyers or users with valuable information about the historical significance of the building. Should we receive the grant and ultimately achieve appointment to the National Register, South St. Paul can be proud of its efforts to protect and promote preservation of our heritage in a visible and meaningful way. The grant application deadline is January 21, 2022. I do not anticipate needing any staff support from the City beyond perhaps a copy of the building's floor plan or other documents, I have already received the floor plans, which will be helpful. It is my hope that should the Legacy Fund selection committee ask if the city supports the application that I can honestly answer that it does. Thank you. Lois Glewwe 651-457-3403 lglewwe@hotmail.com A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2021 3 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION Prepared by: Joel Hanson, City Administrator ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Discuss Inclusion of School Parking Lot into Library Site Planning DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Provide direction as to whether or not we should try to incorporate the School District’s parking lot on the corner of 7th & 2nd into the new library site planning process. OVERVIEW: As Dakota County continues to move forward with the schematic design for the new library, they have developed that attached preliminary site plan. This site plan has on-site parking located north of the proposed library. The plan also contemplates that 7th will become a one-way street (south to north traffic flow) that will continue around the corner onto 2nd and then become a two- way street again at 8th. This layout will require likely the reconstruction of the street section including curb & gutter, and underground utilities. As was mentioned in our previous discussion of city responsibilities associated with this project back in July, those costs would be a city responsibility. Currently, we do not have any estimates available for the financial impact. In reviewing the site plan, staff has also realized it may make sense to include the School’s parking lot on the corner of 2nd & 7th into the project scope to generate shared parking options, to eliminate their access drive that is on the corner radius, and to develop a consistent “look” for the overall project. The County thinks it makes sense to evaluate and Dr. Webb has also indicated a willingness to cooperate in this regard. The question for the Council is do you support further evaluation of the possibility with the understanding that City costs could increase as a result? Attached are some photos to aid in your review of this matter. SOURCE OF FUNDS: Capital Project Funds Subject Parking Lot View of Parking Lot From 7th Avenue North View of Parking Lot from 2nd Street North View Of Parking Lot from Alley Between 7th Avenue North and 8th Avenue North (Note: House is no longer there) View of Parking Lot from Marie Avenue A CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 25, 2021 4 DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Ryan Garcia, Director of Economic & Community Development ADMINISTRATOR: JRH Agenda Item: Drover Wall Art Discussion Desired Outcomes: • Update Council on the restoration of the north wall of the Drover following removal of the skyway • Discuss cost associated with restoration of wall and restoration/installation of neon wall mural • Identify Council’s preferred approach to completing its obligations related to restoration of wall Discussion: As the Council will recall the City, along with two private parties and the South St. Paul HRA, entered various agreements in 1974 and 2003 relating to the skyway that up until early September traversed Grand Avenue. The Skyway was constructed by the South St. Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority in 1974 to “…provide sheltered pedestrian movement in the… retail core area” and to “…minimize pedestrian and automobile confrontation…”. At the time of skyway construction, the City owned the buildings at 201 – 205 Concord Exchange and the building at 161 Concord Exchange (now the Drover) was being constructed by Northern Surety Company. The construction and ongoing maintenance of the skyway was governed by a 4-party agreement between the City, HRA, Cenex (the City’s tenant at 201 – 205 Concord Exchange), and Northern Surety. Clause II.B.2 of that agreement provided that “In the event the pedestrian overpass is removed, the north wall of the Northern Building (161 Concord Exchange, now the Drover) shall be restored to a serviceable condition, in a reasonably esthetic and workmanlike manner, by the City, to blend with the exterior of the building at that time.” In short, upon removal of the skyway, it became the City’s obligation by contract to restore the wall of the Drover. In collaboration with the owners of the Drover, Staff engaged the Council in early 2021 to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to the “restoration” of the Drover’s north wall. These conversations resulted in a consensus opinion that installing a restored neon wall mural depicting a cowboy lassoing a bull would both nod to the City’s history and introduce a splash of unique personality to the Grand Avenue corridor. In May 2021, the Council approved a variance to allow the installation of the neon wall art/sign. Photographs are enclosed of the mural for Council’s recollection. When the skyway was removed earlier this fall, the wall was patched (also depicted), and at this stage Staff wanted to provide Council with an update on costs incurred to date as well as the anticipated costs to complete the restoration and installation of the mural. The Developers costs to acquire, paint, restore, and install the mural have been quoted at $45,200. In addition, the “patch” to the Drover’s north wall was completed, with the developer having paid the cost of $25,695. This total cost of more than $70,000 is certainly more than Staff would have hoped. However, given the size of the mural (180 square feet), the per square foot cost of about $250/sf (installed) aligns near the middle of what our permit values for wall mounted signage (admittedly, not neon) would indicate in recent projects. Staff is seeking guidance from the Council as to how to proceed. Are we comfortable with proceeding with the mural, knowing the cost? Does the Council wish to seek other, potentially less expensive, solutions to the north façade treatment of the Drover? Do we want to set a “hard cap” on the City’s financial commitment to the restoration?  COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT A DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2021 5 DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING Prepared By: Sue Polka, City Engineer ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Seidl’s Lake Lift Station – Transformer Location DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: • City Council feedback on the existing transformer location that was installed by Xcel to provide 3-phase power to the lift station (photo attached). OVERVIEW: In order to provide electrical service to the Seidl’s Lake lift station, the City entered into an agreement (attached) for Xcel to design and construct the necessary service at a cost of $40,603.80. Xcel ran power underground from the source at 13th Avenue and 5th Street to east side of the trail into Seidl’s Lake Park and south to the lift station control location. As a part of this work, Xcel set the transformer on the east side of the trail, just behind the 4th Street curb. As noted in paragraph 8 of the agreement, Xcel has clearance requirements for the transformer. After the electrical work was completed, I received both verbal and written (attached) complaints from a resident who lives across the street from the park. Both Jake Sedlacek and I met and spoke with the resident and explained both the Xcel requirements and the fact that due to the existing underground utilities and the location of the lift station control panel, the transformer is sited at the optimal location. The resident is not satisfied with our responses and is requesting that the City have Xcel move the transformer. As stated by Jake in the email, this cost would be at the City’s expense. In addition to Xcel requiring the transformer to be along the street for their ease in access, there are several other challenges in relocating the transformer: • Existing underground and above ground public utilities in the right of way and park (see map) • Moving the transformer to the east will conflict with future park plans (ice rink) • Xcel requires up-front payment for redesign without a guarantee that we will find a location that is acceptable to all neighbors and City uses. While Staff prefers to keep neighboring residents happy with City projects, we cannot support relocation of the transformer based on the reasons noted above. We could recommend screening the transformer with landscaping, but that is not without challenges given the limited distance between the curb and the transformer. If the Council feels other action is appropriate, we would welcome your direction.  Seidl's Lake Park Legend 1 in = 94 ft Sewer Manholes Sewer Pressurized Mains Storm Gravity Mains Water Hydrants Sewer Fittings Sewer Interceptor Storm Discharge Points Water Network Structures Sewer Air Release Sewer Gravity Mains Standard Outlet Water Tower Storm Network Structures ± Sewer Clean Outs Storm Manholes Production Well GateWell Sewer Network Structures Storm Inlets Water System Valves Diversion Chamber Catchbasin Lift Station Gate October 21, 2021 Lift Station Flared End Section Pump Station Plug Map Powered By DataLink Pump Storm Pressure Mains Tie Cards Water Fittings From: Jessica Byrd To: Sedlacek, Jake A Cc: Sue Polka; Jimmy Francis Subject: Re: Seidls Lake Lift Station Electric Service Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:36:59 AM Attachments: image001.png Good morning Jake. Thank you for getting back to me. I have appreciated your knowledge and professionalism. I will take the fact that Sue hasn’t bothered to communicate to me that the City of SSP is either continuing conversations on this matter or has moved to the revised planning phase. Sue – To reiterate, my neighbors and I, are asking for the city to do better by moving the big green transformer currently located at the entrance to Seidls Park. You are the City Engineer, and that is the best you could come up with..?? I would have expected a more thoughtful, well outlined plan that included the continued beautification of the park. The fact that this thing, or a transformer/electricity at all, wasn’t included in the plans shared at the community meeting, seems like an intentional oversight. Now, we are told that the cost is too significant to move it. Let me remind you (and the city), that just 2 – 3 years ago we were in discussions regarding the ‘beautification of the park’ that would result in tens of thousands of dollars! Now, we can’t/won’t pull together a couple thousand dollars to beautify the park??? We are asking that this be moved to someplace other than the entrance that would make more sense, as I mentioned near the other electrical equipment. This as Jake mentioned would meet and satisfy the 10 feet from the street requirements. If this had been more thoughtfully done in the first place, we wouldn’t be looking at additional expense to move it This appears to be another less than thought out plan = bad decision on the part of the city planning committee i.e. like the parking lot in Seidls Park! I remind you, this was a project that would have been scheduled to be finished years before the park was created. Good news, the neighborhood community came together and that decision was overturned. So, I am asking the city to once again re-consider the plan that affects the beautification of Seidls Park. You are all reasonable people and must recognize that this is less than a desirable spot for this thing! I have an idea, you can use the money I saved the city in the maintenance of the parking lot the past few years, to fund the move! I along with my friends/neighbors will be waiting to hear your decision and direction on this matter before we voice our concerns at the next City Council meeting. Thank you. Jessica Byrd on behalf of the Deerwood/Maywood community On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:09 PM Sedlacek, Jake A <Jake.Sedlacek@xcelenergy.com> wrote: Jessica – my apologies for not responding immediately on Thursday.   As mentioned in our in-person meeting, the location of the transformer is ideal from an electric system standpoint. It is also the most cost effective location. I understand that the city leadership has discussed relocating and that cost is a significant factor. I can attest that city staff worked every angle to minimize costs for this project. Xcel energy has not received a request for relocation. Any time put towards this relocation would need to be paid for up-front. If a project moves forward, that amount would be applied to the project. Jake. Jake Sedlacek Xcel Energy Manager, Community Relations and Economic Development 3000 Maxwell Avenue Newport, MN 55055 C: 651.214.2623 E: jake.sedlacek@xcelenergy.com ________________________________________________ XCELENERGY.COM Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Jessica Byrd <credge274@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:13 AM To: Sue Polka <spolka@southstpaul.org> Cc: Sedlacek, Jake A <Jake.Sedlacek@xcelenergy.com> Subject: Re: Seidls Lake Lift Station Electric Service EXTERNAL - STOP & THINK before opening links and attachments. Good morning. Just checking in to see how the revised estimate is coming along? Please advise. Thanks. On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:24 PM Jessica Byrd <credge274@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Sue. Ok I understand you may not have had the exact plans during the open house. However, no electrical box was mentioned nor included. I along with my neighbors were led to believe the lift station also included the electricity. I am not asking for the transformer to be moved west of the path or further into the park. The transformer could be located 10’ from the curb as it stands now however, approx 75 feet just East and in compliance with Jake’s recommendation. Since the transformer is movable I want it moved. The city doesn’t have the right to block my view of the lake and decrease my homes value in doing so. I have reviewed the city ordinances that specifically address these issues. I am willing to take what ever measures I must to ensure the transformer gets moved before the ground freezes. Thank you. Jessica Byrd On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:00 PM Sue Polka <spolka@southstpaul.org> wrote: Jessica- Xcel had not provided us with the proposed design at the time of the open house. Moving the transformer to the east puts it farther into the park so I’m not sure I understand that logic. West of the trail would potentially be in conflict with existing storm sewer, water main and other utilities. I am unable to commit to moving the transformer due to the potential utility conflicts – both public and private- in the area. It would be up to Xcel to prepare a design and cost estimate.   The City has a very tight budget for this project and any additional costs would have to be approved by the council. Sue Polka, P.E. City Engineer P (651) 554-3214 C (623) 826-1527 City of South St. Paul | 125 3rd Avenue North | South St. Paul, MN 55075 www.southstpaul.org From: Jessica Byrd <credge274@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:46 PM To: Sedlacek, Jake A <Jake.Sedlacek@xcelenergy.com> Cc: Sue Polka <spolka@southstpaul.org> Subject: Re: Seidls Lake Lift Station Electric Service Hi Jake. I appreciate you getting back to me/Sue. I too have abandoned the idea of the transformer off the path as I understand the complications of such. However, I would ask that Xcel and the City of SSP consider my other proposed idea. Down either right or left of the existing telephone pole/other electrical. I believe myself along with my neighbors would have and should have had the opportunity to see this on the proposed plans shared at the meeting, allowing our concerns to be heard abs considered. The path creates the communities entrance to the park, for the transformer to be the first thing you come upon, isn’t very ascetically pleasing.    In addition, moving it to the proposed location would not interfere or obstruct any homeowners direct view of the lake/park. Appreciate your consideration. Thank you, Jessica Byrd 1500 Maywood Drive On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:25 PM Sedlacek, Jake A <Jake.Sedlacek@xcelenergy.com> wrote: Jessica and Sue – as promised, I am following up on my conversations regarding the transformer serving the new lift station off of 4th Street. The transformer is in an ideal location from an electric utility perspective – 10’ from the road surface, directly out from the premise we are serving. This location is also the least cost to the city to connect the lift station. Unfortunately, the equipment needed to serve a lift station is larger than what customers are used to seeing in residential neighborhoods. Jessica asked if the transformer could be located along the bituminous path leading to the lift station. This is technically possible, however any spot west of the trail would require significant tree removal to provide adequate clearance. For both the east and west sides of the trail, any placement which is greater than 10’ from 4th street would require one of two actions – the trail would need to be improved to withstand the weight of our crane truck, or the city would need to provide and easement or other assurance that Xcel Energy is not responsible for breaking up the trail. Jessica also asked about locating elsewhere along 4th street, suggesting it be moved east, near an existing pole with a light fixture. As I understand from communications with the city, there are additional utilities in the right of way which need to be worked around. Whenever we cross other utilities, it is our strong preference to do so at a right angle, to minimize the opportunity for conflict for future crews excavating any one of the impacted utilities. Xcel Energy can provide a cost estimate to relocate the equipment, I would anticipate that the new UG cable installed along the bituminous trail would be abandoned in place and new cable would be placed underground to any alternate transformer location. I hope this additional information from our perspective proves useful. Thanks, Jake. Jake Sedlacek Xcel Energy Manager, Community Relations and Economic Development 3000 Maxwell Avenue Newport, MN 55055 C: 651.214.2623 E: jake.sedlacek@xcelenergy.com ________________________________________________ XCELENERGY.COM Please consider the environment before printing this email. fl Xcel Energy UNDERGROUND SERVICE FORM In consideration of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy") hereinafter called "Xcel Energy", extending its facilities to make 277/480 volt, THREE phase, FOUR wire underground service available to (Customer) CITY OF SOUTH SAINT PAUL at (Service Address) 1417 4TH ST S (City) SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MN the sum of fourty thousand six hundred three dollars and 80/100 Dollars ($ 40,603.80 ) will be paid to Xcel Energy by (if other than above) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Address (if other than above) 125 3RD AVE N City/State/Zip 55075 In accordance with the following terms: XCEL ENERGY TO INSTALL NEW TERMINAL POLE, NEW 75KVA 277/480V PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER AND TO PERFORM A 1400 FT BORE OF 3 PHASE 1/0 PRIMARY CABLE. REFER TO EXHIBIT A. DESIGN# 1034120 Receipt of the above amount hereby acknowledged on behalf of Xcel Energy by CODY DORFF 1. The Customer hereby grants Xcel Energy the right, privilege and easement to install, operate and maintain its underground facilities on the property as described above and/or the approximate location as shown on the attached "Exhibit A". 2. The Customer also agrees that, prior to Xcel Energy starting work, Customer shall ensure that (a) the route of Xcel Energy's underground installation shall be accessible to Xcel Energy's equipment; (b) all obstructions shall be removed from such route at no cost or expense to Xcel Energy; (c) all privately-owned underground facilities such as sewer, water, sprinkler systems, invisible fences, or gas, electric or communication lines are marked or exposed; (d) ground elevation along the route shall not be above or more than four (4) inches below the finished grade; and (e) the area under the transformer pad shall be compacted to at least 2000 lbs./sq. ft. 3 CITY OF SOUTH SAINT PAUL agrees to pay all additional costs incurred by Xcel Energy because of (a) surface or subsurface conditions that impair the installation of underground facilities, such as rock formations, etc., and (b) sidewalks, curbing , black top, paving, sod or other landscaping and obstructions along the cable route. Xcel Energy will backfill trench with existing soil. Restoration o1 construction area on Customer property is the responsibility of the Customer. 4. Xcel Energy is not responsible for any Customer-owned underground facilities not marked or exposed at the time service is installed. 5. The underground installation may be subject to a winter construction charge if construction occurs between October 1 and April 15. CITY OF SOUTH SAINT PAUL agrees to pay this charge if Xcel Energy determines winter conditions, as defined in the General Rules and Regulations of Xcel Energy's Electric Rate Book as they exist at the time the underground facilities are installed. Xcel Energy will waive the winter construction charge if prior to October 1st the Customer is ready to accept electrical service, has executed this form and has notified Xcel Energy in writing that the requirements of Paragraph 2 hereof have been fulfilled. 6. The underground facilities installed by Xcel Energy, shall be the property of Xcel Energy and any payments made by the Customer, or their Customer's contractor, shall not entitle the Customer to any ownership interest or rights therein. 7. The Customer agrees to pay the cost of installing or relocating any portion of said underground facilities from the Company's designated location, if relocation is made to accommodate the customer's needs, or necessary because of Customer alterations to the grade, additions to structures, installation of patios , decks or gardens or any other surface or subsurface cond ition that makes maintenance of Xcel Energy's facilities impractical. 8. Customer must provide, at minimum, the following clearance around the transformer: front, 10 feet; sides and back, 2 feet. EXCEPTION: side facing building must have 30" clearance. These clearances must be at the same grade as the transformers. If screening is to be used , the area in front of the transformer must be left open or a hinged door, easily operable by one person , must be provided. The area must be accessible 24 hours a day. fl Xcel Energy $ 40603 .80 Excess U.G. Distribution Lateral $ _ _ _o_.o_o Winter Const. Charge (Primary Cable) (See Paragraph 5) $ ___ o._oo_Excess U.G. Service Lateral $ o.oo Specific Service Location or Route $ o.oo U.G. Service Lateral $ o.oo Replace Overhead Line with Underground ----(Secondary Service From Utility Pole) $ ___ o._oo_U .R.D. Install Including UG Service Lateral $ _ _ _o_.o_o Temporary Service KVA $ _ _ _o_ .o_o U.G. Distribution Lateral $ o.oo Other (Explain) (Primary Cable) Trench Ft. $ 40603.80 TOT AL **Customer agrees to pay monthly Residential Service Underground rate of the type of installation indicated by a double asterisk. □Applicable _ _ _.,.iNot Applicable Dated this - - - - - day of Customer ontractor ---------------- Print Full Name Signature Customer Rep _ _ _ _ ___,.;...___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Contractor Rep Print Full Name Signature Print Full Name Signature Xcel Energy Rep_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Xcel Energy Work Order# Print Full Name Signature Construction $ _4_0_,6_0_3._8_0_ _ _ _ _ Removal $ Total $ 40,603.80 Form 17-2759  VI V'l t l1J < 3rd St S .,,;. \/1 £ ~ ""a~'c:, V) c!I 1 Ill < Ill > 0 1 .. ~ ~ .r:. All<'~ '%Q,:H)I ,£i ~ ~ VI QJ 9 > -5 :::! 4c-- SPLICE LOCATION 46th St E s 277/480 401 ~ QI er ?atn 9~ 75 0 '?Jo ;3 407 1 EXHIBIT A \ 41 ?0VERHEAD 1-+-----CONSTRUCTION 1034120 ~ INTERSECT NEW 45' Work Order Information LI----CLASS 2 TERMINAL Service Request# 000001034120 I419 Design Number 1 POLE APPROX 10 FT TO UNDERGROUND 240086 I 'EAST OF EXISTING 40' Designer/Planner ID CONSTRUCTION Designer/Planner Name Dorff,Cody 1.1■r---POLE. 65T FUSES POI: Designer/Planner Ph # 612-590-0670 TBD. INSTALL NEW 75 KVA Manager Approval l431NEW TANGENT 3 PHASE 13.BKV 480/277V PAD Joint Utility 1-+--_FRAMING. E: G: MOUNTED XFMR. T: C: POI: TBD. CUSTOMER lJTRUCK ACCESS Design Location RESPONSIBLE FOR LEVEL/COMPACTED PAD SITE. 1 RUN OF 3/0----. L 431 438 ---- TRAFFIC CONTROL NEEDED Division County City Newport DAKOTA SOUTH SAINT PAUL CONDUCTOR FOR 200 AMP SERVICE. i Address T: 28N R: 22W 1417 4TH ST S S: 28 Map# : Q0044 Permit : Electric Feeder: STY073 Voltage: 13.8KV Phase : ABC Bkup Dev ID: Gas System Pressure BORING OPERATION: Size Material Dead End DIRECTIONAL BORE Work Order# : 1400FT OF 1/0 3 PHASE Date: 07/15/2021 CONDUCTOR ALONG Sketch: #1 Of# 1Sketch Data CITY ROW ON THE Scale: 1" equals 84' EAST SIDE OF 13TH AVES & SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH ST S TO NEW fl Xcel Ener9y 0 PAD LOCATION. CONSTRUCTION USE ONLY TRAFFIC CONTROL <( u 0 NO CHANGES (BUilT AS DESIGNED) 500 0 CHANGES MADE AS INDICATED NEEDED. m (ALL URD MUST HAVE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE FIELD SITE) RFO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PRIOR FIELD LOCATE OF ALL UTILITIES; THIS PRINT DOES NOT DISCHARG E THIS REQUIREMENT OR ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT. THE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES ASSUME NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR THE RECIPIENTS USE (OR ANY OTHER PARTIES' USE) OF THE PRINT, INCLUDING THE RECIPIENTS INTENDED PURPOSE IN USING THE PRINT. NO COMPANY EMPLOYEE OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE THIS PRINT FOR PLANNI NG OR ESTIMATING PURPOSES; RELY ON THIS PRINT AT YOUR OWN RISK. BY ACCEPTING THIS PRINT, THE RECIPIENt & ANY OTHER PARTY RECEIVING A COPY OF THE PRINT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TO THIS FOREMAN DATE DISCLAIMER. For All Field Locates Call 811 ------ ----- TEAM LEADER THIS DOCUMENT IS XCEL ENERGY CONFIDENTIALS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATI ON AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE, OR IN PART, NOR MAY ANY OF THE INFORMATION CONTIANED HEREIN BE DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF XCEL ENERGY. CONFIDENTIALS AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION © 2019 XCEL ENERGY INC. I XCEL ENERGY IS REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF XCEL ENERGY INC -----------