--- ## title: Microsoft Word - MKT TwyADE Auth-Const.docx ## author: Stephen F. Scherer date: D:20260611142831-05'00' --- ## AGENDA ## Mankato City Council ## Regular Meeting June 22, 2026 - 6 p.m. ## IGC - Council Chambers 1.Call Meeting to Order ## Roll Call ## Pledge of Allegiance 2.Approval of Agenda 3.Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of June 8, 2026 ## 4.Public Open Forum (15 Minutes) The public may address the Council on any topic, with the condition that they may not speak on the same item later in the meeting. Speakers are encouraged to register with the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting, and are limited to three minutes. 5.Consent Calendar NOTE: All items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If a Council Member wishes to discuss any of these items, they may ask that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Removed item(s) will be discussed and acted upon by separate motion. A.Resolution receiving feasibility report, ordering improvements, preparation of plans and specifications, and ordering advertisements for bids for Capital Improvement Project 11266; 2026 Victory Drive and Adams Street Signal and Striping Improvements. B.Resolution authorizing the submission of application for the Mankato/North ## Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) Unified Planning Work Program ## (UPWP). C.Resolution considering bids for the Membrane Treatment System (Reverse Osmosis Pilot) Project. ## D.Resolution to approve Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant ## Funding Assistance for Capital Improvement Project 11200; Land of Memories Park. ## E.Resolution to approve the Professional Engineering Services Agreement for ## the Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction and Airfield Marking Enhancement Project. ## F.Resolution adopting the Mankato Transit System Procurement Policy 2026 Update. ## G.Resolution accepting State of Minnesota Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant. H.Resolution authorizing the Mankato Department of Public Safety to apply for the Spark Good Local Partnership Grant Program. I.Resolution authorizing the Mankato Department of Public Safety to apply for the Firearms Storage Grants – Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program. J.Set July 13, 2026, as the date of hearing for a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 8, Sec.10-271 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the corner side yard setback from ten feet to five feet, four inches in the O-R, Office Residential District to construct a deck (502 North 2nd Street); by request of Generation Properties. 6.Council Business A.Resolution petitioning District Court for appointments to the City of Mankato's Charter Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 410.05. ## B.Resolutions authorizing the City Manager and Construction Manager at Risk to solicit bids for the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Mankato Regional Airport and submitting applications for the current Federal Funding Grant Obligation and future FAA Discretionary Grant Funding. C.Consideration of the Emergency Ordinance continuing to clarify requirements for Law Enforcement Agencies and Officers within the City. D.Consideration of Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas. 11.Reports and Miscellaneous Business View all city committee meetings by clicking on our City Calendar Regular Council Meeting, July 13, 2026, 6 p.m., Council Chambers (with EDA and/or Work Session to follow) Regular Council Meeting, July 27, 2026, 6 p.m., Council Chambers (with Work Session to follow) 12.Adjournment ## MINUTES ## Mankato City Council ## Regular Meeting June 8, 2026 - 6 p.m. ## IGC - Council Chambers 1.Call Meeting to Order ## Roll Call ## Members Present: Mike Laven, Dennis Dieken, Michael McLaughlin, Jenn Melby-Kelley, Jessica Hatanpa, and Mayor Massad. Members Excused: Kevin Mettler. ## Staff Present: City Manager Susan Arntz, Administrative Services Director ## Parker Skophammer, Community Development Director Mark Konz, Associate ## Director of Housing and Economic Development Nancy Bokelmann, and ## Economic Development Coordinator Courtney Kramlinger, and Deputy City Clerk Jennie Guerrero. ## Pledge of Allegiance 2.Approval of Agenda Ms. Hatanpa moved and Ms. Melby-Kelley seconded a motion to approve the agenda as written. The motion carried unanimously. 3.Approval of Minutes Ms. Hatanpa moved and Mr. Laven seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 26, 2026, as written. The motion carried unanimously. ## 4.Public Open Forum (15 Minutes) Bryan Schnedier thanked the council for appointing him to the Public Safety Advisory Committee. He wanted to fill the council in on what they spoke about at their last meeting, which included the Emergency ordinance and accountability regarding ICE, and Metro Surge, and community trust . He felt that a permanent ordinance would give people clarity. He commented on Congress passing new federal funding for immigrant enforcement and a new prison opening in Appleton, MN. 5.Consent Calendar NOTE: All items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If a Council Member wishes to discuss any of these items, they may ask that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Removed item(s) will be discussed and acted upon by separate motion. Mr. Laven moved and Ms. Melby-Kelley seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as written. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. A.Resolution approving acquisition of certain property owned by the Economic Development Authority of Mankato, MN and to enter into a Property Management Agreement with Blue Earth County. B.Resolution approving the Final Plat of Snell Addition; Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block 1 (1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue); by request of Snell Real Estate, LLC. C.Resolution approving the Final Plat of Eastwood Energy Center No. 7; Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 175 (1731, 1751, 1761 Energy Drive); by request of Old Town Riverfront Properties, LLC. D.Motion to select Nielsen Blacktopping & Concrete Inc. as the contractor for the Bus Stop Improvement Construction Project. E.Resolution to select a bid and submit a grant request for the Airport Taxiway A/D/E Reconstruction and Enhanced Taxiway Markings Project. F.Resolution to Conditionally accept a Bid and Submit a Grant Request for Replacement of the Airport Snow Removal Unit 91. G.Resolution considering bids for 2026 Sealcoating. H.Resolution considering bids for 2026 Striping. I.Resolution accepting feasibility report and ordering project for Capital Improvement Project 11239; 2026 Pavement Maintenance Project. J.Resolution receiving feasibility report, ordering improvement, preparation of J.Resolution receiving feasibility report, ordering improvement, preparation of plans and specifications, and ordering advertisement for bids for Capital Improvement Project 11200; Land of Memories Park. K.Resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report for Capital Improvement Project 11121; Long Street and Emerson Lane. L.Motion approving Change Order No. 1 for 11190 - Facilities Snow Removal. M.Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a long-term parking lease for Parking Lot #2; (Graif Lot). N.Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Project Rebate Agreement with Centerpoint Energy and to participate in the “Commercial ## Hybrid Heating Pilot Rebate Program” for Capital Improvement Project 11144; Intergovernmental Center Rooftop Unit Replacement. O.Resolution authorizing the execution of the Vetter Stone Amphitheater Construction Manager at Risk Agreement with Knutson Construction. P.Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute the Naming Rights Agreement for Vetter Stone Amphitheater. Q.Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Safety to apply for a Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant. R.Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a cash donation from North Star Aviation for Firefighter Training. S.Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Safety to apply for an Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) Grant. T.Resolution requesting allocation of Public Safety Aid Funding. 6.Planning Commission A.Mr. Konz stated that Cherry Creek, Inc. is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to modify the approved grading and drainage plan for a residential lot at 112 Butler Falls Road in the Miller Creek 1st Addition subdivision. He indicated that the lot was originally graded and approved for a walkout or lookout basement home, but the applicant now proposes constructing a slab-on-grade patio home. He commented that the change requires substantial regrading of the site, including the import and movement of more than 25 cubic yards of fill, which exceeds the threshold established by Mankato City Code for substantial land alteration. He noted that because the proposed grading and drainage land alteration. He noted that because the proposed grading and drainage differ significantly from the subdivision’s approved grading plan, the project does not qualify for the exemption normally granted to developments with an approved subdivision grading plan, making a CUP necessary. Mr. Konz reported that the proposed development includes a 2,214-square-foot single-family home, an attached garage, a rear deck, and retaining walls designed to manage drainage and prevent impacts to neighboring properties. He mentioned that the grading changes will alter how stormwater drains across the lot, directing runoff toward Butler Falls Road and designated drainage easement areas. He added that the site also contains environmentally sensitive features, including bluff areas and a wetland along the western portion of the property. He stated that applicant’s plans demonstrate compliance with required bluff setbacks and wetland buffer requirements, as well as additional measures which will be required during construction to prevent disturbance of the protected areas. Ms. Hatanpa moved and Mr. Laven seconded a motion to approve the Resolution approving a Conditional User Permit to allow for a modification to the approved subdivision grading plan that will allow the construction of a patio home on a lot that was graded for a walkout basement; Lot 3, Block 1, Miller Creek 1st Addition (112 Butler Falls Road). The motion carried unanimously. B.Mr. Konz stated that Bridgewater Group is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and a Certificate of Design Compliance to convert the existing three-story Motel 6 at 1731 Premier Drive into an assisted living facility called Bridgewater. He indicated the project would repurpose the hotel’s 66 rooms into approximately 60–63 affordable residential units for elderly and disabled adults, providing long-term housing with assisted living services. Interior renovations would include adding a licensed commercial kitchen, dining facilities, laundry areas, office space, and a second-floor social area, while largely preserving the building’s existing structure, mechanical systems, furnishings, and safety features. He noted that residents would receive services such as 24-hour caregiving, nursing support, meals, medication management, therapy services, transportation coordination, housekeeping, and assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Konz reported the proposal emphasizes adaptive reuse of a relatively new building that is considered to be in excellent condition, making the conversion both practical and cost-effective. He stated that exterior changes would be modest, consisting primarily of removing the Motel 6 signage, repainting red façade elements brown, and creating a landscaped outdoor courtyard with gardens, seating, and walking access. He mentioned existing parking, landscaping, lighting, and pedestrian connections would remain largely unchanged, and the site significantly exceeds minimum parking requirements. He explained that because assisted living/congregate housing is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the B-3 Highway Commercial district, the applicant argues that it is similar in character to multifamily residential the applicant argues that it is similar in character to multifamily residential development, which is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal has received support from Blue Earth County human services staff, who cite a significant local need for affordable assisted living housing for low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. Additional building code reviews, licensing approvals, and site compliance updates would be required before redevelopment can proceed. Mr. Dieken moved and Mr. Laven seconded a motion to approve the Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing an assisted living facility serving elderly and disabled adults in the B-3, Highway Business District, and for a Certificate of Design Compliance for exterior modifications in the Highway Gateway Overlay District; Lot 4, Block 1, Venstar Subdivision (1731 Premier Drive). The motion carried unanimously. 7.Public Hearings A.Ms. Kramlinger reported that the City of Mankato is preparing its 2026 ## Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan, which outlines how it will use $415,169 in federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the program year beginning July 1, 2026. She mentioned the plan follows the goals established in the City’s 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan, adopted in May 2025, and focuses on benefiting low and moderate-income residents, defined as households earning 80% or less of the area median income. As an entitlement grantee, Mankato receives annual CDBG funding and must adopt an Action Plan each year to guide spending. Ms. Kramlinger summarized that the 2026 funding allocation includes $179,169 for rehabilitating four owner-occupied homes, $24,000 for rehabilitating two rental housing units, $100,000 to support affordable housing projects through site acquisition assistance, $62,000 for public service grants addressing community needs, and $50,000 for program administration and planning. She indicated that housing rehabilitation efforts will continue to focus on targeted neighborhoods identified through a 2022 slum and blight analysis, where older housing stock and higher concentrations of low and moderate-income households create greater rehabilitation needs. HUD requires a public comment period and hearing before approval of the plan. She stated that the comment period ran from May 8 to June 7, 2026, and no comments had been received at the time the memo was written, though additional feedback from the public hearing may still result in revisions before the plan is submitted to HUD. Mayor Massad opened the Public Hearing. There being no one winching to speak, Mayor Massad closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Melby-Kelley moved and Ms. Hatanpa seconded a motion to approve a resolution adopting the City of Mankato 2026 Community Development Bock Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan. The motion carried unanimously. 8.Council Business ## A.Ms. Bokelmann stated that the Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership (SWMHP) is seeking funding through the Minnesota Housing Impact Fund Program to support Phase VI of the Partnership Community Land Trust (PCLT) initiative, which aims to develop up to 10 newly constructed affordable single-family homes in Mankato by 2028. She mentioned the project supports the City’s housing goals by expanding affordable homeownership opportunities for income-qualified households earning up to 80% of the area median income. Ms. Bokelmann stated that to strengthen its application, SWMHP is requesting funding commitments from the City of Mankato and Blue Earth County. She explained that the proposed $2.4 million funding package includes $200,000 from the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, $100,000 from the County’s ## Affordable Housing Trust Fund, $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and $2 million from the Minnesota Housing Impact Fund. She concluded that staff recommend approving a resolution and letter of support committing up to $100,000 in CDBG funding, contingent on the project receiving state financing. She explained the City’s contribution would be distributed as homes are completed and sold through December 31, 2029, helping leverage significant additional investments from state, philanthropic, and housing development partners. Mr. Laven moved and Ms. Melby-Kelley seconded a motion to approve the ## Resolution authorizing Community Development Block Grant support for Phase VI of the Partnership Community Land Trust seeking MN Housing Impact Funding. The motion carried unanimously. B.Ms. Arntz mentioned that In February 2026, the Mankato City Council adopted an emergency ordinance regulating law enforcement activities within the city. She noted that the ordinance requires outside law enforcement agencies to make a good-faith effort to notify the Mankato Department of Public Safety before conducting operations in the city. She also mentioned that it also mandates that officers wear and use portable recording devices if their agency normally uses them, prohibits officers from wearing facial coverings that conceal their identity except where permitted by state law, and requires officers to provide identifying information such as their last name and badge number upon request from the public or city personnel, with certain exceptions. Ms. Arntz also reported that on April 13, 2026, the Council approved an updated version of the ordinance, which took effect on April 24 and is scheduled to expire on June 25, 2026. She added that the revision clarified that “law enforcement activity” includes actions by local, state, or federal agencies to enforce laws, such as traffic stops, detentions, searches, warrant executions, and arrests. She noted that as of the date of the staff memo, the city had not issued any citations for violations of the ordinance. She asked that the Council review the ordinance’s status and provide guidance for potential action at the June 22, 2026, City Council meeting. Following discussion by the Council, members expressed differing views on the future of the emergency ordinance. Some council members supported keeping the ordinance in place and making it a permanent part of the city code, while others indicated they would like additional discussion before making a decision and were open to allowing the ordinance to expire or discontinuing it altogether. Mayor Massad suggested working with the advisory committee to review the ordinance and explore potential revisions that would better align it with the city's needs. The goal of this process would be to refine the ordinance and determine whether a modified version should be considered for permanent adoption. Further discussion and direction from the Council are expected as the ordinance approaches its June 25, 2026, expiration date. 9.Reports and Miscellaneous Business View all city committee meetings by clicking on our City Calendar Regular Council Meeting, June 22, 2026, 6 p.m., Council Chambers (with Work Session to follow) Regular Council Meeting, July 13, 2026, 6 p.m., Council Chambers (with EDA and/or Work Session to follow) 10.Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Laven moved and Mr. McLaughlin seconded a motion to adjourn. With all members voting in favor, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes Approved. _________________________ ## Mayor Massad ## ATTEST: _________________________ ## Jennie Guerrero ## Deputy City Clerk ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar ## 5. A. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution receiving feasibility report, ordering improvements, preparation of plans and specifications, and ordering advertisements for bids for Capital Improvement Project 11266; 2026 Victory Drive and Adams Street Signal and Striping Improvements. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: City staff recommend implementing traffic signal and striping improvements at the intersection of Victory Drive and Adams Street based on recommendations identified in ## the City’s Traffic Impact Study for the intersection. The Traffic Impact Study was completed in December 2025 and was in response to continued development in the vicinity of Victory Drive and Adams Street. The new development, starting a few years ago with the Circle K (Holiday Station Stores) and more recently with the Victory Ridge Apartments, is expected to increase in traffic demand at this intersection, particularly along Adams Street between the east side of Victory Drive and Dublin Road. The Traffic Impact Study was in response to anticipated growth and concerns raised by the public regarding traffic operations and safety, particularly on the westbound Adams Street approach. The study evaluated existing and future conditions and identified practical improvement options. The attached feasibility report builds on the study and evaluates the implementation of the following: Adding flashing yellow arrow protected/permitted left-turn signal heads for the Adams Street eastbound and westbound approaches. Revising left-turn phasing on Victory Drive from lagging to leading operation for the northbound and southbound approaches. ## Restriping Adams Street between Victory Drive and Dublin Road from the existing four-lane undivided section to a three-lane section with center-turn lane for a consistent roadway cross-section along Adams Street. Cost and funding for the proposed improvements are presented in the attached feasibility report and shown below. ## VICTORY DRIVE & ADAMS STREET SIGNAL COST ## ITEMCOST ## Traffic Control$3,500 ## Mobilization$700 ## Signal System Revisions$16,400 ## TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST$20,600 ## Construction Contingency$2,000 ## Administration$4,500 ## Engineering$4,500 ## TOTAL PROJECT COST$31,600 ## ADAMS STREET ROADWAY COST ## ITEMCOST ## Traffic Control$6,500 ## Mobilization$1,300 ## Roadway Marketing and Sign Revisions$15,200 ## TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST$23,000 ## Construction Contingency$3,300 ## Administration$5,100 ## Engineering$5,100 ## TOTAL PROJECT COST$35,500 Proposed funding sources are summarized below. Funding participation is anticipated by Blue Earth County in accordance with the County/City routine CSAH maintenance agreement which identifies a share of the total cost of any major signal maintenance project. Funding participation from the adjacent development partners is in accordance with conditions of approval for final development. ## FUNDING SOURCE ## SIGNAL ## COST ## ROADWAY ## COST ## TOTAL COSTPERCENT ## Signal Maintenance Budget$9,500$35,500$45,00067.0% ## Blue Earth County$9,500 $9,50014.2% ## Holiday Station Stores (Circle K) $6,300 $6,3009.4% ## Victory Ridge Apartments$6,300 $6,3009.4% ## TOTAL FUNDS$31,600$35,500$67,100100.0% ## Attachments ## Resolution ## Feasibility Report ## RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, ## PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT ## FOR BIDS ON IMPROVEMENT NUMBER 11266, WITHOUT PETITION WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by city staff with reference to Improvement Number 11266, the improvements to Victory Drive and Adams Street Signal and Striping by construction of a flashing yellow arrow protected/permitted left-turn signal head for Adams Street, revising left-turn phasing on Victory Drive from lagging to leading operation, and restriping Adams Street to three-lane section with center-turn lane between Victory Drive and Dublin Road, and this report was received by the council on the 22 nd day of June, 2026, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and ## NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA: 1.The council hereby orders the improvement of Victory Drive and Adams Street Signal and Striping in accordance with the report. 2.That plans and specifications be prepared by city staff of Mankato, Minnesota, for such improvement, pursuant to the direction of the Council, and are hereby approved and a copy shall be filed with the city clerk of Mankato. 3.The City Manager is hereby instructed to advertise for the bids in accordance with the requirement of law. Roll call vote required ## Council Members Voting For: ## Council Members Voting Against: This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. Passed this 22 nd day of June, 2026 ____________________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor ## ATTEST:____________________________________ ## Renae Kopischke ## City Clerk ## 2026 Victory Drive and Adams Street ## Signal and Striping Improvements ## Project Feasibility Report ## City Project Number 11266 June 8, 2026 ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato ## I. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 II. CERTIFICATION PAGE................................................................................................................... 3 III. PROJECT CONTACTS .................................................................................................................... 3 IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4 V. PROJECT INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 5 A. VICTORY/ADAMS SIGNAL SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 5 B. ADAMS STREET (VICTORY DR TO DUBLIN RD) ......................................................................... 5 VII. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 5 A. SIGNAL SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 5 B. ADAMS STREET (VICTORY DR TO DUBLIN RD) ......................................................................... 5 VIII. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT ................................................................................................. 5 IX. APPROVALS/PERMITS .................................................................................................................. 5 X. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCING ............................................................................. 5 XI. POSSIBLE SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................... 6 XII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 6 XIII. APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 7 ## Appendix A – Project Location Map ## Appendix B – Project Concept Figure ## Appendix C - Victory/Adams Traffic Impact Study ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato ## I. CERTIFICATION PAGE ## CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. _________________________________ ## Maury Hooper ## License Number: 26435 ## City of Mankato Traffic Engineer Date: June 8, 2026 ## II. PROJECT CONTACTS ## TITLE NAME PHONE EMAIL ## Mayor Najwa Massad 507.387.9693 nmassad@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor at Large Mike Laven 507.720.8674 mlaven@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor Ward 1 Michael McLaughlin 507.720.1093 mmclaughlin@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor Ward 2 Dennis Dieken 507.720.1817 ddieken@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor Ward 3 Kevin Mettler 507.995.0070 kmettler@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor Ward 4 Jenn Melby-Kelley 507.720.2502 jmelby-kelley@mankatomn.gov ## Councilor Ward 5 Jessica Hatanpa 507.613.8067 jhatanpa@mankatomn.gov ## City Manager Susan Arntz 507.387.8695 sarntz@mankatomn.gov ## City Engineer Cory Bienfang 507.387.8643 cbienfang@mankatomn.gov ## Construction & Facilities Services ## Director Jim Tatge 507.387.8504 jtatge@mankatomn.gov ## Construction Manager Luke Pederson 507.387.8541 lpederson@mankatomn.gov ## City Traffic Engineer Maury Hooper 651-392-4461 Maury.hooper@bolton-menk.com ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato ## III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City staff recommend implementing traffic control and striping improvements at the intersection of Victory Drive and Adams Street based on recommendations identified in the City’s Traffic Impact Study for the intersection. The recommended improvements include installing flashing yellow arrow signal heads for the Adams Street eastbound and westbound left-turn movements, revising left-turn phasing at the intersection, and restriping the short segment of Adams Street between Victory Drive and Dublin Road from four lanes to three lanes to improve consistency and safety. This feasibility report summarizes the recommended improvements, implementation considerations, and preliminary cost estimate for the project. The project location is shown in Appendix A. The estimated total project cost is $67,100.00. Because the project cost falls between $25,000 and $175,000, the City may procure the work by obtaining at least two quotes in accordance with applicable purchasing requirements; formal competitive bidding is not required. Based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study and the evaluation summarized in this report, the proposed improvements are feasible, appropriate for near-term implementation, and will better accommodate anticipated traffic growth along Adams Street. Staff recommend that the City Council accept this feasibility report and authorize the City Manager to solicit quotes for the work. ## IV. PROJECT INTRODUCTION Continued development in the vicinity of Victory Drive and Adams Street is expected to increase traffic demand at this intersection, particularly along Adams Street between Victory Drive and Dublin Road. In response to anticipated traffic growth and concerns raised by the public regarding traffic operations and safety, particularly on the westbound Adams Street approach, the City completed a Traffic Impact Study to evaluate existing and future conditions and identify practical improvement options. This feasibility report builds on that study and evaluates the implementation of the recommended near-term improvements. Recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study include: • Adding flashing yellow arrow protected/permitted left-turn operation for the Adams Street eastbound and westbound approaches • Revising left-turn phasing on Victory Drive from lagging to leading operation for the northbound and southbound approaches • Restriping Adams Street between Victory Drive and Dublin Road to a three-lane section Key benefits of these improvements include: • Improved operation under anticipated future traffic growth • Reduced delay and improved safety for left-turning traffic • A more consistent roadway cross section along Adams Street and improved corridor safety The Traffic Impact Study is included as Appendix C. ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato ## V. EXISTING CONDITIONS ## A. VICTORY/ADAMS SIGNAL SYSTEM • The traffic signal at Victory Drive and Adams Street was installed in 2008 and currently serves daily traffic volumes of approximately 18,500 vehicles on Victory Drive and 5,800 vehicles on Adams Street. • The northbound and southbound left-turn lanes currently operate with flashing yellow arrow indications that provide protected/permitted left-turn phases. The eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes operate with three-section circular signal indications and do not currently provide a protected left-turn phase. • Left-turn phasing on Victory Drive currently operates with lagging left-turn phasing during certain intervals. ## B. ADAMS STREET (VICTORY DR TO DUBLIN RD) • Adams Street is currently striped as a four-lane undivided roadway between Victory Drive and Dublin Road. Immediately east and west of this short segment, Adams Street is striped as a three-lane roadway, creating an inconsistent cross section through the corridor. ## VI. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the City’s Traffic Impact Study, the following improvements are recommended for implementation at Victory Drive and Adams Street. ## A. SIGNAL SYSTEM • Replace the existing eastbound and westbound three-section circular signal indications at the ends of the mast arms with four-section flashing yellow arrow signal indications and supplemental “Left Turn Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow” signs. See Appendix B. • Revise left-turn phasing from lagging to leading operation to provide a protected left-turn green arrow at the beginning of the signal cycle. ## B. ADAMS STREET (VICTORY DR TO DUBLIN RD) • Restripe Adams Street between Victory Drive and Dublin Road from a four-lane undivided section to a three-lane section with a center left-turn lane. See Appendix B. • Existing pavement markings will be removed by water jetting or sandblasting, grinding will not be allowed. New pavement markings will be latex paint to align with the city’s annual maintenance program. ## VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT All proposed improvements can be completed within existing public right-of-way and easement areas. No additional right-of-way acquisition is anticipated. ## VIII. APPROVALS/PERMITS A Blue Earth County Right-of-Way permit is anticipated for the proposed improvements. ## IX. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCING ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato Preliminary project costs are summarized below. The estimate includes construction, contingency, feasibility report preparation, and engineering/construction support. This estimate is intended for planning purposes and may be refined during final design and procurement. ## ITEM SIGNAL COST ROADWAY COST ## Roadway Marking & Sign Revisions $15,200.00 Traffic Control $3,500.00 $6,500.00 Mobilization $700.00 $1,300.00 ## Signal System Revisions $16,400.00 ## TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $20,600.00 $23,000.00 Construction Contingency $2,000.00 $2,300.00 Administration $4,500.00 $5,100.00 Engineering $4,500.00 $5,100.00 ## TOTAL PROJECT COST $31,600.00 $35,500.00 Proposed project funding is summarized below. Funding participation is anticipated from the City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, and adjacent development partners. ## FUNDING SOURCE ## SIGNAL ## COST ## PERCENT ## ROADWAY ## COST ## PERCENT ## TOTAL ## COST ## PERCENT ## City of Mankato $9,500.00 30.0% $35,500.00 100.0% $45,000.00 67% ## Blue Earth County $9,500.00 30.0% 0.0% $9,500.00 15% ## Holiday Station Stores (Circle K) $6,300.00 20.0% 0.0% $6,300.00 9% ## Victory Ridge Apartments $6,300.00 20.0% 0.0% $6,300.00 9% ## TOTAL FUNDS $31,600.00 100.0% $35,500.00 100.0% $67,100.00 100.0% Staff recommend these improvements be completed in 2026 to align with the ongoing build-out of Victory Ridge Apartments and the anticipated increase in traffic volumes on Adams Street. ## X. POSSIBLE SCHEDULE The anticipated project schedule is as follows: • June 22, 2026 - City Council accepts feasibility report and authorizes preparation of final plans, specifications, and quote documents, and authorizes solicitation of quotes. • Late June 2026 - Complete final design and quote package. • July 2026 - Solicit quotes and award construction contract. • August 2026 - Begin construction. • October 2026 - Complete construction. ## XI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the City’s Traffic Impact Study and the evaluation summarized in this report, the proposed improvements at Victory Drive and Adams Street are feasible, cost-effective, and appropriate for implementation. The recommended signal and striping modifications will improve ## Project Feasibility Report ## 2026 Victory Dr and Adams St Signal and Striping Improvements ## City Project Number 11266 ## City of Mankato consistency along the Adams Street corridor, enhance left-turn operations, and better accommodate anticipated traffic growth associated with ongoing area development. The proposed improvements can be completed within existing right-of-way, for which a Blue Earth County Right-of-Way permit is anticipated for the signal work, and can be implemented on a near- term schedule. Staff recommend that the City Council accept this feasibility report and authorize the City Manager to solicit quotes for the work, subject to confirmation of project financing. ## XII. APPENDIX ## • Appendix A – Project Location Map ## • Appendix B – Project Concept Figure ## • Appendix C – Victory/Adams Traffic Impact Study ## APPENDIX A ## Project Location Map ## APPENDIX B ## Project Concept Figure ## APPENDIX C ## N Victory Dr & Adams Street TIS ## APPENDIX C ## N Victory Dr & Adams Street TIS Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ## 1960 Premier Drive ## Mankato, MN 56001 ## P: (507) 625-4171 ## N Victory Drive & Adams Street TIS ## City of Mankato December 29, 2025 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification ## N Victory Drive and Adams Street TIS ǀ 25X.141182000 ## Certification ## Traffic Impact Study ## For ## N Victory Drive & Adams Street ## City of Mankato, MN December 29, 2025 ## PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ## Signature: ## Typed or Printed Name: Maury Hooper ## Date: 12-29-2025 License Number: 26435 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents ## Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 ## Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2 III. SAFETY REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 3 IV. TRIP GENERATION AND FORECASTING ................................................................................................. 4 V. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 4 VI. SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL MITIGATION ............................................................................................. 7 VII. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 9 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents ## Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 ## Appendix ## Appendix A: Traffic Volumes ## Appendix B: Intersection Safety Screening ## Appendix C: FYA Worksheets ## Appendix D: Developer Reports ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. INTRODUCTION Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 1 ## I. INTRODUCTION A new apartment complex is planned at the northeast corner of N Victory Drive and Dublin Road. Because the intersection allows only right-in/right-out access, a sizable portion of site traffic is expected to use Adams Street between N Victory Drive and Dublin Road. The city has received concerns about safety and operations at the N Victory Drive/Adams Street intersection, particularly on the westbound approach, due to anticipated traffic increases. To address these concerns, the city is conducting a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to analyze existing conditions, forecast future impacts, and evaluate potential alternatives available to better manage the increased traffic. Table 1 shows the study intersection and its control type. ## Table 1: Study Intersections ## # Location Control Type ## 1 N Victory Dr & Adams Street Signalized Intersection The location of this study intersection is shown below in Figure 1. ## Figure 1: Project Location Map ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 2 ## II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The N Victory Drive/Adams Street intersection is located at the northeast corner of Madison East Center Mall. It operates with an actuated-coordinated signal, prioritizing northbound and southbound movements on N Victory Drive. ## N Victory Drive N Victory Drive is a north–south minor arterial with an AADT of 18,487 (MnDOT, 2024). Within the study area, it has a four-lane divided cross-section, 40 mph speed limit, and an 89-foot pavement width with four 12-foot lanes and a 25-foot raised median. Parking is prohibited; 8-foot shoulders are provided on both sides. Pedestrian facilities include a 5-foot sidewalk on the west and an 8-foot multi-use trail on the east, separated by a 7-foot grass buffer. The corridor is signal-coordinated to support progression from the city’s southeast to northeast and US-14. ## Adams Street Adams Street functions as a minor collector west of N Victory Drive and a major collector east of it, carrying an AADT of 5,771 (MnDOT, 2024). The speed limit is 30 mph. The roadway transitions from three lanes west of N Victory Drive to four lanes east, then back to three near Dublin Road. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide, with 13-foot two-way left-turn lanes. The westbound approach includes a dedicated left-turn lane. Pedestrian facilities consist of 5-foot sidewalks on both sides, though the south sidewalk ends at N Victory Drive. ## Turn Movement Counts Thirteen-hour turning movement counts were collected on October 29, 2025, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Peak hours were identified as AM (7:30–8:30 a.m.) and PM (4:15–5:15 p.m.). Peak hour traffic counts are provided in the Appendix. AADT volumes were obtained from MnDOT’s MS2 Traffic Counts tool. ## Roadside Development and Environment The area around the N Victory Drive/Adams Street intersection has seen additional development in recent years, especially north of Adams Street. The northwest corner includes Pioneer Bank and Dublin Crossing Apartments, while the northeast corner now features a Circle K and the planned 180-unit multifamily project (see Table 2). South of Adams Street, the southwest corner contains East Madison Center and the southeast corner houses Bank Vista. With restricted access along N Victory Drive, the nearest full-access intersection is about 0.25 miles south at Madison Avenue, funneling additional left- turn movements to N Victory Drive/Adams Street for commercial access. ## Transit The Mankato Transit System (MTS) serves the City of Mankato. Public transit service at the intersection of N Victory Drive and Adams Street is primarily oriented along Adams Street in the east–west direction. Three fixed-route bus lines—Routes 10, 11, and 13—operate through this corridor, providing connectivity between residential areas, commercial developments, and regional destinations. These routes enhance multimodal accessibility within the study area and support transit-dependent populations by linking key activity centers along Adams Street. • Route 10 travels east–west along Adams Street, serving major destinations such as Minnesota State University and retail centers. It operates on weekdays from 6:05 a.m. to 8:35 p.m., with weekend service available, and maintains 30-minute headways. • Route 11 also runs east–west, connecting downtown Mankato with commercial areas including Hy-Vee and Walmart. Service runs weekdays from 6:05 a.m. to 8:05 p.m., with weekend operations, and offers hourly frequency. ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. SAFETY REVIEW Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 3 • Route 13 connects downtown Mankato, running diagonally to northeast Mankato and stops near N Victory Drive & St Andrews Drive, just north of Adams Street. It links destinations such as Bethany Lutheran College and healthcare facilities. Service is limited to weekdays from 6:35 a.m. to 5:35 p.m., with hourly headways. ## III. SAFETY REVIEW A review of the crash history within the study area was completed utilizing MnDOT’s Crash Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). Five years of data were analyzed (2020-2024). There were 25 reported crashes at the intersection within the analysis period. ## Crash Summary There were no fatal or severe injury crashes within the study area. There were three minor injury crashes, seven possible injury crashes, and fifteen property damage-only crashes. At the study intersection, Angle and Rear-End collisions made up the majority of crashes, accounting for 28% and 24%, respectively. Two crashes occurred while the driver was under the influence of alcohol, and three occurred due to distracted driving. The observed total crash rate for this period is 0.46 per million entering vehicles (MEV); this is 51% below the critical rate. Intersections with crash rates below the critical rate are operating within an expected range of similar intersections. A summary of the crash types can be found in Figure 2. The intersection safety screening is provided in Appendix B. ## Figure 2: Intersection Crash Types (2020-2024) ## Other Considerations Both approaches of N Victory Drive currently use Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) left-turn phasing, while Adams Street uses permissive-only three-section heads (green/yellow/red). Research shows converting permissive-only phasing to FYA can reduce left-turn crashes by about 50%. The developer’s Signal Phasing Analysis memo also noted benefits for development traffic and the westbound left turn at Adams Street, where concerns exist. Between N Victory Drive and Dublin Road, a short four-lane undivided segment transitions to three lanes on both ends. Four-lane undivided roads are less safe than three-lane sections due to weaving, ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. TRIP GENERATION AND FORECASTING Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 4 speed differences, conflict points, lack of left-turn refuge, and pedestrian challenges. Adams Street’s 5,771 ADT is well below the 15,000 ADT capacity for a three-lane section. ## IV. TRIP GENERATION AND FORECASTING Background traffic growth is anticipated on the roadways within the study area, caused by growth elsewhere in the city that indirectly contributes to additional traffic. A background traffic growth rate of 0.5% yearly growth was assumed for the area. Northeast of the study intersection is a proposed development consisting of 180 units of new low-rise multifamily housing. In 2025, the developer completed a trip generation memo that estimated trips anticipated by the new development. Table 2 provides a summary of the trip generation potential for the proposed development as presented in the developer’s memo. New development-related traffic was distributed to the N Victory Drive and Adams Street intersection as provided in the developer’s trip generation memo. The memo can be found in the Appendix. ## Table 2: Trip Generation Summary ## V. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The traffic operations analysis for the intersection considers the following measures to determine the adequacy of the intersection design to meet acceptable operations: intersection delay/Level of Service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity ratios. An explanation of each of these measures is provided below. The operational analysis results are described as a Level of Service (LOS) ranging from A to F. These letters serve to describe a range of operating conditions for different types of facilities. Levels of Service are calculated based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 7 th edition, which defines the level of service based on control delay. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection, and the time for the vehicle to speed up through the intersection and enter the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume-weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches. The control delay was modeled within the analysis software, Synchro/Simtraffic. Level of Service D or better is frequently considered the minimum LOS for the future design year. The level of service and its associated intersection delay for signalized intersections are presented below (see Table 3). ## Land Use (ITE Code) ## Intensity ## (SF) ## Daily ## Traffic (vpd) ## Weekday AM ## Peak Hour Trips (vph) ## Weekday PM ## Peak Hour Trips (vph) ## Enter Exit Enter Exit ## Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 180 units 1,229 19 60 62 36 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 5 ## Table 3: Level of Service Criteria ## Signalized Intersection ## LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) ## A  10 ## B >10 and  20 ## C >20 and  35 ## D >35 and  55 ## E >55 and  80 ## F >80 Two scenarios were analyzed for delay and queuing using the existing roadway geometry along with the existing signal timings provided by the city: • 2025 No-Build: The current intersection operations without any improvements. • 2035 Build: The projected intersection operations following the construction of new apartments and accounting for 10 years of background traffic growth. ## 2025 No-Build Analysis Results During the AM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at a LOS B. However, there existing operational challenges with the eastbound left-turn, eastbound through lane, and westbound left-turn on Adams Street, which are currently operating at the minimum LOS D. No queuing or blocking issues during the AM peak hour were noted. During the PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at an LOS C. However, there are existing operational challenges with the eastbound left-turn, westbound left-turn, and westbound through lane on Adams Street; and the southbound left-turn on N Victory Drive, which are currently operating at the minimum LOS D. The intersection is also experiencing some queue spillback and/or blocking on all approaches during the PM peak hour. These results appear to validate concerns expressed to the city about available traffic capacity of certain movements at the intersection. ## 2025 Build Analysis Results During the AM peak hour, the overall intersection operates nearly identical to the No-Build condition at a LOS B, however, the same existing operational challenges are present for the eastbound left-turn, eastbound through lane, and westbound left-turn on Adams Street, which are currently operating at the minimum LOS D. No queuing or blocking issues during the AM peak hour were noted. Based on the AM peak hour analysis, the intersection has capacity to manage the anticipated AM peak hour development trips and background growth without noticeable impact. ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 6 During the PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at LOS C but with more delay per vehicle (3 seconds/vehicle). Unlike the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour movements are anticipated to experience additional delays during the PM peak hour, specifically for the left- turn movements on all approaches which are currently operating at a minimum LOS D. Northbound and southbound left-turn lanes are expected to experience additional delays ranging from 5 seconds to 11 seconds per vehicle. The intersection will continue to experience queue spillback and/or blocking on all approaches during the PM peak hour, with queue lengths increasing by up to 50 feet. Based on the PM peak hour analysis, it is anticipated that the intersection will be negatively affected by the additional development trips and background growth, and opportunities to improve operations should be explored. Table 4 summarizes the traffic operations analysis under the existing geometry. ## Table 4: Existing Geometry - Traffic Operations Results ## L ## T ## R ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## Link ## Length ## Avg ## Max ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## EB ## 43 - D ## 37 - D ## 6 - A 160 75 150 620 75 150 160 25 75 ## WB ## 43 - D ## 32 - C ## 4 - A 220 50 125 857 50 100 220 25 75 ## NB ## 13 - B ## 11 - B ## 2 - A 250 25 75 683 125 225 250 25 75 ## SB ## 14 - B ## 7 - A ## 3 - A 240 75 150 991 75 200 240 25 75 ## EB ## 42 - D ## 36 - D ## 5 - A 160 75 150 617 75 150 160 25 50 ## WB ## 42 - D ## 34 - C ## 5 - A 220 75 150 852 50 100 220 25 75 ## NB ## 13 - B ## 12 - B ## 3 - A 250 25 75 683 125 225 250 50 75 ## SB ## 15 - B ## 8 - A ## 3 - A 240 75 125 988 100 200 240 25 50 ## L ## T ## R ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## Link ## Length ## Avg ## Max ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## EB ## 46 - D ## 33 - C ## 6 - A 160 125 225 617 100 175 160 25 75 ## WB ## 48 - D ## 36 - D ## 7 - A 220 100 200 852 100 225 220 50 100 ## NB ## 30 - C ## 19 - B ## 4 - A 250 50 100 683 175 325 250 50 100 ## SB ## 39 - D ## 15 - B ## 4 - A 240 125 250 988 150 300 240 25 100 ## EB ## 46 - D ## 31 - C ## 6 - A 160 125 225 617 100 200 160 25 75 ## WB ## 50 - D ## 32 - C ## 8 - A 220 150 250 852 100 200 220 50 100 ## NB ## 35 - D ## 24 - C ## 5 - A 250 50 125 683 225 350 250 50 100 ## SB ## 50 - D ## 17 - B ## 4 - A 240 175 300 988 150 350 240 25 75 ## Traffic Queuing (feet) ## Left Turn ## Through ## Right Turn ## Intersection (Delay - LOS) ## 22 - C ## 25 - C ## Approach ## PM Peak ## Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS) ## Intersection ## N Victory Dr & Adams St ## Alternative ## 2025 No Build 2035 Build ## Traffic Queuing (feet) ## Left Turn ## Through ## Right Turn ## Intersection (Delay - LOS) ## 13 - B ## 14 - B ## AM Peak ## Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS) ## Intersection ## N Victory Dr & Adams St ## Alternative ## 2025 No Build 2035 Build ## Approach ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL MITIGATION Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 7 ## VI. SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL MITIGATION During the PM peak hour, the analysis completed for the intersection indicates multiple movements at the intersection are currently challenging (i.e., LOS D) and those movements become more challenging with the anticipated future development trips and background growth. It was previously noted that existing signal phasing and lane configuration along Adams Street presents an opportunity to address safety concerns in conjunction with operations to improve the experience for all users moving through the intersection and utilizing Adams Street. The three mitigation measures noted below were identified to enhance the safety and operations of the intersection under the anticipated Build conditions, with particular focus on addressing challenging left turn movement delays identified in the analyses. Addition of Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) Permitted/Protected Operations to East and Westbound Lefts • The intersection meets the requirements as laid out in the Minnesota Signal Timing and Coordination Manual 2025 to run FYA protected/permitted operations throughout the day. • Converting permissive only to FYA protected/permitted left turns has a crash reduction factor of approximately 50% for crashes involving left turns. Converting Left Turn Phasing from Lagging Left Turns into Leading Left Turns Only • Running lagging left turn phasing in conjunction with FYA protected/permitted phasing can lead to a soft yellow trap, where left-turning drivers misinterpret signal changes and conflict with oncoming traffic between left-turning traffic and oncoming traffic. Restriping Adams Street from N Victory Drive into a 3-Lane Cross-Section • Restriping the 850 ft between N Victory Drive and Dublin Road from 4-lane to 3-lane matches the existing cross-section along Adams Street east of N Victory Drive and west of Dublin Road. • Existing and projected volumes are well below the capacity of a 3-lane cross-section. 2035 projected ADT is about 12,000 vpd; a 3-lane cross-section can accommodate up to 15,000 vpd. To understand the benefits between the existing conditions and mitigation conditions, the cycle lengths of 100 seconds for the AM Peak and 120 seconds for the PM Peak were assumed to remain the same to maintain coordination on the N Victory Drive corridor. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 8 ## Mitigation Results Table 5 provides the LOS results for the phasing and geometric mitigation noted above. ## Table 5: Mitigation Geometry/Phasing Operations For the 2035 Build condition, comparing the delay and queuing from the existing geometry/phasing to mitigation geometry/phasing: • Overall intersection delay and LOS is approximately the same (± 1 second/vehicle) • Delays for all left-turn movements decrease for the 2035 Build condition • Through movement delays increase (a result of the added protected phase and clearance intervals for FYA operation). • Queuing and blocking is anticipated to be similar in nature to existing. ## L ## T ## R ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## Link ## Length ## Avg ## Max ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## EB ## 35 - D ## 42 - D ## 6 - A 160 50 125 617 75 150 160 25 75 ## WB ## 34 - C ## 42 - D ## 5 - A - 75 175 851 50 125 220 25 75 ## NB ## 12 - B ## 14 - B ## 4 - A 250 25 50 683 125 225 250 25 75 ## SB ## 17 - B ## 9 - A ## 3 - A 240 75 150 988 100 175 240 25 75 ## L ## T ## R ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## Link ## Length ## Avg ## Max ## Storage ## Avg ## Max ## EB ## 44 - D ## 50 - D ## 8 - A 160 125 275 617 150 350 160 50 200 ## WB ## 41 - D ## 44 - D ## 9 - A - 125 225 851 125 225 220 50 125 ## NB ## 25 - C ## 28 - C ## 9 - A 250 50 100 683 225 350 250 50 125 ## SB ## 35 - D ## 19 - B ## 4 - A 240 150 300 988 175 325 240 25 75 ## Traffic Queuing (feet) ## Left Turn ## Through ## Right Turn ## Intersection (Delay - LOS) ## 26 - C ## Approach ## PM Peak ## Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS) ## Intersection ## N Victory Dr & Adams St ## Signalized Intersection ## Alternative 2035 Build ## Traffic Queuing (feet) ## Left Turn ## Through ## Right Turn ## Intersection (Delay - LOS) ## 15 - B ## AM Peak ## Traffic Delay (sec/veh) Movement (Delay - LOS) ## Intersection ## N Victory Dr & Adams St ## Signalized Intersection ## Alternative 2035 Build ## Approach ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSIONS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 9 ## VII. CONCLUSIONS The recommendations for the intersection, based on the traffic analysis performed, include adding Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) permitted/protected operations for eastbound and westbound left turns, converting left-turn phasing from lagging to leading, and restriping Adams Street to a three-lane cross- section between N Victory Drive and Dublin Road. Figure 3 includes all the recommended revisions for the intersection. The benefits of these improvements are as follows: • Reduce delays and increase safety for left-turning traffic. • Removal of the “soft yellow-trap” caused by lagging left turns for FYA permitted/protected phasing. • Creates a consistent cross-section for the drivers traveling along Adams Street and enhances safety. • Provides a minor decrease in intersection queuing for left-turning traffic • The increase in intersection delay is negligible and is a reasonable trade-off of having a safer, more flexible, and predictable traffic signal operation. ## Additional Considerations • A future N Victory Drive signal retiming project could provide better operations throughout the corridor, as well as at the study intersection. • Continued monitoring of the southbound left-turning volume. A dual left-turn lane is typically recommended when the hourly left-turning volume exceeds 300 veh/hr. Additional storage could also be considered to reduce the impact of queuing. • The eastbound left turn lane storage on Adams Street could be extended up to 150’ by modifying the existing pavement markings to reduce occasional queue spillback and blocking on this approach. ## Figure 3: Intersection Improvements Summary Map ## Appendix A: Traffic Volumes ## Victory Dr & Adams StAppendix A: Traffic Volumes ## Traffic Volume - Base Volume ## 2025 No Build2035 Build ## AM ## PM ## AM ## PM 29 532 118 121 585 153 41 53 58 87 85 47 59 711 171 119 762 217 154 142 136 169 173 69 33 595 131 134 647 179 46 59 86 97 94 52 66 808 189 132 842 268 171 157 187 187 192 77 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSIONS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 2 ## Appendix B: Intersection Safety Screening ## Intersection: Statewide Averages based on 2019-2023 crashes 0 0 3 7 15 25 = = ## Signal, Low Volume (<=20K) 0.4560.000 0.6441.209 0.9304.030 0.490.00 ## Intersection Safety Screening ## Victory Dr & Adams St ## Crashes by Crash SeverityIntersection Characteristics ## Fatal (K)Entering Volume 30,000 ## Incapacitating Injury (A)Environment ## Urban ## Minor Injury (B)Lighting ## Lit ## Possible Injury (C)Traffic Control ## Signal ## ObservedObserved ## Property Damage (PDO) ## Total Crashes Annual crash cost $534,000 Statewide comparison ## Total Crash RateFatal & Serious Injury Crash Rate The observed crash rate is the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). The critical rate is a statistical comparison based on similar intersections statewide. An observed crash rate greater than the critical rate indicates that the intersection operates outside the expected, normal range. The critical index reports the magnitude of this difference (i.e. observed crash rate ÷ critical crash rate). The observed total crash rate for this period is 0.46 per MEV; this is 51% below the critical rate. Based on similar statewide intersections, an additional 26 crashes over the five years would indicate this intersection operates outside the normal range. The observed fatal and serious injury crash rate for this period is 0.00 per 100 MEV; this is 100% below the critical rate. The intersection operates within the normal range. ## Statewide AverageStatewide Average ## Critical RateCritical Rate ## Critical IndexCritical Index Developed by MnDOT Office of Traffic Engineering. January 2022. ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSIONS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 3 ## Appendix C: FYA Worksheets Is there any opposing LT movement? (Y/N): ## Y If the answer is no, there is no SD problem # opposing lanes 1 1 Opposing speed limit (mph) 30 ## Required SD (ft): 242 ## LT offset X 0 (ft) 4 ## Intersection Length, L (ft) 125 ## OTHL ## W (ft) 12 ## OLTL ## W (ft) 12 Yi (ft) 2 0 Vw (ft) 7 lateral position of OLT vehicle x l (ft) 3 1.5 x i (ft) 4 3.5 ## Available SD (ft): 1500 Ya (ft) 117 x r (ft) 3.5 vehicle offset (ft) -4 ## * Y i is negative in this figure because the driver's eye is behinde the end of the median at the time of making decision. ## No SD Problem 3) This parameter can be between .5 to 2.5 feet depending on the OLTLw and opposing median condition. Keep it at 1.5 ft unless you have a good reason.4) This parameter can be between 2.5 to 4.5 feet depending on the LTLw and median condition. Keep it at 3.5 ft unless you have a good reason.2) Yi is positive if the driver's eye is beyond the tip of median (or stop bar) at the decision time. It is negative if the driver is behind the tip of median/stop bar.1) the number of lanes that a left-turning vehicle has to cross to complete a left-turn maneuver, including the right-turn lane unless the right turn lane is channelized as a free right turn. ## Input * If the opposing approach has a significant horizontal/vertical curve ending at intersection, this worksheet cannot be used to calculate the available SD. The required SD can still be calculated by this worksheet; but for the available SD you should use the real sight plan. Google map would be an easy way to approximate the available SD. 0.38 beta 1: 0.38 LT vol 200 beta 2: 0.37 Opp vol 250 Sampled hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LT vol 23 52 75 66 104 130 148 144 139 117 141 144 93 Opp vol 42 97 124 123 164 191 199 199 204 224 249 180 98 LT vol 4 4 0 0 0 5 23 52 75 66 104 130 148 144 139 117 141 144 93 71 71 49 75 35 LT st. deviation 2.2 2.2 0.4 0.8 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 11.8 8.6 12.5 8.3 Opp vol 25 26 10 11 19 45 42 97 124 123 164 191 199 199 204 224 249 180 98 109 90 62 33 18 Opp st. deviation 7.5 7.9 3.8 4.3 6.1 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 22.4 16.0 9.5 5.9 ## Relative Risk 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.42 0.53 0.50 0.67 0.77 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.87 0.78 0.53 0.50 0.46 0.35 0.33 0.20 RR sd 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 ## Model Parameters ## Base Condition Protected/Permited left turn phasing, Speed limit < ## 45 mph, No Sight Distance Problem Estimated 24-hour turning movement volumes -0.20 0.000.200.400.600.801.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ## Time of Day ## Relative Risk ## Run 050100150200250300350400450500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 LT vol Opp vol ## Relative Risk 2-31-20-1 Is there any opposing LT movement? (Y/N): ## Y If the answer is no, there is no SD problem # opposing lanes 1 1 Opposing speed limit (mph) 30 ## Required SD (ft): 242 ## LT offset X 0 (ft) 3 ## Intersection Length, L (ft) 125 ## OTHL ## W (ft) 12 ## OLTL ## W (ft) 12 Yi (ft) 2 0 Vw (ft) 7 lateral position of OLT vehicle x l (ft) 3 1.5 x i (ft) 4 3.5 ## Available SD (ft): 1500 Ya (ft) 117 x r (ft) 3.5 vehicle offset (ft) -3 ## * Y i is negative in this figure because the driver's eye is behinde the end of the median at the time of making decision. ## No SD Problem 3) This parameter can be between .5 to 2.5 feet depending on the OLTLw and opposing median condition. Keep it at 1.5 ft unless you have a good reason.4) This parameter can be between 2.5 to 4.5 feet depending on the LTLw and median condition. Keep it at 3.5 ft unless you have a good reason.2) Yi is positive if the driver's eye is beyond the tip of median (or stop bar) at the decision time. It is negative if the driver is behind the tip of median/stop bar.1) the number of lanes that a left-turning vehicle has to cross to complete a left-turn maneuver, including the right-turn lane unless the right turn lane is channelized as a free right turn. ## Input * If the opposing approach has a significant horizontal/vertical curve ending at intersection, this worksheet cannot be used to calculate the available SD. The required SD can still be calculated by this worksheet; but for the available SD you should use the real sight plan. Google map would be an easy way to approximate the available SD. 0.38 beta 1: 0.38 LT vol 200 beta 2: 0.37 Opp vol 250 Sampled hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LT vol 48 88 86 96 108 109 130 134 127 136 150 133 80 Opp vol 18 54 91 112 164 167 219 216 207 218 240 214 132 LT vol 5 6 1 5 0 16 48 88 86 96 108 109 130 134 127 136 150 133 80 53 41 51 41 0 LT st. deviation 2.3 2.7 1.3 2.4 0.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 7.8 9.6 8.5 1.1 Opp vol 26 17 15 3 1 1 18 54 91 112 164 167 219 216 207 218 240 214 132 140 101 84 53 33 Opp st. deviation 7.8 5.8 5.8 2.6 2.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.8 25.3 21.7 13.9 9.9 ## Relative Risk 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.42 0.50 0.56 0.68 0.68 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.82 0.88 0.81 0.56 0.49 0.39 0.40 0.31 0.04 RR sd 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 ## Model Parameters ## Base Condition Protected/Permited left turn phasing, Speed limit < ## 45 mph, No Sight Distance Problem Estimated 24-hour turning movement volumes -0.20 0.000.200.400.600.801.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ## Time of Day ## Relative Risk ## Run 050100150200250300350400450500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 LT vol Opp vol ## Relative Risk 2-31-20-1 ## Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSIONS Mankato TIS N Victory Drive at Adams Street ǀ 25X.141182000 Page 4 ## Appendix D: Developer Reports August 26, 2025 ## Molly Westman ## City of Mankato ## 10 Civic Center Plaza ## Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 720-2559 mwestman@mankatomn.gov ## Reference: Victory Ridge Apartments ## Mankato, Minnesota ## Subject: Trip Generation Memorandum ## Dear Ms. Westman: The following is a Trip Generation Memorandum for the proposed Victory Ridge Apartments development to be located along Dublin Road, east of N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) in Mankato, Minnesota. This memorandum has been prepared to compare and assess the trip generation potential for the proposed residential development based on the following planned land use: • 180 low-rise apartments Site access to the development is proposed via two (2) full movement driveways along Dublin Road. N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) is a four-lane divided roadway in the vicinity of the site with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph). Based on the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) had a recorded average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 18,487 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2024. Adams Street is a four-lane undivided roadway in the vicinity of the site with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph). East of the vicinity of the site, Adams Street converts to a two-lane roadway divided by a two-way left-turn lane. Based on the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) had a recorded average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 6,053 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2022. Dublin Road is a two-lane undivided roadway in the vicinity of the site. With no posted speed limit signs, it was assumed that the speed limit along this roadway is 25 miles per hour (mph). Based on the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, there is currently no AADT data available along Dublin Road. To provide an estimate of the AADT along this roadway, a trip generation was performed for the residential and commercial developments with access along Dublin Road, east of N Victory Drive (CSAH 82), using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition. Using the data available, it is estimated that Dublin Road serves approximately 4,230 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2025. Refer to the attachments for the trip generation estimates for Dublin Road AADT. 2 Refer to the attachments for a site location map and a copy of the preliminary site plan. In addition to providing the trip generation comparison for the site, this letter also assesses the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development. ## Trip Generation The proposed development is assumed to consist of 180 low-rise apartments. Average daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development land use options were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition. Table 1 provides a summary of the trip generation potential for the proposed development utilizing equations for the land use. ## Table 1: Trip Generation Summary Comparison The proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 1,229 total site trips on the roadway network during a typical 24-hour period. Of the daily traffic volume, it is anticipated that 79 trips (19 entering and 60 exiting) will occur during the weekday AM peak hour and 98 trips (62 entering and 36 exiting) will occur during the weekday PM peak hour. It should be noted that the daily traffic volume generated by the proposed development is expected to be below the thresholds to require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) based on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Access Management Manual. ## Trip Distribution The trip distribution used in assigning the site traffic for the proposed development was estimated based on a combination of existing traffic patterns, population centers in the vicinity of the study area, and engineering judgement. It was assumed that the site trips will be regionally distributed throughout the study area as follows: • 45% to/from the north via N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) • 35% to/from the south via N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) • 20% to/from the east via Adams Street The site traffic along N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) and along Adams Street are expected to utilize the proposed site driveway via Dublin Road to access the proposed development. Refer to the attachments for an illustration of the site distribution assumptions. ## Land Use (ITE Code) ## Intensity ## (SF) ## Daily ## Traffic (vpd) ## Weekday AM ## Peak Hour Trips (vph) ## Weekday PM ## Peak Hour Trips (vph) ## Enter Exit Enter Exit ## Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 180 units 1,229 19 60 62 36 3 Based on the MnDOT Access Management Manual, the proposed development would not be classified as a significant trip generator as it generates less than 2,500 daily trips and/or 250 peak hour trips. Due to the low site traffic generated by the development, it is expected that the development will have minimal impacts on the surrounding roadway network. ## Turn Lane Warrants Based on the MnDOT Access Management Manual, the proposed development is not expected to meet any warrants for left-turn or right-turn lanes into the site due to the low speed limit assumed along the Dublin Road corridor within the vicinity of the site. The absence of turn lanes at the proposed site access points is consistent with the adjacent developments with access to Dublin Road. ## Conclusion The proposed Victory Ridge Apartments development was reviewed to determine the trip generation potential for the site and assess any potential traffic impacts from the proposed development. Based on the MnDOT Access Management Manual, the proposed development would not be classified as a significant trip generator as it generates less than 2,500 daily trips and/or 250 peak hour trips. Due to the low site traffic generated by the development, it is expected that the development will have minimal impacts on the surrounding roadway network. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ## Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. ## Danielle Troutman, PE ## Transportation Project Engineer ## License No. 63168 ## Attachments: Site Location Map ## Preliminary Site Plan ## Site Trip Distribution Figure ## Dublin Road AADT Estimates ## Site Location Map ## N ## Proposed Site Access ## Proposed Site Location ## Study Area ## LEGEND 14 A u g u s t a D r i v e 57 D u b l i n R o a d N V i c t o r y D r i v e A d a m s S t r e e t ## Mankato, MN ## Scale: Not to Scale ## Victory Ridge ## Apartments ## V ## F ## F ## C ## V ## FF ## CC > >> > >> ## S > > > > > ## S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> l l l ll l ll ll l l l ## E ## E ## E ## E ## G ## G ## E ## D ## D ## D ## E ## VAWM ## R=1004.24 ## TN=997.24 ## VAWM ## R=1004.10 ## TN=997.30 ## D ## C ## C ## C ## C ## C ## F ## F ## F ## F ## F ## E ## E ## E ## E ## G ## G ## E ## E ## V ## F ## F ## C ## V ## FF ## CC ## S ## D ## D ## S ## D ## APARTMENT BUILDING 1 ## 38 UNITS ## APARTMENT BUILDING 2 ## 52 UNITS ## W/ 23 MAIN LEVEL GARAGE STALLS ## APARTMENT BUILDING 3 ## 52 UNITS ## W/ 23 MAIN LEVEL GARAGE STALLS ## APARTMENT BUILDING 4 ## 38 UNITS ## GARAGE 10 STALLS ## GARAGE 10 STALLS ## PLAY ## AREA ## GRILL ## AREA ## GRILL ## AREA ## PLAY ## AREA ## DOG ## PARK ## STORM BASIN ## STORM BASIN ## STORM BASIN ## DUBLIN ROAD ## DUBLIN COURT ## VICTORY DRIVE ## BREAKLINE ## 10' BREAKLINE SETBACK ## BREAKLINE ## 10' BREAKLINE SETBACK ## BREAKLINE ## 10' BREAKLINE SETBACK ## 0.08 ACRES ## (3563 SQFT) ## WETLAND ## GARAGE 10 STALLS ## GARAGE 10 STALLS ## (300' FROM CREEK) ## SHORELAND ZONE LINE ## (300' FROM CREEK) ## SHORELAND ZONE LINE ## LOT 1 ## BLOCK 1 ## 14.83 ACRES ## 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK ## 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK ## 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK ## S 00°04'18" W 245.00 ## N 89°55'42" W 442.20 ## N 00°18'01" E 758.03 ## N 89°55'35" E 20.00 ## N 00°03'02" E 360.00 ## N 89°55'35" E 495.20 ## S 00°01'54" W 200.00 ## N 89°55'35" E 355.26 ## S 32°38'21" W 801.22 ## 1960 PREMIER DRIVE ## MANKATO, MN 56001 (507) 625-4171 ## R ## SCALE IN FEET 060120 H:\KUEPERS_PR\25X139464000\CAD\C3D\139464V_PLTP_1.dwg 7/22/2025 8:37 AM ## ©Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights Reserved ## FOR: ## DRAWN BY:FIELD BOOK:JOB NUMBER: ## PROPOSED SITE PLAN ## MANKATO, MINNESOTA ## OUTLOT B, KEARNEY ADDITION NO. 2 ## KUEPERS, INC. ## 25X.139464.000 ## NPM ## R ## UTILITY & SITE DATA All Zoning, Setback, and Flood Zone information was obtained from the City of Mankato Code. For detailed zoning information and specific interpretation of code requirements, contact the City of Mankato. ## ZONING: ## Subject property - OR, Office-Residential District ## SETBACKS: ## Front Main and Accessory Building 20 feet Parking Areas 20 feet ## Side Main and Accessory Buildings 5 feet Parking Areas 3 feet ## Rear Main and Accessory Building 10 feet Parking Areas 3 feet Lot Area (minimum) = 10,000 sq.ft. plus 600 sq.ft. for each unit over 6 units. Lot Width (minimum) = 80 feet Ground Coverage by all structures (maximum) = 60% Building Height (maximum) = 45 feet (main) & 20 feet (accessory) ## VICTORY RIDGE APARTMENTS ## (MINNESOTA COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM - ## BLUE EARTH COUNTY ZONE - HARN NAD83 - 2011) ## BASIS OF BEARINGS ## LOT LINES ## RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ## BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ## LOT LINES AND BEING 10 FEET IN ## WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY ## LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ## ON THE PLAT. 5' 5' 10' ## LINES ## EASEMENT ## & UTILITY ## DRAINAGE ## (SHOWN AS PER THE PLAT OF CIRCLE ## SEVEN SUBDIVISION.) ## SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ ## Michael M. Eichers ## License Number 46564 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ________________ ## Date 07/22/2025 ## N ## Adams ## Street ## SITE ## Dublin ## Road ## N Victory ## Drive ## Site Drive 1 ## Site Drive 2 ## Site Trip ## Distribution (45%) (5%) 35% 20% 35% 20% 45% 50% 35% 35% 45% 45% 45% 15% 15% (45%) (50%) (5%) (35%) (20%) (35%) ## LEGEND ## Unsignalized Intersection ## Right-In/Right-Out Intersection ## Signalized Intersection ## Entering Trip Distribution ## X% ## Exiting Trip Distribution ## (Y%) ## Regional Trip Distribution ## XX% ## Mankato, MN ## Scale: Not to Scale ## Victory Ridge ## Apartments ## Table 1: Trip Generation Summary – Dublin Road AADT *Estimated unit count using Google Earth aerial. **50% of traffic is assumed to utilize Dublin Road. ## Land Use (ITE Code) ## Intensity ## (SF) ## Daily ## Traffic (vpd) ## Single Family Attached Housing (215) 42 units* 302 ## Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 40 units* 332 ## Senior Adult Housing – Multifamily (252) 80 units* 259 ## Convenience Store/Gas Station** (945) ## 16 VFP, 5,200 s.f. 3,337 ## Total Daily Traffic – Dublin Road 4,230 September 9, 2025 ## Molly Westman ## City of Mankato ## 10 Civic Center Plaza ## Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 720-2559 mwestman@mankatomn.gov ## Reference: Victory Ridge Apartments ## Mankato, Minnesota ## Subject: Signal Phasing Analysis ## Dear Ms. Westman: The following is a letter summarizing the signal phasing analysis performed at the intersection of N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) and Adams Street in conjunction with the proposed Victory Ridge Apartments development to be located along Dublin Road, east of N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) in Mankato, Minnesota. This letter has been prepared to assess the need for a change in phasing for the westbound left-turn movement (Adams Street) that currently operates with permissive only phasing. Analysis was performed to determine if protected-permissive phasing with a flashing yellow arrow (FYA) is warranted for the minor-street. MnDOT’s “Flashing Yellow Operations Worksheet Tool” was utilized to determine if there is a sight distance issue at the intersection and at what times of day the relative risk for a left-turn crashes are the highest. Based on this tool, the peak hour turning movement counts, and the intersection geometry, it was determined there is no sight distance issue at the intersection. Additionally, out of the hours analyzed, none had a relative risk higher than 1.00 for left-turn crashes. Typically, a relative risk higher than 1.00 causes consideration for phasing changes. It should be noted though that the PM peak hour did have the highest risk at 0.92/1.00. The FYA could be considered during the PM peak hour due to these higher percentages. Refer to the attachments for the tool’s outputs. Crash history from the past 5-year period (2021-2024) was also reviewed to determine if the number of left-turn type crashes occurring at the intersection meets the MnDOT guidance for implementing a FYA which is typically 1 left-turn crash per year for five years. Looking at the crash history, seven (7) left-turn crashes did occur between 2021-2024 with three (3) occurring on Adams Street and four (4) occurring along N Victory Drive. Also, based on CMF Clearinghouse, there are multiple crash modification factors (CMF) for the installation of a flashing yellow arrow as shown below supporting that the implementation of FYA does reduce left-turn crashes. Refer to the attachments for crash summaries and a CMF comparison. ## • CMF 4147 = 0.753 ## • CMF 4175 = 0.635 ## • CMF 7728 = 1.047 ## • CMF 7730 = 0.857 2 The intersection of N Victory Drive (CSAH 82) and Adams Street was reviewed in conjunction with the proposed Victory Ridge development to determine the need for a change in signal phasing for the westbound left-turn movement from permissive only to protected-permissive with FYA. Based on MnDOT’s “Flashing Yellow Operations Worksheet Tool” and recent crash history, it was determined that protected-permissive with FYA could be beneficial in reducing left-turn type crashes at the intersection, specifically during the PM peak hour and should be considered. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ## Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. ## Danielle Troutman, PE ## Transportation Project Engineer ## License No. 63168 ## Attachments: MnDOT Flashing Yellow Operations Worksheet Tool Outputs ## Crash Short Summaries ## CMF Comparison Is there any opposing LT movement? (Y/N):YIf the answer is no, there is no SD problem # opposing lanes 1 2 Opposing speed limit (mph) 30Required SD (ft):264 ## LT offset X 0 (ft) 0 ## Intersection Length, L (ft) 125 ## OTHL ## W (ft) 12 ## OLTL ## W (ft) 12 Yi (ft) 2 0 Vw (ft)7 lateral position of OLT vehicle x l (ft) 3 1.5 x i (ft) 4 3.5Available SD (ft): 1500 Ya (ft)117 x r (ft) 3.5 vehicle offset (ft)0 ## * Y i is negative in this figure because the driver's eye is behinde the end of the median at the time of making decision. ## No SD Problem 3) This parameter can be between .5 to 2.5 feet depending on the OLTLw and opposing median condition. Keep it at 1.5 ft unless you have a good reason. 4) This parameter can be between 2.5 to 4.5 feet depending on the LTLw and median condition. Keep it at 3.5 ft unless you have a good reason. 2) Yi is positive if the driver's eye is beyond the tip of median (or stop bar) at the decision time. It is negative if the driver is behind the tip of median/stop bar. 1) the number of lanes that a left-turning vehicle has to cross to complete a left-turn maneuver, including the right-turn lane unless the right turn lane is channelized as a free right turn. ## Input * If the opposing approach has a significant horizontal/vertical curve ending at intersection, this worksheet cannot be used to calculate the available SD. The required SD can still be calculated by this worksheet; but for the available SD you should use the real sight plan. Google map would be an easy way to approximate the available SD. 0.38 beta 1:0.38LT vol 200 beta 2:0.37Opp vol 250 Sampled hours1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LT vol0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 93 0 0 120 117 0 0 0 182 166 Opp vol0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 114 0 0 163 156 0 0 0 222 200 LT vol0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 93 0 0 120 117 0 0 0 182 166 56 23 36 15 10 8 LT st. deviation0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 15.5 8.2 4.8 4.6 3.5 Opp vol0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 114 0 0 163 156 0 0 0 222 200 71 34 30 29 12 9 Opp st. deviation0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 9.6 8.6 8.4 4.4 3.7 Relative Risk0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.86 0.39 0.21 0.24 0.17 0.10 0.09 RR sd#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 ## Model ParametersBase Condition Protected/Permited left turn phasing, Speed limit <45 mph, No Sight Distance Problem Estimated 24-hour turning movement volumes 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ## Time of Day ## Relative Risk ## Run 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 100200300400500600700800900 100011001200130014001500 LT vol Opp vol ## Relative Risk 2-3 1-2 0-1 Existing 2021 Sampled hours123456789101112131415161718 LT vol27357570123104 Opp vol94100148141202181 2021 Projected 20252025 Sampled hours1234567891011121314151617181 LT vol00000002836007872000128108 Opp vol00000009810400154146000210188EnterExit ## Gas Station Daily Trips =334116711671 ## Residential Daily Trips =1229615615 ## Gas Station Trips Sampled hours123456789101112131415161718 LT vol414035384746 Opp vol10109101212 enter exitenter exit ## Residential Trips ## EnterExitEnterExit Sampled hours123456789101112131415161718 ## SBR ## 6-7 AM 1.4%6.9%4.7%4.5% LT vol23181091216 ## SBT ## 7-8 AM 2.0% 10.8% 6.2%6.1% Opp vol000000 ## SBL ## 40%45%8-9 AM 3.1%8.5%5.8%5.9% ## SBU ## 9-10 AM 2.9%4.9%5.0%5.1% ## WBR ## 10-11 AM 2.4%4.8%5.2%5.2% ## Future ## WBT ## 10%11-12 PM 3.8%4.7%5.3%5.2% Sampled hours123456789101112131415161718 ## WBL ## 40%35%12-1 PM 4.5%4.1%5.8%5.8% LT vol0000000919300120117000182166 ## WBU ## 1-2 PM 4.0%4.4%5.4%5.3% Opp vol000000010811400163156000222200 ## NBR ## 40%2-3 PM 5.6%4.9%6.1%5.8% ## NBT ## 35%3-4 PM 6.9%5.3%6.5%6.4% ## NBL ## 4-5 PM 10.1% 5.6%7.2%7.1% ## NBU ## 5-6 PM 11.4% 7.6%7.0%6.9% ## EBR ## 6-7 PM 9.7%6.7%6.5%6.6% ## EBT 10%68.0% 79.2% 76.6% 76.0% ## EBL ## EBU ## TOTAL TRIPS 16711671615615 ## RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeft ## 6-7 AM 003108303100080 ## 7-8 AM 00410104141000100 ## 8-9 AM 00390104039000100 ## 9-10 AM 003408343400080 ## 10-11 AM 003409343400090 ## 11-12 PM 003609353600090 ## 12-1 PM 00380103838000100 ## 1-2 PM 003609363600090 ## 2-3 PM 00400103940000100 ## 3-4 PM 00430114343000110 ## 4-5 PM 00480124748000120 ## 5-6 PM 00460124646000120 ## 6-7 PM 00430114443000110 0050901295075090001290 ## RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeft ## 6-7 AM 0040015030000 ## 7-8 AM 0060023040000 ## 8-9 AM 0090018070000 ## 9-10 AM 0080010060000 ## 10-11 AM 0070010050000 ## 11-12 PM 00110010080000 ## 12-1 PM 00120090100000 ## 1-2 PM 00110010090000 ## 2-3 PM 001600100120000 ## 3-4 PM 001900110150000 ## 4-5 PM 002800120220000 ## 5-6 PM 003200160250000 ## 6-7 PM 002700140210000 001900016801470000 ## LUC 945 ## Land Use #1Land Use #2 ## LUC 945LUC 220 ## LUC 220 ## LUC 945 ## Southbound WestboundNorthboundEastbound ## Land Use #2 ## Southbound WestboundNorthboundEastbound ## Crash Detail Report - Short Form ## INCIDENT ID 01219656 ## ROUTE SYS ## 04-CSAH ## ROUTE NUM 0082 ## MEASURE 1.792 ## ROUTE NAME ## VICTORY DR ## ROUTE ID ## 0400006594520082-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## ADAMS STREET ## # VEH 3 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 12/02/24 ## TIME 15:57 ## DAY ## Mon ## LAT 44.170601 ## LONG -93.968804 ## UTM X 422550.5 ## UTM Y 4891276.8 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Angle ## CRASH SEVERITY ## N - Prop Damage Only ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Daylight ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Clear ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Pickup ## Northbound ## Turning Left ## 56 M ## Apparently Normal ## Failure to Yield Right-of-Way Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Sport Utility Vehicle ## Northbound ## Moving Forward ## 25 M ## Apparently Normal ## Unknown Unit 3 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Pickup ## Northbound ## Moving Forward ## 65 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## ON 12/02/2024 AT 1558 HOURS, A MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH WAS ## REPORTED AT THE INTERSECTION OF N VICTORY DRIVE AND ADAMS ## STREET IN THE CITY OF MANKATO. VEHICLE #1 WAS A BLUE IN COLOR ## CHEVY SILVERADO MAKING A LEFT TURN OFF OF ADAMS ONTO N ## VICTOR AND THE DRIVER FAILED TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO ## NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON NORTH VICTORY CAUSING A COLLISION ## WITH VEHICLE #2 WHICH WAS A BLACK IN COLOR FORD ESCAPE ## NORTHBOUND IN THE RIGHT LANE. VEHICLE #3 WAS A SILVER IN ## COLOR DODGE DAKOTA PICKUP NORTHBOUND ON N VICTORY IN THE ## LEFT LANE. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. PHOTOS WERE TAKEN AT ## THE SCENE. VEHICLES WERE TOWED FROM THE SCENE DUE TO ## DISABLING DAMAGE. ALL DRIVERS WERE CITED FOR VARIOUS ## VIOLATIONS. - END. ## INCIDENT ID 01083104 ## ROUTE SYS ## 04-CSAH ## ROUTE NUM 0082 ## MEASURE 1.798 ## ROUTE NAME ## VICTORY DR ## ROUTE ID ## 0400006594520082-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## ADAMS ST ## # VEH 3 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 02/21/23 ## TIME 14:50 ## DAY ## Tue ## LAT 44.170677 ## LONG -93.968803 ## UTM X 422550.6 ## UTM Y 4891285.2 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Left Turn ## CRASH SEVERITY ## C - Possible Injury ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Daylight ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Snow ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Sport Utility Vehicle ## Southbound ## Turning Left ## 26 M ## Apparently Normal ## Failure to Yield Right-of-Way Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Northbound ## Moving Forward ## 25 M ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 3 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Pickup ## Westbound ## Vehicle Stopped or Stalled in ## 34 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## ON FEBRUARY 21, 2023 AT 1449HRS, OFFICERS WERE DISPATCHED TO ## A MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS ## STREET/VICTORY DRIVE. V1 WAS TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON ## VICTORY DRIVE. THE SEMAPHORE AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS ## STREET/VICTORY DRIVE WAS DISPLAYED GREEN FOR NORTH/SOUTH ## TRAFFIC. V2 WAS TRAVELING NORTHBOUND ON VICTORY DRIVE. V2 ## CONTINUED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AS THE SEMAPHORE WAS ## DISPLAYED GREEN. V1 FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND ## TURNED EASTBOUND ONTO ADAMS STREET; SUBSEQUENTLY ## CRASHING INTO V2. V2 SPUN OUT OF CONTROL AND CRASHED INTO ## V3. V3 WAS STOPPED FACING WESTBOUND AT THE DISPLAYED RED ## SEMAPHORE. THE DRIVER OF V1 STATED HE WAS UNABLE TO STOP ## DUE TO SLIPPERY ROAD CONDITIONS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, V1 HAD ## A FRONT PASSENGER THAT LEFT THE SCENE PRIOR TO OFFICERS ## ARRIVAL. Report Generated 09/08/2025MnCMAT 2.0.0Page 1 of 4 ## Crash Detail Report - Short Form ## INCIDENT ID 01002554 ## ROUTE SYS ## 04-CSAH ## ROUTE NUM 0082 ## MEASURE 1.802 ## ROUTE NAME ## N VICTORY DR ## ROUTE ID ## 0400006594520082-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## ADAMS ST ## # VEH 2 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 01/27/22 ## TIME 15:30 ## DAY ## Thu ## LAT 44.170745 ## LONG -93.968803 ## UTM X 422550.7 ## UTM Y 4891292.8 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Left Turn ## CRASH SEVERITY ## C - Possible Injury ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Daylight ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Cloudy ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Northbound ## Moving Forward ## 23 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Sport Utility Vehicle ## Southbound ## Turning Left ## 82 M ## Apparently Normal ## Failure to Yield Right-of-Way Unit 3 Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## UNIT 1 WAS TRAVELING NORTH BOUND ON VICTORY DR AND IT WAS ## APPROACHING THE INTERESCTION OF ADAMS ST. UNIT 2 WAS ## TRAVELING SOUTH BOUND ON VICTORY APPRAOCHING THE SAME ## INTERSECTION. UNIT 2 PROCEEDED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ON TO ## ADAMS. UNIT 1 CONTINUED STRAIGHT. UNIT 2 IMPACTED THE LEFT ## SIDE OF UNIT 1 WITH ITS FRON BUMPER. UNIT 1 STATED SHE HAD A ## GREEN LIGHT. AN IDENTIFIED WITNESS FOLLOWING UNIT 1 ## CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD A GREEN LIGHT TO PROCEED NORTH ## BOUND ON VICOTRY. ## INCIDENT ID 01012960 ## ROUTE SYS ## 05-MSAS ## ROUTE NUM 0122 ## MEASURE 1.203 ## ROUTE NAME ## ADAMS ST ## ROUTE ID ## 0500023958310122-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## NOT IN A CITY ## INTERSECT WITH ## VICTORY DR ## # VEH 1 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 03/17/22 ## TIME 05:40 ## DAY ## Thu ## LAT 44.170731 ## LONG -93.969225 ## UTM X 422517.0 ## UTM Y 4891291.7 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Single Vehicle Run Off Road ## CRASH SEVERITY ## N - Prop Damage Only ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Other Post, Pole or Support ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Dark (Unknown Light) ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Clear ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Sport Utility Vehicle ## Not on Roadway ## Turning Left ## 89 M ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## ON 3/17/22 AT APPROXIMATELY 0540 HOURS, VEHICLE 1 WAS IN THE ## LEFT TURN LANE, FACING WESTBOUND, ON ADAMS STREET. VEHICLE ## 1 ATTEMPTED TO NEGOTIATE A LEFT TURN ONTO N VICTORY DR. ## FROM ADAMS STREET. VEHICLE 1 STRUCK THE TRAFFIC PUSH- ## BUTTON CROSSWALK POLE/POST LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST ## CORNER OF ADAMS ST/N VICTORY DR. NO INJURIES WERE ## REPORTED AND NO TOW WAS REQUESTED. VEHICLE 1 SUSTAINED ## MINOR DAMAGE TO THE FRONT-END BUMPER. Report Generated 09/08/2025MnCMAT 2.0.0Page 2 of 4 ## Crash Detail Report - Short Form ## INCIDENT ID 01139174 ## ROUTE SYS ## 05-MSAS ## ROUTE NUM 0122 ## MEASURE 1.206 ## ROUTE NAME ## ADAMS ST ## ROUTE ID ## 0500023958310122-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## # VEH 2 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 10/23/23 ## TIME 19:01 ## DAY ## Mon ## LAT 44.170729 ## LONG -93.969168 ## UTM X 422521.5 ## UTM Y 4891291.4 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Angle ## CRASH SEVERITY ## C - Possible Injury ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Dark (Str Lights On) ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Clear ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Southbound ## Moving Forward ## 23 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Westbound ## Turning Left ## 17 M ## Apparently Normal ## Failure to Yield Right-of-Way Unit 3 Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## ON 10/23/2023 AT 1901 HOURS, I RESPONDED TO ADAMS ST/ VICTORY ## DR FOR A REPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH INVOLVING ## INJURIES. THE INITIAL 911 CALLS INDICATED THAT THIS CRASH ## INVOLVED A CAR VS PEDESTRIAN, HOWEVER IT WAS LATER ## CLARIFIED THAT THE CRASH INVOLVED TWO VEHICLES. UPON MY ## ARRIVAL, I OBSERVED UNIT #1 WAS IN THE BLOCKING TRAFFIC ON ## VICTORY DRIVE. UNIT #2 WAS OBSERVED BLOCKING TRAFFIC ON ## ADAMS STREET. ALL OCCUPANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLES AND ## STANDING STREET SIDE. UNIT #1 HAD SUSTAINED HEAVY FRONT END ## DAMAGE. UNIT #1 WAS NOT DRIVABLE AND WAS ULTIMATELY TOWED ## FROM THE SCENE BY AFFORDABLE TOWING. UNIT #2 HAD SUSTAINED ## HEAVY SIDE DAMAGE TO THE RIGHT/PASSENGER SIDE. UNIT #2 HAD A ## MAJORITY OF THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. UNIT #2 WAS NOT DRIVABLE ## AND WAS ULTIMATELY TOWED FROM THE SCENE BY AFFORDABLE ## TOWING. I APPROACHED DRIVER #1 OF UNIT #1. DRIVER #1 ## INCIDENT ID 01118566 ## ROUTE SYS ## 05-MSAS ## ROUTE NUM 0122 ## MEASURE 1.223 ## ROUTE NAME ## ADAMS ST ## ROUTE ID ## 0500023958310122-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## VICTORY DR ## # VEH 2 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 07/05/23 ## TIME 13:10 ## DAY ## Wed ## LAT 44.170729 ## LONG -93.968803 ## UTM X 422550.7 ## UTM Y 4891291.1 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Left Turn ## CRASH SEVERITY ## B - Minor Injury ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Daylight ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Clear ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Southbound ## Turning Left ## 16 M ## Apparently Normal ## Failure to Yield Right-of-Way Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Northbound ## Moving Forward ## 37 M ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 3 Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## VEHICLE 1 WAS TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON VICTORY DRIVE AND IN ## THE TURN LANE TO GO EAST ON ADAMS ST. VEHICLE 2 WAS GOING ## NORTHBOUND ON VICTORY DRIVE IN THE OUTSIDE LANE. VEHICLE 1 ## TURNED IN FRONT OF VEHICLE 2 ON A FLASHING ORANGE TURN ## SIGNAL. DRIVER 1 STATED HE DID NOT SEE THE OTHER VEHICLE DUE ## TO OTHER VEHICLES ALSO GOING NORTHBOUND AND THAT HE ## THOUGHT IT WAS CLEAR. VEHICLES 1 AND 2 ATTEMPTED TO AVOID ## THE COLLISION BUT STRUCK EACH OTHER CAUSING EXTENSIVE ## DAMAGE. WITNESS 1 STATED VEHICLE 1 WAS TWO CARS AHEAD OF ## HER IN THE TURN LANE ON VICTORY DRIVE. SHE SAID SHE COULD ## SEE VEHICLE 2 COMING BUT DUE TO TRAFFIC AND VEHICLE 1 BEING ## CLOSER SHE DID NOT BELIEVE HE COULD HAVE SEEN VEHICLE 2. Report Generated 09/08/2025MnCMAT 2.0.0Page 3 of 4 ## Crash Detail Report - Short Form ## INCIDENT ID 01155294 ## ROUTE SYS ## 05-MSAS ## ROUTE NUM 0122 ## MEASURE 1.223 ## ROUTE NAME ## ADAMS ST ## ROUTE ID ## 0500023958310122-I ## COUNTY 7-Blue Earth ## CITY ## Mankato ## INTERSECT WITH ## N VICTORY DR ## # VEH 2 ## # KILL 0 ## DATE 01/11/24 ## TIME 16:25 ## DAY ## Thu ## LAT 44.170729 ## LONG -93.968803 ## UTM X 422550.7 ## UTM Y 4891291.1 ## WORK ZONE TYPE ## NOT APPLICABLE ## BASIC TYPE ## Left Turn ## CRASH SEVERITY ## N - Prop Damage Only ## FIRST HARMFUL ## Motor Vehicle In Transport ## LIGHT CONDITION ## Daylight ## WEATHER PRIMARY ## Clear ## Unit Type ## Vehicle Type ## Direction of Travel ## Maneuver ## Age/Sex ## Physical Cond ## Contributing Factor 1 Unit 1 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Sport Utility Vehicle ## Eastbound ## Moving Forward ## 15 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 2 ## Motor Vehicle in Transport ## Passenger Car ## Westbound ## Turning Left ## 32 F ## Apparently Normal ## No Clear Contributing Action Unit 3 Unit 4 ## OFFICER SKETCHNARRATIVE ## UNIT 1 WAS DRIVING ON ADAMS ST., GOING EAST, TOWARDS THE ## INTERSECTION OF ADAMS ST. AND N. VICTORY DR. UNIT 1 WAS GOING ## TO CONTINUE EAST ON ADAMS ST., TO CROSS N. VICTORY DR. UNIT 2 ## WAS DRIVING ON ADAMS ST., GOING WEST, TOWARDS THE ## INTERSECTION OF ADAMS ST. AND N. VICTORY DR. UNIT 2 WAS GOING ## TO TURN LEFT AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADAMS ST. AND N. VICTORY ## DR., TO GO SOUTH ON N. VICTORY DR. THE DRIVER OF UNIT 1 STATED ## THEY HAD A GREEN LIGHT TO PROCEED THROUGH THE ## INTERSECTION. THE DRIVER OF UNIT 2 STATED THEY HAD A GREEN ## LIGHT TO PROCEED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND TURN LEFT, ## HOWEVER THEY DID NOT HAVE A GREEN ARROW, AND HAD TO YIELD ## TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. UNIT 1 PROCEEDED THROUGH THE ## INTERSECTION. UNIT 2 PROCEEDED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION ## AND CRASHED INTO UNIT 1. THE FRONT END OF UNIT 2 CRASHED ## INTO THE SIDE OF UNIT 1, BY THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR. UNIT ## Selection Filter: WORK AREA: County('7') - FILTER: Year('2021','2022','2023','2024'), Vehicle Maneuver('24','5') - SPATIAL FILTER APPLIED - ROUTE FILTER APPLIED ## Analyst: ## Ross Tillman ## Notes: Report Generated 09/08/2025MnCMAT 2.0.0Page 4 of 4 ## ABOUT THE CLEARINGHOUSEUSING CMFsDEVELOPING CMFsADDITIONAL ## CRASH MODIFICATION FACTORS CLEARINGHOUSE ## Home » Compare CMFs ## CMF COMPARISON Below you will find comparisons for the CMFs you chose. Please note that the rows   highlighted and bold/italic   contain the differences in the selected CMFs. ## Countermeasure Name Changing left turn phasing from at least one permissive approach to flashing yellow arrow (FYA) Changing left turn phasing from at least one permissive approach to flashing yellow arrow (FYA) Install flashing yellow arrow Install left turn fl yellow arrow sig supplemental tra ## CMF ID 4174417577287730 ## CMF0.7530.6351.0470.857 ## Study Reference ## SRINIVASAN, ET AL., 2011 ## SRINIVASAN, ET AL., 2011 ## SCHATTLER ET AL., 2015SCHATTLER ET A ## Unadjusted Standard Error AMF0.0940.126 ## CMFunction ## Star Rating ## Rating Score Total125120120120 Crash TypeAllLeft turnLeft turnLeft turn ## Crash SeverityAllAllAllAll Crash Time of DayNot specifiedNot specifiedAllAll ## Area TypeUrbanUrbanUrbanUrban ## Road Division TypeAllAll ## Road TypeNot SpecifiedNot SpecifiedAllAll ## Min Number of Lanes22 ## Max Number of Lanes77 ## Number of Lanes Direction ## Number of Lanes Comment ## Intersection Type Roadway/roadway (not interchange related) Roadway/roadway (not interchange related) ## Intersection Geometry4-leg4-leg3-leg,4-leg3-leg,4-leg ## Traffic ControlSignalizedSignalizedSignalizedSignalized ## Minimum Speed Limit ## Maximum Speed Limit ## Speed Unit ## Speed Limit Comment ## Study Type2222 ## Years From20072007 ## Years To20132013 ## Traffic Volume Unit ## Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ## Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ## Average Daily Traffic (ADT)Average Daily Tra ## Min Traffic Volume ## Max Traffic Volume ## Min Major Rd Volume8260826032503250 ## Max Major Rd Volume43000430003750037500 ## Min Minor Rd Volume6006006363 ## Max Minor Rd Volume13745137451470014700 ## Avg Traffic Volume ## Avg Major Rd Volume22575225751721517215 ## Avg Minor Rd Volume4285428545764576 ## State of OriginNC,OR,WANC,OR,WAILIL ## MunicipalityPeoriaPeoria ## CountryUSAUSAUSAUSA ## Comments CMFs of left-turn related crashes on signalized intersections, including roadway with roadway and interchange related intersections. Applies to approaches with dedicated left turn lanes and PPLT phasing before and after. Nearby intersections had supplemental sign "Left Turn Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow" mounted on mast arm. CMFs of left-turn crashed on signal intersections, incl interchange relat interchange relat intersections. App approaches with left turn lanes and phasing before an This site is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highw and maintained by the University of North Carolina Highway Safet For more information, contact Sarah Weissman Pascual at sara The information contained in the Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liab the information contained in the CMF Clearinghouse. The information contained in the CMF Clearinghouse does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, nor is it a substitute for sound engineering judgment. ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar ## 5. B. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution authorizing the submission of application for the Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of attached resolution. ## Summary: ## The Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) has announced that projects are being requested for suggestion for the 2027 Unified Planning Work ## Program (UPWP). City staff have identified a Monks Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Study as a strong potential candidate. The City of Mankato has received interest in evaluating the pedestrian safety along Monks Avenue, particularly at intersections with a high number of pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Advancing this study aligns with the request received late last year ## from the Student Government at Minnesota State University, Mankato requesting a review and consideration of pedestrian safety improvement on Monks Avenue. Staff have been in contact with MSUM officials on our planning efforts. City staff are working on the Community Investment Plan (CIP) with the goal of performing pavement resurfacing on a portion of Monks Avenue in 2028. The intention would be to incorporate recommended pedestrian safety improvements as a part of that future project. Multiple Pedestrian Crossing Studies have been completed within the City of Mankato previously, including separate studies for Balcerzak Drive and Stadium Road. However, in both studies the study area did not include Monks Avenue. Staff is recommending that the proposed Pedestrian Crossing Study extend for the full length of Monks Avenue, including all intersections within city limits. This study would look at what, if any, improvements can be made to improve pedestrian safety and roadway crossings. Monks Avenue (CSAH 8) is a county road south of Stadium Road (CSAH 60), which is also a county road and, as a result, a letter of support/concurrence will be required ## from Blue Earth County. Staff have been coordinating with Blue Earth County Director of Public Works, who has expressed email support for this request and indicated that the County is not planning to pursue any individual applications. The County has offered to provide a formal letter of support prior to the required submittal deadline. Applications are due by 4 pm on Friday, July 17, 2026, with scoring and ranking to follow. The MAPO Policy Board Bylaws require that a request for a study be made by Resolution of the governing body. Completion of the study is expected by the end of next year. Staff is recommending the Council consider this request to submit an application and adopt the attached Resolution. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE ## MANKATO/NORTH MANKATO AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MAPO) UNIFIED ## PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) WHEREAS, Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization has announced suggestions for projects for the 2027 Unified Planning Work Program; and WHEREAS, city staff have identified a Monks Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Study as a project that may qualify for funding under this program; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA that the City Manager be and hereby is authorized to execute and submit applications for the Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. Passed this 22 nd day of June, 2026 ____________________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor ## ATTEST:____________________________________ ## Renae Kopischke ## City Clerk ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar ## 5. C. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution considering bids for the Membrane Treatment System (Reverse Osmosis Pilot) Project. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: On March 23, 2026, the City Council authorized the City Manager to solicit quotes from qualified vendors to provide equipment to conduct a reverse osmosis pilot project at the Water Treatment Plant. This pilot project was a recommendation of the 2025 Water Treatment Facility Plan and is intended to test a promising water treatment technology for future full-scale implementation. Bids for the project were opened on May 29, 2026. The following three bids were received: ## Film Tec Corporation$77,900 ## Wigen Companies, Inc.$149,844 ## Wes Tech Engineering, LLC$168,300 ## Engineer's Estimate$195,000 A review of the bids found that all three submitted bids contained significant discrepancies from the published bidding documents. It is recommended that the City Council reject all bids and authorize the City Manager to re-solicit for the project. Staff will work with the City Attorney to ensure the proper procurement process, bids, quotes or proposals, is followed. Results of the new solicitation will be brought back to the City Council for approval. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## Recommendation Letter ## RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR THE MEMBRANE ## TREATMENT SYSTEM (RO PILOT) PROJECT WHEREAS, The City Council authorized the City Manager to solicit quotes for the Reverse Osmosis Pilot Project on March 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, three bids were received; and WHEREAS, a review of the bids found that all three submitted bids contained significant discrepancies from the published bidding documents. ## NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA: That the City of Mankato reject all submitted bids for the Membrane Treatment System (RO Pilot) Project and that the City Manager is authorized to re-solicit for this project. This resolution shall become effective upon its passage and without further publication. Adopted by the Mankato City Council on this 22 nd day of June 2026. __________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor _____________________________ ## Renae Kopischke ## City Clerk ## 431 N. Phillips Avenue | Suite 400 ## Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Main 605-334-4499  ## HRGREEN.COM June 11, 2026 Cory Bienfang, P.E. ## City Engineer, City of Mankato ## Intergovernmental Center ## 10 Civic Center Plaza ## Mankato, MN 56001 ## Re: Recommendation of Award ## Pilot Study: Membrane Treatment System ## City Project No. 11240 ## Dear Mr. Bienfang, The City of Mankato bid the Pilot Study: Membrane Treatment System project (City project no. 11240) on May 29, 2026. Bids were received electronically through QuestCDN (Quest project no. 10175549). Three bids were received. HR Green and City staff have reviewed the bid proposals for completeness and accuracy. The low bid was from FilmTec Corporation. The bids are summarized below: Upon review of the proposals provided, the bidders did not meet the requirements of the contract documents and/or the technical scope of supply specified. We recommend rejecting all bids. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at scotter@hrgreen.com or 605-221-2659. ## Sincerely, HR Green, Inc. ## Sam Cotter, PE ## Project Engineer cc: City of Mankato: Kyle Hinrichs, Aaron Duchene, Karl Keel, Jim Tatge ## HR Green: Mark Hardie ## J:\2025\2502038\Design\Bid\ltr-20260611-Award_Recommendation.docx Bi d Amount Bi d Amount Bi d Amount Bi d Amount 1 ## Pi l ot Study Membrane Treatment ## System (3-month Rental ) LS1 $175,000.00$68,400.00$134,844.00$148,300.00 2 ## Pi l ot Study Membrane Treatment ## System Addi ti onal Monthl y Rental ## Rate MONTH 1 $20,000.00$9,500.00$15,000.00$20,000.00 ## BASE BID TOTAL$195,000.00$77,900.00$149,844.00$168,300.00 Wi gen Compani es, Inc. ## WesTech Engi neeri ng, ## LLC Engi neer's Esti mate ## Item No. Fi l mTec Corporati on QtyUni tDescri pti on ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 5. D. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: ## Resolution to approve Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant Funding Assistance for Capital Improvement Project 11200; Land of Memories Park. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: At the June 8th City Council meeting, Council accepted the feasibility report, authorized the preparation of plans and specs and advertisement of bids for the Land of Memories Park project. Within the council packet it was reported that the city was the successful recipient of a grant in the amount of $200,000 from the Minnesota Department of ## Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Recreation Grant Program. City staff have been working with the DNR to finalize the grant agreement and the attached Resolution has been identified as a prerequisite. At the March 4th, 2024, City Council meeting, Council authorized by Resolution the City of Mankato to submit for the Outdoor Recreation Grant. The attached Resolution is very similar to the Resolution passed previously with the main addition being a statement confirming the city has the financial capability to provide the remaining funds to complete the project. Upon execution of this new Resolution, the DNR will initiate the preparation of the grant agreement for execution. The final grant execution will not be until after City Council considers the bids, which are planned for the July 27th City Council meeting. Construction Services Staff is recommending the Council consider the attached Resolution which will allow the DNR to prepare the grant agreement for the Land of Memories Park project. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## RESOLUTION OF THE MANKATO CITY COUNCIL FOR DEPARTMENT OF ## NATURAL RESOURCES FY25 OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT PROGRAM ## GRANT FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR LAND OF MEMORIES PARK WHEREAS, the City of Mankato, the “Applicant”, applied for and was notified of a funding award for an Outdoor Recreation Grant through the Department of Natural Resources for the Land of Memories Park playground project; and WHEREAS, the grant award is in the amount of $200,000 and final processing of the application is underway; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Mankato City Council passed a resolution, resolution number 2024-0304-49, authorizing the submission of the grant, among other things; and WHEREAS, as part of the continued final processing of the grant application, an additional resolution is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Mankato hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant” act as legal sponsor for the Outdoor Recreation Grant application for Land of Memories playground application as submitted on April 1, 2024 and that Susan MH Arntz, City Manager, was authorized to apply for said grant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional administrative and managerial capability to ensure adequate acquisition, construction, maintenance and protection of the proposed project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has the financial capability to provide any required matching funds and that the source of Applicant’s matching funds shall be provided from the Parks Capital Improvement Program, CIP, and will not include other State funding sources. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant hereby pledges to complete the project or phase if it exceeds the total funding provided by Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation grant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has not incurred any reimbursable expenses prior to the effective date of the agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Applicant has not violated any Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the Applicant may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above- references project, and that the Applicant certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the Mankato City Council of the City of Mankato on June 22, 2026. ## Resolution Outdoor Recreation Grant Page 2 of 2 ## SIGNED:WITNESSED: _______________________________________________________________________ (Signature)(Signature) _______________________________________________________________________ (Title)(Title) _______________________________________________________________________ (Date)(Date) ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar ## 5. E. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution to approve the Professional Engineering Services Agreement for the Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction and Airfield Marking Enhancement Project. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: ## Pursuant to April 1, 2024, Professional Services Agreement with TKDA, Mankato Airport is requesting approval of Construction Phased Services (Administration) and Project Closeout for the following two projects from the 2026 Capital Improvement Program combined as one construction project. ## Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction ## Enhanced Taxiway Markings Compensation to TKDA for services provided shall be on a Lump Sum or Hourly Time and Materials basis in an amount not to exceed $215,200, as summarized below. The detailed Project Fee Estimate is attached. Construction Phase (Hourly)         $205,600.00 ## Closeout Phase (Lump Sum)            $9,600.00 As Council recalls in a recent resolution to select a bid from Mathiowetz Construction and submit a grant request for the Airport Taxiway A/D/E Reconstruction and Enhanced Taxiway Markings Project. The grant request is for discretionary funding and the project is contingent upon receipt of funding. ## Project Background: The intersection between Taxiway A, Taxiway D, and Taxiway E currently exists as a multi-node intersection with nonstandard intersection angles. In addition, the taxiway pavements are quickly approaching the end of their design service life. The taxiway intersection shall be reconstructed and realigned to provide two standard taxiway intersections with 90-degree intersection angles to provide enhanced pilot situational awareness and conform with modern FAA standards. The existing taxiway markings will not comply with FAA standards after the Air Traffic Control Tower is operational. New surface painted holding position signs, enhanced taxiway centerlines, and movement/non-movement area boundary markings are required.  Enhanced taxiway markings are intended to provide additional visual cues to taxiing pilots to help them identify the location of the runway holding position as a runway incursion prevention initiative. For Part 139 airports, all taxiways that intersect a runway must have an enhanced taxiway centerline marking. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## Project Memorandum ## RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ## AGREEMENT FOR THE TAXIWAY A/D/E INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION AND ## AIRFIELD MARKING ENHANCEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS; the City of Mankato is the sponsor of the Mankato Regional Airport; and WHEREAS; the intersection of Taxiway’s A, D, and E is a non-standard intersection, and nearing the end the designed service life; and WHEREAS; the Airport Traffic Control Tower will be complete in 2029 requiring Enhanced Taxiway centerline markings; and WHEREAS; the two projects are included in the 2026 Airport Capital Improvement Projects; and WHEREAS; the projects are combined and referred to by TKDA as Project No. 0023266.001; and WHEREAS; the Construction Phased Services and Project Closeout require approval of the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the City Manager is authorized to sign the Authorization for Professional Engineering Services not to exceed $215,200 conditional upon award of project funding for the Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction and Airfield Marking Enhancement Project. This resolution shall become effective upon passage without further publication. ## CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mankato at a duly authorized meeting held on June 22, 2026. Adopted this 22nd day of June 2026. ________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST: ___________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, MMC ## City Clerk June 11, 2026 ## Mr. Shawn Schloesser ## Associate Director – Transportation Planning Services ## City of Mankato ## 10 Civic Center Plaza ## Mankato, MN 56001 ## Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services ## Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking Enhancement ## Mankato Regional Airport (MKT) ## TKDA Project No. 0023266.001 ## Dear Mr. Schloesser: Pursuant to our Professional Services Agreement dated April 1, 2024, TKDA is hereby authorized to proceed with the Engineering Services in connection with the Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking Enhancement at Mankato Regional Airport (MKT) hereinafter called the Project. Hereinafter, the City of Mankato is referred to as the OWNER. ## I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intersection between Taxiway A, Taxiway D, and Taxiway E currently exists as a multi-node intersection with nonstandard intersection angles. In addition, the taxiway pavements are quickly approaching the end of their design life. The taxiway intersection shall be reconstructed and realigned to provide two standard taxiway intersections with 90-degree intersection angles to provide enhanced pilot situational awareness and conform with modern FAA standards. With the construction of the Air Traffic Control Tower at Mankato Regional Airport expected to become operational in 2028-2029, it is necessary to enhance the taxiway markings across the airfield to facilitate safe movement of aircraft ground movement. A movement/non-movement boundary shall be established as well as runway hold positions shall receive enhanced taxiway centerline markings and runway hold position surface painted signs. The OWNER has requested that TKDA provide engineering assistance for the Project. Construction administration will consist of the following, to be completed as one construction project, funded through the Federal (FAA), State (MnDOT Aeronautics) and Local funding sources: Professional Services to be provided by TKDA for the Project include the following major items of work: ##  Part C – Construction Phase Services ##  Part D – Closeout Phase Part A and Part B for Project Formulation Phase and Design Phase services have been provided for under a previous Authorization. ## II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA The OWNER has requested that TKDA provide the following services for the Project: ## C. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES During construction, our team will be an active resource for the OWNER to ensure the Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction and Airfield Marking Enhancement project is constructed as designed. This begins at the pre-construction meeting to establish a clear communication path with the Contractor and Subcontractors to ensure they are aware of contract requirements and project expectations. During the day-to-day construction phase, we will review and approve submittals, perform survey verification, conduct material testing, coordinate with the OWNER and Contractor, answer Requests for Information (RFIs), perform full-time construction observation, and provide inspection reports. We will review Contractor ## City of Mankato | Mankato Regional Airport ## Authorization for Professional Engineering Services ## Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking Enhancement June 11, 2026 Page 2 requests for payment and provide final punch-list inspection and close-out documentation. 1. Assist with OWNER in the execution of Construction Contract Documents. 2. Conduct the Pre-Construction conference to be attended by the Contractor, Subcontractors, OWNER, airport stakeholders, and others as may be requested by the OWNER. Prepare and submit minutes to all attendees. [This task assumes an in-person conference to be attended by the Project Manager, Senior Civil ## Engineer, and Graduate Civil Engineer.] 3. Consult with and advise the OWNER during construction and act as the OWNER’s representative as provided in the Construction Contract Documents, including project management of the engineering services. [This task assumes construction consultation provided by the Project Manager, Senior Civil Engineer, for 2 hours per week for a duration of 8 weeks, and by the Electrical Engineer for 2 hours per week for a duration of 3 weeks.] 4. Interpret Plans and Specifications during construction. 5. Review and respond to Requests for Information (RFIs). [This task assumes 4 hours per RFI to be reviewed by the Civil Engineer for up to 8 RFIs and 4 hours per RFI to be reviewed by the Electrical Engineer and Graduate Electrical Engineer for up to 2 RFIs.] 6. Review and process required Submittals & Shop Drawings to determine compliance with the Construction Contract Documents. [This task assumes 1 hour per submittal for up to 4 submittals by the Senior Civil Engineer, 24 submittals by the Civil Engineer, 8 submittals by the Electrical Engineer, and 4 submittals by ## the Graduate Electrical Engineer.] 7. Review Proposal Requests and Issue Change Orders (PR/CO), if necessary. [This task assumes 8 hours per PR/CO for up to 2 PR/COs for the Civil Engineer and 1 PR/CO for the Electrical Engineer.] 8. Conduct Weekly Construction Progress Meetings to be attended by the Contractor, Subcontractors, OWNER, and airport stakeholders. [ This task assumes 6 hours per meeting, including meeting preparation, facilitation, and meeting minutes distribution, for up to 10 weeks to be attended by the Project Manager.] 9. Perform site visits for special construction inspection. [This task assumes a rate of 8 hours per site visit for up to 4 site visits by the Civil Engineer for construction startup and asphalt paving operations, 2 site visits by the Senior Civil Engineer for asphalt paving operations, and 4 site visits by the Graduate Electrical Engineer for electrical installation. 10. Provide a Resident Project Representative (RPR) at the site for up to 10 weeks (55 hours per week) for general construction. The Resident Project Representative will be TKDA’s agent or employee under TKDA’s supervision. The Resident Project Representative’s dealings in matters pertaining to the on-site work shall be only with the OWNER and the Contractor, and dealings with Subcontractors shall only be through or with full knowledge of the Contractor. Written communication with the OWNER will only be through or as described by TKDA. Through the observations of the work in progress and field checks of materials and equipment by the Resident Project Representative, TKDA shall endeavor to provide further protection for the OWNER against defects and deficiencies in the work of the Contractor; but the furnishing of such Resident Project Representative will not make TKDA responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for the safety precautions or programs, or for the Contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 11. Conduct construction verification surveys during construction. [This task assumes 8 site visits by the Surveyor at a rate of 8 hours per site visit.] 12. Coordinate with contracted Geotechnical Construction Testing Company to schedule and complete material testing and special inspections in accordance with technical specifications. 13. Review field test data for compliance with specifications. 14. Coordinate with the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) to provide updates and coordination on construction schedule and airfield pavement closures. ## City of Mankato | Mankato Regional Airport ## Authorization for Professional Engineering Services ## Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking Enhancement June 11, 2026 Page 3 15. Review Weekly Payrolls of prime Contractor and all subcontractors and advise Contractor of deficiencies. [This task assumes 2 hours per payroll review by the Administrative Assistant for a duration of 10 weeks.] 16. Review and make recommendations on request for Partial Payments. [This task assumes 4 hours per review by the Project Manager for a total of 5 Partial Payment reviews.] 17. Provide administrative assistance relative to state and federal airport funding. Administrative assistance includes, but is not limited to, preparation and submittal of Sponsor’s Quarterly Performance Reports to the FAA and assistance with the submittal of credit applications to MnDOT Aeronautics. 18. Perform Final Inspection of Project site. [This task assumes 1 site visit by the Project Manager, Senior Civil Engineer, Graduate Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, and Graduate Electrical Engineer at a rate of 8 hours per site visit.] ## D. CLOSEOUT PHASE 1. Prepare Construction Management Report and summary and provide to FAA. 2. Conduct As-Built survey of project area. 3. Prepare the Project As-Built Record Drawings and submit to OWNER. 4. Update ALP to reflect As-Built project.. 5. Prepare FAA Grant Closeout Report and submit to MnDOT and the FAA for approval. ## III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES If authorized in writing by the OWNER, we will furnish or obtain from others Additional Services of the types listed below which are not considered as basic services under this Proposal. Additional Services shall be billable on an Hourly Time and Materials basis and such billings shall be over and above any maximum amounts set forth in this Proposal. A. Environmental Assessments other than CATEX. B. Professional Land Surveyor Services, other than those listed in SECTION II. C. Additional site visits to Mankato Regional Airport, other than those required for services listed in SECTION II. D. Radio Car Operator services. ## IV. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES These responsibilities shall be as set forth in Article 9 of the Professional Services Agreement and as further described or clarified hereinbelow: A. Designate one individual to act as a representative with respect to the work to be performed, and such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define policies, and make decisions with respect to critical elements pertinent to the Project. This individual shall be identified in the signature block area of this Proposal. B. Provide TKDA with access to the site as required to perform services listed in SECTION II. C. Provide reviews of materials furnished by TKDA in a reasonable and prompt manner so the Project schedule can be maintained. ## V. PERIOD OF SERVICE We would expect to start our services promptly upon receipt of your written acceptance of this Proposal and estimate to complete SECTION II services in accordance with the schedules to be established for the Project. ## VI. COMPENSATION Compensation to TKDA for services provided as described in SECTION II of this Proposal shall be on a Lump Sum or Hourly Time and Materials basis in an amount not to exceed $215,200, as summarized below. Our detailed Project Fee Estimate is attached. ## City of Mankato | Mankato Regional Airport ## Authorization for Professional Engineering Services ## Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking Enhancement June 11, 2026 Page 4 ## Section II.C: Construction Phase (HOURLY COST) $205,600.00 ## Section II.D: Closeout Phase (LUMP SUM) $9,600.00 ## Total Not to Exceed Amount $215,200.00 Payment shall be made in accordance with Article 4 of the Professional Services Agreement. The level of effort required to accomplish SECTION II services can be affected by factors which are beyond our control. Therefore, if it appears at any time charges for services rendered under SECTION II will exceed the above, we agree we will not perform services or incur costs which will result in billings in excess of such amount until we have been advised by you additional funds are available and our work can proceed. ## VII. CONTRACTUAL INTENT We thank you for the opportunity to submit this Authorization request. We agree this letter will constitute an authorization under our Professional Services Agreement upon signature by an authorized official of the City of Mankato the return of a signed original to us. This Authorization request will be open for acceptance for 60 days, unless the provisions herein are changed by us in writing prior to that time. Please feel free to contact Robert Rapp directly at 218-391-4568 or robert.rapp@tkda.com if you have any questions. ## Sincerely, ## Robert Rapp, PE John W. Ahern, PE ## Project Manager Vice President–Aviation ## Attachments: Project Fee Estimate ## 2026 Rate Sheet ## Braun Intertec Proposal ## ACCEPTED FOR CITY OF MANKATO By: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ## Signature Printed Name/Title Date ## CLIENT DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ## Name/Title Phone Email ## RDR:JWA:dad ## Project Fee Estimate City of MankatoDate: 6/11/2026 Mankato Regional Airport - Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction & Airfield Marking EnhancementBy:RDR ## Vice President ## Sr Civil ## Engineer ## Project ## Manager/Reg ## Engineer ## Graduate ## Engineer ## Reg Electrical ## Engineer ## Grad Elec ## Engineer ## Planner ## Graduate ## Planner ## GIS SpecialistSurveyorAdmin 351$ 259$ 162$ 108$ 215$ 117$ 162$ 109$ 107$ 101$ 116$ ## CCONSTRUCTION PHASE 1Assist with Contract Documents1 2 4 7 1,517$ 2Preconstruction Conference6 8 6 20 3,498$ 3Construction Consultation16 16 6 38 8,026$ 4Plan and Spec Interpretation12 4 16 2,804$ 5RFI Administration32 8 8 48 7,840$ 6Contractor Submittal Review4 24 8 4 40 7,112$ 7Proposal Requests / Change Orders4 16 8 28 5,348$ 8Construction Progress Meetings60 60 9,720$ 9Construction Observation16 48 32 96 15,664$ 10Resident Project Representative550 550 59,400$ 11Construction Verificiation Survey12 64 76 8,408$ 12Geotechnical Testing Coordination12 12 1,944$ 13Review of Field Test Data4 8 12 2,332$ 14FBO Coordination4 8 12 2,332$ 15Payroll Reviews4 24 28 3,432$ 16Partial Payments20 20 3,240$ 17Funding Administration Assistance1 8 9 1,647$ 18Final Inspection and Final Payment8 8 8 8 8 40 6,888$ 2 64 300 564 42 52 - - - 64 24 1,112 702$ 16,576$ 48,600$ 60,912$ 9,030$ 6,084$ -$ -$ -$ 6,464$ 2,784$ 151,152$ ## Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)16,000$ Miscellaneous (MI)250$ Reproduction & Reprographics (RR)300$ ## Subconsultant - Material Testing34,443$ Subconsultant Mark-Up 10% 3,444$ ## Subtotal Expenses54,437$ ## SUBTOTAL - PHASE C205,589$ ## ROUNDED - PHASE C (HOURLY COST)205,600$ ## DCLOSEOUT PHASE 1Construction Management Report / Summary2 4 4 10 1,598$ 2As-Built Survey1 8 12 21 2,238$ 3As-Built Record Drawings4 8 8 20 2,320$ 4As-Built ALP Update2 4 4 10 1,188$ 5FAA grant Closeout1 4 4 9 2,035$ 1 6 13 20 - - 2 4 4 20 - 70 351$ 1,554$ 2,106$ 2,160$ -$ -$ 324$ 436$ 428$ 2,020$ -$ 9,379$ ## Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)200$ Miscellaneous (MI)-$ Reproduction & Reprographics (RR)-$ ## Subconsultant -$ Subconsultant Mark-Up 10% -$ ## Subtotal Expenses200$ ## SUBTOTAL - PHASE D9,579$ ## ROUNDED - PHASE D (LUMP SUM)9,600$ ## TOTAL215,168$ ## TOTAL (ROUNDED)215,200$ ## SUBTOTAL HOURS ## SUBTOTAL COST ## SUBTOTAL HOURS ## SUBTOTAL COST ## Total Dollars ## Total Hours ## Project: ## Client: ## Task ## Task Description ## Billing Rate/Hr x Multiplier ## ClassificationRange of Direct Hourly Rates* Senior Management (Chief Officer, Vice President, Program Director)92.00$ to114.00$ Senior Professional Staff (Registered Engineer, Architect, Landscape Architect,46.00$ to109.00$ ## Scientist, GIS Analyst, Planner, and Technical or Market Manager) ## Radio Car Operator43.00$ to101.00$ Engineering, Architectural, Planning, or GIS Specialist II41.00$ to99.00$ Engineering, Architectural, Planning, or GIS Specialist I36.00$ to62.00$ Professional Staff (Registered Engineer, Architect, Landscape Architect, Planner,31.00$ to78.00$ ## GIS Analyst, Land Surveyor, Scientist, or Certified Interior Designer) Graduate Staff (Professional-Track Engineer, Architect, Landscape Architect, Planner,26.00$ to57.00$ ## GIS Analyst, Land Surveyor, Scientist, or Interior Designer) Technician III31.00$ to68.00$ ** Technician II20.00$ to47.00$ ** Technician I20.00$ to42.00$ ** ## Administrative Staff (Controls, Accounting)31.00$ 71.00$ * Rates effective until December 31, 2026. ** For hours worked over 40 hours per week individuals are billed at one and one-half times the above rates. ## Notes: ## City of Mankato 1. Overhead Costs shall be calculated as the Direct Hourly Rate times TKDA's Overhead Multiplier Rate of 165.2% . This is slightly lower than our MnDOT audited rate. 2. For Hourly Rate Authorizations, Direct Rates will be subject to an Hourly Rate Multiplier of 3.05 , which includes Overhead Costs and Fee (Profit). 3. For Hourly Cost Reimbursement Plus Fixed Fee Authorizations, the Fixed Fee shall be 15% of the Direct Salary Costs and Overhead Costs amount initially approved under the Authorization. ## 2026 SCHEDULE OF ACTUAL HOURLY RATES In addition to hourly charges, TKDA shall be reimbursed for direct expenses actually incurred. Unless otherwise approved by the Client, direct expenses for travel and subsistence will be billed at or up to applicable IRS and US GSA published rates. TKDA shall be reimbursed for subconsultant fees at the amount billed TKDA plus 10%. June 9, 2026 Proposal 10013486_001 ## Robert Rupp, PE ## TKDA ## 3311 East Old Shakopee Road, Suite 300 ## Bloomington, MN 55425 ## Re: Proposal for Construction Materials Testing Services ## MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction ## FAA AIP NO. 3-27-0055-043-2026 ## State Project No. SP A0701-131 ## Mankato Municipal Airport ## 3030 North Airport Road ## Mankato, Minnesota ## Dear Mr. Rapp: Braun Intertec Corporation (Braun Intertec) respectfully submits this proposal to provide quality acceptance observation and testing services during site grading, crushed aggregate base preparation, and bituminous paving for the MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction project in Mankato, Minnesota. We have completed the geotechnical evaluation for this project, so we have a unique understanding of the site and construction challenges. We can aid the construction team by applying this experience and transferring our knowledge developed during the design phase which will provide professional continuity to the construction. Our work on the project to date gives us familiarity with the project team and design development which allows us to understand some of the considerations used when developing the project’s design. ## Our Understanding of Project We understand this project provides for the reconstruction and realignment of the intersection between Taxiways A, D, and E. This project also includes the installation of pavement markings such runway hold position markings, surface painted hold position signs, enhanced taxiway centerline markings, and nonmovement boundary markings. ## Available Project Information This proposal was prepared using the following documents and information. ▪ Project Manual, Construction Drawings, and Materials Acceptance Testing Table prepared by TKDA, dated April 14, 2026. ▪ Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by Braun Intertec under project number B2508392, and dated February 13, 2026. ## TKDA ## MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction Proposal 10013486_001 June 9, 2026 ## Braun Intertec Page 2 ## Scope of Services Services are performed under the direction of a licensed professional engineer. Observation and testing services will be performed on an on-call, as-needed basis as requested and scheduled by you or your on-site project representative. After reviewing available information to determine compliance with project plans and/or specifications and other design or construction documents, our scope of services for the project will be limited to the tasks defined below. ## Soil Related Services ▪ Measure the in-place dry density, moisture content and relative compaction of the subgrade, granular material, and reclaimed aggregate base course placed for pavement support for compliance with the project documents. This task includes performing laboratory Proctor tests to provide maximum dry densities from which the relative compaction of fill can be determined, as well as the use of a nuclear density gauge to measure in-place dry densities and moisture contents. If the relative compaction of crushed aggregate base material is not able to be determined with a nuclear density gauge, we propose to us a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) to determine compaction of the material. ▪ Provide test-roll observations of the pavement subgrade soils and/or aggregate base layer to determine if the materials tested are capable of supporting the pavement. ▪ Sample and test granular material and reclaimed aggregate base materials for compliance with the project documents. This task includes laboratory gradation, Atterberg limits, percent crushed, and Los Angeles abrasion testing of the materials. ## Bituminous Related Services ▪ Sample and test bituminous pavement materials for compliance with the project documents. This task includes Rice specific gravity, and Gyratory density tests of the bituminous. ▪ Measure the thickness and density of the compacted bituminous pavement by the core method per FAA P-401 for compliance with the project documents. ## Consulting, Project Communication and Reporting Services ▪ Project management, including scheduling of our field personnel. ▪ Review observation reports, test reports, and communicating with you and the parties you may designate such as the project contractor(s), and other project team members, as needed. ▪ Transmit test results to the project team on a weekly basis. ## Basis of Scope of Work The costs associated with the proposed scope of services were estimated using the following assumptions. If the construction schedule is modified or the contractor completes the various phases of the project at different frequencies or durations than shown in this proposal, we may need to adjust the overall cost ## TKDA ## MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction Proposal 10013486_001 June 9, 2026 ## Braun Intertec Page 3 accordingly. The scope of work and number of trips required to perform these services are as shown in the attached table. Notable assumptions in developing our estimate include: ▪ It will take 22 trips to complete the nuclear density gauge testing on this project. ▪ Bituminous paving will be completed in 4 days. ▪ All material samples will be tested at our Bloomington, Minnesota lab. ▪ The project engineer of record will review and approve contractor’s quality control submittals and test results. ▪ You, or others you may designate, will provide us with current and approved plans and specifications for the project. Modification to these plans must also be sent to us so we can review their incorporation into the work. ▪ We will require a minimum of 24 hours’ notice for scheduling inspections for a specific time. Shorter than 24 hours’ notice may impact our ability to perform the requested services, and the associated impacts will be the responsibility of others. If the work is completed at different rates than described above, this proposal should be revised. If the pace of construction is different than described above, this proposal should be revised. ## Cost and Invoicing We will furnish the services described herein for an estimated fee of $34,443. Our estimated costs are based on industry averages for construction production. Depending on the contractor’s performance, our costs may be significantly reduced or slightly higher than estimated. A tabulation showing our estimated hourly and/or unit rates associated with our proposed scope of services is also attached. The actual cost of our services will be based on the actual units or hours expended to meet the requirements of the project documents. This cost estimate was developed with the understanding that the scope of services defined herein will be required and requested during our normal work hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Services that we are asked to provide to meet the project requirements or the contractor’s construction schedule outside our normal business hours will be invoiced using an overtime rate factor. The factor for services provided outside our normal work hours or on Saturday will be 1.25 times the listed hourly rate for the service provided. The factor for services provided on Sunday or legal holidays will be 1.5 times the listed hourly rate for the service provided. We have not included premiums for overtime in our cost estimate; however, we recommend that allowances and contingencies be made for overtime charges. You will be billed only for services provided on a time and materials basis. Because our services are directly controlled by the schedule and performance of others, the actual cost may vary from our estimate. It is difficult to project all of the services and the quantity of services that may be required for any project. If services are required that are not discussed above, we will provide them at the rates shown in the attached table or, if not shown, at our current Schedule of Charges. We will invoice you on a monthly basis. ## TKDA ## MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction Proposal 10013486_001 June 9, 2026 ## Braun Intertec Page 4 ## General Remarks We based the proposed fee on the scope of services described and the assumption that you will authorize our services within 30 days and that others will not delay us beyond our proposed schedule. If anything in this proposal is not consistent with your requirements, please let us know immediately. Our services will be provided under the terms of our Master Subcontractor Agreement with TKDA, dated March 7, 2023. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss our proposed scope of services further and clarify the various scope components. Braun Intertec will not release any written reports until we have received a signed agreement. Ordering services from Braun Intertec constitutes acceptance of the terms of this proposal. To have questions answered or schedule a time to meet and discuss our approach to this project further, please contact John Rutherford at 612.718.8461 or jrutherford@braunintertec.com. ## Sincerely, ## Braun Intertec Corporation ## John P. Rutherford ## Supervisor, Senior Project Manager ## Steven A. Thayer, PE ## Senior Manager, Senior Engineer ## Attachment: ## Cost Estimate Table The proposal is accepted, and Braun Intertec is authorized to proceed. _____________________________________________ ## Authorizer’s Firm _____________________________________________ ## Authorizer’s Signature _____________________________________________ Authorizer’s Name (please print or type) _____________________________________________ ## Authorizer’s Title _____________________________________________ ## Date 1 ## Fee Estimate 10013486_001 ## MKT Taxiway A/D/E Intersection Reconstruction ## Client: Work Site Address: ## TKDA ## Mankato Regional Airport ## 3030 North Airport Road ## Mankato, Minnesota 56001 ## Qty/Hours Rate Amount ## Task 1: Taxiway A/D/E ## Subtask 1.1: Soils Testing $18,958.00 Soil Compaction Testing - Nuclear 66.00 110.00 $7,260.00 P-152 Subgrade Excavation 6 Trips @ 3 Hr 18.00 P154 Granular (Noncohesive) 6 Trips @ 3 Hr 18.00 P-209 Crushed Aggregate Base 10 Trips @ 3 Hr 30.00 Proofroll Observations 24.00 125.00 $3,000.00 Test Roll Observation - Subgrade Excavation 6 Trips @ 4 Hr 24.00 Soil Sample pick-up 26.00 110.00 $2,860.00 Gradations & Proctors 26 Ea @ 1 Hr 26.00 Nuclear moisture-density meter charge, per hour 66.00 63.00 $4,158.00 Trip Charge 28.00 60.00 $1,680.00 ## Subtask 1.2: Bituminous Testing $3,240.00 Asphalt Verification Testing 24.00 125.00 $3,000.00 P-401 Acceptance Testing (production/test strip) 4 Trips @ 6 Hr 24.00 Trip Charge 4.00 60.00 $240.00 ## Subtask 1.3: Laboratory Testing $7,695.00 Soil Sieve Analysis with 200 wash, each 20.00 175.00 $3,500.00 Soil Proctor MD Relationship (Modified) ASTM D1557 each 6.00 278.00 $1,668.00 Soil Atterberg Limits LL and PL, Single-Pt, ASTM D4318 each 2.00 150.00 $300.00 Los Angeles Abrasion (ASTM C131) 1.00 196.00 $196.00 ## Aggregate Percent Crushed ASTM D5821 each 1.00 123.00 $123.00 Asphalt Rice Specific Gravity ASTM D3203 each 4.00 123.00 $492.00 Asphalt Gyratory Gravity ASTM D6925 each 4.00 278.00 $1,112.00 Asphalt Thickness and Density of Core ASTM D2726 each 4.00 76.00 $304.00 ## Subtask 1.4: Project Management $4,550.00 Senior Project Manager 2.00 215.00 $430.00 Project Assistant I 8.00 105.00 $840.00 Project Control Specialist I 2.00 160.00 $320.00 Project Manager 16.00 185.00 $2,960.00 ## Task 1 Total: $34,443.00 ## Project Total $34,443.00 ## RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MANKATO TRANSIT SYSTEM PROCUREMENT POLICY ## UPDATE WHEREAS, The City of Mankato is a direct recipient of federal and state funds for a public transit system; and WHEREAS, as a direct recipient of federal and state funds, the City of Mankato is required to have written procurement procedures when utilizing federal and state funds; and WHEREAS, the previous policy, revised and adopted by the City Council on October 14, 2025, requires updating; and WHEREAS, the updated policy requires adoption by the governing body for revisions that have taken place; and WHEREAS, the updated plan has been reviewed by city staff and found to contain all necessary elements for federal and state compliance. ## NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANKATO, MINNESOTA that the Mankato Transit System Procurement Policy update for 2026 be adopted. This resolution shall become effective upon passage without further publication. ## Adopted this 22nd day of June 2026. ________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST: ___________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, MMC ## City Clerk ## R-2026-0622-145 ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar ## 5. F. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution adopting the Mankato Transit System Procurement Policy 2026 Update. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: This procurement policy is an update to the October 2025 version to incorporate or address changes to state thresholds and requirements set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Thresholds remain at the more restrictive level set by Council. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations (2 CFR § 200.319(c) and FTA Circular 4220.1G, Chapter III, § 3a) require written procurement procedures when utilizing federal and state funds. This policy establishes guidelines and minimum standards for use in the management of third-party contracts. This policy is designed to meet FTA and MnDOT requirements in this regard to ensure full and open competition and equitable treatment of all potential sources for all purchases made with funding derived from the federal, state, and local governments while preventing the use of state or federal funds for unallowable costs, as discussed in the applicable regulations below: General Procurement Standards, 2 CFR § 200.318 – 200.327 ## Third Party Contracting Guidance, FTA Circular 4220.1G dated January 17, 2025 FTA Best Practices Procurement & Lessons Learned Manual, FTA Report No. 0105, dated October 2016 ## City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023 ## Attachments ## Resolution ## Procurement Policy ## MANKATO ## TRANSIT ## PROCUREMENT ## POLICY 2024 ## JUNE 2026 ## Schloesser, Shawn ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 1 1. Purpose and Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Objective...................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Procurement Planning .................................................................................................. 3 1.4. Policy Review and Amendment ..................................................................................... 4 2. Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy ........................................................................ 4 2.1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Personal Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................................ 4 2.3. Organizational Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................... 5 2.4. Receipt or Solicitation of Gifts (Gift Law) ........................................................................ 5 2.5. Penalties ...................................................................................................................... 6 3. Responsibilities ................................................................................................................... 6 3.1. Third-Party Contracting Capacity .................................................................................. 6 3.2. Contract Administration System ................................................................................... 6 3.3. Determination of Needs ................................................................................................ 8 3.4. Contract Price and Cost Analysis .................................................................................. 9 3.5. Contractor Responsibilities ........................................................................................ 11 3.6. Bonding ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.7. Buy America Requirements ......................................................................................... 15 4. Sources of Acquisitions ...................................................................................................... 15 4.1. Force Account ............................................................................................................ 15 4.2. Joint Procurements ..................................................................................................... 16 4.3. State or Local Government Purchasing Schedules or Contracts ................................... 16 4.4. Existing Contracts ...................................................................................................... 17 5. Procedures for Open Market Procurements......................................................................... 18 5.1. Solicitation Requirements and Restrictions ................................................................. 18 5.2. Permissible Contract Types ........................................................................................ 19 5.3. Other Federal Requirements ....................................................................................... 19 ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 2 5.4. Prohibited Practices ................................................................................................... 19 6. Methods of Procurement .................................................................................................... 20 6.1. Purchase Card ........................................................................................................... 21 6.2. Micro-Purchases ........................................................................................................ 21 6.3. Simplified Acquisitions ............................................................................................... 22 6.4. Competitive Bidding (Full and Open) Procurements ..................................................... 22 6.5. Noncompetitive (Other Than Full and Open) Procurement ........................................... 26 6.6. Evaluation Requirements ............................................................................................ 28 6.7. Designating a Prospective Contractor ......................................................................... 28 6.8. Lowest Responsible Bidder ......................................................................................... 28 6.9. Rejecting Bids or Offers .............................................................................................. 28 6.10. Confidentiality for Solicitation Responses ................................................................... 28 7. Administrative Requirements and Considerations ............................................................... 29 7.1 Staff Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 29 7.2 Price Analysis ............................................................................................................. 29 7.3 Contract Scope and Cardinal Changes ........................................................................ 30 7.4 Change Clauses ......................................................................................................... 30 7.5 Time Extensions ......................................................................................................... 31 7.6 Protest Procedures ..................................................................................................... 31 7.7 Disputes .................................................................................................................... 32 History Detail ............................................................................................................................... 1 PLANNING DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................ 1 SOLICITATION DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................................... 1 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 2 ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 3 1. Purpose and Introduction 1.1. Objective The objective of this policy update is to incorporate or address changes to state requirements in the October 2025 policy. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations (2 CFR § 200.319(c) and FTA Circular 4220.1G, Chapter III, § 3a) require written procurement procedures when utilizing federal and state funds. This policy is designed to meet FTA and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) requirements in this regard. This policy supersedes any existing purchasing policy. When any conflict exists between this policy and the existing policies, the procedures in this policy shall prevail. Procurements by City of Mankato when utilizing federal funds shall conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this policy. City of Mankato shall maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchases. If an employee determines that a conflict exists between these policies and state or local law, report the conflict to a supervisor who shall contact MnDOT and communicate the conflict seeking a resolution. 1.2. Purpose This policy establishes guidelines and minimum standards for use in the management of third- party contracts. This manual is intended to ensure compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s standards to ensure full and open competition and equitable treatment of all potential sources for all purchases made with funding derived from the federal, state, and local governments. In all purchasing activities, the goal is to ensure maximum open and free competition consistent with: • General Procurement Standards, 2 CFR § 200.318 – 200.327 • Third Party Contracting Guidance, FTA Circular 4220.1G, dated January 17, 2025 • FTA Best Practices Procurement & Lessons Learned Manual, FTA Report No. 0105, dated October 2016 ## • City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023 The goal of this procurement policy is to provide an atmosphere in which all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition while preventing the use of state or federal funds for unallowable costs, as discussed in 2 C.F.R. 200 and other applicable regulations. ## 1.3. Procurement Planning Planning is the first step in the procurement process. Effective planning requires the internal organizational capability with the proper checks and balances to facilitate the procurement process with the highest degree of integrity. Mankato Transit System invests the time and resources to establish standards of conduct, organize effectively, and develop short- and long- range plans to avoid last minute or ill-planned procurements, which are contrary to open, efficient ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 4 and effective procurements. Procurement planning is a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive process with Mankato/North Mankato Planning Organization (MAPO) and MnDOT. 1 ## 1.4. Policy Review and Amendment Once per year the Associate Director Transportation Planning Services, Transit Superintendent, and Transit Finance Specialist shall meet and review this policy for revisions or updates. The Mankato City Council will be notified of changes to this policy at their next regularly scheduled meeting and act upon the revisions or updates to the Policy. If changes or revisions to this policy are adopted, the updated policy will be uploaded to BlackCat ## Transit Data Management System 2 with an indication of the date when the changes were adopted. ## 2. Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy 2.1. Purpose Federal grant management rules (2 CFR § 200.318(c)(1)) require each recipient to maintain written standards of conduct governing the performance of its employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. This policy must address personal conflicts of interest, gifts, and violations. These items are addressed in the City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023, and included below for ease of reference. ## 2.2. Personal Conflicts of Interest The credibility of the City of Mankato rests heavily upon the confidence which taxpayers have in City employees to render fair and impartial services to all without regard to personal interest and/or political influence. The delivery of public services to our citizens requires that employees avoid any activity which suggests a conflict of interest between their private interests and City responsibilities. City employees and their family members shall not engage in or have financial interest in any business or other activity which could reasonably lead to a conflict of interest with the employee's primary City responsibilities. “Family members” shall be deemed to include the employee; the spouse, parents, children, and siblings of the employee; the parents, children and siblings of the spouse [or partner]; and direct descendants of any family members. No employee, officer, or agent of City of Mankato may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents of City of Mankato may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. Any Employee determined to be in violation of this section, could be subject to discipline action up to and including termination. 1 ## MnDOT Agreement #1029081 2 ## Minnesota - Log In (blackcattransit.com) ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 5 Examples of activities which violate this policy include, but are not limited to: • having an interest in any business which has contracts or other direct dealings with the City of Mankato. • activities which require the employee to interpret City Codes, ordinances, or regulations when such activity involves matters with which the employee has business and/or family ties. • consulting activities carried out within the City of Mankato if such consulting involves talents or skills primarily related to the employee's City work responsibilities. • using City time or equipment to engage in activities intended to produce income for the employee. ## 2.3. Organizational Conflicts of Interest All potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed in writing to the federal awarding agency. City officials need to be aware of other interests’ employees may have or own. For example, if they are involved in a sideline business or a spouse involved in a business. • Officials must be aware of their own business interests. • Officials need to keep note of other businesses employees may be involved with. • Officials should state to their employees and ask questions whether they are involved with other businesses. • All employees should read and understand the code of Conduct in the City of Mankato employee handbook. Federal award recipients must disclose, in a timely manner, all violations of Federal criminal law in writing that involve fraud, bribery or gratuities that affect a federal award. This information must be reported to the federal agency or pass-through entity. If you fail to do so you may forfeit a portion or all the federal award. 2.4. Receipt or Solicitation of Gifts (Gift Law) No employee shall receive or solicit any gift from any person, business or organization having any business, administrative, legislative, and contractual or any other relationship with the City. A gift is any money, tangible or intangible personal property, travel, lodging, food, beverage, apparel, training offerings, loan, forbearance or forgiveness of indebtedness, promise, service, entertainment or hospitality that is given and received without the giver receiving consideration of equal or greater value in return. Gifts may not be accepted which are intended for a specific employee or official. Goodwill gestures not exceeding an estimated $5 are permitted. An example of an acceptable goodwill gesture is holiday cookies from a resident which can be shared among employees. Employees attending a grand opening, expo, or other public event, where food, gifts or small memorabilia are available to the public, are permitted. City employees are also permitted to accept food or beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away from the recipient’s place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or answer questions as part of a program. The prohibitions do not apply if a gift is given to a staff member due to their membership in a group when an equivalent gift is given to the other members of the group. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 6 The law prohibits gifts to city officials, not to cities themselves. Cities may accept gifts of real or personal property and use them in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Unless otherwise set forth in City Code or state law, a resolution accepting the gift and the donor’s terms must receive an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. A city may not, however, accept gifts for religious or sectarian purposes. 2.5. Penalties Violations of a provision of this Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest may result in discipline to the extent possible under criminal or civil penalties under State or Federal Law. • An employee shall be subject to individual disciplinary action up to and including discharge as determined by the City Manager. • The City Manager, member of the City Council, or officer or agent of the City of Mankato shall be subject to individual disciplinary action or sanction as determined by the City Council. • Bidders or potential contractors’ violations may be considered making such proposal or bid ineligible or non-responsive. • Contractors or their agents’ violations may be considered a breach of contract and may be subject to cancellation of a contract, suspension, and debarment from future contracting with the City of Mankato. 3. Responsibilities ## 3.1. Third-Party Contracting Capacity City of Mankato must maintain adequate technical capacity to carry out its FTA and State assisted projects and comply with Federal and State rules. Third party contracting capability must be adequate to undertake its procurements effectively and efficiently in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. ## 3.2. Contract Administration System Mankato Transit System must maintain a contract administration system to ensure that it and its third-party contractors comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders and applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. ## 3.2.1. Adequate Third-Party Contract Provisions Third-party contracts must include provisions that are adequate to form a sound and complete agreement. Provisions identified in the solicitation must be carried over into the contract. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 7 ## 3.2.2. Revenue Contracts Entry into a contract with a third-party to generate revenue in connection with a transit-related activity, or to create business opportunities utilizing an FTA or State funded asset is encouraged. Revenue from the sale of advertising when the advertising media (bench, bus, shelter) is included in an open federal grant can be reported as program income earned to reduce the non-federal share of future Awards, not the Award from which it was earned. Account for this type of program income on the appropriate Federal Financial Report (FFR) in Line Q - Total Federal Program Income Earned. 3 ## 3.2.3. Record Keeping Prepare and maintain adequate and readily accessible project performance and financial records, covering procurement transactions as well as other aspects of project implementation. Maintain records in the event of litigation or in other limited circumstances, until six years 4 after Mankato Transit System and any contractors or subcontractors have made final payment, and all other pending matters are closed or unless otherwise required to be retained for longer pursuant to City’s retention schedule. For all procurements above the micro-purchase level, maintain the following: (a) Procurement Method: Provide rationale for the method of procurement used for each contract, including sole source justification for acquisitions that do not qualify for competitive bidding process under state law. (b) Contract Type: State the reason for selecting the contract type used. (c) Contractor Selection: State the reasons for selecting or rejecting the contractors. (d) Contractor Responsibility: Provide a written determination of responsibility for the successful contractor. (e) Cost or Price: Evaluate and state the justification for the contract cost or price. (f) Reasonable Documentation: Retain documentation commensurate with the size and complexity of the procurement. (g) Vendor Verification: Include verification of acceptance with a selected vendor, supplier, or manufacturer, through the Federal System of Award Management (SAM) system for each project and associated project file. Provide FTA and MnDOT officials, Minnesota Department of Management and Budget, the State Auditor, or any of their representatives, access to and the right to examine and inspect all records, documents, and papers, including contracts, related to any FTA project financed with Federal assistance. 3 ## FTA Circular 5010.1F 4 General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities, March 2021. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 8 3.3. Determination of Needs Maintain and follow adequate procedures for determining the types and amounts of products and services to acquire. City expenditures must meet the following standards: • Public Purpose – There must be a public purpose for the expenditure. • Authority – There must be specific or implied authority for the expenditure in statute or the City’s charter. • Proper Procedure – City processing guidelines must be followed including obtaining an appropriate receipt or invoice, meeting approval requirements, and timely processing of information. Comply with the following requirements when determining the types and amounts of products and services for acquisition: 3.3.1. Eligibility All products and services acquired with FTA or State funds must be eligible under the Federal or State law authorizing the FTA or State assistance award and any regulations thereunder. All products and services to be acquired with FTA or State funds must also be eligible for support within the scope of the underlying grant or cooperative agreement from which the FTA or State assistance to be used is derived. 3.3.2. Necessity Adhere to the following standards for avoiding the purchase of duplicative and/or unnecessary products and services. (a) Unnecessary Reserves: Limit the acquisition of Federally or State-assisted property, goods, and services to the amount needed to support its public transportation system. (b) Acquisition for Assignment Purposes: Contract only for current and reasonably expected public transportation needs and not add quantities or options to third-party contracts solely to permit assignment to another party at a later date. These limits on assignments, however, do not preclude joint procurements that are entered into simultaneously by two or more parties to obtain advantages unavailable for smaller procurements such as participation in MnDOT Sponsored Vehicle Procurements. (c) Procurement Size: For every procurement, consider whether to consolidate or break out the procurement to obtain the most economical purchase. Absent efforts to foster greater opportunities for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), small and minority firms and women’s business enterprises (irrespective of whether they qualify as DBEs), do not split a larger procurement merely to gain the advantage of micro-purchase or simplified acquisition procedures. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 9 (d) Options: Justify, as needed, all option quantities included in every solicitation and contract. An option is a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, to acquire additional equipment, supplies, or services than originally procured. An option may also extend the term of the contract. (e) Lease Versus Purchase: Review lease versus purchase alternatives for acquiring property and prepare or obtain an analysis to determine the most economical alternative. If chosen to lease an asset, then prepare a written comparison of the cost of leasing the asset compared with the cost of purchasing or constructing the asset. (f) Lease of Rolling Stock: For rolling stock and related equipment, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requires reporting to MnDOT, on behalf of FTA, within three years of executing a rolling stock lease that includes: (1) An evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of leasing rolling stock; and (2) A comparison of the expected short-term and long-term maintenance costs under a lease versus maintenance costs when buying rolling stock. (g) Specifications: Procurement specifications shall clearly describe the products or services to be procured and shall state how the proposals will be evaluated. Procurement specifications shall not be exclusionary, discriminatory, unreasonably restrictive, or otherwise in violation of Federal or Minnesota laws or regulations. ## 3.4. Contract Price and Cost Analysis The Common Grant Rules requires a cost analysis or price analysis in connection with every procurement action, including contract modifications before receiving bids or proposals. The method and degree of analysis depend on the facts and circumstances surrounding each procurement. City shall negotiate profit as a separate element of the price for each contract in which there is no price competition and, in all cases, where cost analysis is performed. To establish a fair and reasonable profit, consideration must be given to the complexity of the work to be performed, the risk borne by the contractor, the contractor's investment, the amount of subcontracting, the quality of its record of past performance, and industry profit rates in the surrounding geographical area for similar work. The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used. For both price and cost analysis, a written justification must be submitted. This justification must include Procurement summary, which analysis was performed and why, supporting evidence, fair and reasonable determination, special considerations, and signed approval. ## 3.4.1. Price Analysis Costs estimated for proposal purposes shall be presented in such a manner and in such detail that any significant cost can be compared with the actual cost accumulated and reported therefor. City shall make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. In any event the cost accounting practices used in estimating costs in pricing a proposal and in accumulating and reporting costs on the resulting contract shall be consistent with respect to: (a) The classification of elements or functions of cost as direct or indirect; ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 10 (b) The indirect cost pools to which each element or function of cost is charged or proposed to be charged; and (c) The methods of allocating indirect costs to the contract. ## 3.4.2. Cost Analysis Obtain a cost analysis when a price analysis will not provide sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of the contract cost, or when only a sole source is available, even if the procurement is a contract modification or change order. Costs or prices based on estimated costs for contracts under the Federal award are allowable only to the extent that costs are incurred, or cost estimates included in negotiated prices would be allowable for the City. Obtain a cost analysis when the offeror submits elements (labor hours, overhead, materials) of the estimated cost, such as for professional consulting or Architectural and Engineering contracts. It is not necessary if it is possible to justify price reasonableness based on a catalog or market price of a commercial product sold in substantial quantities to the public or based on prices set by law or regulation. ## 3.4.3 Change Order Reporting Requirements All contract modifications and change orders must include an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE), cost or price analysis, written justification, and confirmation that the modification does not constitute a cardinal change. Written justification must include the following: • Background summary: Identify the original contract and provide a brief scope of the original work. • Description of the change: Clearly describe what’s being changed. • Scope (adding or deleting work, altering specifications, changing timelines), Price (increase or decrease in total contract value), • Schedule (extension, acceleration). If it’s a no-cost change, state that explicitly. Reason for the change: • Unforeseen site conditions or latent defects. • Design changes necessary to meet project requirements. • Error or omission in plans/specifications. • Regulatory changes after contract award. • Owner-directed change for project improvement. • Force majeure or emergency conditions. • Compatibility with existing systems (e.g., proprietary integration needs). o Include a narrative that connects the change to the project’s goals and explains why it wasn’t in the original scope. Funding impact: State whether the change is within the available budget or requires budget modification. New cost analysis: Provide evidence that the cost for the change is fair and reasonable, Independent cost estimate (ICE) before negotiating with the contractor, Comparison to historical ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 11 costs for similar work, Published price lists or industry benchmarks, Documentation of negotiation process, Impact on competition: If the change could have been competitively bid but wasn’t, explain why the incumbent contractor is the only practical option. Why competitive procurement is not feasible without major project disruption. This is essentially a “sole source” mini justification for the modification. Schedule impact: Identify any new milestone dates or completion dates. Explain how delays (if any) will be mitigated. Compliance statements and written approval: Confirm the change does not alter federal compliance terms and get required signatures. ## 3.5. Contractor Responsibilities In awarding contracts financed as a whole or in part with FTA financial assistance, follow guidance in this section to evaluate contractor capabilities to perform the contract. In addition to the Federal rules 5 that require contract awards be made only to responsible contractors, Federal law at 49 U.S.C. § 5325(j) and Minnesota Statute 16C.285 limits third-party contractor awards to those contractors capable of successfully performing under the terms and conditions of the proposed contract or purchase order. Before selecting a contractor for the award, consider such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. 3.5.1. Debarment and Suspension U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations apply to each third-party contract at tiers of $25,000 or more, to each third-party contract at any tier for a federally required audit, and to each third-party contract at any tier that must be approved by an FTA official irrespective of the contract amount (2 C.F.R.1200). Apply DOT’s debarment and suspension requirements to itself and each third-party contractor at every tier to the extent required by regulations that incorporate the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget 6 ## (OMB). (a) Search and ensure that every offeror considered appears as a registered vendor within the results of a System for Award Management SAM.gov search and print the screen with the results of the search to be included in the procurement file. Verify that the prospective third-party vendor is not listed as a debarred contractor on SAM.gov. (b) Verify that the prospective third-part vendor is not listed as a Suspended/Debarred Vendor with the state of Minnesota. 7 Print the screen with the results of the search for inclusion in the procurement file. 5 2 CFR § 200.318(h) 6 ## Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (non-procurement) 7 https://mn.gov/admin/osp/government/suspended-debarred/ ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 12 ## 3.5.2. Lobbying Certification and Disclosure If a third-party contract exceeds $100,000, before awarding the contract, obtain a signed lobbying certification, and if applicable, a lobbying disclosure from a prospective third-party contractor. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-Federal award ## 3.5.3. Protest Procedure Provision Requirement Insert protest procedures set forth in Section 7.6 herein for all solicitation documents having an estimated value of $100,000 or greater. ## 3.5.4. Required Contract Clauses In addition to the requirements outlined above, there are various required clauses that will apply to third-party contracts, depending upon the type of procurement and the anticipated dollar value of said contract. Assess each procurement and determine the applicable FTA third party terms and conditions that should be included in the solicitation and contract documents. Coordination with MnDOT on the appropriate clauses will be completed. See the following guidance to identify the required clauses: • FTA Circular Subject: Third Party Contracting Guidance (FTA C. 4220.1G, Appendix D) ## • FTA Master Agreements 8 • ProcurementPRO 9 (free web-based application). If used, confirm accuracy with FTA C. 4220.1G, Appendix D. In addition to other provisions required by the Federal agency or non-Federal entity and if not otherwise listed in resources linked above, all contracts made by City of Mankato under the Federal award must contain provisions covering the following, as applicable: • Equal Employment Opportunity. Except as otherwise provided under 41 CFR Part 60, all contracts that meet the definition of "federally assisted construction contract" in 41 CFR Part 60-1.3 must include the equal opportunity clause provided under 41 CFR 60-1.4(b), in accordance with Executive Order 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity" (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR Part, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, ## "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity" and implementing regulations at 41 CFR pa1t 60, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance ## Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity Department of Labor." 8 https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grantee-resources/sample-fta-agreements/fta-grant-agreements 9 https://www.nationalrtap.org/Technology-Tools/ProcurementPRO ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 13 • Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by City of Mankato must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, "Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction"). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The non-Federal entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. City of Mankato shall report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act (40 U.S.C. 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, "Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States"). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non-Federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. • Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701-3708). Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the non-Federal entity in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under 40 U.S.C. 3702 of the Act, each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a halftime the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of 40 U.S.C. 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. • Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement. If the Federal award meets the definition of “funding agreement" under 37 CFR §401.2 (a) and the recipient or subrecipient wishes to enter into a contract with a small business film or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that "funding agreement," the recipient or subrecipient must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR Part 401, "Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements," and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 14 • Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251- 1387), as amended-Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 must contain a provision that requires the non-Federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-767 1q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387). Violations must be reported to the Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 3.6. Bonding Bonding requirements apply to construction contracts exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). Minimum coverage: 5% bid guarantee, 100% performance bond, and 100% payment bond. MnDOT/FTA may accept reduced bonding if the Federal interest is adequately protected. Federal rules require bonds for all construction contracts exceeding the Simplified Acquisition ## Threshold 10 unless FTA determines that other arrangements adequately protect the Federal interest. City of Mankato requires performance and payment bonds for contracts over $175,000 (Simplified Acquisition Threshold). • Bid Guarantee equivalent to 5 percent of its bid price ensures the bidder will honor its bid upon acceptance. • Performance Bond for 100 percent of the contract price to ensure completion of the obligations under the third-party contract. A "performance bond" is one executed in connection with a contract to secure fulfillment of all the contractor's obligations under such contract. • Payment Bond for 100 percent of the contract price to ensure the contractor will pay all people supplying labor and material for the third-party contract. A "payment bond" is one executed in connection with a contract to assure payment as required by law of all persons supplying labor and material in the execution of the work provided for in the contract. ## 3.6.1. Payment Bond Thresholds For construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts exceeding the Simplified ## Acquisition Threshold, 11 when bonding is required, MnDOT may accept the bonding policy and requirements of the Subrecipient provided that MnDOT has decided that the Federal interest is adequately protected. FTA determined the following amounts are adequate to protect their interest: • Contracts less than $1 Million – Fifty percent of the contact price • Contracts more than $1 Million but less than $5 Million - Forty percent of the contract price • Contracts more than $5 Million – Two and one half million dollars 10 $175,000 City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023. 11 $175,000 City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 15 ## 3.6.2. Acceptable Sureties The Common Grant Rule for non-governmental recipients requires the non-governmental recipient to obtain construction bonds from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties under Department of the Treasury regulations, “Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States,” 31 CFR Part 223. For a current list of approved sureties, see Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties. 12 As FTA encourages governmental recipients to require similarly acceptable sureties, it shall be the policy to accept such sureties. ## 3.7. Buy America Requirements Buy America requirements apply to procurements exceeding $150,000. Rolling stock purchases require pre-award and post-delivery audits, and final assembly must occur in the U.S., per 49 U.S.C. 5323(j) and 49 C.F.R. Part 661. Transit projects exceeding $150,000 with FTA assistance to purchase iron or steel products, manufactured products including rolling stock purchases, construction materials, and capital leases will comply with FTA’s Buy America requirements, unless FTA has granted a waiver authorized under the Buy America provisions. FTA’s Buy America regulations are complex and differ from the Federal “Buy American Act” regulations in FAR Subparts 25.1 and 25.2. 13 • Requirements apply to third-party procurements by FTA grant recipients. A grantee must include in its bid or request for proposal (RFP) specification for procurement of iron, steel, or manufactured goods (including rolling stock) an appropriate notice of the Buy America provision and require, as a condition of responsiveness, that the bidder submit with the bid or offer a completed Buy America certificate. 14 • Final assembly for rolling stock also must occur in the U.S. Additionally, rolling stock procurements are subject to the pre-award and post-delivery Buy America audit provisions. 15 Provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States of America, even when Buy America and other regulations do not apply. 16 4. Sources of Acquisitions ## 4.1. Force Account The use of force account labor is a project management function, rather than a procurement and contract administration function, except in the general sense of the ability to perform work with its own forces rather than contracting with another entity to acquire the property or services needed, 12 Department of Treasury Circular 570 http://fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html 13 ## FTC C. 4220.1G, Chapter IV(2)(c)(5) 14 49 CFR §§661.6 or 661.12. 15 49 U.S.C. § 5323(m) and 49 CFR part 663 16 ## 2 C.F.R. § 200.322 ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 16 and the cost implications of the decision. Mankato Transit System does not charge force account labor to its FTA grants. ## 4.2. Joint Procurements One or more entities agree from the onset to use a single solicitation document and enter into a single contract with a vendor for delivery of products or services. The following apply: • The item, due to nature of the item or lack of availability of vendors, is available only from a single source or the public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation; • Solicitation documents may not be drafted for the purpose of accommodating the needs of other parties that may later want to participate in the benefits of the contract. • Ensure the joint procurement solicitation and contract complies with all Federal and State requirements and includes all required clauses and certifications. ## 4.3. State or Local Government Purchasing Schedules or Contracts An arrangement that a state or local government establishes with several vendors, such as cooperative purchasing, who agree to provide essentially an option to the state or local government, and its subordinate government entities, to acquire specific property or services in the future at established prices. An arrangement like the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Cooperative Purchasing Program for Federal Government use. When this method is used, obtain Buy America certification before entering into the purchase order. This method cannot be used to circumvent FTA’s Buy America requirements. ## 4.3.1. Small Quantity of Rolling Stock Conducting a stand-alone procurement for fewer than five buses requires written justification for not using an innovative procurement tool authorized in section 3019 of the FAST Act. 17 ## 4.3.2. Applicability of Federal Provisions While MnDOT takes precautions to ensure that all Federal requirements, clauses, and certifications are in the master intergovernmental contract or in the recipient's purchase document, it is ultimately Mankato Transit System’s responsibility to ensure such documents and certifications are obtained. Solicitation of these vendors is conducted in the same manner as any other procurement. If such requirements, clauses, and certifications were not included, request the vendor append the required Federal clauses in the purchase order or other document that affects the procurement. 17 49 USC § 5339(a)(10)(B) ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 17 ## 4.4. Existing Contracts May be used as an acquisition source. Existing contracts are formed to be limited to the original parties. ## 4.4.1. Permissible Actions Exercise of Options held by another recipient of FTA assistance may be used with the following limitations: (a) Consistency with the Underlying Contract. Ensure that the terms and conditions of the option are substantially similar to the terms and conditions of the options as stated in the original contract at the time it was awarded. (b) Price. Option prices must be better than prices available in the open market, or that when intended to exercise the options are more advantageous. ## (c) Awards Treated as Sole Source Procurements: (1) Failure to Evaluate Options before Awarding the Underlying Contract. If a contract has one or more options and those options were not evaluated as part of the original contract award, exercising those options after contract award will result in a sole source award. (2) Negotiating a Lower Option Price. Exercising an option after a negotiated lower or higher price will also result in a sole source award unless that price can be reasonably determined from the terms of the original contract, or that price results from Federal actions that can be reliably measured. (d) Assignment of Contract Rights (Piggybacking) – If found that inadvertently acquired contract rights are in excess of need, another MnDOT subrecipient may be assigned those contract rights if the original contract contains appropriate assignment provisions, allowing the other subrecipient to contract in the same manner as the original contract at the same or lower price. Contractual rights through assignment from another recipient of FTA assistance may be used after determining the contract price remains fair and reasonable, and the contract provisions are adequate for compliance with all Federal requirements. A second price analysis is not necessary if one was performed for the original contract. Mankato Transit System, as a subrecipient, shall be responsible for ensuring the contractor’s compliance with FTA’s Buy America requirements and execution of all the required pre-award and post-delivery Buy America review certifications. Before proceeding with the assignment, review the original contract to be sure that the quantities the assigning recipient acquired, coupled with the quantities needed, do not exceed the amounts available under the assigning recipient’s contract. ## 4.4.2. Impermissible Actions (a) Improper Contract Expansion - A contract has been improperly expanded when it includes a larger scope, greater quantities, or options beyond the recipient’s reasonably anticipated needs, other than unanticipated change orders. A contract has also been improperly ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 18 expanded when excess capacity has been added primarily to permit assignment of those contract rights to another entity. (b) Cardinal Changes (Tag-On) - A significant change in contract work that causes a major deviation from the original purpose of the work or the intended method of achievement, or causes a revision of contract work so extensive, significant, or cumulative that, in effect, the contractor is required to perform very different work from that described in the original contract, is a cardinal change. A change within the scope of the contract is not a cardinal change. ## 5. Procedures for Open Market Procurements ## 5.1. Solicitation Requirements and Restrictions Every procurement solicitation issued above the micro-purchase level (currently established in Federal guidance at $10,000), must include the following information and be advertised in a manner that ensures adequate and open competition. 5.1.1. Description of the Property or Service The solicitation and the contract awarded must include a clear and accurate description of technical requirements for the products or services to be acquired in a manner that provides for full and open competition. Prepare descriptions of property, goods, or service in terms of functions to be performed or level of performance required, including the range of acceptable characteristics or minimum acceptable standards. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if possible; however, there is no prohibition against their use when appropriate. ## 5.1.1.1. Brand Name or Equal When it is impractical or uneconomical to provide a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements of the property to be acquired, a “brand name or equal” description may be used to define the performance or other prominent characteristics of a specific type of property. 5.1.2. Quantities Additional quantities or options above needs at the time of acquisition, may not be added solely to allow assignment later. 5.1.3. Period of Performance The period of performance generally should not exceed the time necessary to accomplish the purpose of the contract considering competition, pricing, fairness, and public perception. Document the rationale for determining the performance period in the procurement files. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 19 ## 5.1.4. Evaluation Factors All solicitations shall identify all factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals. At the discretion of Procurement Officer, the relative order of importance and/or weights shall be communicated to prospective offerors. ## 5.1.5. Award to Other Than the Low Bidder Solicitations must specifically reserve the right to award a contract to other than the low bidder or offeror, if allowed to do so pursuant to state competitive bid law. If the solicitation documents do not specify this right, Mankato Transit System will be obligated to award the contract to the low bidder. ## 5.2. Permissible Contract Types State the type of contract that will be awarded in all solicitation documents. The following types of contracts will typically be executed with the successful vendor: ## 5.2.1. Firm Fixed Price A price that remains fixed irrespective of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. A firm fixed price contract may include an economic price adjustment provision, incentives, or both. ## 5.2.2. Cost Reimbursement The contract provides for payment of the contractor’s allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. To the extent permitted under state law, allowable costs may include incentives if the recipient believes they can prove helpful. Cost-reimbursement contracts are suitable for use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed price contract. ## 5.2.3. Prohibited or Restricted Contract Types • Cost plus Percentage of Cost type contracts is prohibited. • Time and Materials type contracts may be used only after a written determination is made that no other contract type is suitable. In addition, the contract must specify a ceiling price that the Contractor may not exceed except at its own risk. ## 5.3. Other Federal Requirements The solicitation and resulting contract must identify those Federal requirements that will affect contract scope and performance that a bidder or offeror must fulfill before and during contract performance. ## 5.4. Prohibited Practices Solicitations with requirements that contain features that unduly restrict competition may not be used if they: ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 20 (a) Impose unreasonable business requirements for bidders or offerors. (b) Impose unnecessary experience requirements for bidders and offerors. (c) Use pre-qualification procedures that conflict with the prequalification standards described in Methods of Procurement (Section 5.2). (d) Make a noncompetitive award to any person or firm on a retainer contract if that award is not for the property or services specified for delivery under the retainer contract. (e) Impose unreasonable restrictive bonding requirements on bidders and offerors in excess of FTA and state requirements. (f) Specify only a “brand name” product without allowing offers of an “equal” product or allowing an “equal” product without listing the salient characteristics that the “equal” product must meet to be acceptable for award. (g) Specify in-state or local geographical preferences or evaluating bids or proposals in light of in-state or local geographic preferences, even if those preferences are imposed by State or local laws or regulations. The only exception expressly mandated or encouraged by Federal law that may be applicable is the procurement of Architectural and Engineering (A&E) Services. Geographic location may be a selection criterion in the procurement of A&E services if an appropriate number of qualified firms are eligible to compete for the contract in view of the nature and size of the project. (h) Engage in practices that result in organizational conflicts of interest when any of the following circumstances arise: (1) Lack of Impartiality or Impaired Objectivity – When the bidder or offeror is unable, or potentially unable, to provide impartial and objective assistance or advice due to other activities, relationships, contracts, or circumstances. (2) Unequal Access to Information – When the bidder or offeror has an unfair competitive advantage through obtaining access to nonpublic information during the performance of an earlier contract. (3) Biased Ground Rules – When during the conduct of an earlier procurement, the bidder or offeror has established the ground rules for a future procurement by developing specifications, evaluation factors, or similar documents. (i) Support or acquiesce in noncompetitive pricing practices between firms or between affiliated companies. (j) Take any arbitrary action in the procurement process. 6. Methods of Procurement Use competitive procedure(s) appropriate for the acquisition undertaken. The procedures used must comply with Minnesota and local law as well as with Federal requirements. Federal restrictions vary with the type of procurement method used. The following guidance is based on ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 21 the requirements of 2 CFR § 200.318 – 200.326, supplemented by FTA and State policies that address the needs of FTA recipients. Prohibited Divisions (Bid Splitting): The size or dollar value of procurements may not be divided or reduced merely to come within the micro or simplified acquisition limit or to avoid state competitive bid thresholds. The only allowable exception is for the express purpose of fostering greater opportunities for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), small and minority firms and women’s business enterprises (irrespective of whether they qualify as DBEs) in Federally assisted procurement . ## 6.1. Purchase Card As approved by the City Manager and pursuant to Section 3.05 of the City Charter, purchase cards will be issued to departments and various divisions as deemed necessary for use during emergencies, employee travel, online purchase(s) or unpredictable circumstances. Each purchase card, unless otherwise authorized by the City Manager, will contain a maximum limit of $1,000 per purchase, with a total monthly transaction limit not to exceed $5,000. These limits can be increased with a request, accompanied by a demonstrated need, to the Director of Administrative Services or designee. 6.2. Micro-Purchases Micro-Purchases are allowed up to the current Federal threshold ($10,000) or higher if self-certified in accordance with FTA Circular 4220.1G. Documentation of self-certification, including justification and approval by the City Manager, must be maintained in the procurement file ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 22 Approved electronically in Tyler Munis by the Associate Director of Transportation Planning services, then by the Director of Community Development (if needed) and pursuant to Mankato’s City Charter, Micro-Purchases are allowed for informal procurement of products and services that cost $10,000 or less (or current threshold established by Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)) as a means to expedite the completion of simplified acquisition transactions and minimize the administrative burden and cost. Micro-purchases should be distributed equitably among qualified suppliers. Two quotes if practicable or through the open market for the informal acquisition of products and services. Micro purchases are exempt from FTA’s Buy America requirements. Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded or assisted construction, alteration, or repair contracts of public buildings and public works exceeding $2,000, even though the recipient uses micro-purchase procurement procedures. Every Micro-Purchase must be accompanied by a written determination that the price is fair and reasonable, and a description of how that determination was made. A sample checklist is at the end of this document. Micro-purchase thresholds may be self-certified at a higher rate than the federally established threshold, provided that the proper documentation is provided. ## 6.3. Simplified Acquisitions Simplified Acquisitions (formerly Small Purchases) apply to procurements above the micro- purchase threshold up to $250,000 price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources must be obtained. Every Simplified Acquisition Purchase must be documented in the written procurement history file. Price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number (two preferred) of qualified sources and kept on file. $10,000 but less than $50,000 – informal procurement, two telephone quotes are preferred and kept on file. $50,000 but less than $175,000 – formal procurement methods with two or more responsible bidders willing and able to submit an offer, and kept on file, unless special circumstances are noted. Consult Cooperative Purchase Programs before procurement for minimized administrative burden and cost. ## 6.4. Competitive Bidding (Full and Open) Procurements Approved by the City Council through a Resolution signed by the Mayor, Competitive Bidding Procurements are those purchases of products and services that cost greater than the current State threshold of $175,000 which is more restrictive than the Federal threshold of $250,000. Every competitive purchase must comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345. There are two primary methods of procurement for large purchases of products and services: ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 23 ## • Sealed Bid Method – Invitation For Bid (IFB) Bids are publicly solicited, and a firm fixed price contract is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to all the material terms and conditions of the Invitation for Bids (IFB), is lowest in price. ## • Competitive Proposals Method – Request for Proposals (RFP) Written proposals are publicly solicited, and a contract is awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal, taking into consideration price and other factors, is considered to be the most advantageous or best value. There may be alternatives to the primary methods and specialized procurements not covered by this plan. Consult the Third-Party Contracting Guidance. 18 • Two-Step Procurement – Can be used for both sealed bid and competitive proposals. • Architectural and Engineering (A&E) Services and Other Services that are directly in support of, directly connected to, directly related to, or lead to construction, alteration, or repair of real property. • Design-Bid-Build procurement method requires separate contracts for design services and for construction. • Design Build procurement method consists of contracting for design and construction simultaneously with contract award to a single contractor, consortium, joint venture, team, or partnership that will be responsible for both the project’s design and construction. ## 6.4.1. Sealed Bid Method – Invitation For Bid (IFB) The preferred method for acquiring products and services that, including construction services, cost greater than simplified threshold or simplified acquisition threshold. May also be used for simplified acquisitions if it is determined to be appropriate. The sealed bid method of procurement is appropriate if the following conditions apply: (a) Precise Specifications – A complete, adequate, precise, and realistic specification or purchase description is available. (b) Adequate Sources – Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business. (c) Fixed Price Contract – The procurement generally lends itself to a firm fixed price contract. (d) Price Determinative – The successful bidder can be selected on the basis of price and those price-related factors listed in the solicitation including, but not limited to, transportation costs, life cycle costs, and discounts expected to be taken. Apart from responsibility determinations, contractor selection may not be determined based on other factors whose costs cannot be measured at the time of award. 18 ## FTA Circular 4220.1G ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 24 (e) Discussions Unnecessary – Award of the contract will be made based on price and price- related factors alone. Discussions with bidders are unnecessary. See the Mankato Financial Management Policies for the appropriate steps. ## 6.4.1.1. Requirements for Sealed Bid Method of Procurement (a) Funds Availability – Ensure funds have been appropriated for the project and included in the ## City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Mankato/North Mankato Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as appropriate for the funding year. (b) Publicity – Make proper publication in the official City newspaper(s) for at least ten days before the last date for submission of bids. Other methods of notice may be used to supplement but not substitute for the official publication notice such as compiled vendor list, prospective offerors, or electronic advertising means. The published notice must contain the following: • A description of the project or purchase being sought • The availability and location of specifications • Bid requirements such as a sealed bid or any accompanying bid security • Where the bids must be submitted • Deadline for submitting the bids • Time and place of the opening of the bids • The City Officers who will be present for the opening of the sealed bids • Statement indicating that the City may delay the award until certain events occur • Statement indicating that the City reserves the right to reject all bids submitted (c) Adequate Sources – Must solicit from an adequate number of known suppliers. (d) Adequate Specifications – Must describe the property or services in sufficient detail that a prospective bidders can submit a proper bid. Include any specifications and pertinent attachment. (e) Sufficient Time – Bidders must be allowed sufficient time to prepare bids before the date of public bid opening. Minimum 10 days. 19 (f) Public Bid Opening - All bids must be publicly opened at the time and place prescribed in the Invitation for Bids. Bids must remain unopened until the public opening; a bidder may withdraw the bid at any time prior. (g) Fixed Price Contract - A firm fixed price contract must be awarded in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder unless the Invitation for Bids specifically allows for award of a fixed price incentive contract or the inclusion of an economic price adjustment provision. (h) Rejection of Bids – Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound, documented business reason. 19 ## City of Mankato Financial Management Policies, May 22, 2023 ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 25 ## 6.4.2. Competitive Proposals Method – Request for Proposals (RFP) For the acquisition of products and services that cost greater than $175,000 when the nature of the procurement does not lend itself to the sealed bidding method and it is expected that more than one source will be willing and able to submit a proposal. May also be used for simplified acquisitions if it is determined to be appropriate. May not be used for the procurement of construction services. The competitive proposal method of procurement is appropriate when any of the following circumstances are present: (a) Types of Specifications - The products or services are described in a performance, functional specification, detailed technical specifications, or other circumstances such as the need for discussions or the importance of basing contract award on factors other than price alone are present. (b) Uncertain Number of Sources - Uncertainty about whether more than one bid will be submitted in response to an Invitation for Bids. (c) Price Alone Not Determinative - Due to the nature of the procurement, contract award need not be based exclusively on price or price-related factors. (d) Discussion Expected - Separate discussions with individual offerors are expected to be necessary after they have submitted their proposals. ## 6.4.2.1. Requirements for Competitive Proposals (a) Funds Availability – Ensure funds have been appropriated for the project and included in the ## City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Mankato/North Mankato Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as appropriate for the funding year. (b) Publicity – Make proper publication in the official City newspaper(s). Other methods of notice may be used to supplement but not substitute for the official publication notice such as compiled vendor list, prospective offerors, or electronic advertising means. The published notice must contain the following: (c) Evaluation Factors – All evaluation factors and their relative importance must be specified in the solicitation, but numerical or percentage ratings or weights need not be disclosed. (d) Adequate Sources – Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources. (e) Evaluation Method – A specific method must be established and used to conduct technical evaluations of the proposals received and to determine the most qualified offeror. (f) Price and Other Factors - An award must be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous or that represents the “best value” with price and other factors considered. (g) Best Value - Contract may be awarded to the offeror whose proposal provides the greatest value based upon an analysis of the tradeoff of qualitative technical factors and price or cost factors. To do so, the solicitation must inform potential offerors that the award will be made on a “best value” basis and identify what factors will form the basis for award. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 26 ## 6.5. Noncompetitive (Other Than Full and Open) Procurement Normally, full and open competition is provided when soliciting bids or proposals. The Common ## Grant Rule 20 acknowledges that under certain circumstances, procurement may be conducted without providing for full and open competition only when the procurement is inappropriate for simplified acquisition procedures, sealed bids, or competitive proposals, and at least one of the following circumstances is present: (a) Adequate Competition. After soliciting several sources, review the specifications to determine if they are unduly restrictive, or if changes can be made to encourage submission of more bids or proposals. If found that specifications are not unduly restrictive, and changes cannot be made to encourage greater competition, perform a cost analysis in lieu of a price analysis from among the sources that submitted. (b) Sole Source. When supplies or services are available from only one responsible source, and no other supplies or services will satisfy its requirements, a sole source award may be justified. When an existing contract is changed beyond the scope of the agreement a sole source award must be justified. (c) When Prohibited. Less than full and open competition is not justified based on: • Failure to Plan. The recipient’s lack of advance planning, or • Limited Availability of Federal Assistance. Concerns about the amount of Federal assistance available to support the procurement (for example, expiration of Federal assistance previously available for award). ## 6.5.1. Sole Source Unique Capability or Availability. The property or services are available from one source if one of the conditions described below is present: (a) Unique or Innovative Concept. The offeror demonstrates a unique or innovative concept or capability not available from another source. Unique or innovative concept means a new, novel, or changed concept, approach, or method that is the product of original thinking, the details of which are kept confidential or are patented or copyrighted and are available only from one source and has not in the past been available from another source. (1) Patents or Restricted Data Rights. Patent or data rights restrictions preclude competition. (2) Substantial Duplication Costs. In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of highly specialized equipment and major components thereof, when it is likely that award to another contractor would result in substantial duplication of costs that are not expected to be recovered through competition. (3) Unacceptable Delay. In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a highly specialized equipment and major components thereof, when it 20 2 C.F.R. 200.320(f)(1) – (4) ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 27 is likely that award to another contractor would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the needs. (b) Single Bid or Single Proposal. Upon receiving a single bid or single proposal in response to a solicitation, determine if competition was adequate. This should include a review of the specifications for undue restrictiveness and will include a survey of potential sources that chose not to submit a bid or proposal. (1) Adequate Competition. FTA acknowledges competition to be adequate when the reasons for few responses were caused by conditions beyond the recipient’s control. Many unrelated factors beyond the recipient’s control might cause potential sources not to submit a bid or proposal. If the competition can be determined adequately, FTA’s competition requirements will be fulfilled, and the procurement will qualify as a valid competitive award. (2) Inadequate Competition. FTA acknowledges competition to be inadequate when, caused by conditions within the recipient’s control. For example, if the specifications used were within the recipient’s control and those specifications were unduly restrictive, competition will be inadequate. (c) Exigency or Emergency. The Common Grant Rule limits the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals when an exigent need for the property or services would be seriously injured unless it were permitted to limit the solicitation. Also allowed to limit the solicitation when the public need or emergency will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation for the property or services. (d) Procurement Procedures. When less than full and open competition is experienced, the ## Common Grant Rule directs: (1) Potential Sources. Solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (2) Sole Source Justification. If decided to solicit an offer from only one source, justify the decision adequately considering the standards of this section and ensure the justification listing the applicable standard is documented in writing and signed by the Procurement Officer. This justification must include a statement of need, how the decision to sole source was decided on, market research documentation, and an explanation of the undue hardship not proceeding with sole source would bring the agency. (3) Cost Analysis. Prepare or obtain a written cost analysis verifying the proposed cost data, the projections of the data, and the evaluation of the costs and profits. (4) Pre-award Review. Submit the proposed procurement to Mankato’s Director of Administration for pre-award review and approval to proceed. (5) Submit the proposed procurement for FTA pre-award review if FTA so requests. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 28 ## 6.6. Evaluation Requirements When evaluating bids or proposals in response to a solicitation, consider all evaluation factors specified in the solicitation documents and evaluate proposals only on the factors included in the solicitation documents. If evaluation factors are modified, the solicitation must be re-opened. When awarding contract that includes options, evaluate any option quantities or periods contained in a solicitation if intended to exercise those options after the contract is awarded. For competitive procurements, the use of a team to conduct the evaluation will be used. ## 6.7. Designating a Prospective Contractor To designate a prospective contractor “responsible” as required by 49 U.S.C. § 5325, at a minimum, determine and ensure that the prospective contractor satisfies the criteria of Integrity and Ethics, Debarment and Suspension, Affirmative Action and DBE, Public Policy, Administrative ## and Technical Capacity, Licensing and Taxes, Financial Resources, Production Capability, Timeliness, and Performance Record. ## 6.8. Lowest Responsible Bidder For contracts procured through sealed bids or multiple quotes, the City must award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 21 The bidder who submits the lowest bid or quote in dollars is not necessarily the “lowest responsible bidder.” Responsibility in bids means financial responsibility, but also integrity, skill, and the likelihood of the bidder doing faithful and satisfactory work. A contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder unless the “Best Value” alternative is followed. ## 6.9. Rejecting Bids or Offers Solicitations must specifically reserve the right to reject bids or offers. The City has the right to reject any and all bids (requests for proposals, requests for bids, sealed bids). All data submitted in response to bid requests are private until bids are opened. If bids are rejected prior to the completion of the evaluation or selection process, all data, other than that made public at the bid opening, remain private until a re-solicitation of bids results in completion of the selection process. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the selection process, the data remains public. If a re-solicitation of bids does not occur within one year of the bid opening date, the remaining data becomes public. ## 6.10. Confidentiality for Solicitation Responses Proposal pricing submitted in response to a solicitation remains classified as nonpublic data during the evaluation and negotiation phase. Such information may also qualify as protected trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes section 13.37, subdivision 1(b), when the information: (1) is supplied by the responding organization, (2) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, and (3) derives independent economic value from not being generally known or 21 Minn. Stat. § 412.311, subd. 1. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 29 readily ascertainable by competitors or others who could obtain economic value from its disclosure. The executed contract itself becomes public data once negotiations are completed and the agreement is fully executed. At that point, proposal materials submitted by respondents become public unless specific portions continue to qualify as protected trade secret data under Minnesota Statutes section 13.37. For inquiries on evaluation committee scoring results and comments, with the exception of the names of responders, all proposal-related data, including scoring materials, evaluator comments, and proposal contents, remain nonpublic until completion of the evaluation process, which includes completion of contract negotiations with the selected vendor. If all proposals are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, proposal data must remain nonpublic until either a subsequent solicitation results in completion of the evaluation process or the procurement is abandoned. If no resolicitation occurs within one year of the proposal opening date, the remaining proposal data become public. ## 7. Administrative Requirements and Considerations ## 7.1 Staff Responsibilities Prior to development of the procurement solicitation, conduct a coordination meeting with necessary City staff to establish duties and responsibilities such as which department is responsible for delivering the project to the appropriate approval authority, and agree upon the ## designated Project Manager Project Manager serves as the principal contact with the contractor and as the primary administrator of the contract. The designated Project Manager for each contract shall have responsibility for directing and overseeing the work performed by the contractor; reviewing and approving deliverables and invoices from the contractor; determining percentage of contract completion for progress payments (if applicable); making recommendations on the exercise of contract options (if applicable); recommending contract changes; preparing justifications for contract changes; performing independent cost estimates and cost or price analyses for contract changes; making recommendations on approval or rejection of subcontractors; assisting with the resolution of contract disputes; making recommendations on contract termination or other contractor disciplinary actions; maintaining complete contract files; and other contract administration duties that may be necessary. ## 7.2 Price Analysis If determined that competition was adequate, a price analysis, rather than a cost analysis, is required to determine the reasonableness of the proposed contract price. A price analysis for micro-purchases may be limited. Similarly, an abbreviated price analysis for simplified acquisitions may be used in most cases. One method to record this price analysis is through the use of a preprinted form on which a contracting officer (or other responsible person) can annotate a finding of fair and reasonable pricing and check off the most common reasons why this would be so, such as catalog or market ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 30 prices offered in substantial quantities to the general public, regulated prices (for example, for many utilities purchases), or a comparison with recent prices for similar goods and services. ## 7.3 Contract Scope and Cardinal Changes Changes Clauses limit the authority of the issuer in two ways. First, they stipulate that changes are permitted only when they are “within the general scope of the contract.” Second, they contain descriptive words setting forth the types of changes that may be made. For the change to be binding on the contractor, it must meet both tests, namely: (a) It must be within the general scope, and (b) it must be one of the types of changes described in the clause. With respect to the FTA requirements governing changes, the change must be within the scope of the original contract. If it is not within the scope, it is considered a cardinal change. Such changes are not processed as changes under the Changes Clause but are processed as new procurements. ## 7.4 Change Clauses Third party contracts should contain a Changes Clause except for routine supply contracts. The language of the clause may differ depending upon the nature of the contract and the end-item being procured, however, these clauses are intended to achieve the following purposes: (a) Flexibility to unilaterally order changes in the work, which may be necessary due to advances in technology or changes in requirements. (b) Provide the contractor with a method of suggesting changes to the work, thus improving the quality of the contract end-items. The equitable adjustment provisions of the Changes Clause will encourage the contractor to suggest improvements when those suggestions increase the contract price. When, however, the situation calls for suggestions regarding dollar savings, the Changes Clause may not incentivize the contractor if it stands to lose the dollar savings because of a price reduction in the contract. For this reason, value engineering clauses are included in contracts. (c) Authority to order additional work that is within the general scope of the contract, thereby avoiding separate procurement. (d) Require the contractor to proceed with the changed work and resolve the issue of compensation later. This is important since it gives the recipient a unilateral contract right to order changes without having to agree beforehand on the price of the work. Emergency situations can thus be handled expeditiously without placing the contractor in a position of demanding a certain amount of compensation before the work can proceed. In the event of a failure to agree on price, the issue can be resolved by a third party in accordance with the dispute procedure in the Disputes Clause of the contract. But disputes concerning compensation will not impede the progress of the contract as changed. ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 31 ## 7.5 Time Extensions Contract time extensions shall be considered in light of whether they are permissible changes or impermissible cardinal changes. Once a third-party contract is awarded, an extension of the contract term length that amounts to a cardinal change, will require a sole source justification. The funding approval authority has the sole authority to approve and execute contract modifications. The Procurement Officer for the contract shall recommend all contract time; prior to making a recommendation for a contract time extension. The Procurement Officer shall prepare a written justification and cost analysis for the contract time extension and shall negotiate the appropriate contract modification with the contractor. ## 7.6 Protest Procedures FTA retains the right to review protests only where: (1) a grantee fails to have written protest procedures, (2) a grantee fails to follow its procedures, or (3) a violation of Federal law or regulation is alleged. MnDOT may also review appeals as the pass-through entity. Protests must be submitted in writing (defined as being sent or received via letter or facsimile on official firm/agency letterhead or by electronic mail), with sufficient documentation, evidence and legal authority to demonstrate that the Protestor is entitled to the relief requested. The protest must be certified as being true and correct to the best knowledge and information of the Protestor and be signed by the Protestor. The protest must also include a mailing address to which a response should be sent. Protests received after the deadlines for receipt of protests specified above are subject to denial without any requirement for review or action. All protests must be directed to the Procurement Officer at the address shown in the solicitation documents. ## 7.6.1 Pre-Proposal Protest All protests concerning solicitation specifications, criteria and/or procedures shall be submitted in writing to the Procurement Officer as specified below not later than ten (10) business days prior to the deadline for submission of bids/proposals. The Procurement Officer may, within their discretion, postpone the deadline for submission of bids/proposals, but in any case, shall provide a written response to all protests not later than five (5) business days prior to the deadline for submission of bids/proposals. If the deadline is postponed by the Procurement Officer as the result of a protest, the postponement will be announced through an addendum to the solicitation. The decision by the Procurement Officer shall be the final decision on the matter but shall be subject to judicial review as set forth by FTA below. ## 7.6.2 Pre-Award Protest Procedures With respect to protests made after the deadline for submission of bids/proposals but before contract award, protests shall be limited to those protests alleging a violation of Federal or State ## Mankato Transit Procurement Policy 32 law, a challenge to the bids/proposal’s evaluation and award process, failure to have or follow its protest procedures or its failure to review a complaint or protest. Protests shall be submitted in writing to the Procurement Officer as specified below not later than five (5) business days after the Recommendation for Contract Award announcement. The Procurement Officer may, within their discretion, postpone the award of the contract, but in any case, provide a written response to all protests not later than three (3) business days prior to the date of announcement of the contract award. The decision by the Procurement Officer shall be the final agency decision on the matter but shall be subject to judicial review as set forth or review by MnDOT as specified below. ## 7.6.3 Protest Response The Procurement Officer shall issue written responses to all protests received by the required response dates. Responses shall be transmitted by first class mail using the U.S. Postal Service to the address indicated in the protest letter. For convenience, a copy of the response to the Protester by facsimile and/or electronic mail if a facsimile number and/or electronic mail address are indicated in the protest letter. The response transmitted by U.S. Postal Service shall be the official response to the protest and Mankato Transit System will not be responsible for the failure of the Protester to receive the protest response by either facsimile or electronic mail. ## 7.6.4 Protest Appeals MnDOT limits its reviews of protests to a grantee’s failure to have or follow its protest procedures; a grantee’s failure to review a complaint or protest when presented an opportunity to do so; or violations of Federal law or regulation. Appeals to MnDOT must be received within five (5) working days of the date the Protester has received actual or constructive notice of the final decision or within five (5) working days of the date the Protester has identified other grounds for appeal to MnDOT. 7.7 Disputes Notify FTA Program Manager and MnDOT Program Manager of protests or complaints involving contracts financed with state or Federal assistance or if the subject involves: (a) Value exceeding $100,000, (b) Involve a controversial matter, irrespective of amount, or (c) Involve a highly publicized matter, irrespective of amount. Provide the following information: • A brief description of the dispute, • The basis of disagreement, and • If open, how far the dispute has proceeded, or • If resolved, the agreement or decision reached, and • Whether an appeal has been taken or is likely to be taken. ## Mankato Transit PROCUREMENT Policy 1 Date: ________________________ ## Grantee/Sub-Grantee Name: ## Grantee/Sub-Grantee Project Contact Name: ## Contact Signature: ## Project Name: ## Description: ## History Detail ## PLANNING DOCUMENTATION ## Identified Method of Procurement: (check the appropriate method of procurement planned) ☐ Micro Purchase <$10,000 ☐ Simplified Acquisition $10,000-$250,000 ☐ Request for Quotes ☐ Other approved solicitation method within simplified acquisitions ☐ Request For Proposals (RFP) ☐ Invitations For Bid (IFB) ☐ Other: _______________________ ☐ Sole Source ☐ Piggyback ☐ Non-Competitive Quotation ☐ Architectural/Engineering (A&E) Services ☐ Design-Bid-Build ☐ Design-Build Description of rationale for method of procurement: ## SOLICITATION DOCUMENTATION Determination that solicitation is complete and maximizes competition Solicitation Document developed: (choose one) ☐ Micro Purchase (with federal funding) -- Scope of Work ## ☐ RFQ --- Request For Quotes ☐ RFP --- Request For Proposals (formal solicitation) ## ☐ Best Value Requirement ## ☐ Timeline/ Table of Contents ☐ Required Attachments: (check all that are applicable) ## ☐ Federal Clauses and Certifications ☐ Do not unduly restrict competition ☐ Identify all requirements that offerors must fulfill ☐ Identify all factors to be used in evaluation of proposals ## ☐ Non-Collusion Declaration ☐ IFB --- Invitation For Bid (low Bid, no review requirement) ## ☐ Sole Source ## ☐ Sole Source Justification (attached) ☐ Sole Source Cover Letter (attached) ☐ Functional Requirements (ITS) ## Mankato Transit PROCUREMENT Policy 2 ## PROCESS COMPLETION: ☐ Completion of Independent Cost Estimate – Date submitted: _____________ ☐ Solicitation documents approval from OTAT – Date: _________________ ☐ Written approval to proceed to solicitation – Date: ______________ Number of potential bidders/proposers notified: __________ Date released: __________ Method used to solicit potential bidders/proposer ☐ Local Newsprint – number ___ Print dates: _________ ☐ MN State Register: print dates: _________ ## ☐ Attached Affidavits of Publication ☐ Agency Website _____________________________________ ☐ Known Providers: number: ______ via: ☐ email ☐ via mail ☐ Other means (specify): ☐ Attached copies of Notices sent to bidders/proposers Number of proposals/bids received: ____________ Date Proposals/bids Due: __________ Analysis for procurements above the simplified acquisition threshold: (choose appropriate analysis) ☐ Price Analysis Date completed: _____________ Submitted: ____________ ☐ Cost Analysis Date completed: _____________ Submitted: ____________ ## CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ## Identified Selection of Contract Type: ☐ Firm Fixed Price Contract or Fixed Price Contract ☐ Cost Reimbursement (Firm Fixed to lowest responsive and responsible bidder/ (Contract for projects where the requirement can only be Fixed Price based on negotiation of cost estimates) defined over a period of time. AKA: On-call, task order Use only when uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed price contract. ☐ Time & Materials (cost-plus-fixed-fee. Restricted: only permitted to use; 1) determine no other type of contract is suitable; and 2) contract specifies a ceiling price that the contractor will not exceed except at its own risk) ## ** Cost Plus Percentage of Cost Contracts are Prohibited Describe Method and Rationale for selection of contract type: (i.e.: This project was released as an RFP as staff required specifications with evaluation and best value approach and was advertised in public newspapers of general circulation, via agency website, and in Construction Exchange listing) Successful contractor identified: ___________________ ## Mankato Transit PROCUREMENT Policy 3 Basis for selection: ☐ Responsibility Determination completed for successful contractor. (select the site based on funding source) ☐ Excluded Parties List System was verified at https://www.sam.gov ## ☐ State Debarment List http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/debarredreport.asp ☐ Attached search page results (must show date of search) ## Name of Bidder/Proposer Not ## Recommended ## Reason for Rejection ☐ Submittal of proposer documentation and review materials for MnDOT Review – Date submitted: ________________ ☐ Written approval to proceed to Contract Award – Date submitted: ________________ The basis for the contract cost or price awarded: ## Formal Contract Provides the following: ☐ Outlines terms, conditions, parties involved, and dates contract commences and is completed. ☐ Signed and dated by both parties ☐ Specifications – Referenced in its entirety, including all attachments ☐ Proposal (in its entirety) ☐ all required attachments completed and submitted ☐ price proposal ☐ bid ☐ operations budget workbook (includes narrative and price breakdown) ☐ other: ________________________________________________________ ☐ Attached Federal Clauses (completed and signed) ☐ Attached Debarment and Suspension Certification (completed and signed) ☐ Attached Lobbying Certification (completed and signed) ## ☐ Attached Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Special Provisions ☐ Bidders Form (for both RGN or for a Goal) ☐ DBE Goal – required paperwork and compliance requirements ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 5. G. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: ## Resolution accepting State of Minnesota Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: ## The Public Safety Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) has been awarded a grant from the State of Minnesota in the amount of $5,352.95 for training for team members. This grant is available to all State hazmat teams. There is a cost matching requirement of $1,338.24 which will be met with employee wages. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## Grant Contract Agreement ## RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STATE OF MINNESOTA HAZARDOUS ## MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANT ## WHEREAS, The Mankato Department of Public Safety has received a ## Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant to cover expenses for HAZMAT training; and WHEREAS, the City of Mankato has received similar grants in the past; and WHEREAS, the grant has a match which will be met with the attendees pay while training. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Mankato that the City Manager be and hereby is authorized to execute the grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“State”). This Resolution shall become effective upon its passage and without further publication. Dated the 22 nd day of June, 2026. ___________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor Attest: __________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, CMC ## Executive Assistant ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 5. H. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution authorizing the Mankato Department of Public Safety to apply for the Spark Good Local Partnership Grant Program. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: The Mankato Department of Public Safety has been invited to apply for funding through the Spark Good Local Partnership Grant program. The purpose of this grant is to support a partnership with Mankato Walmart to fund the annual Shop with a Hero event held each December. The Shop with a Hero event provides an opportunity for local youth to engage with public safety personnel while receiving support during the holiday season. Previous authorized submissions of grant applications for this program have occurred, and grant funding has been successfully awarded in prior years to support the event. Staff is requesting authorization to apply for the Spark Good Local Partnership Grant to continue supporting this valued community program. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR SPARK GOOD ## LOCAL PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Mankato Department of Public Safety has been invited to apply for a grant to participate in the 2026 Spark Good L ocal Partnership Grant; and WHEREAS, the Mankato Department of Public Safety has decided to submit application; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to support partnership with Mankato Walmart to support funding for the annual Shop with a Hero Event; and WHEREAS, the Mankato Department of Public Safety is an eligible agency to receive funding to support the event occurring each December; and WHEREAS, the Mankato Department of Public Safety annually coordinates to identify families in need of support for this funding. ## NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Mankato that the City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to apply for the Spark Good Local Partnership Grant Program on behalf of the Mankato Department of Public Safety. This Resolution shall become effective upon its passage and without further publication. Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026. ___________________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor ## At test: __________________________________ ## Renae Kopischke ## City Clerk ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 5. I. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution authorizing the Mankato Department of Public Safety to apply for the Firearms Storage Grants – Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: The Mankato Department of Public Safety has been invited to apply for funding through the Firearms Storage Grant Program — Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program. ## The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs (DPS-OJP), is seeking grant proposals to support the safe and secure storage of firearms owned by ## individuals subject to Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).  Approximately $489,331 in federal funding is available statewide to support these efforts. Eligible expenses may include, but are not limited to, firearm lockers, safes, storage boxes, gun racks, electronic keypads for securing firearm storage rooms, barcode scanners, and other equipment or administrative costs directly related to the secure storage and management of firearms collected pursuant to an ERPO. This is a reimbursement-based grant program, meaning no funds are advanced at the time of award, and there is no maximum award amount established for applicants. Application for this funding would support enhanced firearm storage, accountability, and security practices for firearms collected by law enforcement from persons subject to Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Staff is requesting authorization to apply for this grant opportunity to enhance public safety operations while offsetting equipment and implementation costs through available federal funding. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE FIREARMS ## STORAGE GRANTS – BYRNE STATE CRISIS INTERVENTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, has made grant funding available through the Firearms Storage Grants - Byrne State Crisis ## Intervention Program; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant program is to support the safe and secure storage of firearms owned by persons subject to Extreme Risk Protection Orders; and WHEREAS, eligible grant expenses may include firearm lockers, safes, gun racks, electronic keypads, barcode scanners, and other equipment or administrative expenses directly related to secure firearm storage; and WHEREAS, the Mankato Department of Public Safety seeks to enhance firearm storage practices through improvements that support safety, security, organization, documentation, and access control; and WHEREAS, grant funds may be used for secure storage cabinets, locking storage systems, configurable shelving, card access, camera coverage, and related improvements; and WHEREAS, the grant program does not require a local match but is administered on a reimbursement basis; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that applying for this grant is in the best interest of the City of Mankato and supports the Department of Public Safety’s ongoing efforts to maintain safe, secure, and accountable firearm storage practices. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the City Manager, or her designee, is authorized to apply for funding through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Firearms Storage Grants – Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program on behalf of the Mankato Department of Public Safety. This Resolution shall become effective upon its passage and without further publication. Dated this 22 nd day of June 2026. _______________________________ ## Najwa Massad ## Mayor Attest: _______________________________ ## Renae Kopischke ## City Clerk/Admin. Coordinator ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## Consent Calendar 5. -. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Set July 13, 2026, as the date of hearing for a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 8, Sec.10-271 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the corner side yard setback from ten feet to five feet, four inches in the O-R, Office Residential District to construct a deck (502 North 2nd Street); by request of Generation Properties. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Set July 13, 2026, as the date of hearing to review the variance at 502 N. 2nd Street. ## Summary: The applicant, Generation Properties, on behalf of the property owner, Tony Baumann, is requesting to set July 13, 2026, as the date of hearing a variance from Chapter 10, Article II, Division 8, Sec.10-271 of the Mankato City Code to decrease the corner side yard setback from ten feet (10’) to five feet, four inches (5’4”) in the O-R, Office Residential, zoning district. The variance is being requested in order to allow for the construction of a new, attached deck (balcony). The subject property is addressed as 502 N. 2nd Street, Mankato, MN 56001. Mankato City Code requires that structures provide setbacks from the property line, including a setback of a balcony/deck from the property line. The required setbacks are determined based on the zoning district, and the proposed use of the property. The applicant intends to attach a second floor balcony to the existing residential portion of the structure, extending an additional 4 feet, making the balcony 5'4" inches from the property line instead of 10 feet. The balcony would be installed at 14'6" inches above grade, with the proposed support structure installed at 9'6" above grade. The deck/balcony is not proposed to extend beyond the existing side wall of the structure and therefore shall not impact the existing structural rear yard setback. An administrative hearing will be held on June 24, 2026, for the purpose of providing An administrative hearing will be held on June 24, 2026, for the purpose of providing neighboring property owners an opportunity to provide feedback related to the variance. ## Attachments ## General Location Map ## Aerial ## Site Plan This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: June 2026 Author : ## General Location Map This inf or ma ti o n is to be us ed f o r re fe re nce purpo se s o nly . The City o f Ma nka to do es no t gua rante e ac cura cy o f the ma ter ia l c o nta ine d he rei n a nd is no t res pons ible f o r mi sus e o r mis inte rpreta tio n. % ## Date: June 2026 Author : ## Aerial Map ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 6. A. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolution petitioning District Court for appointments to the City of Mankato's Charter Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. 410.05. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolution. ## Summary: The City of Mankato is a Home Rule Charter City with an adopted charter. As part of the Charter, the city is required to have a Charter Commission. The District Court in Blue Earth County, acting through its chief judge, is the appointing authority for members to the city's Charter Commission, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 410.05. The Charter Commission currently has four terms expiring as of June 30, 2024. Minn. Stat. 410.05, Subd. 3, allows the City Council to submit to the Court the names of eligible nominees which the District Court may consider in making appointments to the Charter Commission. The Commission must be comprised of not less than seven, and not more than fifteen members. The following have terms that will expire on June 30, 2026, and they are interested in being reappointed to a four-year term expiring on June 30, 2030: Trudy Kunkel and Mike Lagerquist. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. Upon adoption, the City Clerk will send notice of the recommendation to the District Court for consideration. ## Attachments ## Resolution ## RESOLUTION PETITIONING DISTRICT COURT FOR APPOINTMENTS TO FILL ## VACANCIES ON CHARTER COMMISSION PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 410.05 WHEREAS, the City of Mankato is a Home Rule Charter City with an adopted charter; and WHEREAS, the District Court in Blue Earth County, acting through its chief judge, appointed a charter commission for the City of Mankato pursuant to Minn. Stat. §410.05, subd 1; and WHEREAS, the Charter Commission of the City of Mankato currently has vacancies; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §410.05, subd. 2 provides that vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by appointment of the chief judge for the specified terms; WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd 3 allows the City Council to submit to the Court the names of the eligible nominees which the District Court may consider in making appointments to the charter commission; and WHEREAS, the commission shall be composed of not less than seven members, and not more than fifteen members, each of whom a qualified voter of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mankato, Minnesota as follows: 1.The Mankato City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to petition the District Court to fill the current vacancies on Mankato Charter Commission; 2.In accordance with Minn. Stat. §410.05, the City of Mankato respectfully requests appointment of the following Charter Commission Members: ## NAMETERM ## Trudy Kunkel ## Mike Lagerquist Appoint to a four-year term expiring June 30, 2030. 3. These appointments will bring membership of the Mankato Charter Commission to a total of six (6) Commissioners. This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. Passed this 22 nd day of June 2026. ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST:________________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, City Clerk ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Manager's Report ## 6. B. ## City Council Regular Meeting ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Resolutions authorizing the City Manager and Construction Manager at Risk to solicit bids for the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Mankato Regional Airport and submitting applications for the current Federal Funding Grant Obligation and future FAA Discretionary Grant Funding. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of the attached resolutions ## Summary: The funding necessary for design and engineering of the airport tower has been received and was covered by a 100% federally funded grant. On June 1, 2026, the airport tower design and engineering team provided the Issue for Bid/Permit documents finalizing the tower design. Next steps include the Construction Manager at Risk soliciting bids for the construction project. Construction is estimated to cost $27.7 Million based on the final plans and includes construction administration, controller equipment, airfield lighting regulators, furniture, reimbursable agreement with the FAA, independent cost estimates, and city administration costs. The City has been awarded $9.765 million in funding for construction. $3.5 Million – Congressionally Directed Spending (FFY 2026) ## 95% Federal Funding ## 2.5% State Funding ## 2.5% Local Funding ## $5.0 Million – Federal Contract Tower Program (FFY 2026) Funds must be obligated by September 1, 2026 ## 100% Federal Funding ## $1.265 Million – State Airport Fund Available until June 30, 2028 ## 100% State Funding Available to cover all local share cost participation. Staff have been working with our local FAA District Office since the Federal Contract Tower grant announcement on additional funding opportunities. FAA staff have encouraged the City to apply for remaining funding through their Discretionary Program. The FAA will be collecting unobligated funds from fiscal years 2022 and 2023 to make them available through this program. Because of the IIJA funding associated with these grant dollars, the federal share has increased to 95% funding for 2026. Beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2027, which begins October 1, 2026, discretionary funding levels will return to the statutory 90% Federal Share. As of March 31, 2026, 47.3% of the Airport Infrastructure Grant funds were unobligated ($6.9 Billion). In order to submit the application to obligate the current Federal FCT grant and to apply for the discretionary funding, actual bid amounts are required to be submitted to the FAA. Moving forward with the solicitation for bids does not obligate the City of Mankato to move forward with the project nor does it commit any local dollars to the project. If authorized by the Council, the bids would be advertised as being held for a period up to May 1, 2027, to allow time for additional funding to be sought. The bids would not be awarded until the funding sources have been determined, and the Council authorizes the project to proceed to construction. Below is a proposed schedule for the bidding process and application for discretionary funding. ## Proposed Schedule: June 22Council Meeting Discussion. June 23Release Bids. June 26Pre-Bid Meeting. July 14Open Bids. July 27Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) due. July 28 Share GMP with FAA along with an application for discretionary funding and an FCT grant agreement. September 30Receive notification of funding. The process does deviate from the City’s standard practice of assembling a funding package for the entire project prior to releasing bids. Due to the FAA process, actual bid information is a requirement for both the grant execution for the Federal Contract Tower program and the application for discretionary funding. With the increased activity at the airport along with safety concerns noted during the air traffic control tower study submitted as part of the FCT application, there is risk associated with not moving the project forward at this time. In consultation with the city attorney and our consultant partners, the plan as proposed is a reasonable and necessary path forward. Future touchpoints with the council will include the following: Notifications of future funding Formal acceptance of future grants Upon acceptable funding strategy, formal award of bids through the execution of the GMP amendment with Knutson Construction Staff recommend authorizing the City Manager and Construction Manager at Risk to solicit bids for the construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Mankato Regional Airport and submitting applications for the current Federal Funding Grant Obligation and future FAA Discretionary Grant Funding. ## Attachments ## Resolution Bids ## Resolution Discretionary ## Resolution Grant Obligation ## RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ## AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER WHEREAS; the City of Mankato is the sponsor of the Mankato Regional Airport; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport was accepted into the FAA Contract Tower Program on April 19, 2022; and WHEREAS; agreements with Knutson Construction are in accordance with Minnesota Statute 471.463 for construction of the Airport Control Tower; and WHEREAS; the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) has not been established. WHEREAS; the FAA has not fully funded the project and requires bids to support additional funding opportunities; ## NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the City Manager and Knutson Construction are authorized to release bids for construction of the Airport Traffic Control Tower. This resolution shall become effective upon passage without further publication. ## CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mankato at a duly authorized meeting held on June 22, 2026. Adopted this 22nd day of June 2026. ________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST: ___________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, MMC ## City Clerk ## RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR DISCRETIONARY FAA AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL ## TOWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS WHEREAS; the City of Mankato is the sponsor of the Mankato Regional Airport; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport was accepted into the FAA Contract Tower Program on April 19, 2022; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) competitive grants; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Contract Tower (FTC) ## Competitive Grant Program; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Airport Infrastructure Grants (AIG) Program competitive grants; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Airport Infrastructure ## Grants (AIG) Funding Reallocation Program; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Airport Terminals Program c ompetitive grants; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport is eligible for the FAA Airport Safety and ## Resilient Infrastructure Discretionary Program grants; and WHEREAS; the Federal share for the Infrastruc ture Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is 95% for fiscal year 2026 will return to statutory limits for fiscal year 2027; and WHEREAS; the projected cost for constructing the Contract Tower is $27,700,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the City Manager is authorized to apply to the competitive FAA discretionary grant programs for federal fiscal year 2026 funding opportunities. This resolution shall become effective upon passage without further publication. ## CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing res olution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Counc il of the City of Mankato at a duly authorized meeting held on June 22, 2026. Adopted this 22nd day of June 2026. ________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST: ___________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, MMC ## City Clerk ## RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR AWARDED FAA AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ## CONSTRUCTION FUNDS. WHEREAS; the City of Mankato is the sponsor of the Mankato Regional Airport; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport was accepted into the FAA Contract Tower Program on April 19, 2022; and WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport was awarded $5,000,000 from the FAA Contract Tower (FCT) Program supporting the project at 100% federal share; and ## WHEREAS; Mankato Regional Airport was awarded $3,500,000 from Congressionally Directed Spending at 95% federal share; and WHEREAS; these are Federal Fiscal Year 2026 funds and must be under obligation before year end September 30, 2026; and WHEREAS; the projec ted cost for constructing the Contract Tower is $27,700,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mankato that the City Manager is authorized to obligate the funding designated for tower construction for federal fiscal year 2026. This resolution shall become effective upon passage without further publication. ## CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mankato at a duly authorized meeting held on June 22, 2026. Adopted this 22nd day of June 2026. ________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## ATTEST: ___________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, MMC ## City Clerk ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 6. C. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Consideration of the Emergency Ordinance continuing to clarify requirements for Law Enforcement Agencies and Officers within the City. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Adoption of emergency ordinance. ## Summary: At the June 8 City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed the status of the current emergency ordinance. As a result of the discussion, a new emergency ordinance has been created. As discussed, staff are planning a joint meeting with the Public Safety Advisory Committee and the City Council for Tuesday, July 28, 2026, to further discuss the matter. If adopted, staff are recommending that the ordinance commence at 12:01 a.m. on June 25, 2026, and will expire on the 61st day following the effective date, or August 24, 2026. ## Attachments ## Ordinance 1 ## EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. XX-XX ## CITY OF MANKATO ## AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE CONTINUING TO CLARIFY ## REQUIREMENTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICERS ## WITHIN THE CITY ## SECTION 1. PREAMBLE. WHEREAS, the City of Mankato (“City”) values the safety, dignity, equal protection, equal treatment, and human rights of all of its residents, regardless of race, religion, immigration status, or national origin; and WHEREAS, the City is home to persons of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a significant immigrant and refugee population; and WHEREAS, the City believes it is a safer, healthier, and more vibrant community when the City is able to maintain a relationship of trust, respect, and cooperation with its residents, all of whom are valued and integral members of the City’s social, cultural, and economic fabric; and WHEREAS, recent immigration enforcement actions by the federal government increased fear of all law enforcement within the community, and created barriers to residents’ accessing essential City services; and WHEREAS, as a result, the City enacted emergency ordinance O-2026-0223-5, on February 23, 2026, to clarify the requirements for law enforcement personnel within the city and to address the public safety concerns created by enforcement actions arising out of Operation ## Metro Surge; and WHEREAS, the City enacted emergency ordinance O-2026-0413-7, on April 13, 2026, to further clarify the requirements for law enforcement personnel within the city and to address the public safety concerns created by enforcement actions arising out of continued actions connected ## to Operation Metro Surge; and WHEREAS, although the City recently has seen a reduction of federal immigration officers in the City, the City notes concern for federal immigration enforcement actions persists within the City; and WHEREAS, while still recognizing the federal government’s legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws in the United States, in Minnesota, and in the City, the City sees value in continuing to have, in place, expectations for all law enforcement officers and agencies engaging in law enforcement actions within the City in order to maintain the public faith and trust in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, for the above stated reasons, the City Council desires to reenact the emergency ordinance for an additional thirty (60) days to further public safety and help gather 2 necessary data about continued enforcement activities for consideration of a non-emergency ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to reenact an emergency ordinance under Section 2.15 of the Mankato City Charter to address a public emergency affecting life, health, property or the public peace, which it deems does still exist. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council for the City of Mankato, that a public safety emergency still exists affecting life, health, property and peace, and the following emergency ordinance be enacted: ## SECTION 2. IDENTIFICATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 2.01 Definitions. (a)Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1)“Facial covering” means any opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear or other item that conceals or obscures the facial identity of an individual, including, but not limited to a balaclava, tactical mask, gaiter, ski mask, and any similar type of facial covering or face- shielding item. “Facial covering” does not include a translucent face shield or clear mask that does not conceal the wearer’s facial identity; a N95 medical mask or surgical mask to protect against the transmission of disease or particulates or any other mask, helmet, or device, including but not limited to, air-purifying respirators, full or half masks, or self- contained breathing apparatus necessary to protect against exposure to any toxin, gas, smoke, inclement weather, or any other hazardous or harmful environmental condition; a helmet when worn by law enforcement agency personnel utilizing a motorcycle, bicycle, or other vehicle that requires a helmet for safe operation while in the performance of their duties; or eyewear necessary to protect from the use of retinal weapons, including, but not limited to, lasers. (2)“Law enforcement agency” has the meaning provided in Minn. Stat. §626.84, subd. 1(f) and additionally includes: Any entity of a city, county, or other local jurisdiction or agency that employs peace officer as defined in Minn. Stat. § 626.84, subd. 1(c). Any law enforcement agency of the State of Minnesota. Any law enforcement agency of another state. Any United States law enforcement agency. (3) “Law enforcement officer” means a peace officer as defined in Minn. Stat. §626.84, subd. 1(c) and any officer or agent with the authority to make arrests as a law 3 enforcement agency of the State of Minnesota, the United States government, or any other state. (4)“Law enforcement action” means any effort by state, federal or local law enforcement agencies, as defined herein, to enforce local, state or federal laws, including, stops, detentions, seizures, executions of warrants, executions of searches or arrests. (5)“Portable recording system” means a device worn by a law enforcement officer that is capable of both video and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation. 2.02 Notification of Law Enforcement Presence. Any law enforcement agency intending to engage in law enforcement actions within the jurisdictional bounds of the City shall make good faith efforts to notify the City Department of Public Safety of its intended presence before operating in the City. In those instances when doing so would impede the law enforcement agency’s lawful undercover action, then the law enforcement agency will notify the City Department of Public Safety as soon a practically possible after arriving within the City’s jurisdiction. The purpose of this notification is to avoid inadvertent interference or conflict with, or emergency response to an operation of another law enforcement agency. 2.03 Portable Recording Device. Any law enforcement agency which utilizes portable recording devices in their own jurisdiction shall require its personnel to wear and use a portable recording system while actively engaging in law enforcement actions within the City. The wear and use of such portable recording system by a law enforcement agency and law enforcement officers shall substantially comport with the requirements of Mankato Department of Public Safety Policy 424 “Portable Audio/Video Recorders” or any updated City policy addressing similar subject matter, or other similar policy compliant with Minn. Stat. §626.8473. 2.03 Facial Covering Prohibition. Except for when allowed pursuant to Minn. Stat. §609.735, a law enforcement officer shall not wear a facial covering that conceals or obscures the officer’s facial identity in the course of performing law enforcement actions while within the City. This section does not apply to protective gear used by special weapons and tactics team officers or officers of a similar organization, where such gear is necessary to protect the officers’ faces from harm while performing their special weapons and tactics team responsibilities. 2.04 Identification upon Request. A law enforcement officer engaging in law enforcement actions within the City shall provide identifying information, including but not limited to the 4 officer’s last name and badge number or a similar identifier. The provision of providing such identifying information shall, where reasonably possible, be made in writing or by a business card and enable the requestor to discuss the interaction and any seizure of personal property with the law enforcement agency which employs the law enforcement officer. This section does not apply when a law enforcement officer is not actively engaging in law enforcement actions, is working undercover or when giving identifying information would compromise the officer’s covert status or materially delay an active pursuit in process. 2.05 Scope. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to violate federal law. The City and its departments and employees will comply with federal law including 8 U.S.C. §§1373. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed to interfere with the City's compliance with the terms of any contract or grant in effect as of the effective date of this ordinance to which the City is a party. This ordinance does not apply to property owned by the federal government. Nothing herein shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the execution of court orders or lawful judicial warrants, or the enforcement of criminal law, nor as limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance recognizes the automatic repeal of O-2026-0413- 7 on the 61 st day following it’s adoption, and shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 of the Mankato City Charter, serve to reenact the substance of that ordinance by becoming effective on June 24, 2026. Further, this Ordinance shall be published and printed as prescribed for other adopted ordinances. This Ordinance shall stand repealed as of the 61st day following the effective date, unless another reenactment is adopted by the City Council or, in the alternative, the City Council repeals sooner. SECTION 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision of this ordinance or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mankato this 22 nd day of June, 2026. ## By:______________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor ## Attest:______________________________ ## Renae Kopischke, City Clerk, MMC ## AGENDA RECOMMENDATION ## City Council Regular Meeting ## 6. D. ## Meeting Date:06/22/2026 ## Agenda Item: Consideration of Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas. ## Recommendation/Action(s): Motion to set July 13, 2026, as the date of hearing for consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas. ## Summary: At the May 26, City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed information and discussed interest in moving forward an ordinance for the keeping of chickens in the City. The Council discussed a number of desired parameters to be included. A review of the City’s Animal Ordinance has been done, and a proposed Ordinance has been drafted. A few key elements of the amendment include: Changes the definition of animal to include every non-human species of animal and clarify that it does not include non-domesticated animals. Creates definitions for words that relate to the keeping of chickens. Improves the definition of non-domesticated animals. Provides that no person shall sell non-domesticated animals within the City limits. Creates exceptions for certain small animals commonly kept as pets, research institutions or veterinary hospitals with a license, service animals, and provides for animals for which their owner has requested a reasonable accommodation for disability. Maintains the provision that requires a license and other actions for consideration of the keeping of animals other than dogs, cats, or chickens, in a zoo, museum, or educational facility. Allows for a person to keep, in a single family, residentially zoned area, up to 4 hens. Roosters and cockfighting are prohibited. Allows renters of single-family dwellings to have chickens, with the consent of the property owner. Requires chickens to be kept within a coop or run, which can be obtained with a zoning permit. Creates requirements for the chicken coop and run to include that the coop and run must be in the rear yard, a minimum of 10 feet from any property line, and the coop is no more than 120 square feet in size. Creates a maximum size of the chicken run to be no more than 20 square feet per hen kept on the property. As discussed in May, failure to comply with this new ordinance would be considered a violation of the City’s Animal Code and is a misdemeanor under state law. If adopted, the new ordinance would be subject to enforcement of administrative citations and subject to civil fines pursuant to the Administrative Procedure set forth in Chapter 2, Article III, of City Code and nuisance abatement actions may be pursued in Civil District Court, similar to other nuisance violations. Staff are recommending the proposed draft. If the City Council finds the draft acceptable, staff recommend setting July 13, 2026, as the date for hearing on the proposed ordinance. ## Attachments ## Ordinance ## Document Number: 1100480 1 ## ORDINANCE NO. _____________ ## CITY OF MANKATO ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ## KEEPING CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mankato (“City”) has the authority to regulate animals and land use within its borders to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, there is a growing interest among residents in urban agriculture, local food production, sustainability, and self-sufficiency; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the unregulated keeping of poultry in urban and suburban areas can create potential public nuisances, including excessive noise, offensive odors, attraction of predators and pests, and public health concerns; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proper management, containment, and care of chickens are necessary to mitigate these potential negative impacts on neighboring properties and the community at large; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on [Date], after due notice, to allow individuals to provide input regarding amendments to the City Code concerning the keeping of chickens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council for the City of Mankato, that the following revisions and additions be enacted: SECTION 1.City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, ANIMALS, ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL, Section 4-1. - Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following stricken-through text: Sec. 4-1. – Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Animal means every non-human species of animal. The term “animal” does not include non-domesticated animals. any cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, and all other animals and feathered fowl, except dogs, and cats, unless such pets are specifically included in particular subdivisions hereof, and then this definition shall extend to such section only. Animal control officer means the person or entity designated by the city from time to time to carry out the duties imposed under this chapter and exercise the authority granted by this chapter on behalf of the city. Attack means the deliberate action of a dog, whether or not in response to a command by a person, to bite, to seize with its teeth or to pursue any human, animal or inanimate object, with the intent to destroy, kill, wound, injure or otherwise harm the object of its action. Chicken means a female domesticated fowl of the species genus Gallus or species G. Gallus . Chicken coop means a structure for the keeping and housing of chickens. Chicken run means a securely enclosed area and locked pen or structure where chickens can roam unsupervised. Farm animal. Any of the various species of animals commonly found on a farm, ranch or stable and kept for agricultural purposes such as, but not limited to, horses, cattle, goats, sheep, llamas, and swine. Hen means a female chicken. Hobby kennel means a non-commercial facility or private residence where a person keeps, breeds, or raises a specific number of dogs primarily for personal enjoyment, passion, or sport rather than for primary income. Keeping means an occupant knowingly permitting any animal habitually to remain, stay or lodge on the property occupied or controlled by such occupant, or to feed for three or more consecutive days at the property occupied or controlled by such occupant. Non-domesticated animal means any wild animal, reptile or fowl that is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human life or property. Owner means any person keeping harboring, or having charge or control of, or permitting any animal habitually to be or remain on, or be lodged or fed within, such person's house, yard or premises excluding veterinarians or commercial kennel operators temporarily maintaining on their premises, for a period of 60 days or less, animals owned by others. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top and shall provide protection from the elements for the animal. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the animal to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the animal from exiting. A chicken coop is a type of enclosure separately regulated herein. Provocation means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. Rooster means a male chicken. Running at large means off the premises of the owner or keeper and not under the control of a person by leash, cord or chain of not more than ten feet in length. SECTION 2. City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4 – ANIMALS, ARTICLE I. – IN GENERAL, Sec. 4-7. – Zoning restrictions; accessory use license, is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 4-7. – Zoning rRestrictions; accessory use license (a) Non-domesticated animals . (1) Keeping . No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city any animal or species prohibited by federal or state law or any non-domesticated animal or species, including, but not limited to, the following: i.Any farm animal, other than chickens, as allowed by Code or unless licensed by the City. ii.Any skunk, raccoon, bear or badger. iii.Any cat of the family Felidae such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated house cats. iv.Any member of the family Canidae, such as, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos and jackals, except domesticated dogs. v.Any crossbreed such as the crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes or dogs and wolves but does not include crossbred domesticated animals. vi.Any poisonous pit viper such as a rattlesnake, coral snake, water moccasin or cobra. vii.Any other animal not listed explicitly above but which can reasonably be defined as a wild animal or animal prohibited by this section. (2) Sale. No person shall offer for sale, within the city limits, any animal prohibited in subsection (a) of this section. (3) Exceptions. The keeping restrictions of this section shall not apply to the following: (i)Nonpoisonous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, ferrets, or lizards, and similar small animals capable of being maintained continuously in cages. (ii)Animals kept by any bona fide research institution or veterinary hospital licensed pursuant to this Section and demonstrating the existence of adequate protective devices to prevent such animals from escaping or injuring the public. (iii)Animals that qualify as service animals under federal law, defined as a dog or another federally recognized service animal, which are individually trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of an individual with a disability including physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual or other mental disabilities. (iv)Animals for which their owner has requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability from the City and the City has granted the accommodation pursuant to City policy or applicable code. (b) (a) Animals, other than dogs, cats and chickens. Keeping restricted; license required. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, not in transit, in any part of the city, unless the animal is a dog, cat or chicken otherwise allowed by City Code, or unless the area where the animal is kept is zoned for agricultural purposes or a license has been issued for an accessory use in an approved zoo, museum, or educational facility as permitted under chapter 10. (1) (b)Application. Application for license under this section must be made to the city's animal control officer and shall comply with the following: (1) (i) The application must demonstrate the purpose for keeping of animals as accessory to an approved principal use of property as a zoo, museum, or educational facility as defined in chapter 10. (2) (ii) Applicants must provide information for each type of animal; information must include species, type of housing provided, fencing and required enclosures, manure management plan, groundwater and surface water protection, sound and odor control, as well as other pertinent information required by the city's animal control officer. (3) (iii) The application shall be accompanied by a site plan that conforms to section 10-1812. (4) (iv) An application fee, as set by city council resolution and provided in the city fee schedule, shall be submitted with the application. (2) (c)Property inspection. The property subject to an application will be subject to inspection of the premises where the animals are to be located. (3) (d)Factors considered. Considerations in granting a license shall include, but not be limited to, the ability to provide adequate fencing, housing of the animals, sufficient and appropriate space for the animals indoors and out, a plan for waste disposal, surface water and groundwater quality protection, and impact on abutting properties. (4) (e)Neighborhood meeting required. As part of the application review process, a neighborhood meeting shall be held by the animal control office whereby the abutting property owners may review and provide testimony regarding the application. If an abutting property owner can demonstrate that such use may negatively impact their property, then the license application shall be denied by the animal control officer. (5) (f)Appeal of license denial. Applicants whose license application has been denied may file a written request for an appeal to the city clerk within five days of being informed of the decision to deny the issuance of a license. The city council will then review the decision to determine whether or not the action was correct. The city council may, in connection with its review of the action, either affirm, reverse, or modify the actions. The applicant shall be advised by mail of the date and time that the council will hear the applicant's appeal. (6) (g)License conditions. Licenses shall specify any restrictions, limitations, conditions or prohibitions which the city's animal control officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, annoyance, or to protect the public health or safety. In no case shall the total number of animal units exceed ten as defined by county feedlot ordinances. (7) (h)Modifications. A license may be modified from time to time by the city manager or designee. Modification of the license shall be effective from and after ten days from the date of the written notice of modification to the license holder. (8) (i)Revocation. A license may be revoked or suspended for violations of this Code, or by reason of the violation of any health or nuisance ordinance, or other order, law or regulation. Revocation of the license shall be effective ten days after the date of the written notice of revocation. Revocation of a license may be appealed pursuant to the appeal process set forth in chapter 2. SECTION 3. City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, ANIMALS, ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL, is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 4-10: Sec. 4-10. Adopted by Reference. For the purpose of prescribing regulations governing the keeping of animals, the city hereby adopts the following rules and statutes, as they may be amended or recodified from time to time: (a)M.S.A. §§ 343.20 to 343.40 for prevention of to animals; (b)M.S.A. Chapter 346 regarding stray and companion animals; (c)M.S.A. § 346.57 regarding dog, cat or ferrets in motor vehicles; (d)M.S.A. Chapter 347 regarding cats and dogs; (e)M.S.A. §§ 347.51, 347.515 and 347.52 regarding dangerous dogs; and (f) M.S.A. §§ 609.226 and 609.227 regarding assault by dog. SECTION 4. City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, ANIMALS, is hereby amended by adding the following new Article III. - CHICKENS: ## Article III. – CHICKENS Sec. 4-89. – General Requirements. Any person keeping chickens in single-family dwelling units shall adhere to all requirements below: (a)Hens, defined herein as “chickens”, may be may kept, harbored, maintained, or cared for in any residentially used or residentially zoned property that has a single-family dwelling unit on it. No person shall keep chickens on any property with two or more dwelling units on it. The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or caring for of roosters, cockerels, capons or any other poultry is prohibited under all circumstances. (b)The owners of the chickens shall live in the single-family dwelling unit on the property. (c)No person shall keep more than four total chickens on any single-family residential property. This number shall be in addition to the maximum number of domestic animals permitted under this Chapter, including Section 4-38 of City Code. (d)Chickens must at all times remain confined on the premises and in a chicken coop or chicken run, located in the property’s rear yard, as that term is defined in Article X of the Mankato City Code, and properly protected from the weather and predators. No person shall keep, harbor, maintain or care for chickens without first constructing a chicken coop and chicken run in compliance with the requirements set forth in this Section. No free- range keeping or running at large of chickens is allowed. (e)Chickens shall have access to the outdoors in a chicken run. (f)Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and in good repair. Flies, rodents and objectionable odors shall be contained. (g)Chickens shall not be kept inside a dwelling or garage, except chickens which are four weeks of age or younger. (h)All grain and food stored for the use of the chickens shall be kept in rodent-proof and leak- proof containers with tight-fitting covers. (i)Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be kept free of accumulated fecal matter and all collected fecal material shall be bagged and properly disposed of at least once a week. Stored fecal matter must be kept in a leak-proof container with a tight-fitting cover until removal from the premises. (j)It shall be unlawful for any person who is a tenant, renter, or lessee of a residential property to keep or maintain chickens on said property, without first obtaining the express written consent of the property owner or authorized property management company. (k)No person shall raise chickens for breeding purposes. (l)No person may slaughter any chicken on residentially-used properties or within any residential zone within the City. (m)No person keeping a chicken may advertise the sale of chickens or eggs and must comply with all Minnesota Department of Agriculture requirements for such sale. (n)Cockfighting is specifically prohibited. Sec. 4-91. – Chicken Coop and Chicken Run Requirements. (a)Accessory Structure Zoning Permit. Any person desiring to construct or place a chicken coop and a chicken run on a property within the City shall be required to apply for and receive an accessory structure zoning permit from the City. If the person desiring to construct or place a chicken coop on a property is not the property owner, the property owner must sign the permit application in addition to the applicant. (b)All chicken coops in the city shall adhere to the following requirements: (1)Structural Requirements: i.Chicken coops must be suitably designed and constructed in a workmanlike manner to provide the chickens with protection from the elements, prevent the chickens from escaping, and deter access by rodents or predators. ii.Maximum size must not exceed an area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet or a height of six (6) feet. (2)Chicken coops must be located entirely in a property’s rear yard and set back at least 10 feet from any property line, including from a rear property line adjacent to or abutting a street or alley. (3)The distance between a chicken coop and the nearest wall of the primary residential structure on the property must be less than the distance between the chicken coop and the nearest wall of any neighboring residential structure. (4)Chicken coops shall not count towards maximum ground coverage requirements applicable to the property’s applicable zoning district. (c)All chicken runs in the city shall adhere to the following requirements. ## (1)Chicken Run Structural Requirements: i.Chicken run must be suitably designed and constructed in a workmanlike manner to prevent chickens from escaping, and to deter access by rodents, or predators. ii.Chicken run must be enclosed with fencing, weather resistant/green treated wood and/or woven wire materials, and must allow chickens to contact the ground. iii.Chicken run must have a form of protected netting overhead sufficient to prevent access by predators or other animals. (2)Maximum size of chicken run must not exceed an area of twenty square feet per hen kept on property or a height of six (6) feet. (3)Chicken runs must be located entirely in a property’s rear yard and set back at least 10 feet from any property line, including from a rear property line adjacent to or abutting a street or alley. (4)The distance between a chicken run and the nearest wall of the primary residential structure on the property must be less than the distance between any side of the chicken run and the nearest wall of any neighboring residential structure. (5)Chicken runs shall not count towards maximum ground coverage requirements applicable to the property’s applicable zoning district. Sec. 4-92. – Prevention of Nuisance Conditions. Owners shall care for chickens in a humane manner. It shall be a public nuisance to fail to meet any of the following conditions: (a)Chicken coops and chicken runs must be maintained in good repair and in a clean and sanitary manner free of vermin. rodents and objectionable odors. (b)Feces and discarded feed must be regularly collected and stored in a leak-proof container with a tight-fitting cover to prevent nuisance odors and the attraction of vermin or rodents until it can be disposed of properly. (c)Chicken feed must be stored in leak-proof containers with a tight-fitting cover to prevent attracting vermin or rodents. (d)Composting of feces and discarded feed is allowed. Such composting must be performed at least 10 feet from the property lot lines. The composting of chicken feces is allowed for personal use only, and must be kept in a secure, enclosed bin designed for composting. The compost must be fully processed and stabilized before being applied to any soil used for cultivating food crops. If no composting occurs, then all collected fecal material shall be bagged and properly disposed of at least once a week. (e)Chickens shall be secured inside of the chicken coop from sunset to sunrise each day to prevent nuisance noise and attracting predators. (f)Chickens shall remain in either the chicken coop or chicken run at all times and shall not run at large. (g)Chicken coops shall be winterized in a manner sufficient to protect the chickens in cold weather. Sec. 4-93. – Penalties. Unless otherwise specifically noted herein, a violation of any provision of city’s Animal Code, Chapter 4, shall be a misdemeanor under state law. In addition, the provisions of this Article III shall be subject to enforcement by administrative citations and subject to civil fines pursuant to the Administrative Procedure set forth in Chapter 2, Article III, of this code, and nuisance abatement actions which may be pursued in Civil District Court action. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Article III is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Article III. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.14 of the Mankato City Charter, become effective thirty (30) days after publication of notice of its adoption. Passed and adopted this ____ day of ____, 2026 ## By:____________________________________ ## Najwa Massad, Mayor Attest: ____________________ ## Renae Kopischke, City Clerk