Laserfiche WebLink
,, Case//3 <br /> DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC WORKS CAMPUS <br />By: Brian E. Olson, Assistant Director of Public Works/Principal City Engineer <br /> <br />ILtckground: <br /> <br />()~ A t~gust 19, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to retain the Alloy Recovery site for <br />thc use of thc Public Works Department. (minutes attached) <br /> <br />On J u l y 20, 2004, the Public Works Committee recommended to the City Council to <br />aplm)vc the City taking control of the property out to Limonite Street. (KIH property) <br />This motion was ratified by the City Council on August 10, 2004. (minutes attached) <br /> <br />~l'hi~ year, Staff was fortunate to have the City Council award'a Contract to provide a <br />"temporary" fix to the need for office space by installing the current PW Office and also <br />installing a new exterior and roof to the vehicle storage building to provide another <br />heated environment for our vehicle storage. <br /> <br />0 bsc rvations: <br /> <br />Over the past few years it has become increasingly noticeable that the Public Works <br />Campus is becoming utilized and it seemed evident that we are in need of some long <br />range planning for the site. Before the Public Works Department enters into any <br />disct~ssions about what type of"permanent" facilities will be needed in the future, we felt <br />thc most important question to ask was Whether there was enough land available in the <br />present location for all future maintenance and operations. <br /> <br />Eat'ly in the research to provide an estimate of the amount of gross space (acres) that <br />would be projected for Public Works Maintenance and Operations (Streets, Parks and <br />Utilities), a couple of things became apparent. One was that projecting the amount of land <br />[tre:.t needed using square footages of warm and cold storage, offices, outdoor storage, <br />parking, sedimentation ponds, Police impound, landscaping, drive lanes and accesses etc. <br />was a complex exercise - and one requiring a lot of assumptions. The other matter that <br />beca~ne apparent was that there was a lot more similarities in how different city's <br />conducted their respective maintenance operations than dissimilarities. <br /> <br /> also learned that the City of Brooklyn Park conducted a fairly detailed survey of <br />si.tburbs with populations near 50,000 (50k), for their public works analysis in 2004. <br />These cities were; Apple Valley (46k), Blaine (45k), Bloomington (89k), Burnsvitle <br />(61 k), Coon Rapids (63k), Eagan (66k), Eden Prairie (55k), Edina (50k), Maple Grove <br />(5(~k), Minnetonka (52k), and Plymouth at (67k). <br /> <br />t~rooldyn Park's findings were that the only significant difference in these cities was the <br />ratio o1' full-time staff to seasonal. However, the 'full-time equivalent' was generally <br />cc)~sistent. Further into staff's research, we met with Brooklyn Park and Coon Rapids' <br />s[aff and learned that both of these cities felt that gross acreage they had were adequate <br />t'or their present and near-term needs. Both had 29 acres of land for the maintenance and <br />operations needs of streets, parks, and utilities as well as a police impound. <br /> <br />37 <br /> <br /> <br />