Loading...
091415 EDACITY OF NEW HOPE EDA MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North September 14, 2015 EDA Meeting will commence upon adjournment of the City Council Meeting President Kathi Hemken Commissioner John Elder Commissioner Andy Hoffe Commissioner Eric Lammle Commissioner Jonathan London 1. Callto order EDA Meeting of September 14, 2015 2, Roll call 3. Approval of Minutes: • August 24, 2015 4. Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 and approval of a preliminary budget for fiscal year 2016. 5. Resolution approving contract with Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc. for hazardous material abatement at 4415 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no. 965) 6. Resolution approving contract with Scott's Tree Removal for tree removal and stump grinding at 4415 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no. 965) 7. Adjournment CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 EDA Minutes August 24, 2015 Regular Meeting City Hall CALL TO ORDER President Hemken called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Kathi Hemken, President John Elder, Commissioner Andy Hoffe, Commissioner Eric Lammle, Commissioner Jonathan London, Commissioner Staff Present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist Scott Crocker, Police Captain Valerie Leone, City Clerk Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works Steve Sondrall, City Attorney APPROVAL OF Motion was made by Commissioner Hoffe, seconded by Commissioner MINUTES London, to approve the minutes of August 10, 2015. Voting in favor: Item 3 Hemken, Hoffe, Lammle, London; voting against: None; Absent: None; Abstained: Elder. Motion carried. IMP. PROJECT 956 President Hemken introduced for discussion EDA Item 4, Resolution Item 4 approving contract with Nitti Rolloff Services, Inc. for the demolition and site grading of 9121 62nd Avenue North (improvement project no. 956). Mr. Aaron Chirpich, community development specialist, recommended approval of a contract with Nitti Rolloff Services, Inc. for $15,970 for demolition of the structure and site re -grading at the city -owned property of 9121 62nd Avenue North. He stated the property is being prepared to facilitate the creation of two buildable lots on the site. Mr. Chirpich explained originally the house was scheduled for a controlled burn by West Metro Fire -Rescue District, but the fire department is unable to use the structure for a burn training exercise as the house is structurally unsafe, and staff recommends the house be razed as soon as possible. Mr. Chirpich stated the city received four bids ($15,970, $18,300, $19,200 and $32,270). He recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder, Nitti Rolloff Services. He stated CDBG funds will be used for the expenditure. Commissioner Elder recommended staff conduct a reference check on Nitti Rolloff Services to ensure they are capable of completing the job as the city has not utilized the contractor for past projects. EDA Meeting Page 1 August 24, 2015 RESOLUTION 2015-10 Commissioner Elder introduced the following resolution and moved its Item 4 adoption "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH NITTI ROLLOFF SERVICES, INC. FOR THE DEMOLITION AND SITE GRADING OF 9121 62"m AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 956)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner London, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder, Hoffe, Lammle, London; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was _declared _ duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner London, seconded by Commissioner Elder, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone, City Clerk EDA Meeting Page 2 August 24, 2015 ,. Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager/Finance September 14, 2015 I EDA By; Item No. Kirk McDonald, City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 4 Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 and approval of a preliminary budget for fiscal year 2016 Requested Action Staff requests the EDA to adopt the attached resolution establishing the EDA levy for the 2016 budget. Background Historically the amount of the EDA levy was included in the city's proposed levy. At AEM's recommendation, beginning with the 2015 budget year, a separate resolution has been adopted by the EDA for the EDA levy. The amount of the EDA levy was at $85,000 for several years and increased to $150,000 in year 2014. No increase in the EDA levy is recommended for 2016. • 2013 - $85,000 • 2014 - $150,000 (an increase of $65,000 to fund the CD assistant position) + 2015 - $150,000 • 2016 - $150,000 Attachment EDA Resolution Proposed Tax levy Motion by Second by CZa,,amZt- To: / I:RFA/Finance/Budget/2016/Q-EDA Property Tax Levy 09.14.15 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED LEVY OF A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the "EDA Act"), the City Council of the City of New Hope created the City of New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy and collect a special benefit levy of up to .0185 percent of estimated market value in the City upon all taxable real property within the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to .0185 percent estimated market value of the City for taxes payable in 2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by September 15; and WHEREAS, the Authority has before it 2016 the amount of the proposed levy for collection in 2016, subject to any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special benefit levy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the City of New Hope Economic Development Authority: 1. The proposed budget of $150,000 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year 2016, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. 2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statues, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6. 3. The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of estimated market value in the City of New Hope, currently estimated to be $1,418,969,337 with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2015, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 275.07. 4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2016 and to take such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final budget and levy to be sent to the county auditor on or before five working days after December 20, 2015. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority on September 14, 2015. President Attest: Executive Director 9A z tt Iz V 0- fl co cd Cd N Q) ;-4 V � PI -ILA O O tl� cf; cq dt c� \0 I dq Cf) d+ N L H Cf) \D ON m m t.f) 110 Lf) M d+ d+ LD O m H N O i 00 di d+ O 01 t.f) H Lf) m H 00 H l� db, O N ltdq LO a1 00 N dq M N N \O LO ON 00 O d� `0 co H 0 O L< N Ict 00 O H i&I H O H 00 O r-1 err N H N O H O H iP. z 91 i 000 O O l� db, O Cf) 00 e-�I 0 �4-1 v u U '5 O*v � v Cd GQ ct > o 4-1 W o p u��' 5 Q 4-1 V V � O N 4 LO H O N 0 O L< N Ict 00 O H i&I H O H 00 O r-1 err N H N O H O H iP. z 91 EDA baRequest for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development September 14, 2015 EDA Item No. By: Aaron Chirpich, CD Specialist By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 5 Jeff Sargent, CD Director Resolution approving contract with Twin Cities Abatement Technologies Inc, for hazardous material abatement at 4415 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no. 965) Requested Action Staff requests approval of a resolution awarding a contract for the abatement of hazardous materials at 4415 Nevada Avenue North, to the low and responsible bidder, Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc in the amount of $5,400. Policy/Past Practice When public biding is required as part of the Scattered Site Housing Program, it is practice of staff to present contracts to the EDA for consideration. Background The City has recently acquired the single family home located at 4415 Nevada Ave N, as part of the Scattered Site Housing Program. The Council has directed staff to take the necessary steps in preparing the home for demolition in order to facilitate the creation of two buildable lots. Before the home can be torn down., all hazardous materials identified in the demolition survey must be removed. Requests for hazardous material abatement quotes were sent to three contractors. The bid results are as follows: + Aztec Asbestos Removal, LLC $7,350 + Robinson Environmental, Inc $6,706 + Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc $5,400 Staff is interested in razing the home as soon as possible to remove the liability from the City. Therefore, as per the project specifications, the selected contractor has been given until October 9th to complete the abatement work. Motion by /)I/YA Second by To: I RFA COMM DEV DeveIo ment Housin &R Award Asbestos Removal Contract for Improvement Project 965 Request for Action Page 2 September 14, 2015 Funding The City will be reimbursed by Hennepin County with Community Development Block Grant funds for all costs associated with the abatement of hazardous materials. Recommendation Staff recommends that the EDA approve the resolution approving the contract for $5,400 with Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc for the abatement of hazardous materials at 4415 Nevada Avenue North. Experience with Recommended Contractor The City has recently worked with the recommended low bidding contractor. Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc completed the hazardous material abatement at two of the city's recent scattered site properties that were acquired in 2014, The overall experience working with the contractor was smooth and the quality of work completed at both locations was very good. Attachments Resolution • Bids Received lb Demolition Survey (specifications) EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15 - RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH TWIN CITIES ABATEMENT TECHONOLOGIES, INC FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT AT 4415 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, the City of New Hope purchased certain real property located at 4415 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope, MN (the "Property") with the intentions of redeveloping the Property; and WHEREAS, City staff intends to redevelop the Property in accordance with the City's scattered site housing program and policy and return the Property to the tax rolls for the benefit of all taxing jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, City staff is exercising due diligence to correct the Property's blighted condition by performing an environmental cleanup of the Property to be followed by the demolition of the buildings on the Property and site grading of the Property; and WHEREAS, Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc submitted a proposal that meets all of the Project Specifications as set forth on the attached Exhibit A and is the low bid; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to enter into a contract with Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc for the purpose of performing the Work; and WHEREAS, City staff is hereby seeking approval from the City Council of the selection of Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc as the duly qualified contractor to perform the Work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of New Hope as follows: L That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That selection of Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc as the Contractor to complete the abatement of all hazardous materials pursuant to the Project Specifications is approved, it being in the best interest of the City to prepare the Property for redevelopment in accordance with the City's scattered site housing program and policy. Attest: 3. That the payment of $5,400 to Twin Cities Abatement Technologies, Inc to perform the Work is hereby approved. 4. The President, Executive Director and New Hope City staff are authorized and directed to sign all appropriate documents, and to take whatever additional actions are necessary or desirable, to complete the abatement of hazardous materials located at the Property in accordance with the contract to be prepared by the City Attorney. Dated the day of September, 2015. Kirk McDonald, Executive Director Kathi Hemken, President F ] Twin Cities Abetemeni Technologies Inc R 1100 N Concord St South St Paul MN 55475 ILA PROPOSAL Page No. 1 of 1 Pages We hereby submit. specifications and estimate for: Removal of asbestos cialing texture and vermiculite from the attic of the residence listed above. All work to follow all rules and regulations of the Minnesota Dept of Health, the MPGA, and OSHA. This project wilt take 3 days to complete We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials - complete in accordance with the above specifications, for the stun of Five Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($ 5400.00 ) with payment to be made as follows: Net 30 All material is guaranteed tet lx as specified. All work to be completed in a workntmnlike manner according .to standard practices Any alteration or iron, above specifications involving extra costs, will he executed Only upon written orders. and will boemne an extra charge aver and above the aguwwentw% contintuni upon strikes, a"ident or (Clays hey'ond our control. This proposal suhjvzt lu acceptance 30 days and it 6 Void dwrealtcr art The option ntthe undersigned. Ted I..uchsinger Authorized Signature ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL I lie above prices, rpt citicatioms and conditions arc herGbv rtccepted. You are authorized to do the work as specifted. Payment will be made rwtlirncd ubo%c. tl'( VP 111): Signalwre 1.)1I F 08/10/14 Signature f -7. [:ontrw'un Forms F"No U 110 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: PHONE 7133-531-5114 DATE 0812&15 DAME City of New Hope JOB NAME Residence 33TREET 4401 Xylon Ave N STREET 4415 Nevada Ave N IfrY New Hope CITY New Hope STATE MN 55428 FATE MN 55428 We hereby submit. specifications and estimate for: Removal of asbestos cialing texture and vermiculite from the attic of the residence listed above. All work to follow all rules and regulations of the Minnesota Dept of Health, the MPGA, and OSHA. This project wilt take 3 days to complete We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials - complete in accordance with the above specifications, for the stun of Five Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($ 5400.00 ) with payment to be made as follows: Net 30 All material is guaranteed tet lx as specified. All work to be completed in a workntmnlike manner according .to standard practices Any alteration or iron, above specifications involving extra costs, will he executed Only upon written orders. and will boemne an extra charge aver and above the aguwwentw% contintuni upon strikes, a"ident or (Clays hey'ond our control. This proposal suhjvzt lu acceptance 30 days and it 6 Void dwrealtcr art The option ntthe undersigned. Ted I..uchsinger Authorized Signature ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL I lie above prices, rpt citicatioms and conditions arc herGbv rtccepted. You are authorized to do the work as specifted. Payment will be made rwtlirncd ubo%c. tl'( VP 111): Signalwre 1.)1I F 08/10/14 Signature f -7. [:ontrw'un Forms F"No U 110 Aztec Asbestos Removal LLC 36332 nd Ave S. Minneapolis MN 55409 aztecasbestos@yahoo.com 612-408-5595 Name: City of New Hope / Aaron Chirpich Address: 4415 Nevada Ave N. New Hope MN 55428 Phone: 763-531-5114 Email: achirpich@ci.new-hope.mn.us 9/4/15 We at Aztec Asbestos Removal are pleased to furnish you with this proposal for your upcoming Asbestos related project. My price is $ 00.00 for the removal of the following asbestos related material at the above listed address. • 550sgft of Ceiling texture in 15t level. $ 3,500.00 • 550sgft of Vermiculite Insulation in Attic. $ 3,850.00 « 3 smoke detectors. $ 15.00 « 1 thermostat. $ 5.00 All prices include permit (if necessary), all labor, materials, disposal and all debris and third party analysis of air clearance samples. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call us back. This price is valid for (6) months from the date listed above. Clean the work area before the start date or cleaning will be performed at the rate of $60/hour. Contractor/Owner 0ate_ _ Chir ich Aaron From: Usertim695@aol.com Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:11 PM To: Chirpich Aaron Subject: Asbestos New Hope Robinson Environmental Inc. 4716 67th Ave North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Phone (763) 566-4242 Fax (763) 566-4681 IDT, 11MIT.0111W Proposal for: City Of New Hope Attn: Aaron From: Robinson Environmental Inc, Robinson Environmental will perform Asbestos abatement At 4415 Nevada Ave N. New Hope MN. Following all Minnesota Department of Health and MPCA rules and regulations. Robinson Environmental will furnish all labor, materials equipment, and Insurance for project. Air monitoring will be done during project, and samples will be analyzed by an accredited testing firm. Scope of work: Asbestos abatement of ceiling texture, vermiculite in attic, remove 3 smoke detectors and one thermostat PRICE: 6,706.00 Timothy Robinson Chirpich Aaron From: Chirpich Aaron Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:16 PM To: 'Christian Jimenez'; 'twincities abatement', 'Usertim695@aol.com' Subject: New Hope Project Attachments: Demolition Survey 4415 Nevada.pdf Asbestos Abatement Contractors, The City of New Hope is interested in securing proposals for asbestos and hazardous material removal for the home located at 4415 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope. Angstrom Analytical has completed a demolition survey for the home and their full report is attached to this e-mail. Please provide a quote for the following. Removal of all asbestos containing materials identified in the Angstrom report (including the vermiculite insulation) Removal of all other hazardous materials identified in the Angstrom report Submit disposal manifest upon project completion The house will NOT have power or water as they have been disconnected long ago. Please confirm that you have received this e-mail and indicate if you are going to submit a proposal. 0 Proposal deadline = September 8tn • Lock box code =4401( located on the front door) • Deadline for completion of work = October 91h • Please e-mail quotes Aaron Chirpich City of New Hope I Community Development Specialist 4441 Xylon Ave N I New Hope, NW 55428 Office: 763-533.-51.1.4 l Fax: 763-531-5136 achirpich@ci.new-hope.mn.us ci.new-hope.mn.us A&ngstrom !�a iy#icai Inc. Aaron Chirpich City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 August 13, 2015 4:4.15 Nevada Av. N. New Hone, MN Dear Aaron: 5001 Cedar Lake Rd. St. Louis Park, MN 55415 952-252-0405 office. 952-252-0407 fax Darrell Potocnik (Al 2219.), a representative of Angstrom Analytical, Inc, .visited the above referenced property on August 13, 2015 :for the purpose of conducting an asbestos demolition inspection. We are prepared to state that there are friable asbestos containing building materials contained in or on the fabric of the structure. The following materials tested positive for the presence of asbestos: ceiling texture The friable materials are: 1, Approximately 550-600 square feet of :asbestos containing ceiling texture on the 1st level. No samples other than from the fabric of the building that is planned for demolition were taken or analyzed and this report only relates only to 4415 Nevada Ave. No. Forty-five samples of suspect building materials ward collected and analyzed in our laboratory by Polarized Light Microscopy. Please see attached notes, During the course of the survey other hazardous materials were noted: Misc. 3 smoke detectors 1 thermostat All friable and category II non -friable materials need to be removed, per applicable regulations, prior to any demolition efforts. Category I non -friable materials are allowed to be left in place for the demolition. However, the landfill must be made aware that the demolition debris will contain (minimal amounts of) category I non -friable asbestos containing ,material and is subject to the MPCA's rules and regulations pertinent to the demolition efforts (notifications, etc.). This survey should not be interpreted as a bidding document or as an asbestos project design. It is incumbent upon the contractor to verify quantities. Quantification of materials identified 'In this inspection report are approximations and based on observed quantities.. Additional amounts of material may be present under floor, above ceilings and inside wall cavities and not fully quantified. For example, thermal. system insulation indentified in a basement may also exist inside wall cavities, if you have any questions., please call us.at the number above. Sincerely •`��l Fi Darrell Potocnik Angstrom Analytical, Inc. W ra c a O C d o a+ E 4 .� y a+ O N O o 4 4 0 0 O D c 4 '°� $ u 11 11 In o a Z a a bo a a a a a a o a m a. a :m a a . a• a m s .a a a. a m E E = a E •� tai Ln 'a E p g z c 11 a z z z z 'z z z z z Z -z z z z z N It Z z z aw pCp ir1 'S1 p au 0 a .a �+ = N Q py •• 1A :V7 LL py 1�/1 N N N 'N y g �QOpppp a SO :n C$ O d d ti g I �, G1 a o °° Q :e to c I N m .rn m m Ln d 0. {S a ti z 11 a 11 it •11 Z � ~ do a z �. mLn M m '� Cl Ill ❑ z O z C L] Z a Z a 2 M = a Z a Z a Z a z a Z a z a z V oS Y 0 in z cr Y � in z o LM . a) w4trz¢h U m m � a N o 'v.� C IA 1 C p f V V 'Q 0p y A� .0 00 L 4 4u E a N C � G O 3 E C ++ Z N O +a+ C 'a U U '0 L c Ln Ln CL Z Q C 3 �• o L-A r+ az' C C LnQ0 0 `o � Z � .h v io O � � tic a � '% a Sc a % t'n .r '1'n .-1 �•' .-r 'Li .a fin'' � �ii r•i 1n a y si � rE a ++ QJ a nn N Ln 00 " „•i N � n N ry o m m m to m m Ti ry I� Ln c N c O �: N a rY A%bN . 4 d� N th N m m r+ m n m o y m - U Q a w m Iii { i rn 0 N 00 00 r -I DO c d Ln ,« o C M O� co O .in n OC Z LM a � N 0 24 Ln Lcn2 Im E . a w D 0 0 z 0 z � z o z z z: < z ra rr 9 9 Ln 9 Q L . ti z z Z Z Z. Z Z ZZ Z z z Z z z Z Z-7- z 2 .Z O U m v V V ;Q c L►1 �mt o o � N OJ i }a C 'E "2 V1 N '= VI :0' a CL U CM (a ba .� to a s :a as w to V c 0 0L a p �' � a 8 8u7: � L L L N a C1. 4 06 ouiD .� w S to ,c g iai t o `Ll �9 awn a —o�aa as to 06 � � O a d d�p c c 0 0 0 �`' 00 p, d a IF IF c 0 �5' 0 0 0 0o m m~ W -tC .G c c ._ Pi Lm in 0CL w w 3 3 3 3 3 r v 0 Z c 3 �. o a►" Ln @J '0 0 0� E T 0 0 0 Z a m 0 , u .m �o° C t 9°o an 96 O X ',�' I'^ N L0 0 L 0 0 0 0 ,g o 0 o a o 0 ,g 2 C .L rn a a d a a V N m �7 a� ani amia` a a� iii '^ aj N ri N IY1 LA !� 00 dl O ei I N -1 ro et Ln -1i uO r• e -I 00 e-1 G1 H C N rd N E G X r♦ c �- rl r1 v r1 W 2 Q u 4 Mo t CD A a] Q1 3 OC E� Q Z t e9 jp fro pj a o m 0 .0 0 0 .0 o 0 0 0 .0 0 0 m G g 0 0 .c C C lam] Z Z Z Z .Z .z z z z z 'z z z z z z z z z z 2 IV z _ r O epi G PSI to ix 3 z Q P% 4 ni t;'5 M ; m 4A 8 E M = - 49 is 0 M w I i c c p c v -M x ss y1s� . N N E 'E 41 W z N O L r Ln 3 O � z c Q "u G x ° -53 m Q to z r• m 7C �.± Q Q. I1 M 13 a a a 7 a E .9 i. T s. a i. a rt a. {UG] {LG]] u u -m m m w = m== m? a m p+ m 0 0 " ao ao a0 a6 an a? P 42i ap to a4 �n Z7 F �i• c c, c c c tw pp c k C 'c •C "� •� yc yc Q°� .= •:3 a c c 1�/I Y1 i� = = ir- ice•• ;-- 4 q-- ice+ U LJ U NM N r- 1= N M A M to r• W M O" N M Ln W r• w M O' i N N N N N N N N M M M M (n M M MM 41 z Z Q A E §� 0 < k .s 2 .z 2 z .: z . z w k2 2 r 'rq\ § § § 4 M f \ d \: § 2 2 a o � LM c .0 2 f � � f k k \ ; # e § ■ m k E *a k e ) q � ] 2 / § 2 7 v 5 k § E o ° z c k c a Ln4 & 0 4 u o �$CL. tW E 7K k k O z n m \.k .z a ■ c k ®`q J Ln k u � 3 .k % 4'tmm lyticad -gna Inc. 5001 Cedar Lake Rd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952-252-0405 office 952-252-0407 fax Analysis of Bulk Samples for Asbestos Using Polarized Ught Microscopy (PLM) Aaron Chlrplch City of New' Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 4415 Nevada Avenue North Number of Samples: 45 Methods and Definitions The submitted samples were analyzed using the EPA Interim Method #600/M4-82-020 (polarized light microscopy with dispersion staining). The method defines an asbestos containing material as one .that contains greater than 1% asbestos by -weight and asbestos is defined as the flbrous forms of serpentine and certain amphiboles. While the fibrous and non fibrous forms of minerals are discernible microscopically In hand specimens, the distinction between them Is not clear on a microscopic level, especially after processing or manquouring. Fibrous amphlboles are generally those whose mean aspect ratios (length over width) under the microscope are approximately >10; non-fibrous amphlboles are generally those whose mean aspect ratios are approximately <6. During analysis, morphology and an estimate of mean aspect ratio are used to assign a given mineral fiber population to fibrous and non fibrous categories. That non-fibrous amphiboles are not reported as asbestos is consistent with mineralogical definitions, but does not imply that non-fibrous amphlboles are not hazardous, Airborne concentrations of them may -be regulated by OSHA under certain circumstances. The type of dispersion staining used Is generally phase contrast; although central stop dispersion staining may also be used. Percentage Reporting The percentage of each fiber type present was determined using volume percents estlmated.from stereoscopic .examination, projected area percents from mounted slide examination and percents from pompartson to weight percent standards. Such estimations are suitable for most samples, but do have large error ranges. Errors are estimated to be 100 relative percent uncertainty for percentage estimates under 10% ranging down to as little as 10 relative percent uncertainty for percentage estimates greater than 50%. Friable samples which have been estimated by the above methods to contain less than 10% asbestos can be point counted, according to the EPA EPA interim Methods, as required by NESNAPS. In low percentage samples, point counting may produce false negatives or positives, due to the small number of points counted. For samples consisting of more that one apparent type of material or layer, the percentage of each fiber type of material of layer is determined and reported separately, an overall average for the sample of each fiber type is then calculated. The reported friability of a sample refers to that friability observed in the condition analyzed (broken, crushed, etc.), and is not to be substituted for an on-site assessment .of friability. Each Angstrom Analytical lab report relates only to the sample tested and may not, due`ibihe sampling process be representative of the material sampled. aiAll Potocnik, 1, Inc. August 13, 2015 Full Service Laboratory and on-site Industrial Hygiene Services for the Hazardous Materlais Abatement Industry I The Heating Sea RRV is Uhoaz �:...�. «.,.x.. A Note.-on.Em�r . Qit. ins . �._: Fall brings many changes..... childre6e1 itrn to school, leaves change colors and fall from trees, migration is;"n fiilf anis.o�.r homes regiiixe.heat instead of air conditiloning! As the colder �yeat:�er,,appxdju d h zping 'it takes a to in ifth"o getting liege and' ma be . ' axl , cl . . there is a quick.refresher•on emergency noti lcatib4s for asbestos projects; From October 1 through April 30, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will accept emergency notices for heating systems that have been red tagged by Center Point, Xcel, etc. without prior approval. Contractors must fill out Line 7 on the "Notification of Asbestos -Related Work" form that the emergency is -due to the furnace/boiler being red tagged by the iWity company. :Front Aprli'130` t r ugh'Octo_Ur 1, asbest6s ccn`tractors�-iieed'tocontact I DH prior -to submitting -an emergency notification. On Line 7 -of the No- tification o- tifcation of Asbestos,Related Work form file contractor ust.fill. Qut that the J�urnace/boiler was rod :tagged -and to whom.,t4ey spp4e wAth, at NiD . Other wide, you risk �c notification being rejected. ,. U'ermicullte. Insulation inspection staff havwreceived. numerous q�uestio'nsriegarding thelldfioval and te,, ii g -6f v'Mtdculite: !ks a 'suspect material, veimiculite must: be as- sumed'.as an asbd§tos=cont irii.ng'matft a (ACM),or yzed fotIsbestos content. Due to the difficulties in properly testing vermiculite for' asbe§- tos, MiDH recon fn*nds tliai it be assurndd-to be'.ACM. If an individual such as the building owner choses. to seimple. the verihicu- lite for asbestos analysis, an MDH-certified asbestos inspector must per- form the sampling. Ver iicifIite must be sampled--` " thermal system insu- lation (TSI) if it is- being used as an insulation material; This requires that three samples be taken. If the vermiculite is a miscdITanedus rnatetial such as a potting additive, .packaging material, imitation stove embers, etc., -one sample is required. The samples should be taken from. the lowest poirnt possible such as the bottom of a wall cavity or the bottom of the pile. If sample analysis shows the material to be, equal to or :less than one per- cent asbestos, the material is not regulated by MDH or the Minnesota Pol- lution Control Agency (MPCA), For additioiW information on vermiculite insulation, go to our website: htt ://rvww..health.state•mn.us/divs/eh/asbestos/homeowner/ insulation.htm! Al u L O U 1„. .Q , asCL 0 X m CM �,, O _ t C7 Qa M f rA U = v) O 41 m =,.22 Z C O a3 C 0 E C70 a .. c a) X.2:2 o c -ms M' m� 02 z. vti .c a m �'w c° a o E � f .d oo c r rn � m > o as C� 7,” N Q S �. a m . � ° O yc:cmrrS°p�° �.c,�06 �j•- �, ur�. jR cl. �] s= r0.0 y.A+ > c E m E o o w at �.� c_ a y o y o m a o c° y ° m a7 yCL t n Q O N E _ 'o o V] m o r. p r cam_ m � �a E +�O U C :c � LLI a _ ti O eo m . w x . S0 .°p �y �7 (� � rV L C NIL N N Q a— C= Vi'N Nr y ��" C T i 4 a� Oj s"v m � �. m (D E c � h$ q � r� �= c% •� .-. � x m � E vl•- pt�,pb� �v ate_°00 C7 `ds .a� a ° c°� E m 02 �5 a.8 c�5� w.- w c¢a''� 3:00 ...Z Ci �. ® m o y a O _ r� � mai Om ma'x EU] at � ia�y�E w a= r7 O O. O w .tan C3� � t ti m e •O N N 13 c E as C o u r C ow �N mou�.E000 O � ��� cj O � to ca C D .� c U p a) .N Uz D b Z.m p l�� N D C m N iti •N :E E N l0 N_ N � .� .d _LQ+.�,cas� C M �:c c asp +�w .• rCL ca -a Q U.0 l) 7: G y 47 m 7 O- '� d 0- C w m ?' �, O tri - y O m C O C (!j -..O ? C ra - m C O D a7 'M O LL W O C VJ O ro r- :N m .m m¢ E ,z O ,O •O m D c d m E y V y .N Y` 3 4 E:EE ¢Y.am to my°rom 't o L E•- '�'0 las c:� E d `' »°s-. t 3 0 a °' 3 Z,n n c m o a so�.sm."ma_ pZ �y E.. co CL V L °,� o d> ren c a a v a E` _J &n &' E'.o cEU cam E +n y T U1 Y o m m w 9(D W Des roQ-E �yaE�c tm �3 Ez 0CC.�eGL}10 rr co 2' ro � �+ 5 D) x .E 0 4 0'a X rs _0 = fa = Mv co i or -U mNCL02 d EM 0Lu c' - z E =.@ c��°C ca-OQ�m EL 13 L c a to ar 'a c C ro i; L 0 m OI m 4S c U Q CD 7 F_ a m m w I_UCa>IaQ31a U -0 m �O C «CD . 7� _ ate+ a}•-^ �_ ro `r+ 5 ro d C je cs:r c q:3 a = c;tw w -m dE 30 49 E �aofE- awiF no � 0-CLQ j •p 0 EY maC .0 �.O C m O c a-.6 8 2 43rd o� o o `ro -80 P -co m G Q yora >. M.mmE L"Cc :CL -0 CD m 0. �° c mp m w 7Ma o. Lo W. a a d t%, m_ w w._ w m �_.�3 4)=:66 c cgs p V_-0 p:croas�;c 3m*'��'am«C cMp. "� C,ro . = � D C wp u= p � w N��� 3 U a 'A O y P Q >_ � o C C O a) L C w N m d C03 'a W a) ro a *�OaC.CO i Z� �p •p . Q w w m w `gym D ic } c0 0 i am. G 2 O} t 9 ro �x Cti-HCa mctC W -1 .E � ��m ro C ,� L 0 Q CD C0 N s- . m C O -a .0 L E o w m.�_ �� m Ds•o a�3H- a U°; ay Z> poca.:'.-M.c�a� mow` �,, m t m w w p o i w a. m 5 CL u 0 v our �Crnmmw N>0 can7m� G"'ro m.�aE. 0E 0 E-0a3®n°S� .�.5�mQ'D- i C)sE5'< rC U Mta�° ° c 41 �. v�' cca a• c ''� 3 R M= o o EY m rsax�o��`-°`?�r�i �Emro�owE�a _ m w •� ro O U y YC •U C �''� m w E Z m O'1 Cro7 ro G7 D D a3 C C LU -p 7 m U r �. CL 073 a) C U 'LDCL cd .0 ai C C .� N 'O O C CL ay U 10 Qa O L C .�..r '� U �. .s -r Q aro c� o ° �� E^ m CL r- �10 � € v 'on E'" C- m+C a �1= E: * � usGli [ti U C m N - 3> �+ c Q 2 g7 Q a ro +n E u ca y o i� S�c°•,aNaE �•�Eroaomc oaoQ�o�E� D r U X a] ro D m .{n C 7 '07m `O ... C rn L ca 7, m i m - CD L W a NmasEo Rfa) ,�.$ ac `m to c o • 3 ��_ c m E a m C'rn aEi'E.y°.ro�mEE C] ao y cU ma w ro:y XS 0 O W Uto L N rC S- CD �•+ ro m Q- d o O :E CFJ m 0 p 'C w p G im U9 ' CL M O G a) Ct m O =-ga4'imEcE- 0 w 012.EL:,o O L V C c — 61 N w •d w li y+ten o a7 m N L U O 6..D -m m�=0a C p . t 3 � 7 T O G>rns ('cow 0 ca m .D .. �;. a40� a G cn ® V'Qmm•-w O O Gi w E .wl o .o. O � to ca C D .� c U p a) .N Uz D b Z.m p l�� N D C m N iti •N :E E N l0 N_ N � .� .d _LQ+.�,cas� C M �:c c asp +�w .• rCL ca -a Q U.0 l) 7: G y 47 m 7 O- '� d 0- C w m ?' �, O tri - y O m C O C (!j -..O ? C ra - m C O D a7 'M O LL W O C VJ O ro r- :N m .m m¢ E ,z O ,O •O m D c d m E y V y .N Y` 3 4 E:EE ¢Y.am to my°rom 't o L E•- '�'0 las c:� E d `' »°s-. t 3 0 a °' 3 Z,n n c m o a so�.sm."ma_ pZ �y E.. co CL V L °,� o d> ren c a a v a E` _J &n &' E'.o cEU cam E +n y T U1 Y o m m w 9(D W Des roQ-E �yaE�c tm �3 Ez 0CC.�eGL}10 rr co 2' ro � �+ 5 D) x .E 0 4 0'a X rs _0 = fa = Mv co i or -U mNCL02 d EM 0Lu c' - z E =.@ c��°C ca-OQ�m EL 13 L c a to ar 'a c C ro i; L 0 m OI m 4S c U Q CD 7 F_ a m m w I_UCa>IaQ31a U -0 m �O C «CD . 7� _ ate+ a}•-^ �_ ro `r+ 5 ro d C je cs:r c q:3 a = c;tw w -m dE 30 49 E �aofE- awiF no � 0-CLQ j •p 0 EY maC .0 �.O C m O c a-.6 8 2 43rd o� o o `ro -80 P -co m G Q yora >. M.mmE L"Cc :CL -0 CD m 0. �° c mp m w 7Ma o. Lo W. a a d t%, m_ w w._ w m �_.�3 4)=:66 c cgs p V_-0 p:croas�;c 3m*'��'am«C cMp. "� C,ro . = � D C wp u= p � w N��� 3 U a 'A O y P Q >_ � o C C O a) L C w N m d C03 'a W a) ro a *�OaC.CO i Z� �p •p . Q w w m w `gym D ic } c0 0 i am. G 2 O} t 9 ro �x Cti-HCa mctC W -1 .E � ��m ro C ,� L 0 Q CD C0 N s- . m C O -a .0 L E o w m.�_ �� m Ds•o a�3H- a U°; ay Z> poca.:'.-M.c�a� mow` �,, m t m w w p o i w a. m 5 CL u 0 v our �Crnmmw N>0 can7m� G"'ro m.�aE. 0E 0 E-0a3®n°S� .�.5�mQ'D- i C)sE5'< rC U Mta�° ° c 41 �. v�' cca a• c ''� 3 R M= o o EY m rsax�o��`-°`?�r�i �Emro�owE�a _ m w •� ro O U y YC •U C �''� m w E Z m O'1 Cro7 ro G7 D D a3 C C LU -p 7 m U r �. CL 073 a) C U 'LDCL cd .0 ai C C .� N 'O O C CL ay U 10 Qa O L C .�..r '� U �. .s -r Q aro c� o ° �� E^ m CL r- �10 � € v 'on E'" C- m+C a �1= E: * � usGli [ti U C m N - 3> �+ c Q 2 g7 Q a ro +n E u ca y o i� S�c°•,aNaE �•�Eroaomc oaoQ�o�E� D r U X a] ro D m .{n C 7 '07m `O ... C rn L ca 7, m i m - CD L W a NmasEo Rfa) ,�.$ ac `m to c o • 3 ��_ c m E a m C'rn aEi'E.y°.ro�mEE C] ao y cU ma w ro:y XS 0 O W Uto L N rC S- CD �•+ ro m Q- d o O :E CFJ m 0 p 'C w p G im U9 ' CL M O G a) Ct m O =-ga4'imEcE- 0 w 012.EL:,o O L V C c — 61 N w •d w li y+ten o a7 m N L U O 6..D -m m�=0a C 41W ON rfED ST aforES W IDEPTM ENT OF afl OSHA Searcb A to Z Index IEn Espaoal Icontact Us IFAQs I About OSHA Newsletter RSS Feeds I Menu I Occupational Safety & Health, Administratfon We Can Help © Standard Interpnatations - Table of Contents . Standard Number: 1926.1101; 1926.1301(6); 1926.1101(f)(2); 1926.1101(f)(5); 1926.1101(f)(6); 1926.1101(8)(1); 1926.1101(g)(3); 1926.1101(g)(8)(ii); 1926.1101(k); 11926.1101(k)(7); 1926.1101(k)(8); 1926,1101(1)(1); 1926.1101(n)(2) November 24, 2003 Kurt Varga, Ph.D. The InService Training -Network 6813 Flags Center Drive Columbus, OH 43229 Dear Dr. Varga: Thank you for your April 18, 2002 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSTIA). Your letter was forwarded to the Directorate of Enforcement Programs for a response. You are writing on behalf of the Ohio School Factitties Commission, which deals with the construction of schools In Ohio. As a preliminarymatter, -It should be noted that the Commission, as an agency of a state, and the public schools, as entities of political subdivisions of a state, are not subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(6)(5). However, In light of your concems about -the costs Imposed on school building contractors of complying with the asbestos standard, we are answering -your questions. You have questions concerning the OSHA regvlrements covering the renovation of school buildings thait have hard plaster containing some asbestos, but the amount.ls not more Ian 1%. This letter constitubes OSHA's Interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may notbe applicable to any question not deilneated within your original correspondence. We apologize far the long delay -of this response; our replies to your.paraphrased questions are provided below. question 1: Are the OSHA letters dated AprlI'17,1.997; August 7, 1998; and August 13,1999 correct? They all say that"items that do not contain X1% asbestos are covered to at least some extent by the Construction Asbestos Standard. Reply: Yes, those letters are correct although some requirements of the Construction Asbestos Standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101 were not addressed. 29 CFR 1926.1101 -would apply even if neither aabestas permissible exposure limit (PEI.) is exceeded!. The standard contains numerous work practice requirements and prohibitions which apply, regardless of the exposure levels. However, only two -of the requirements and three of the prohibitions must be observed In the case of work activities Involving installed construction materials that do not contain > i% asbestos. Those work practice requirements and prohibitions that must be observed regardless of the exposure levels and of the percentage of asbestos In the Installed -construction materWis are: ■ 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(1)(li), which requires: wet methods, or wetting agents, to control employee exposures during asbestos handling, mixing, removal, cutting, application, and cleanup, except where employers demonstrate that'the use -of wet methods is Infeasible due to, for example, the creation of electrical hazards, equipment malfunction,and, in roofing, except as provided In paragraph (g)(8)(11)2 of this.sectlon, " 29 CPR 1926.1101(g)(1)(1lt), which requires: prompt clean-up and disposal -of wastes and debris contaminated with asbestos In leak -tight containers except in roofing operations, where the procedures specified in -paragraph (g)(S)(II)3 of this section apply; s 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(i), which prohibits: high-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point -of -cut ventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air; ■ 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(lt), which prohibits: compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials containing asbestos, unless the compressed air Is used In conjunction with an enclosed ventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud created by the compressed air; and 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(Iv), which prohibits: employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure 6o asbestos. There are also some other provisions that apply to work activities Involving installed construction materials even where the material does not contain >1% asbestos. However, if neither asbestos PEL is exceeded, only the following .few provisions apply: Z9 CFR 1926.1101(f)(2)(1), the provision for establishing that neither asbestos PEL is exceeded: Each empiayer-who has a workplace or work operation covered by this standard shall ensure that a "competent person" conducts an exposure assessment Immediately before or at the InWation -of the operation to ascertain expected -exposures during that operation -or workplace. The assessment must be completed In time to comply with requirements which are triggered by exposure data or the lack of a "negative exposure assessment," and.to provide information necessary to assure that -all control systems planned are appropriate for that operation and will work properly; 29 CFR 1926,1101(f)(6)(i), a provision covering the observation of monitoring: The employer shall provide affected employees and their designated representatives an opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with this section; 29 CFR 1926.1101(1)(5)(1), a provision covering employee notification of monitoring results: The employer shall notify affected employees of the monitoring results that represent that employee's exposure as soon as possible following receipt of monitoring results; '29 CFR 1926.1141(tj(5}(li), another provision covering employee notification of monitoring results: The employer shall notify affected employees of the results of monitoring representing the employee's exposure In writing either individually or by posting at a centrally located place that is accessible to affected employees; and 29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(2)(i)-(III), a set of provisions covering recordkeeping for measurements of exposures- o airborne asbestos. There are numerous additional provisions of the standard that -apply to work activities involving Installed construction materials even where the material does not contain >1% asbestos if at least one of the asbestos PEIs Is exceeded. Question 2: -Did OSHA intend to regulate material that Is found to contain asbestos at <1% when it promulgated the Construction Asbestos Standard that it issued in 19947 Reply: Yes. Instead of making all of the engineering controls and work practices applicable to all materials containing asbestos, OSHA made most of them applicable only to installed building materials that contain >1% asbestos and assigned the term "lasbastns-containing material' (ACM) to those maberlals, However, to prevent needless worker exposures to asbestos, OSHA made a few common-sense work practices and prohibitions applicable If any asbestos is present in materials. Thus, the current standard contains engineering controls and work practices that apply -regardless of the exposure levels to certain work -activities involving -only Installed building materials that meet -the definition of ACM. R also contains a few work practices'and prohibitions for work involving material that-contalns any amount of asbestos regardless of the exposure levels. And the standard has exposure -based requirements, consisting of a 0.1 fiber/oc 8 --hour TWA PEL and a i fiber/cc 30 -minute excursion limit, and other requirements that apply whenever worker exposures exceed either or both of the limit3, regardless of the amount of asbestos contained in the materials involved. Question 3: If OSHA had Intended to regulate material with <1% asbestos, why aren't we required to communicate Information about material with <.I% asbestos? Reply: Most. of the requirements for communication of inforrmation occur-under'29 CFR 1910.1101(k), Communication of Hazards. Any of the requirements which apply orily to'building or facilityowners are Inapiilicable because the buildings are entities -of political subdivisions of the State of Ohio and not subject to 'the-OSHAct. On the other hand, any of the provisions that apply to employers are applicable'tn,private contractors doing. the asbestos work. The'information that sections .(k)(7), (9), and (10) require to -be communicated applies to materials not having >1% asbestos which are the source of employee asbestos exposures exceeding one or both of the asbestos PEts as well as to materials containing >1% asbestos..Also,.29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(8), which specifies labeling requirements, applies to materials that contain 1% or more asbestas. On the other hand, itis correct that the Information which (k)(1)4 -(k)(6) require to be communicated pertains only to materials -containing >1% asbestos. However, it -should be noted that under (k), surfacing material, thermal.syMm insulation and asphalt and vinyl fiooring:material found in buildings constructed no later than 1980 or Installed no later than 1980 must be considered to contain >.I% asbestos, unless the employer demonstrates otherwise in accordance with -'(k)(5). Questlon 4: tinder 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(8) are employers required only to communicate information about ACM? Replyt 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(8) requires employers to communicate Infarmatlon about ACM and also material that contains 1% asbestos. (ACM, again,.is material that contains >1% -asbestos.) Question.$: Should the phrase "products containing asbestos" as used In paragraph (k)(8)(1) be read "ACM" and.notas Including materials with <1% asbestos, because otherwise there Is a contradiction In.(k)(8)? Reply: No. There is no contradiction. Paragraph .(k)(8)(1) deals broadly with products containing asbestos. Paragraph .(k)(8)(vi)(B) provides for an exclusion from.labeiing for products with <i%. concentrations of asbestos. Question S; Why, If material containing <1% asbestos is to be considered hazardous (employers are to wet It, put it In containers, and perform air monitoring), are employers not required to warn workers about its presence when they know It Is present at a work site or In a building? Reply: You must Inform employees about the.presence of material containing <1% asbestos when you know it Is.present. When employees perform work activities Involving.such material, you are required per 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(2)(1) to assess their exposures to asbestus. In connection with'tNs requirement you must, per 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(6)(1), provide affected employees an opportunity to observe any monitoring of asbestos exposure. After the monitoring, you must; per 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(S)(1) and (ii), inform employees of the monitoring results representing their asbestos exposures. In accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101(e) and (k)(7), if asbestos exposures exceed or are likely to exceed one or both of the PELs, then you must provide warning by posting the area where these overexposures are occurring as a regulated area. Although employers do not have to label containers of waste and debris containing <1% asbestos, promptly placing the waste and debris in leak tight containers Is a work practice that reduces the exposures of the employees producing the waste and debris. That is especially so because this work practice Is to be used in conjunction with wet -methods or wetting agents, By promptly -cleaning up the waste and debris and placing it in containers, It is kept from drying out and possibly releasing airborne asbestos into the work environment, Leak -tight containers prevent the asbestos from seeping out and reintroducing an asbestos exposure hazard. Question 7: If OSHA had Intended to regulate material containing <1% asbestos, why do not employers have to use HEPA-filters when using vacuum cleaners to clean up material containing <1% asbestos? Reply: An employer does not.have to use vacuum cleaners to dean up materiai containing <1% asbestos. However, if an employer uses vacuum cleaners to clean up the material, then per 29 GFR 1926. 1101(1)(1), It must use HEPA-filtered vacuuming equipment. Question 8: IF OSHA -had intended to regulate material containing <1% wbesbos, why does It not discuss the distinction between ACM and material containing <1% asbestos In rthe preamble to the regulation? Reply: OSHA was already regulating materials that contalned <1% asbestos.. In promulgating the 1994 standard, OSHA was.determining which materials to regulate further by additional work practice and engineering control requirements. Question 9. If OSHA had intended to regulate material containing <1% asbestos, why did it not examine the compliance costs for working with this material? Reply: As we stated above, OSHA was already regulating materials with <1% asbestos. In promulgating the 19% standard, OSHA was determining the cost of complying with additional work practice and engineering control requirements.. Question 10: If OSHA had lntanded .tD regulate material containing 41% asbestos, why did It not mention this in its CPLs dealing with asbestos in construction? Reply: That was simply an oversight by the preparers of the Asbestos Compliance Directive. It will-be.carrected when the dlrective Is next updated. Thank you for your Interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set'by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they appiy.to particular orcumstances,'but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's Interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note thatw enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance In response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's webslte at http;//www.osha,gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, uirector Directorate of Enforcement Programs 1 The asbestos PEIs are -an eight -(8-) hour time weighted average (TWA) limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 fico) and an excursion limit of 1.0 f/cc as averaged over a sampling period of'thirty (30) minutes. [back to text) z Paragraph (g)(8)(li)ls directed toward the removal -of roofing materials containing >1% asbestos. However, OSHA Interprets the reference at (g)(B)(li)(B) to the exception to the use of wet methods for reasons of infeasibility or the creation of safety hazards as also applying to removing any rooting materials thatAo not contain >1% asbestos. [back to text] 3 The reference to paragraph (9)(8)(11) applies even for material that does net contain >1% asbestos. [back to ne)t] 4 The phrase, Installed Asbestos Containing Building Material, Is intended bD be the heading and the start of 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(1). The three sentences preceding that phrase are Intended to be an introduction for 29 CFR 1926.1101(k) and precede (k)(1). [back to text] © Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents Freedom of Information Act I Privacy & Security Statement , Disclaimers I Important Web Site Notices I International ( Contact Us U.S. Department of Labor I Occupational Safety &Health Administration 1 200 Constitution Ave., NW, waxNngtan, DC 20210 Tefephone: 800 -321 -OSHA (6742) 1 TTY WWM0SHA.g0v EDA Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development September 14, 2015 EDA Item No. By: Aaron Chirpich, CD Specialist By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 6 Jeff Sargent, CD Director Resolution approving contract with Scott's Tree Service for tree removal and stump grinding at 4415 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no. 965) Requested Action Staff requests approval of a resolution awarding a contract for the removal trees and stump grinding at 4415 Nevada Avenue North, to the low and responsible bidder, Scott's Tree Service in the amount of $6,500. Policy/Past Practice When public biding is required as part of the Scattered Site Housing Program, it is practice of staff to present contracts to the EDA for consideration. Background The City has recently acquired the single family home located at 4415 Nevada Ave N, as part of the Scattered Site Housing Program. The EDA has directed staff to take the necessary steps in preparing the home for demolition in order to facilitate the creation of two buildable lots. As part of the redevelopment project, the City Forester has identified all trees on the property that should be removed. Staff has received two quotes for tree removal and stump grinding. The bid results are as follows: • Scott Lorenz Tree Service $11,385 • Scott's Tree Service $6,500 Staff is interested in clearing the trees before demolition of the home and removal of other site improvements. The selected contractor has been given until October 9th to complete the work. Motion byL . _ Second by To: I RFA COMM DEV Develo ment Housin &R Award Tree Removal Contract for Improvement Project 965 Request for Action Page 2 September 14, 2015 Funding The City will be reimbursed by Hennepin County with Community Development Block Grant funds for all costs associated with tree removal and stump grinding. Recommendation Staff recommends that the EDA approve the resolution approving the contract for $6,500 with Scott's Tree Service for the removal of non desirable trees and stump grinding at 4415 Nevada Avenue North. Experience with Recommended Contractor The City has recently worked with the recommended low bidding contractor. Scott's Tree Service completed the tree removal and stump grinding work at the city owned property located at 912162nd Avenue North. The overall experience working with the contractor was smooth and the quality of work completed was acceptable. Attachments • Resolution • Bids Received EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15 - RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH SCOTT'S TREE SERVICE FOR TREE 'REMOVAL AND STUMP GRINDING AT 4415 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, the City of New Hope purchased certain real property located at 4415 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope, MN (the "Property") with the intentions of redeveloping the Property; and WHEREAS, City staff intends to redevelop the Property in accordance with the City's scattered site housing program and policy and return the Property to the tax rolls for the benefit of all taxing jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, City staff is exercising due diligence to correct the Property's blighted condition by performing an environmental cleanup of the Property to be followed by the demolition of the buildings on the Property and site grading of the Property; and WHEREAS, Scott's Tree Service submitted a proposal that meets all of the Project Specifications as set forth on the attached Exhibit A and is the low bid; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to enter into a contract with Scott's Tree Service for the purpose of performing the Work; and WHEREAS, City staff is hereby seeking approval from the City Council of the selection of Scott's Tree Service as the duly qualified contractor to perform the Work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the selection of Scott's Tree Service as the Contractor to complete the removal of trees and stump grinding pursuant to the Project Specifications is approved, it being in the best interest of the City to prepare the Property for redevelopment in accordance with the City's scattered site housing program and policy. 3. That the payment of $6,500 to Scott's Tree Service to perform the Work is hereby approved. 4. The President, Executive Director and New Hope City staff are authorized and directed to sign all appropriate documents, and to take whatever additional actions are necessary or desirable, to complete the removal of trees and stump grinding work located at the Property in accordance with the contract to be prepared by the City Attorney. Dated the day of September, 2015. Kathi Hemken, President Attest: Kirk McDonald, Executive Director FfX kI �i+ 74 Chir ich Aaron From: Chirpich Aaron Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:25 PM To: 'Scott Kantor' Subject: New Hope Project Scott, Please provide a quote for tree removal services at 4413 Nevada Ave North, New Hope. Please include the following scope of work in your bid: Remove all marked trees (either painted or with ribbon) « Grind all stumps (stump debris can be left on-site) • Bids due by September Stn • Work completed by October Stn V -1- f H Aaron Chirpich City of New Hope ! Community Development Specialist 4401 Xylon Ave N 1 New Hope, MN 55428 Office: 763-531-5114 1 Fax: 763-531-5136 adAMich@ci.new-ho.pe.mn.us 6new hope.mmus �C)TT'S TREE �, ERViCE ESTIMATE / CONTRACT / INVOICE 25 Years Experience www.scottsmnireeservice.com 763-245-3184 Mail to: Scott's Tree Service 8768 Cottonwood Lane N Maple Grove, MN 55369 DATE: a tT NAM E. ADDRESS: Ngew�:�w��� i CITY: ':< STATE: - ZIP: 15y -f-1 Y CELL # 141C, ;, �� S I" �!16L MN 4564A E-MAIL: C t ftp i�J dj . �— bf4e'.. m-0, Q's PRUNING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI: A.300 STANDARDS 1. DEADWOOD. r. THIN. 3. RAISE.- a. CUTBACK, 5. COIV!Pli fE t;or mors: inidrrnation noo wwwr.ISA-arborcom Equipment: F]Log Loader U Bucket Truck 11 Chip Truck 1I Climber FIChipper 1:1 Swinger FICrane 11 Ladder F1Cut down Tree or Shrub (Leave Debris) ElRemove from structure (Leave Debris) HAUL AWAY Tree or Shrub Debris F1Stump Grinding/Chipping F1 HAUL AWAY Stump Debris '/ L,5-60,6 D 'aj�ftIgIi 6.3--x . i `;8E ACCEPT VISA, MASTERCARD & DISCOVER. ,ail CAIX-Ex ONS OR,'.tFUNDS. SF REVERSE FOR tFltl NO i 16t. MVTS, r CONDITICK AND AGf*LE ,4r, li'S. ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT 1/We accept this contract in its entirety as fair value for work herein described. I/We have read and understand all Notices, Payment, Fee, Cost, and Change clauses on reverse. i/we will deposit 10% of the Con#ract's value, which I have included with this Contract. NU CANCELLATtOraS OR Amos. Submitted by:-cz 5e // COST $ SALES TAX $ TOTAL $ Customer Date WHITE -- ORIGINAL YELLOW -- RECEIPT PINK -- ES77MATE 611411ify Sarrrira at a Canrefilive Prier" Scott Lorenz MWN o ' ' Toll Free TREE ESrTIMATIS L*T& & *BUS it .t:L3rsnXWf' Estimate - Worm Order - / r - Receipt 311 , ,Po IMWPIM ME* Royalton, MN BB373 Phaue��� Cori Ph€�ne Date of Ceti � "fC U..Ae,-g Haw M you hpr about. MW8skimatar Ci �! �i MaP lac9tio� of Bsthnaae d r /� Date of Service Description c o akWork © ck Cast no Estimate Wank Location Diagram & Notes aUG`� kit f Payment Type: Cash/ Check s Sales 7"aa 3 fl`??� /i S I �if h.►,%warkin Scott Lorenz Tree Service rad it's subcontractors VwrM tmuplete a=dance with the above weciftcatims.elua days- te Scutt Twenz Tree service Aute Rpatum: X The above gran spedfic'adons and conditions are satisfactory and arse huff accepted. Scott Lor= Tw Service is ambo& d to do the work as spedtw& CUS7 MYfRACCUTAXXOFAPPROVAL: �'1 (. a` X