Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 02-13 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 13, 1989 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes: *a. January 23, 1989 - Regular Session 7. Resolutions: a. Approving Contract for Consulting Engineering Services Relating to Reconstruction of West River Road (Old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue to 73rd Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 1988 -18) - Proposed "concept development meeting" with neighborhood on March 9 and "preliminary design meeting" in mid -May. *b. Initiating the Preparation of a Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Reconstruction of West River Road from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North and the Construction of a Multiple Use Trail along West River Road and Willow Lane from I -694 to 73rd Avenue North c. Approving Contract for Consulting Engineering Services Relating to Preparation of a Study of the Brooklyn Y Center Municipal Water Supply System d. Establishing a 5 -Year Plan for Improvements to the Municipal State Aid Street System *e. Requesting the Hennepin County Department of Transportation (HCDOT) to Develop Plans for Safety and Capacity Improvements to CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) between 63rd Avenue and the North City Limits -This resolution is recommended by the Administrative Traffic Committee. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 13, 1989 f. Approving Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Contact 1988- th (for Improvements on Logan Avenue, on France Avenue, on Lakebreeze Avenue and on 50th Avenue North) g. Regarding Funding for Street and Highway Construction Program in State of Minnesota *h. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of 1 (One) Mechanical Hoist - Appropriation approved in department #19 budget. *i. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine - Appropriation approved in department #42 budget. j. Requesting the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to Conduct a Feasibility Study for Implementation of the Turn Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification *k. Authorizing Entering into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the Loan of Preliminary Breath Testing Instruments *1. Authorizing the Hiring of W.M. Montgomery and Associates to perform a Measurement, Evaluation, and Recommendation of the City's Radio System 8. Ordinance: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel -This item was first read on January 23, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on February 2, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 9. Planning Commission Item: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 89001 submitted by Gorco Construction requesting variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. This application was discussed and tabled at the January 12, 1989, Planning Commission meeting and recommended for denial at the January 26, 1989, meeting. The Planning Commission did recommend an ordinance amendment pertaining to this item. 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Major Thoroughfare Setbacks -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 13, 1989 10. Discussion Items: a. Status Report on HRG Recycling Efforts and State Recycling Legislation b. 1990 Preliminary Budget 11. Executive tive Session Kelly /Norton Lawsuit *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment k � j MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 23, 1989 CALL TO ORDER CITY HALL The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Paulson and staff is recommending the appointment of Donna Stoderl as Chairperson for the Human Rights & Resources Commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to appoint Donna Stoderl as Chairperson for the Human Rights & Resources Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Scott requested item 9h be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 3 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the January 3, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE - SHINGLE CREEK CENTER There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to release the performance bond for Shingle Creek Center, 6000 -6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The motion passed unanimously. 1/23/89 -1- j, RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 89 -06 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JAYNE KUHAR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -07 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF SHIRLEY MCCUMBER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -08 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DOLORES HASTINGS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -09 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF RAY HAROLDSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -10 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF RON TURNER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -11 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF KEN FELGER 1/23/89 -2- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 89 -12 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF GEORGE LUCHT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 89 -13 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGING DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 89 -14 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE GRASSFIELD REMOTE CONTROL CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 89 -15 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) SPIN GRINDER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: BOWLING ALLEY Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. CIGARETTE Ala -Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 2550 Kasota Ave. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Ave. N. Bosa Donuts 1912 57th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Liquor #1 1500 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center y Liquor #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor #3 5711 Morgan Ave. N. 1/23/84 -3- Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Red Lobster 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Service, Inc. 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Gift Shop, Too 1501 Freeway Blvd. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Street Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. TCR Corporation oration p 1600 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive Target 6100 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Munch Box Snacks 6660 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. New Horizon Nursery School 1200 69th Ave. N. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Center Service, Inc. 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Green Meadows 3319 49th Ave. N. Northern States Power 4501 68th Ave. N. Super America Stations, Inc. 6545 W. River Road Super America Stations, Inc. 1901 57th Ave. N. U. S. West 6540 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Boy Scout 299 6201 Scott Ave. N. Community Education 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT Brookdale Motel 6500 W. River Road Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Flow Systems 1311 Sylvan Street McGuire Mechanical 20830 Holt Avenue Minnesota Heating nd A C g / 6908 Georgia g Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLE American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Drive 1/23/89 -4- II PUBLIC DANCE Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING Renewal: Randall B. Cook 5347 Brooklyn Blvd. SIGN HANGER Prowood Signs 2415 W. Industrial Blvd. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Liquor #1 1500 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Liquor #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor #3 5711 Morgan Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Rehabilitation of Well No. 8 (Project No. 1988 -23, Contract 1989 -A). Councilmember Scott stated she is quite concerned with the large underestimation in costs which were made by the consultant. She stated she thought staff and the consultant had a better handle on the problems with this well and expected the bids to be closer to the estimate prepared by the consultant. The Director of Public Works stated he believes there are at least three reasons for the increased cost. The first being, all bidders are now familiar with the . unpredictable history of this well. Second, the work site is very small which made it necessary to specify all materials bailed from the well be discharged through a settling tank (rather than into a temporary pond). He noted this would be more difficult during the winter months than it would be during summer months. The third reason is a high demand for well construction and well improvements at this time because of the 1988 drought. He noted these prices reflect seller's market conditions. Councilmember Scott inquired if the low bidder would be able to comply with the bailing requirements. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. Councilmember Pedlar stated he also was concerned with the large underestimation by the consultant. The Director of Public Works agreed with Councilmember Pedlar's concern but noted in this case it is difficult to hold the consulting engineer totally responsible for the underestimation because of the many - variables to be considered within this project. The City Manager noted in the past this consultant has been consistently correct with his estimates. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the City is at any risk of not having this well ready for the 1989 watering season. The Director of Public Works stated if the contract is awarded this evening, he does not foresee any problems in having the well on line on or before May 1. He noted if the contract is delayed this evening, the City could run into some problems. RESOLUTION NO 89 -16 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 1/23/89 -5- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 8 PROJECT N - 0. 198 t 8 23, CONTRACT 1989 -A) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The EDA Coordinator entered the meeting at 7:15 p.m. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for the Improvement of I -94 within the Corporate Limits of the City of Brooklyn Center. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the project, which is being proposed within these plans and specifications, and noted there are three representatives from MNDOT present this evening. He introduced Mr. Dave Miller, Mr. Glen Ellis, and Mr. Bob Kozel. He noted these plans and specifications will complete all work between Brooklyn Boulevard and I -35 in Columbia Heights. A discussion then ensued regarding the different phases of the project and the time lines for these phases. The Director of Public Works stated all funding for this project will be paid by MNDOT using MNDOT and federal aid primary funding. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -17 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF I -94 WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Appropriating Funds and Authorizing the Purchase of Computer Equipment by the Public Utilities Fund.' The Finance Director noted staff is asking for an appropriation which would allow for the purchase of two computers for the Public Utilities department. He noted currently there is one computer within this department which is worn out and has been replaced twice with loaners. He stated staff is requesting the second terminal for the Public Utilities receptionist to allow her to access the system without interrupting the other operator's work on the computer. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -18 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Abatement of Nuisances and Assessment of the Costs of Abatement. He noted this item was first read on December 5, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on December 15, 1988, and was offered for a second 1/23/89 -6- reading on January 3, 1989. He explained the public hearing was opened on January 3, 1989, and continued until this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Abatement of Nuisances and Assessment of the Costs of Abatement. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -01 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Outside Storage. He noted this item was first read on December 5, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on December 15, 1988, and was offered for a second reading on January 3, 1989. He explained the public hearing was opened on January 3, 1989, and continued until this evening's meeting. He stated the current wording within this ordinance would cover the questions the Council had on containers. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Outside Storage. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO 89 -02 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING OUTSIDE STORAGE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition. He noted this item was offered for a first reading on December 19, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on December 29, 1988, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted this is a utility easement in the property between the Day's Inn and Earle Brown Bowl. 1/23/89 -7- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -03 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN OR VACATING PART OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 3, BLOCK 1, RICHARDSON ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating the Street Easement in Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482. He noted this item was offered for a first reading on December 19, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on December 29, 1988, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained this item relates to the property discussed in the previous ordinance. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating Street Easement in Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating the Street Easement in Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO 89 -04 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE STREET EASEMENT IN TRACT D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1482 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Fixing Council Salaries. He noted this item was offered for a first reading on December 19, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on December 29, 1988, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Fixing Council Salaries. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he 1/23/89 -8- entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Fixing Council Salaries. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO 89 -05 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE FIXING COUNCIL SALARIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. He explained this amendment would allow the use of sick leave during the probationary period. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why there was a restriction in the past. The City Manager stated that is the way the ordinance was originally written, and he is not really sure of the justification for this language. There was a motion n b Councilmember y o ncilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel and setting a public hearing date for February 13, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of 66th Avenue North between West River Road and Willow Lane. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the site and explained staff is recommending the portion of this right -of -way which lies more than 20 feet beyond the new curb line on 66th Avenue North be vacated. He noted the remaining 20 foot wide right -of -way would be adequate to allow construction of a 10 foot wide trailway while retaining a 10 foot wide boulevard area. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of 66th Avenue North between West River Road and Willow Lane and setting a public hearing date of February 27, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS SETTING JANUARY 30 1989 AS THE DATE FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH DISTRICT #286 SCHOOL BOARD The City Manager briefly reviewed the items he would like to discuss at the joint meeting and inquired if the Council had any items which it would like discussed. Mayor Nyquist stated he would like to discuss the possibility of 1/23/89 -9- holding Earle Brown Days' activities on the high school grounds. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like the issue of housing and redevelopment and senior housing on the agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to set January 30, 1989, as the date for a joint meeting with District #286 school board. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted this meeting would be at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Nyquist added he would like the school board to review its drug /abuse /prevention program. PENALTY PROVISIONS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CUT THEIR OWN WEEDS The City Manager explained in 1988 Councilmember Lhotka requested staff to address the issue of penalty provisions to encourage property owners to cut their own weeds. Councilmember Lhotka stated he believes the cost is too low, and it is to the owner's benefit to pay the City to have it cut. The EDA Coordinator stated in 1988 the cost for cutting was $30 an hour plus a $25 administrative charge if the cost of cutting was charged as a special assessment. The City Manager explained the City cannot legally put a penalty on the cost of cutting these weeds, but all costs (i.e., administrative, postage, etc.) can be included when charging for weed cutting. Councilmember Pedlar stated he agrees with Councilmember Lhotka that the cost of cutting these weeds should be high enough to prompt people to cut the property themselves. He inquired if the City is liable if the City's weed cutter damages something on t he erso n s p property. he City Attorney responded affirmatively. ffirmative . Y 1 Y P y There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that staff should review different methods of charging for weed cutting. I -94 SURPLUS RIGHT -OF -WAY STATUS The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the area in question, the history and City's involvement with this surplus right -of -way. He noted the City has been acting as a go- between for MNDOT and the residents. He explained staff has sent a questionnaire to all abutting residents in the area, and he reviewed the responses from these residents. He explained at this time there is no way the City could proceed with the project and hope to recover all these costs. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if it is possible to just leave the property the way it is today. The Director of Public Works stated it is possible to do this, and the City could inform the residents if they wished to buy the abutting property they would have to deal directly with MNDOT. He noted dealing directly with MNDOT can be very difficult, but it is not impossible. He explained MNDOT acquired this property with the use of federal funding, and the only way MNDOT can transfer the right -of -way to private property owners is to go through a lengthy and costly process on a lot by lot basis. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if it would be possible to work with those owners who are interested, placing a deadline after which everyone would have to work directly with MNDOT. A discussion then ensued regarding this suggestion and the proposed price per square foot. It was noted many of the property owners stated they might be interested if the cost was lower. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott directing staff to prepare a letter to send to the property owners stating a dollar figure per square foot and 0 1/23/89 -10- V notifying them of the last chance to purchase this property. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would second this motion for purposes of discussion. A discussion then ensued regarding the price per square foot, and the Director of Public Works stated he would suggest 20 cents per square foot. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Paulson, and Pedlar. Voting against :: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. QN -SALE Wltii`E AND ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR YEN CHING RRS IAMANT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the on -sale wine and on -sale nonintoxicating malt liquor license for Yen Ching Restaurant. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9 :50 p.m. City Clerk Mayor • 1/23/89 -11- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number 4 t LL-' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD (OLD T.H. 252) FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) DEPT. APPROVAL: -, , 4 1 SY KNAiP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attachedYes Explanation ® West River Road (old T.H. 252) between 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue in Brooklyn Center (and between 73rd Avenue and 93rd Avenue in Brooklyn Park) is still officially under the jurisdiction of MNDOT. However, under agreements with the two cities, MNDOT has agreed to pay a major share of the costs of upgrading this street, and the cities have agreed to accept future jurisdiction of the street following completion of the improvements. These improvements were originally scheduled for 1986 or 1987. However, work was deferred due to MNDOT's program cutbacks because of fund shortages. Because additional funds became available as a result of the 1988 Highway Act, funding is now available. It is strongly recommended that the cities proceed with these improvements as soon as possible to avoid the risk of losing that funding as a result of future program cut backs. It is proposed that the two cities hire a consulting engineer to provide professional services as required to develop plans and specifications and provide support and management services for this improvement. As required by MNDOT policies and procedures, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was published. Then a selection committee representing Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and MNDOT followed MNDOT procedures to review and analyze the 17 proposals received, and to select the one engineering firm which the committee members agreed was best suited to provide the required services. That firm is Short- Elliott - Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). In accordance with procedures established by MNDOT, each City then requested SEH to prepare and submit a "Financial Proposal" which defines the scope of service to be provided in detail, and describes the basis for fees to be charged for those services. (See attached • memo from Director of Public Works and SEH's proposal for details.) Council Action Required • A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. If this resolution is adopted, the SEH proposal will be submitted to MNDOT for their review and approval. If the proposal is approved by MNDOT, MNDOT will then prepare an agreement with the City. That agreement must then be approved by the City Council. 7a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD (OLD T.H. 252) FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) WHEREAS, Agreement No. 63405 between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) that the two parties will develop a separate construction agreement providing for the improvement of West River Road (old T.H. 252), with MNDOT participating in the costs of those improvements, and with the City agreeing to accept jurisdiction of the street following completion of those improvements; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has advised the City that funds have now been budgeted to cover its share of the cost of such improvements, and has requested the City to initiate development of the improvement project by the selection and employment of a consulting firm to develop plans and specifications for the proposed improvements and to provide construction services related thereto; and WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal for consulting services was published, 17 proposals for services were received, and a selection committee reviewed and analyzed all proposals received; all in accordance with established MNDOT policies and procedures, and the selection committee has recommended that the firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) be selected as the City's consultant for this improvement project; and WHEREAS, SEH has submitted a Financial Proposal detailing the Scope of Work to be accomplished and proposing the following fee structure for the services to be performed under the proposed agreement: Service Fee Structure For Phase I Services (i.e. Study Cost plus a fixed fee, with Report, Preliminary Design, Final a maximum fee of $82,600 Design and Bidding and Award Services) For Phase II Services (i.e. Construction Payroll cost times 3.06 Services) with an estimated total of $57,600 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by SEH is hereby accepted and approved subject to MNDOT approval. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit the SEH proposal to MNDOT with a request for their review and approval. RESOLUTION NO. 3. Upon receipt of approval from MNDOT, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the proposed agreement with SEH. 4. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1988 -18. 5. The accounting for this project will be done in the Special Assessment Fund. 6. The City's share of all costs for this project shall be appropriated from the Municipal State-Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works DATE: February 7, 1989 RE: Selection of Consulting Engineer for Reconstruction of West River Road (Old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North I. HISTORY At the time that MNDOT constructed new T.H. 252, the City and MNDOT executed an agreement which provided that MNDOT would "...design and reconstruct for turnback to the City present Trunk Highway No. 252 (West River Road) from approximately 67th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North (the northerly City limits)." That agreement also provided that .... "By separate cooperative construction agreement encumbering the necessary monies the State will have the following responsibilities: 1. Develop roadway construction plans for turnback of West River Road to the City. 2. Pay for curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. 3. Pay for overlaying the center 24 feet of the roadway. 4. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the west side of the roadway. 5. Pay for a berm for sidewalk construction on the east side of the roadway; and that In that same cooperative agreement the City will have the following responsibilities: 1. Accept West River Road into its City street system. 1%6 ALL-AMERIG 6iR =,� Page Two February 7, 1989 2. Pay for any costs of widening the road beyond the center 24 feet. 3. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the east side of the roadway." MNDOT originally intended to proceed with this work in 1986 or 1987. However, the work was deferred as a result of MNDOT's program cutbacks because of fund shortages. Accordingly, West River Road remains officially under MNDOT jurisdiction. Because the 1988 legislature provided additional funding for highway improvements, MNDOT has now advised us that $500,000 has been budgeted for completion of this work in Brooklyn Center. At the same time, $2,400,000 has been budgeted for similar improvements to the segment of West River Road in Brooklyn Park. While the original agreement provided that MNDOT staff would develop construction plans and specifications for this work, MNDOT has now requested that the Cities hire consultants to develop those plans and specifications, with MNDOT providing reimbursement for its share of these costs. It is my opinion that this is a definite "plus" in that the City will be able to exercise much better control of design details under this arrangement. II. PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANT Under MNDOT rules and regulations, the first step in this process is for the City to publish a "Notice of Availability of Contract for Street Design Project" wherein any consultant who wishes to be considered for this project must submit a preliminary expression of interest, along with information regarding the consultants' qualifications, etc. Upon receipt of these preliminary proposals, the City then follows an established selection procedure. Finally, the City would then negotiate a contract with the selected consultant. That negotiated contract would then be submitted to MNDOT and to the City Council for approval. All of the above noted information regarding the history of this project and the procedure for selection of an engineering consultant was presented to the City Council on October 24, 1988, at which time the City Council agreed that the selection procedure should be initiated. Accordingly, Requests for Proposals (RFP's) were published in the Brooklyn Center Post and in the Construction Bulletin (copy attached). The City of Brooklyn Park published nearly identical RFP's at the same time. Each city received proposals from 17 consulting engineering firms. A 3- member selection committee (Chuck Lenthe, City Engineer for Brooklyn Park, Chuck Weichselbaum, District 5 State Aid Engineer for MNDOT, and I) I Page Three February 7, 1989 then reviewed all 17 proposals and selected 6 finalists to be interviewed. Those 6 finalists were interviewed using a format approved by MNDOT (i.e. a presentation by consultant followed by questioning of the consultants, using a structured set of questions). Following completion of the interviews, each committee member independently rated each consultant, using a rating system (copy attached) which the committee had previously developed and agreed upon. As a result of that rating system, all members of the committee agreed to recommend the selection of Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) as engineers for both sections of the project, i.e. the Brooklyn Center section and the Brooklyn Park section. It is noted that SEH has conducted several traffic engineering studies, and served as project engineers on several small construction projects for Brooklyn Center. Our experience with their work has always been excellent. Brooklyn Park has used SEH on several construction projects - specifically including their service as project engineers for construction of 85th Avenue between T.H. 252 and Zane Avenue - and they have been very pleased with SEH's work. All other reference checks on SEH's work are "very good" or "excellent ". Accordingly, we requested SEH to prepare formal fee proposals for providing the professional services required on these projects. In order to better define the scope of the proposed improvements and to define the scope of services to be provided by the consultant, two additional meetings have been held. At these meetings we have agreed that the services to be provided by SEH should include all engineering evaluations and design normal to such a project and that the services should specifically include the following items: • Development of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. (Note: While development of an EAW is not mandatory under Minnesota Statutes 4410, a petition with 25 signatures could initiate a procedure requiring the development of an EAW. Accordingly, we recommend that the cities voluntarily proceed with development of an EAW, so as to avoid the possibility of a long delay after design of the project is initiated. • Evaluation of traffic forecasts.... and development of a plan for constraint of through traffic which would use West River Road as a shortcut during times when new T.H. 252 is congested, while allowing satisfactory access to local traffic. Note Two traffic islands were installed in the Brooklyn Park portion of West River Road in conjunction with the construction of new T.H. 252. While these islands have been at least partially effective in diverting through traffic, they have also caused problems and aggravations. Accordingly, other options will b eve p 11 e developed and studied in order to deal with these problems. 0 Page Four February 7, 1989 • A number of special items relating to the cities' existing water mains and sanitary sewers need to be reviewed in detail before proceeding with design of the roadway construction project (i.e. severe corrosion of some segments of the water mains in this area, and a full inspection of the condition of sanitary sewers. • Special attention must be given to grading and drainage plans along this route. Conversion from the existing "rural" roadway (which is higher than adjacent properties in many areas, which has flat grades, and inadequate storm water drainage) to an "urban section" will require evaluation of several alternatives in order to select the most cost effective and functional design. • It is proposed that this project include construction of a pedestrian sidewalk, a bikeway and a substantial quantity of landscaping. And, it is recommended that the West River Road project be extended to include design of a pedestrian /bikeway trail connection south to the I -694 bridge over the Mississippi River. • Since SEH has an expert soils engineer on its staff, we requested SEH to assume full responsibility for conducting the entire soils engineering study, analysis and design and to include this in their scope of services. • Because we believe that a fairly large number of temporary construction easements will be required to allow construction of this project, we requested SEH to include the costs for providing legal descriptions of all easements which will be required. (The City will then assume the responsibility for negotiating the easements and getting them executed, etc.). • We requested SEH to assume the responsibility for developing applications for permits as needed from the DNR, from the West Mississippi Watershed Commission, and other permits which may be needed. • Because we assume that each City ill want to specially Y P Y assess a portion of the project costs, we requested that SEH develop "Feasibility Studies" as required by M.S. 429. • Finally, and very importantly, we agreed that a number of public information meetings must be held to allow public discussion of the project at several stages during the design process. Accordingly, we requested SEH to participate in the following meetings: - a series of four "conceptual design" meetings (one in each of 4 segments of the total project) in March, 1989 - a series of four "preliminary design" meetings in May, 1989 Page Five February 7, 1989 - attendance at the official public hearings on the project in July, 1989 and - (optional) a "final design" information meeting to allow public discussion of the proposed design prior to placing the work under contract (in October, 1989) III. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES Based on these discussions, SEH has prepared and submitted (see copy) a "Financial Proposal" to provide the engineering services for the Brooklyn Center portion of the project. (A similar proposal has been submitted to Brooklyn Park). In SEH's proposal, Exhibits A and E describe the proposed "Scope of Work" and the "Man -Hours Estimate" for that work. For purposes of defining a fee schedule for consulting services, the consultant's work is broken into two phases, i.e.: Phase I - Study report, preliminary design, final design and bidding and award services (i.e. all work required from "Day 1" to the time that bids have been received and the construction contract is awarded). Phase II - Construction services (i.e. all work required from the date a construction contract is awarded to the date of final completion of the contract, and followup paperwork, etc. For this project, SEH proposes the following fee structure (see pp SA -1 through SA -6 of their proposal): for Phase I services: a "cost plus a fixed fee with a maximum" fee basis is proposed, with the maximum fee set at $82,600. While this fee seems high (approximately 10% to 11.5% of the preliminary estimate of construction costs - depending on which alternate is used as a base), it must be noted that the level of services included (see above itemization of special services) is very high. Also, it is noted that the $82,600 is a maximum fee, while the more probable fee is estimated at approximately $70,000 to $75,000. for Phase II services: a "payroll cost times a multiplier" fee basis is proposed, with a multiplier of 3.06. Page Six February 7, 1989 Note This multiplier is based on the following formula: payroll cost = 1.00 indirect overhead costs = ( +) 1.7166 subtotal = 2.7166 plus 13% profit = x 1.13 Multiplier = 3.06 It is estimated that the total costs for Phase II services will be approximately 8% of the total construction costs, i.e. $720,000 x .08 = $57,600. At our request, the proposal provides (see paragraph E, page A -6) that the City may elect to do a portion or all of the Phase II services. It is recommended that this decision not be made until the City is ready to proceed with construction. At that time, we will be able to evaluate our ability to provide City staff support for this project based on our then - current staff capabilities and workload. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council accept and approve this proposal from SEH, and authorize its execution "subject to approval by MNDOT". If MNDOT approves the proposal, they will then prepare an agreement with the City. That agreement must then be approved by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, .7�1 y lj Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park CONSULTANT SELECTION EVALUATION FORM for Reconstruction of West River Road (old T.H. 252) Interviews Conducted January 5, 1989 CONSULTANT: Max Point Point Evaluation Criteria Assignment Rating A. Characteristic's of Firm 1. General engineering reputation 10 _ 2. Capability /History of meeting schedules 5 _ 3. Capability /History of meeting budget commitments 5 _ 4. Experience with similar projects 3 _ 5. EEO /Affirm Action/WMBE plans 5 B. Project Management Overall Project Manager: 1. Mgr. /Adm. skills & experience 5 _ 2. Ability /Commitment to direct team 5 _ 3. Communication/Listening /Leadership 5 _ Design Leader(s) 4. Knowledge, skills and abilities 3 _ 5. Experience on similar projects 3 _ Supporting Staff and /or "Subs" 6. Knowledge, skills and abilities 3 _ 7. Experience 3 _ Construction Management Leader 8. Knowledge, skills and abilities 3 _ 9. Experience 3 C. Work Plan -1. Approach to project management 10 2. Understanding of issues, concerns and objectives 10 3. Comprehension of project requirements - 10 _ administration and technical 4. Imagination /Ingenuity 10 D. Overall Interview 1. Was presentation objective and understandable? 10 _ 2. Were responses to questions direct, clear and 10 credible? 3. Was consultant's response to questions regarding 10 _ fee structure acceptable? 4. Was entire presentation and interview cohesive? 10 141 Signed by Interview Board Member I t REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOVEMBER 3, 1988 GENERAL The City of Brooklyn Center is seeking assistance from qualified consultants for project management, preparation of preliminary and detail design plans, preliminary and construction survey and project field representative services for the reconstruction of West River Road (previously T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. The project may be expanded to include improvements southerly of 66th Avenue North to Interstate Highway 694. Construction will include, but not be limited to, removal, subgrade correction and grade adjustment, widening, drainage, signing, sidewalk, trailway and landscaping improvements. All contract documents including, but not limited to, plans, specifications and estimates, feasibility reports and required agreements between City and State shall be ready for a contract bid letting in November, 1989. The City of Brooklyn Center may expand or reduce the scope of services as need dictates. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Four copies of each proposal shall be submitted to Sy Knapp, P.E., Director of Public Works, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. Proposals shall be submitted to later than 4:30 p.m., December 1, 1988. PROPOSAL CONTENTS - As a minimum, each proposal should address the following: 1. A'statement of objectives. 2. Identify personnel managing the project. 3. Prepare a work plan detailing summary of tasks with schedule in sufficient detail to indicate how work will be completed be required date. 4. Identify the level of participation and services to be provided by the City of Brooklyn Center. EVALUATION Evaluation will be accomplished by personnel of the City, State and an outside individual. Upon selection, results will be immediately mailed to all responders. Selection is anticipated around December 31, 1988. Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on November 10, 1988 and in the Construction Bulletin November 11, 1988 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PREPARATION OF A DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPLE USE TRAIL ALONG WEST RIVER ROAD AND WILLOW LANE FROM I -694 TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP : IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:�� „�� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation • As noted in the report relating to the contract for consulting services relating to the West River Road project (previous item on this agenda) City staff recommends that the City voluntarily prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet relating to this project. To initiate this process, the City Council must adopt a resolution initiating the process and designating the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this process. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. 1 FINANCIAL PROPOSAL 1 t FOR WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1 FEBRUARY 2, 1989 ENCINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS I . SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. II I 1 ENGINEERS :ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 484 -0272 Fbruary 2, 1989 Mr. Sy Knapp, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Enclosed is the financial proposal and draft contract for the West River Road project. The proposal includes: o Standard Agreement for engineering services. o Exhibit A - Scope of work. o Exhibit B - Insurance provisions. o Schedule A - Payments to the consultant. A -1 Direct Salary Rate Range A -2 Indirect Salary Costs A -3 Equipment Rental Rates A -4 Cost Summary o Exhibit C - Insurance certificates. o Exhibit D - Geotechnical proposal. o Exhibit E - Man -hour estimate. o Exhibit F - Estimated construction cost. The Schedule A -2, indirect salary cost are based upon an annual audit conducted in December, 1988 by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. In the past, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has accepted the Wisconsin audit. Mn /DOT is in receipt of the current audit report. Exhibit E is our estimate of the work effort necessary to accomplish the project in accordance with our discussions with you. Exhibit F, estimated Construction Cost is very preliminary; however may be used to apply judgement to the proposed engineering services. We have forwarded copies of this proposal to Mr. Chuck Weichselbaum, Mn /DOT District 5 State Aid Engineer and the Mn /DOT consultant agreement section for their review and approval. We hope you find the proposal satisfactory. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss the proposal and are looking forward to working with the City on the project. Sincere , Short -E iott ndri on, Inc. Gar R Gr , P. E. GRG /dma Vice P esid nt SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHI W �IN S, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCO STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of C FNTE,Q Y by and between THE CITY OF BROOKLYN first party, hereinafter called or referred to as the City, ar O SHORT ELLIOTTn , HENDRICKSON, INC., second party, hereinafter called or referred to as the Consultant. WITNESSETH, that, WHEREAS, the City is authorized to and intends to employ the services of the Consultant from time to time in the construction of public works and in providing general engineerin g services for the Owner, and whereas, the services will include in some instances single construction projects in which case the work shall be deemed a PROJECT and in other instances the work may not necessarily be comprised of a full project sequence to include the development of reports, plans and specifications and such services in which case the work shall be deemed GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, and WHEREAS, it is intended that this contract shall overn the e terms of employment and compensation of the Consultant and all the conditions thereof, and the City desires to engage the services of the Consultant in connection with said work NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual convenants of this agreement as set forth herein, IT IS AGREED BY and between the parties as follows: 1. The City hereby employs the Consultant to furnish and perform the professional services as described in the "Scope of Work" on attached Exhibit "A ", and to pay the Consultant as compensation therefore the fees in the - 1 - ■ manner and subject to the conditions noted herein below; and the Consultant now agrees to render and perform any and all engineering services in connection with any of the above mentioned work and to accept as ! payment of their compensation the fees for such work, or any part thereof, in the manner and subject to the conditions noted herein. 2. Copyright of Patent Infringement: The Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or patent by reason of the use or adoption of any designs, drawings or specifications supplied by him, and he shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom, providing however, that the City within five (5) days after receipt of any notice of infringement or of summons in any action therefor shall have forwarded the same to the Consultant 'in O writing. 3. Insurance: The Consultant shall secure and maintain i insurance in accordance with the attached Exhibit "H" as will protect him from claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage and professional liability which may arise from the performance of his services ' under this Agreement. 4. The Consultant, upon direction of the City, agrees to perform the following Engineering Services for PROJECTS. A. General: The Consultant shall serve as the City's professional representative in the planning, or design of the project, and shall give consultation and advice to the Owner during the performance of his services. - 2 - B• Basic Services of the Consultant to be performed: (1) Preparation of a Feasibility Report including the following items: ' a. On the basis of preliminary engineering study, the Consultant shall prepare a report and necessary preliminary design documents for the "City" for presentation at a public hearing and shall provide 15 copies of said report to the City. [� b. Prepare a cost estimate for the projects based on information given in the preliminary design documents and sha provide 15 copies of said estimates to • the City. He shall also attend all public hearings. (2) On the basis of an approved feasibility report, the consultant shall prepare all contractual documents and perform project related services including the following items: a. Furnish to the City, engineering data for, and assist in the preparation of the required documents, to secure approval of such governmental authorities as have jurisdiction over design criteria applicable to the projects. b. Advise the City of an adjustment of the Y ad j cost estimate for the projects caused by changes in scope, design requirements or construction costs, and furnish a revised cost estimate for the projects based on the completed drawings and specifications. Prepare legal descriptions for all necessary right -of -way and easements that are required for the projects. C. Prepare and furnish the contract documents consisting of construction agreement forms, general conditions, special provisions, up to 20 copies of the detailed construction drawings, specifications and proposal forms for bidding purposes by the contractors. Consultant agrees to confer with the City's Engineer and shall use, subject to modification as agreed to by the City and Consultant, any general forms, 1 conditions or specifications prepared and normally used by the City as outlined in this section. If requested, the Consultant shall provide copies of his design calculations to the City. d. Assist the City in obtaining and evaluating bids and awarding contracts for the construction of projects. e. Make periodic visits to the site to observe the progress and quality of the executed work and to determine if the work is p roceeding in accordance with the contract documents; and during such 4 - N visits, and on the basis of their on- site observations as experienced and qualified Professional Engineers, they will keep the City informed of the progress of the work, will guard the City against defects and deficiencies in the work of contractors, and shall disapprove work failing to conform to the contract documents. The Consultant shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality and quantity of such work. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected - by the Contractor(s) or the safety precautions and programs incidental to the work of the Contractor(s). f. Check and approve samples, catalog data, schedules, shop drawings, laboratory, shop and mill tests of materials and equipment and other data which the Contractor is required to submit, for conformance with the design concept of the projects and compliance with the information given by the contract documents, and assemble written guarantees which are required by the contract documents. 5 Such review and approval shall not extend to means, methods, sequences, techniques or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incidental thereto. g. Consult with and advise the City and prepare routine orders as required for City Council approval. All Change Orders shall be approved by the City before they are issued to the Contractor. h. Based on their on -site observations as experienced and qualified Professional Engineers and on their review of tie Contractors' applications for payment, they shall assist the City to determine the amount owing to the Contractors; such approvals of payment to constitute a representation to the City, based on such observations and review and the data comprising such applications, that the work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the work is in accordance with the contract documents, subject to the results of any subsequent test called for in the contract documents and any qualifications stated in his approval. i. Conduct, in company with the City's representative, a final inspection of the projects for conformance with the design concept of the projects and compliance with the information given by - 6 the contract documents, and approve in writing final payment to the Contractors. C': Extra Services of the Consultant shall include the following when authorized by the City's Representative: (1) Revisions to drawings and specifications previously approved and preparation of necessary documents for alternate proposals and change orders. (2) Preliminary and /or construction field surveying and staking. (3) Review and coordination of work accomplish9d by other consultants for work related to the i project, i.e. soils investigations, hydrographic surveys or other special consultation. (4) Services During Construction: Resident inspection of construction of project. (except planting materials) (5) Observation of Extraordinary Materials Testing. (6) Assisting the City in arranging the continuation of the work should the contractor default for any reason; and providing supervision of construction contract time be exceeded by more than 25%, !, not occasioned by fault of the Consultant. • - 7 - (7) Work performed in connection with acquisition of easements or right -of -way. (8) Inspection prior to Expiration of the Guaranty Period of the project and preparation of a written report listing discrepancies between guaranties and performance. (9) Prepare a preliminary assessment roll allocating the estimated cost of the improvement for all properties benefited by the proposed improvements and shall provide 15 copies of said assessment roll to the City. The Consultant shall also attend the final assessment hearing, if requested, and answer questions of the City or the Public:' (10) Record Drawings: If requested by the City, the Consultant shall prepare, within 90 days after completion of each project, record drawings showing changes in the work authorized during construction based on field inspection and survey reports and shall submit a set of mylar reproducibles and one set of prints to the City. (11) Preparation of applications and supporting documents for government grants, loans or advances in connection with the project. Review and evaluation of the effect on the design requirements of the project of any statements or documents prepared by others. services due to significant (12) Additional se g changes in general scope of the Project or 8 - its design including but not limited to, change of size, complexity of character or of construction. (13) Providing services after issuance to the CITY of the final Certificate for Payment. (14) Serving as an expert witness for the CITY in any litigation or other proceedings involved in the Project. (15) Additional services in connection with the Project not otherwise provided for in this Agreement. D. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES _ The following reimbursable expenses representing actual expenditures made by the Engineer, his employees, or his professional consultants specifically for the Project are not included in the Basic Services. 1. Transportation expense equal in amount to employee reimbursement for services provided in connection with Article 4. 2. When authorized in writing b the City's g Y 's Y Representative, transportation and subsistence of principals and employees for extraordinary trips; long distance telephone and telegraph calls as required to expedite the work of the Contractor' reproduction of drawings and specifications over and above those specified in Article 4.B(1)a & 4.B(2)c of this Agreement. I I 3. Fees paid for, in the name of the CITY, for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 5. The Consultant agrees to perform the following work as GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES: A. General: The Consultant shall serve as the City's professional representative in performing engineering functions as directed by the City's representative for: (1) Plat review. (2) Special engineering studies and related engineering work. (3) Research for and preparation of technical correspondence. (4) Participating in meeting and conferences involving engineering questions. (5) Construction resident inspection. (6) Construction staking. (7) Land surveys. B. Basic Services of the Consultant: The work shall include the performance of specific duties as directed and the furnishing for the information of the City at least one copy of an instrument of record describing the conclusions, recommendations or engineering observations made as the result of performing the General Engineering Services where such an instrument of record is requested. 6. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with complete information concerning the scope of the project or work and to perform the following services: A. Access to the Work: The City shall guarantee access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private lands - 10 - as required for the Consultant to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the development of the project or work. B. Consideration of the Consultant: The City shall : give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by the Consultant, and inform the Consultant of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the Consultant. C. Legal Requirements: The City shall hold promptly all required special meetings, serve all required public and private notices, receive and act upon all protests and fulfill all requirements necessary in the development of the project or work, and pay all costs incidental thereto. D. Proposals: The City shall advertise for Proposals from Bidders, open the Proposals at the appointed time and place and pay all costs incidental thereto. E. Standards: The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any design and construction standards it shall require the Consultant to follow in the preparation of Contract Documents for the project or work. F. City's Representative: The City Engineer of The City of Brooklyn Park shall act as the City's Representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He shall have • complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's - 11 - policy and decisions, with respect to the materials, equipment, elements and system pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 7. City's Payment for Project Work Done by the Consultant: A. General: (1) Definitions of Construction Cost of the project as herein referred to means the total contract cost of all work designed or specified by the Consultant for the project but does not include any payments to the Consultant or other consultants. (2) Payments Withheld from Contractors: No deduction shall be made from the Consultant's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages, or other amounts withhdld . from payments to Contractor. i (3) Abandoned or Suspended Work: If any work performed by the Consultant is abandoned or suspended by the City in whole or in part, and if the Consultant has complied with all the terms of this contract the Consultant shall be paid for services performed, not to exceed the amount stipulated in Article 6, Sec. B, as performed to the date of receipt of written notice from the City of such abandonment or suspension, together with any terminal expenses resulting therefrom as agreed to between the City and Consultant. r Payments: once each month the City (4) Progress Payme s Y shall pay the Consultant upon submission of invoices for professional services performed under this Agreement in proportion to services performed during the period. - 12 - i B. Payments for Basic Services of the Consultant: The City shall pay the Consultant for the basic services described in Article 4.B of this Agreement, on an hourly basis in accordance with the schedule of rates attached hereto as Schedule "A ". Said payments shall not exceed a maximum amount as indicated in Schedule "A ". C. Payment for Extra Services of the Consultant: For Extra Services defined in Article 4.0 the City shall pay the Consultant on an hourly basis in accordance with the schedule of rates attached hereto, as Schedule "A ". If requested, the Consultant shall provide a maximum cost to accomplish the work, said costs shall not be exceeded without written consent of the City's Representative. D. Payments for Consultant's Reimbursable Services: The Consultant shall be reimbursed at cost for the reimbursable services outlined under Article 3.D. 8. Payments for General Engineering Services of the Consultant: A. The costs for those services described in Article 4 shall be billed on the basis of Schedule "A" schedule of rates. Consultant shall provide a proposal indicating the maximum fee which will be required to accomplish the General Engineering Services requested. If accepted, the maximum cost indicated will be considered the maximum fee which shall be charged unless a higher fee is requested by the Consultant and approved in writing by the . City's Representative. - 13 - H. The Consultant shall bill monthly and shall provide an itemized billing statement for work performed during the billing period. The Consultant's billing shall also specify such items in said billing which may be charged back to developers under the terms of the City's Ordinances, contracts, rules and regulations. 9. The City and Consultant further agree to the following conditions: A. Arbitration: Arbitration of all questions in ' dispute under this Agreement may be arbitrated in accordance with rules of the American Arbitration Association, if mutually agreeable to both parties. This Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law and judgment upon the award rendered may - be entered in the court of the forum, state or federal, having ,jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrators shall be a condition precedent to the right of any legal action, but shall not be considered as precluding an appeal to the courts by the City or Consultant to the arbitrators decision. H. Ownership of Documents: The completed tracings and master specification sheets shall become the property of the City. With respect to any project in progress at the time of termination, the Consultant shall provide the City with mylar reproducible copies of any plans, specifications or documents already completed at the time of termination necessary for completion of said project at no additional expense to the City. - 14 - C. Hold Harmless Agreement: The Engineer and /or Surveyor shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the City, its appointed and /or elected officials, commission members, employees, agents, and each of them from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, interest, attorney's fees, cost and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature whether arising before or after final acceptance and in any manner directly or indirectly caused, occasioned or contributed to in ' whole or in part, or claimed to be caused, occasioned or contributed to in whole or in part, by reason of any act, error or omission, fault or negligence whether active or passive by the Engineer or Surveyor or of anyone acting under their direction, control, or on their behalf in connection with or incident to its performance of the contract. 10. Successors and Assigns: This Agreement and all of the covenants thereof shall insure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Consultant respectively and his partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Consultant shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without written consent of the other party. 11. Termination: The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, but the Consultant shall not terminate except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. - 15 - i M IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CONSULTANT BY (SEAL) BY TITLE TITLE BY BY TITLE TITLE WITNESSETH: WITNESSETH: j i 1 - 16 - CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS. On this day of 19_ before me, a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly'sworn did say that they are respectively the and the of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. MUNICIPAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT OF MINNESOTA) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS. ' On this _ day of 19_ before me, a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared and to me ' personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and the of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality, by authority of its Council and said and ' acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. 17 - EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK I. GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE The scope of the consultant services includes a feasibility study, preliminary design, final design, bidding and award services and construction services for construction of West River Road, from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. In addition, the project includes a multiple use trail only, from 66th Avenue North to I -694. Existing West River Road is Old Trunk Highway 252 and consists of a 24'foot wide bituminous surface with aggregate shoulders. The ' City desires to reconstruct the roadway to urban street standards with concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and trail system. Two alternative design are to be considered: a. Adding curb and gutter and overlaying the existing roadway. b. Total reconstruction with an urban section. The consultant services for the project has been separated into two phases: Phase I - Study Report, Preliminary Design Final Design, and Bidding and Award Services Phase II - Construction Services II. PROJECT SCHEDULE The City has identified that it desires to proceed with construction of the project in 1990. Completion of the design ' effort necessary to commence fall 1990 construction will require cooperation and timely decisions and reviews by the City of ' Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Department of Transportation and other agencies. The design schedule is identified subsequently: • A -1 Project Design Schedule - February 15, 1989 SEH Commences Wo rk Feb. 28, March 2, 8, 9 Concept Development Meetings April 6 EAW Publication May 1 Draft Feasibility Study Complete May 1 -15 Preliminary Design Review Meetings June 1 Final Feasibility Study June 26 Feasibility Study Accepted by Council July 10 Public Hearing July 10 Preliminary Design Approved August 15 R/W Identified - Descriptions Complete ' August 15 Appraisals Authorized September 25 Condemnation Authorized November 1 Final Plans and Specifications Complete January 23, 1990 Bids Received February 13, 1990 Contracts Awarded A -2 N II - BASIC SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER A. GENERAL The ENGINEER agrees to perform professional services t including Study Report, Preliminary Design, Final Design and construction services in connection with Project as hereinafter stated. B. STUDY REPORT The report shall address: 1. Cover, title page, signature page, index, etc. 2. Introduction - purpose of the report, area of the Project to be studied and what is covered by the report. 3. Description of the existing facility. 4. Existing deficiencies. . 5. Project background. 6. Alternates to be considered. 7. Project Staging and schedule. 8. Intersection lighting needs. 9. Estimated costs broken down into participation by Mn /DOT, City or other agencies. 10. Public utilities, evaluation of sanitary sewer and watermain needs including watermain corrosion problem. 11. Coordination with private utilities to consider placing facilities underground. 12. Right -of -way and easement considerations. 13. Environmental Impacts - general discussion. i a. Wetlands. b. Historical significance. C. Permits. d. Floodplain. e. Wildlife. f. Water quality. g. Parkland. A - 3 1 h. Noise. i. Air quality. j. Etc, as applicable. 14. Traffic analysis including forecasts and intersection _ analysis. 15. Approvals required. 16. Summary, recommendations, conclusions or suggestions as appropriate. 17. Illustrations. a. Location map. b. Typical sections. C. Plan views. d. Suggested staged construction e. Others as needed for report. 18. Appendix. a. Traffic studies and counts. • b. Reports on meetings. 19. Public involvement including contact with adjacent property owners, informational meetings, public hearing. 20. Planning considerations including sidewalks, trails, bus routes and landscaping of the berms adjacent to i T.H. 252. 21. Storm drainage assessment determination of needs ' including Mattson Brook Crossing. 22. Provide up to 20 copies of the final study report. C. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE The preliminary design phase shall be prepared concurrently with the study report and includes: 1. Field surveys necessary to prepare construction plans. 2. Soil borings at approximately 200' intervals, tests an6 recommendations. A - 4 3. Obtaining the locations of known utilities, rights -of- ' way and easements. 4. Obtaining locations on special needs of Mn /DOT, local streets and utilities. 5. Evaluate storm drainage needs and coordinate storm drainage planning with the City and Watershed ' Management Organization. Storm ponds are not anticipated to be part of the project. 6. Preliminary landscaping design. Prepare preliminary roadway plans including typical cross sections, ' roadway plan profiles, and drainage plans. Approximate construction limits and right -of -way ' requirements will be shown on the roadway plan. D. FINAL DESIGN PHASE The final design shall include: • 1. Final roadway plans and specifications including ' landscaping. The final plans will be prepared in accordance with the preliminary plans or as amended. ' The final plans and specifications will meet CITY and Mn /DOT requirements. 2. Preparation of legal descriptions for temporary and permanent easements. Preparation of a right -of -way plan. ' 3. Coordinate with Mn /DOT for State funding. 4. Submit plans to all affected utility companies and agencies associated with the project for their information, review, comment, permit or approval as ' appropriate. 5. Deliver plans and design data to City and Mn /DOT for its approval. 6. Prepare permit applications and assist CITY in obtaining approvals. A - 5 7. Prepare the proposal form and Advertisement for Bids and assist the CITY in preparation of contract documents. 8. Prepare an estimate of cost based upon the quantities listed on the proposal form. 9. Assist the CITY in obtaining and evaluating bids. The Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are proceeding with plans for reconstruction of adjacent segments of West River Road. The consultant is preparing the design for both projects. The plans and specifications for each project will be prepared anticipating separate construction documents; however, it is recognized that the projects may be combined for bidding purposes. The cities will make this decision near the completion of the final design. ' • E. PHASE II - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES The construction services identified under Sections 4B (2) e, f, ' h, and i of the Standard Agreement may be performed by the City by the consultant or a combination of both. The level of consultant involvement in Phase II shall be determined by the ' City after completion of Phase I. ' A - 6 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE PROVISIONS ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR CONTRACT AGREEMENTS The Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until ' all insurance re!guirtd under tFA contract docuilents has bean obtainWd and until Bert cater of surance eroof are submitte to the Cit l ark; the Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence wow until the insurance required of such subcontractor has been ' obtained and certificates of insurance are submitted to the City Clerk. During the term of this contract, the Consultant shall maintain such insurance as will protect him and the City from claims as set forth below which may arise out of or result from the Consultants ' operations under the contract, whether such operations be by himself or by a subcontractor or sub - subcontractor or anyone directly or in- directly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be held liable: ' (a) For claims arising under any worker's Compensation Employers Liability, or any similar employe* benefit. ' (b) For claims because of bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death of any person or persons other than his employees, and for claims because of damage to or destruction of property of others resulting therefrom, including loss of ' use thereof. (c) For claims because of errors and/or omissions as it re- late* to the EngiAser's and/or Surveyor's professional ' ' liability and performance. _ 3uch insurance shall be written, for amounts not less than -:he following as respects subparagraph (a) above: Worker's Compensation Statutory Employers Liability $100,000 Each occurrence ' and as respects subparagraph (b) above: General Liability: Bodily Injury $500,000 Each Occurrence $500,000 Aggregate ' property Damage $100,000 Each Occurrence $100,000 Aggregate ' Automobile: Bodily Injury $250,000 Each Person $500,000 Each Occurrence property Damage $100,000 Each Accident The insurance referred to in subparagraph (b) above shall be written under the Comprehensive General and Comprehensive Automoblie Liability policy forms, including coverage for all owned, hired, and moo - owned automobiles. The Consultant may at his option, provide the limits of liability as set out above by a combination of the above described policy forms and an Umbrella Excess Liability policy. and as respects subparagraph (c) above: (1) $100,000 Each Claim $100,000 Mregate $ Deductible Each Claim All responsibility for payment of any sums resulting from any deductible provision, or self - insured retention conditions of the policy or policies shall remain with the Consultant. Exhibit B -1 (1) Amount to be inserted which is acceptable to the CLt,r INSURAC PROVISIONS PAGE 2 It is a condition of the contract that the policy or policies waive any and all Governmental Immunity as a defense in any action b aga inst the insured or any other party to the contract. ' All insurance certificates shall be submitted prior to the execution of the contract and shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not in any way relieve or decrease the liability of the Consultant hereunder, and it is expressly understood that the City does not in any way represent that the above specified insurance or limits of lia- bility are sufficient or adequate to protect the Consultants inter- ests or liabilities. The insured shall submit evidence of insurance on the certificate form provided by the City, copy attached. If any policy of insurance ' is cancelled, the Consultant shall file a now certificate of insurance or this contract shall become null and void. Certificates for lia- bility policies except professional liability must show that the City is one of the parties insured by the respective policies. • e Exhibit B -2 I � SCHEDULE A V. PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULTANT A. METHOD OF PAYMENT - Phase I ' The City shall compensate the Consultant for his services on a monthly basis in accordance with the terms of the standard agreement: The monthly payments shall be equal to the sum of paragraphs A.1 - A.5, however, shall not exceed ' the total payments outlined in paragraph A.6. 1. The direct costs incurred by the Consultant shall include the cost of salaries and wages paid to principals and employees engaged directly on the project, including, but ' not limited to, engineers, surveyors, technicians, drafters, specification writers, estimators, and clerks. ' (See Schedule A -1, Direct Salary Rate Range) • 2. Fringe benefits and indirect costs incurred at the indirect overhead rate of 171.66 percent of the direct salary costs. Fringe benefits include, but are not limited to, Social ' Security contributions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, Workmen's Compensation, Health and Retirement Benefits, incentive compensation, sick leave, vacation and ' holiday pay applicable thereto.(See Schedule A -2, Indirect Salary Costs). 3. The actual costs incurred by the Consultant in retaining the services of subconsultants for disciplines which are not available within the Consultant's firm and are necessary to accomplish the work. 4. Other direct costs incurred to the extent that they are ' properly allocable to the project (which may include but are not be limited to) travel, special equipment ' (computers, electronic survey equipment etc.) materials, supplies, as outlined in Section 4.D of the Standard ' Agreement and Schedule A -3. SA - 1 5. A net fee in addition to the aforesaid costs in the amount of $8,738.59. It is understood that the net fee will be paid in proportion to the project progress and will be subject to adjustment in case of change of scope of work, abandonment of the project prior to its completion, or deletion of specific tasks as presently anticipated. 6. The total payments to the Consultant shall not exceed $82,600.00. The Consultant shall not perform any services that would cause the above amount to be exceeded unless the Consultant has been authorized by the City under amendment to this agreement. It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to originate all requests for additional compensation and amendments to the agreements. B. Method of Payment - Phase II The City shall pay the ENGINEER monthly for services performed under Phase II based on the total time expended by personnel assigned to the Project at the rates shown in Schedule A -1 times a multiplier of 3.06 which includes fringe benefits, indirect costs and profit, plus the actual cost of reimbursable expenses as outlined in Section 4.D of the Standard Agreement and Schedules A -2 and A -3. The hourly rates for the various labor categories of personnel assigned to the Project shall be adjusted on approximately April 15, annually. C. Progress Reports The Consultant shall submit monthly reports to the City showing progress of the work. A copy of the report form to be used by the Consultant will be submitted to the City for approval. SA - 2 SCHEDULE A -1 DIRECT SALARY RATE RANGE BY CLASSIFICATION (1) CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL PAYROLL RATE (2) OFFICE STAFF Principal Engineer $29.00 - $35.00 Project Manager $17.00 - $25.50 g Project Engineer /Architect /Planner $12.00 - $18.50 Design Engineer /Architect /Planner $10.50 - $15.90 Lead Technician $11.50 - $18.50 Senior Technician $ 9.00 - $13.50 Technician $ 7.00 - $10.50 Associate Technician $ 6.00 - $ 9.00 Word Processor $ 6.50 - $10.50 General Clerical $ 5.50 - $ 9.00 FIELD STAFF Lead Project Representative $11.50 - $17.00 Sr. Project Representative $ 9.00 - $13.50 Project Representative $ 7.00 - $10.50 Survey Party Chief $ 9.00 - $17.00 Survey Assistant $ 5.50 - $10.50 (1) The actual rate charged is dependent upon the hourly rate of the employee assigned to the project. The rates shown are subject to change as noted below. Issued: June 24, 1988 Expires: April 14, 1989 SA - 3 SCHEDULE A -2 INDIRECT SALARY COSTS SHORT, ELLIOT, HENDRICKSON, INC. ANNUAL OVERHEAD REPORT For The Year Ended June 30, 1988 DIRECT LABOR 1 ) $2,201,885 a= aaaa =aaaa ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE TOTAL * UNALLOWABLE INDIRECT % OF (1) ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- PAYROLL AND FRINGE EXPENSES Payroll Taxes $289,138 $289,138 13.13 % Paid Leaves 310,879 310,879 14.12 Group Insurance & Workers Comp. 150,598 150,598 6.84 Profit Sharing 305,079 $3,793 a 301,286 13.68 Incentive Compensation 415,793 415,793 18.88 Miscellaneous Employees Benefits 81,823 145 a 81,678 3.71 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL PAYROLL AND FRINGE EXPENSES $1,553,310 $3,938 $1,549,372 70.37 % GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD EXPENSES Indirect Labor $930,223 $930,223 42.25 % Office Rent 247,282 247,282 11.23 General Insurance 294,163 $7,184 b 286,979 13.03 Telephone 46,663 2,441 c 44,222 2.01 Equipment Repair & Rental 72,205 72,205 3.28 Postage & UPS 25,846 1,524 c 24,322 1.10 Dues, Fees & Subscriptions 22,694 22,694 1.03 Supplies 174,790 6,093 c 168,697 7.66 Management Meetings 2,584 2,584 0.12 Project Development 23,951 280 a 23,671 1.08 Professional Services 101,922 101,922 4.63 Employment Cost 30,479 30,479 1.38 Data Processing (144,514) (144,514) (6.56) Depreciation 215,743 7,325 d 208,418 9.47 Automobile Expense 55,038 55,038 2.50 Project Warranty Work 73,201 73,201 3.32 Miscellaneous Expense 632 632 0.03 State Property Tax 9,217 9,217 0.42 State Income Tax 12,630 12,630 0.57 Fac. Cap. Cost of Money 60,445 60,445 2.75 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- TOTAL G & A EXPENSES $2,255,194 $24,847 $2,230,347 101.29 % TOTAL OVERHEAD EXPENSES $3,808,504 $28,785 $3,779,719 171.66 % * Per Consultant's overhead computation based on costs for FY ended June 30, 1988. a. Entertainment Expense; unallowable per FAR 31.205 -14. b. Officer's Life Insurance; unallowable per FAR 31.205 -19. c. Advertising Expense; unallowable per FAR 31.205 -1. d. Gain on sale of assets; credited against depreciation expense per FAR 31.205 -16. e. Journal entry not reflected in overhead proposal. • I SA -4 SCHEDULE A -3 EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES CADD COMPAQ 386 $ 18.00 /HOUR COMPAQ 286 12.00 /HOUR IBM AT 12.00 /HOUR RENTAL AT 7.00 /HOUR ENGINEERING COMPUTERS HP 310 $ 18.00 /HOUR HP 319 25.00 /HOUR HP 9816 10.00 /HOUR COMPAQ 286 PORTABLE 7.00 /HOUR IBM AT 7.00 /HOUR COMPAQ 386 12.00 /HOUR P.C.'s N/C GEODIMETER S 25.00 /HOUR NUCLEAR DENSITY TESTER $200.00 /WEEK VIDEO CAMERA $ 4.00 /HOUR + TAPE TRAFFIC COUNTER $ 30.00 /UNIT /COUNT Note: The rental rates are reviewed annually and are subject to revision. • SA - 5 SCHEDULE A -4 COST SUMMARY 1. DIRECT LABOR COST LABOR CATEGORY: HOURS RATE PROJECT DIRECTOR 43 MH @ 35.44 = 1,523.90 PROJECT MANAGER 125 MH @ 23.10 = 2,887.50 CHIEF TRAFFIC ENGINEER 73.5 MH @ 35.44 = 2,604.80 PROJECT ENGINEER 399.5 MH @ 16.28 = 6,503.90 DESIGN ENGINEER 77.5 MH @ 13.23 = 1,025.30 LEAD TECHNICIAN 309.5 MH @ 15.49 = 4,794.20 SENIOR TECHNICIAN 148 MH @ 13.34 = 1,974.30 TECHNICIAN 263 MH @ 9.34 = 2,456.40 SURVEY CREW 15 MH @ 29.40 = 441.00 WORD PROCESSOR 51.5 MH @ 8.19 = 421.80 . GENERAL CLERICAL 23 MH @ 7.14 = 164.20 Subtotal Direct Labor $24,797.30 2. OVERHEAD ON DIRECT LABOR COSTS (70.37$) $17,449.89 3. GEN. & ADMIN. OVERHEAD ON DIRECT LABOR $25,117.22 COST (101.29$) 4. ITEM 1 AND ITEM 2 AND ITEM 3 $67,364.41 5. NET FEE (13 + ) @ ITEM 4 $ 8,738.59 6. ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES: a) Geodimeter $ 250.00 b) Computer 1,620.00 c) Reproductions 1,383.00 d) Soil Borings 3,000.00 e) Travel 244.00 $6,497.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSE $ 6,497.00 i 7. ITEM 4 AND ITEM 5 AND ITEM 6 TOTAL ESTIMATE COST PLUS NET FEE $82,600.00 li SA - 6 o rd., K 61 :4 ; I I I j [ 1411 1 : f I ", L 61 1/27/89 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS 4 NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. H. Robert Anderson & Associates, Inc. ! EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 6110 Blue Circle Drive _ -- Suite 200 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Minnetonka, MLA 55343 �Cb'PA "1 A Aetna Casualty & Surety LCT'�R _ C CMPANY g American Manufacturers S,,aE ER Short - Elliott -- Hendrickson, Inc. ' "�a'' C Security of Hartford 222 E. Little Canada Rd. — - - -- - -- — - -- - -- St. Paul, PV 55117 ti,Pa "v D T !S S '7 E:RTIFV -! +AT pOL C ES OF INSURANCE LISTED 9ELOW ^A'.E 9EEN SSUED T ; -E `.SUREO NAMED ABC`iE TOR ' = iO ?',VITnSTA`,OING ANY PEOU•REMENT TERM OR CONOIrION OF ANY NTRACT OR 0"H =R `'O00MENT WITH RESPECT N� - E SSUEO OR MAY PERTAIN. - E NSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES CESCRIBED EREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL - E E?MS - -tCL-3 CNN o) TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. ,-,i — j _ _ _ � �_S -•BLS ICY '41 V6ER – GENERAL uABILITY – – - -- - -� –~ - i Ai, a { 36 ACM 5161307 10/1/88 10/1/89 " "I'l,G'O '1,000 �l ; - . i AUTOMCBILE LABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY NORKERS' COMPENSA'IC'+ 1 – �— - AND Renewal of -- MPLOVERS ua�t�: 3 CQ 209288- -05 5/1/88 5/1/89 - �1 00� - oriER -- -- Professional PL 429526 $2,000 Limit C! Liabi _ L DEX 6240 10/1/68 10 $50 Deductible = S„R DF PEPATC'.�- S� %c� ICLESiSPECIAL ITEMS • r SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED 9E =CPE - - City of Brooklyn Center PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL , M 6301 Shi;rrle Creek Pkwy. MEN 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMEO Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 �xxeo�c �xo�xao-xec�cx >?sxataa�x� -- -- i' AUTHORIZED RE�AErSENT,�TIVE I Nj0ff S73,JE A' E MMIDD"Y "� 27/89 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. H. Robert Anderson & Associates, Inc, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. — - 6110 Blue Circle Drive Suite 200 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Minnetonka, MN 35-43 -_- - - ccMPavY A Aetna Casualty & Surety k (-M ANY g American Manufacturers �COMPANY E-TEa C Security of Hartford Short- Elliott - Hendrickson Inc. - - - -- - -- - --- 222 E. Little Canada Rd. c"MPANY D ETTER St. Paul, MN 55117 r— - - -- - - - -_ - - .^I`,1PANY L -ER HIS IS T O CERT;FY THAI 0 0LICIES OF'NSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO T4E INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR 'HE PCL.CY PE- •1OTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO 'NHICH 74�S Ea F.,.A BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE 7EPMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND '-c'- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES: - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - T - -- - — — - _ - aA _ N iC SANDS L TRl PE - F NB,' `"CE PCLiCV'UMBER - r . r.;p.'rv� T- GENERAL LiABILITY - - -- -- - - -f G ^'. �u" "PRE ^F al iE =;aM - X .qa 'ISES, aA' C' +S F �R(JJ�D 1 aMA:,E $ v � o �� -; 36 ACM 5161307 10 - -- / / 10/1/39 p, j �� ,,P _-E� P�AA-�ras 1 88 x; -� $ 1,000 3 1,000 X , �a A aM aiPC� Y �AMG;E 1 I 5 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY T �S �AMA(iE E:<CESS LIABILITY —� -- -3 a - I �Maa - NORKERS'COMPENSA -' Renewal of I SS L00 B AND 3 CQ 209288 -05 5/1/88 5/1/89 00_ EMPLOYERS' LIABIL47y 17S 100 - °- HER PL 429526 $ 2 000 Limit C!, Pro essional DEX 624069 10/1/88 I 10/1/89 $50 Deductible is i i ;;?ERATT0N3." 1:> �',j vEHICLESISPECIAL ITEMS SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED 4EF ^RE < City of Brooklyn Park PIRATIO DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY HILL 5800 - 85th Ave NO. MEN 3� DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER '.AMEr Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI E / r7 Fy I � i EXHIBIT D GEOTECHNICAL PROPOSAL TO: GARY GRAY, DICK MOORE FROM: JIM RUDD DATE: JANUARY 31, 1989 SUBJECT: COSTS FOR SOIL BORINGS WEST RIVER ROAD PROJECT BROOKLYN PARK AND BROOKLYN CENTER Attached is a written proposal from GME Consultants Inc. The work scope is as follows: 1. Perform a total of 106 auger borings and 26 penetration borings along the entire 5 miles of roadway. The auger borings will be 8 feet deep and the penetration borings 15 feet deep. 2. Perform laboratory tests consisting of 10 densities, 30 moisture contents, and 20 Atterberg limits. 3. Provide a report including soil boring logs and laboratory test results. SEH will interpret boring logs and provide subgrade recommendations. SEH will be responsible to locate and determine ssgrface elevations of the 132 soil borings. GME will be responsible nor clearing buried utility locations at each boring location. D r 1 i II Gary Gray, Dick Moore January 31, 1989 Page #2 Costs have not been included for corrosion study. I understand from Dick Moore that the ductile iron pipe representatives will perform a soil corrosivity study independent of this exploration program. The quoted "not to exceed figure" is $11,500 for the above work scope. I suggest a 25$ contingency above the GME quote for a budget figure. This will cover any additional borings needed and if the corrosivity of the soil will need to be explored. The client will only be charged the actual cost. The penetration borings will be spaced on 1,000 foot spacings and the auger borings will be approximately 200 foot spacings. Based on the total project length, the Brooklyn Park portion is approximately 80% and the Brooklyn Center is approximately 20% of the total length. Since the soil boring costs will be directly proportional to the number of borings, the budget figure for the Brooklyn Center project will be $3,000 and the budget for the Brooklyn Park project will be $11,500. As mentioned above, the actual costs may be less since we have a built -in 25% contingency. Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center will be charged for the actual work performed on each respective project. JCR /cmb Enclosure cc: Sue Green i D - 2 GME CONSULTANTS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21st Ave. No. / Minneapolis, MN 55447 / 612/559 -1859 -�- Y Januar 23 1989 - _'� • ' + - Mr. James Rudd, P.E. Short Elliott Hendricksen, Inc. 200 Gopher Building 222 East Little Canada Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 RE: Proposal for a subsurface exploration program for modifications to West River Road in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Rudd: As per our conversation today, we are pleased to submit this proposal to you for this project. In the following you will find our understanding of the project, an outline of the scope of services we are to provide, our fee schedule and the estimated charges for the services. We understand that the project will include the widening/ reconstruction of a 5 mile stretch of old West River Road in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. You have requested that the field work consist of 106 -eight foot auger profile borings and 26- fifteen foot Standard Penetration borings. Continuous flight augers will be used to advance the auger profile borings. The augers will be advanced with a minimum of rotation to avoid disturbance of the soil profile and frequently retracted for logging and sampling purposes. Representative samples will be obtained from the soil retained in the augers spiral flights. Representative samples will be obtained in the Standard Penetration borings using procedures described in ASTM: D 1586. We understand that representatives of your firm will locate the borings and provide vertical and horizontal control for each test location. We understand that GME Consultants, Inc. will clear underground utilities at these boring locations. We also understand that the borings will be performed within the roadway and that minimum traffic control will be required. i • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P. VENEMA, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENOAL, P.E. _... _ T n Mr. James Rudd 2 January 23, 1989 We plan to drill the borings with a truck mounted rotary drill rig. Our field crew will keep logs noting the methods of drilling and sampling, along with Standard Penetration Values, preliminary soil classifications, and observed groundwater levels. Recovered samples will be sealed in jars and returned to our laboratory for further examination and final classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. The boreholes will be backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt upon completion of drilling. In our laboratory a Geotechnical Engineer will examine and classify the samples and prepare the boring logs. You have requested that the laboratory testing include 30 moisture content determinations, 10 dry density determinations, and 20 Atterberg Limits. Our laboratory testing will be performed in accordance with ASTM procedures. Our report will include a brief description of the field and laboratory operations, description of the generalized subsurface conditions, the boring logs, and the results of the laboratory testing. No engineering recommendations will be included. Based on the scope of services given above (132 borings, 1,238 lineal feet of drilling), we estimate the charges for our services could be as much as $11,500. This can be considered as a not to exceed value for the outlined work scope. In the event that additional or deeper . borings are needed, or if testing is required beyond that anticipated or if engineering recommendations are desired, we would discuss reasons for the modifications and receive your authorization to proceed. Final charges will be based on the scope of services required and authorized extended at the unit prices shown on the enclosed fee schedule. We are submitting two copies of this proposal. We ask that one copy be signed by an authorized representative of the party responsible for payment for these services, and that the signed copy be returned to us as our authorization to proceed. We will then schedule the exploration program. We have attached our General Conditions to this proposal as part of our contract for professional engineering services. Acceptance of this proposal by the authorized signature, or verbal authorization to proceed, indicates understanding and acceptance of these conditions. We also recommend that you review the enclosure from the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers, presenting information regarding Geotechnical Engineering Proposals. D -4 ' Mr. James Rudd 3 January 23, 1989 We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact us at 612/559 -1859. Sincerely, GM CONSUL INC. 43 -- Gregor `R. Reuter, E.I. . Project Engineer Kenneth J. LaFond, P.E. Chief Geotechnical Engineer Enclosures: ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Proposals Fee Schedule General Conditions ACCEPTED: • DATE FIRM AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE GRR:KJL:vmc D -5 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPOSAL. More construction problems are caused by site subsurface attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. and even the conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsur- cost of foundation construction. face problems can be, their frequency and extent have been Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the Associa- element of geotechnical design which should be accomplished tion of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE). jointly by the geotechnical engineer and the client (or his When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems were professional representatives). This helps assure that the frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact. the parties involved recognize mutual concerns, and that the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that client is aware of the technical options available to him. If a consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes- client develops the subsurface orpbratiorn plan without the involvement of sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980, his gmtechnical consultant, the client assumes responsibility and liabvUty ASFE- member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best for the plan's adequacy professional fiabiiity ncord This dramatic turn -about can be attributed directly to client acceptance of problem - solving READ GENERAL CONDITIONS programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem- bers application. This acceptance wu gained because clients perreivad CAREFULLY the ASFE approach to be in their own bat interests. Disputes benefit Most geotechnical engineers include their standard general only those who earn their living from others' disagreements. contract conditions in their proposals. The following suggestions and observations are offered to one of the general conditions most commonly employed help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost -aver- limits the geotechnical consultant's liability to a fixed runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a amount or the fee, whichever is higher. Known as limitation construction project of liability, this approach helps prevent problems to begin with, and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them should they arise. Your ASFE- member HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS geotechnical engineer can provide a document which ex- If you have never before dealt with geotechnical issues, plains this concept in detail. recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface various other elements of general conditions delineate your conditions only at those points where samples are taken, at geotechnical consultant's responsibilities. These are used to the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings. and the geotechnical engineer who then applies his judgement thereby help all parties recognize who is responsible for to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, different tasks, their reaction to construction activity, and appropriate foun- dation design Even under optimal circumstances. actual In all cases, read your geotechnical consultants general conditions may differ from those opined to exist. because conditions carefully. Speak with him about any questions no geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified. and no you may have. subsurface exploration program, no matter how com- prehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth. rock and HAVE YOUR GEOTECHNICAL time. Nonetheless, steps can be taken to minimize risk CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE DESIGN knowledgeable clients retain their geotechnical en- EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE gineer to work with other project design professionals who The nature of a subsurface exploration — the types. quan- are affected by the geotechnical report. This permits a tities and locations of procedures used — in large measure geotechnical engineer to explain report implications to determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical engineers design professionals affected by them, and to review their report and the design based upon it. Because a comprehen- plans and specifications to help assure that geotechnical sive subsurface exploration program helps reduce under- issues have been dealt with adequately Although some tainties. it also helps minimize unanticipated conditions, the other design professionals may be familiar with geotechni- I - D 6 GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 14000 - 21ST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55447 FEE SCHEDULE FOR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MODIFICATION TO WEST RIVER ROAD BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSEN, INC. PERSONNEL P -1 Services of Principal Engineer $ 90.00 /hour P -2 Services of Senior Project Engineer $ 75.00 /hour P -3 Services of Project Engineer $ 65.00 /hour P -4 Services of Soil Engineer or Environmental Geologist $ 55.00 /hour P -5 Services of Secretary /Draftsman $ 29.00 /hour P -6 Personnel Transportation Charges $ 0.35 /mile FIELD EXPLORATION FE -1 Mobilization /demobilization of drill $ 115.00 /hour crew and Mobile B -24 drill rig FE -2 Layout of soil borings and surface elevations, 2 man crew $ 80.00 /hour FE -3 Services of 2 man crew with B -24 ® drill rig for drilling and sampling $ 115.00 /hour FE -4 Steam clean equipment $ 115.00 /hour FE -5 Services of JD 450 dozer with operator $ 80.00 /hour FE -6 Rental of Foxboro 128 OVA $ 100.00 /day LABORATORY TESTING T -1 Moisture Content Test $ 8.00 /test T -2 Unit Dry Density Test $ 8.00 /test T -3 Hand Penetrometer Test $ 8.00 /test T -4 Organic Content Test $ 35.00 /test T -5 Atterberg Limits Test $ 50.00 /test T -6 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test $ 15.00 /test NOTES: 1. The unit prices and estimates of charges in this proposal will be effective through November 1, 1988. Beyond this date they will be subject to review and revision. 2. The unit prices for additional services not listed above will be supplied upon request. 3. Services requested on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays will be billed at 1.5 times the unit rates given above. 4. In the event of injuries to GME personnel because of environmental conditions on the site, the applicable unit • rates will be charged during all first aid, evacuation, and follow up medical procedures. D -7 (� Nhat7L,TANlS � INC � GENERAL C =ITIOW FM GMTEaMCAL ENGnMER]V I. scope of work C3 Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter rolled CmE) shall perform the services defined in this contract, and shall invoice the client for those services at the rates shown on the attached FEE SCHEDULE. Any estimate of cost to the Client as stated in this contract shall not be considered as a firm figure, but only as an estimate, unless otherwise specifically stated in the contract. aM will provide additional services under this contract, as required to complete the engineering assignTent, ard/ar as authorized by the Client and requested by the Client with charges for those additional services at the stated rates. II. Soil Boring Locations and Elevations it is desirable for CQ�E to use its expertise in determining the mmber, depth, and locations of borincrs However, it is understood that the Client may specify the number, location, or depth of borings. G E agrees to follow the Client's specifications to the extent practical. If the Client specifies the number, depth or locations of borirgs,Client agrees to accept the risk associated therewith, and agrees to indens>.ify and hold harmless GM from the clams of others arising therefra*n To the extent that the Client does not specify the number, locations or depth of borings, such will be selected by 34E personnel. 12-M will determine the ground surface elevations at the basing locations. if a bench mark is not available on the site, the elevations may be estimated from the topographic map (if one is provided). In using survey data provided by the owner (for horizontal and vertical control), CAE assumes no liability or responsibilty to verify the ac uracey of the survey data; we assume the survey data and/or bench mark elevations are correct as given. iIIren GAE uses a bench mark provided by the local municipality, county, or the state, we likewise assume no liability or responsibilty in verifying the correctness of the elevation. Since CvE Consultants does not practice in the profession of lard surveying, boring locations will be located in the field within the accuracy feasible. When the property lines are not surveyed and staked it may be necessary to appxnximately locate the borings by reference to available landmarks and landfoans. In some cases, CAE will request the Owner to either survey the bating locations before drilling starts, or after the completion of drilling. Such suzNWi:g will be carried out at no cost to CAE. The boring locations shown on the Soil Boring location Diagram are to be construed as approximate locations only. III. Access to Site Unless otherwise agreed, the Client will furnish CAE with right-of-access to the site in caner to conduct the planned exploration or field service. Gm will take reasonable precautions to minimi damage due to its operations. CME has not included in the estimated charges the cost of restoration of arry damage resulting from the operations, and will rot be liable for such damage. If the Client directs, C?E will restore the site and add the cost of restoration to the charges in accordance with personnel and equipment rates indicated on the FEE SCHEDULE. • N. Samples All samples remaining after tests are conducted will be discarded 30 days after submission of the report unless the Client advises G E, in writing, to the contrary. Upon request, the sample will be delivered or shipped at the Client's expense. V. Reports G E will furnish three (3) copies of each report to the Client. The Client will be billed for additional copies at the rate of $25.00 per copy. All reports, borings, logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, and other documents prepared by CME, as instruments of service, shell remain the property of CAE. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client Cr his agents which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by the Client for any purpose whatsoever. G E will retain all pertinent records relating to the services perfru- for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the ruaeoirds will be made available to the Client at all reasonable times. VI. Invoices will be submitted monthly. Payment is due upon receipt of invoice. Interest will be added be 30 days after the date of the invoice at the rate of 1 %% per months, but not to exceed the maximum rate by law. For extended projects, the billing rates as described in this contract may be increased on each anniversary of the date of this contract at an annual rate rot to exceed 10%. VII. GE is protected by workers' Causation Insurance ( and /or employer's liability insurance) and by Public liability isurance for bodily injury and property damage, and will furnish certificates of insurance upon request. If the Client requests increased insurance coverage, W will take out additional insurance, if obtainab at the Client's expense, but shall have no liability beyond the Limits and conditions of the insurance coverage. VIII. Limi tation of Liability 'fie Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with construction and the potential for variations in subsurface conditions. In performing it professional. services, GM will use not less than that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable merbers of its profession practicing in the same or • similar locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made or intended by the proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports or the finding made, and this statement may not be modified except in writing by authorized signature. D -8 M M I M M! M _ M S • EXHIBIT E - MAN -HOUR ESTIMATE I WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30 -89 0 1 T-1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR i MANAGER I TENGR'C I LEAD PENGRCT I DENGRN I TECH I S TECH R I TECH. I S CREW Y I PROCESS I CLERICA I METTER I COMPUT. I EXPENSES I MILEAGE I -------------------- " . ------------------ - '------------_...------- ------'- .. -....__-•- STUDY REPORT AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT INITIATION { I ( I I ( I I I I { ( I I I { GATHER EXISTING DATA I I I I I I 1 1 I I I { I I I I 14 REVIEW EXISTING DATA { I { { 2 { I 2 { { { { I { { { { { REVIEW SITE I ( 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.5 I I i I I I I I I 14 AERIAL PHOTOS-100 SCALE { I ( I I I I I I I { 1 1 I I 216 I 7 1 VIDEO TAPE EXIST. ROAD I I ( I I I I 2 1 I I I ( I ( 2 1 7 1 PREPARE EAW I I 0.5 I I 12 I { 12 I I 12 I I 2 1 I I 2 1 5 1 I AIR QUALITY { { { 4 { { { { { { { { { { { { { NOISE I I I 4 1 I I { I I I I I I I I I TRAFFIC I I I 4 1 I I I I I I I I { I I I MISC. ENVIRON CONCERNS { I I I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I { I SOILS I I 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER QUALITY { { 2 { I { { { { { I { { ( { { { SOIL BORINGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REVIEW PROJECT SITE ( { 1 1 I ( I I I I I ( I I I ( I DEVELOP BORING SCOPE I I 1 1 I I I I I I I ( I I { 3000 I I STAKE BORING LOCATIONS I I 0.5 I I I I I I I 2 1 I I I I I I INTERPRET BORING LOGS I { 4 ( { I I { I { { 0.5 { I ( { { { SURVEYS MONUMENT SEARCH I { I { { I I I { 3 1 I { I { I I ALIGNMENT SURVEY I I ( { { I I I I 4 1 I I 4 I I { 40 CRITICAL X-SECTIONS STRUCTURE SURVEY I I I I I I I 4 1 4 1 I ( { { { ( 40 { BENCHMARK SURVEY PAGE 1 WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30-89 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 WORD BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR I MANAGER I TENGR,C I PROJECT I DESIGN I TECH STECHR I TECH. I S CREW Y ( PROCESS I CL RICA I METTER , CDMPUT. , EXPENSES I MILEAGE ,. -•-----•-'................ ' ...... .... ............ ....... •--•-•--'-'.... ..'•-'--`----•--------'-•--••--- -------- " --'- TOPO AND CROSS SECTIONS { ( ( ( ( ( ( I { 6 { ( { 6 ( ( { 40 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TRAFFIC FORECASTING { { ( 4 ( { { { ( { { I { { { { { PROBLEM INVESTIGATION ( 1 { 1 1 4 ( { { I { { { I { ( I 40 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS I { { 4{ 2 1 { ( { I I I I I I l 17 { GEOMETRIC$ - ALT. 1 8 2 ( { 1 1 4 SIGMA NIB CONSTRUCTION STAGING { 1 ( 1 { 4 ( 4 1 { 4 ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES LAYOUT GEOMETRICS ALT. 182 { ( { 1 { I { 4 ( ( I { I { LAYOUT INTERSECTIONS ALT.182 { { 1 { ( { { 8 ( I ( I ( ( I ! ! I PRELIMINARY GRADES. ALT. 182 { { 1 { ( 2 ( I 16 TYPICAL SECTIONS ALT. 182 I I 1 ( ( 4 I { 4 { I 4 ( { ( { { { { { LIFE CYCLE COSTING I ( { { 4 STORM SEWER { { { { I I { { { I { I I I ( I REVIEW COMP PLAN { { { ( 1( I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I ESTABLISH DRAINAGE AREAS { { { ( 1 1 { 8 I I I I I ! I ! I 7 1 REVIEW RECORD DRAWINGS { ( I I 2 1 I 2 PRELIM DESIGN ALT. 182 ( ( I l 2 1 I B I I I I I I ( ( ( I REVIEW AGENCY REQUIREMENTS { { 1 ( { 1 I { { ( I { { { I I I I SANITARY SEWER EVALUATE T.V. SURVEY { { 0.5 I { { 1 1 I I { I ( I I I I REVIEW RECORD DRAWINGS I { { I 1 1 2 1 I I I ! l I I I I I REVIEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS ( { I I l 2! DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ( l 1{ { 2{ 4{ WATERMAIN PAGE 2 r .r +r� r� ■r rr .r ■r rr rr irr r ■s r r �r .r � ■r WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1 0 1 CHIEF Z 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR I MANAGER I LE AD i PENGR. I DENGR. i TECH I S TEC HR I TECH. ` SCREWY i PROCESS I CLERICA , METER COMPUT. EXPENSES I MILEAGE REVIEW SOILS CONDITION I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PHYSICAL INSPECTION I I B I I I I I I I I { I { { I 40 RE. CORRISION REDUCTION ALT. I I 6 I I Z I I I I I I I I ( { { I REVIEW RECORD DRAWINGS I I I I I I 1 I I I I ( I I I I I REVIEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS I I I I I I z I DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS { I 2 I I 2 I I PRIVATE UTILITIES I I { { I { RELOCATION INVESTIGATION I t I 1 I I 2 ESTABLISH NEEDS I I I I 1 I 3 I I I { { { I I I I I LIGHTING DESIGN I I I I I I I I I ( I { SITE REVIEW LIGHTING ANALYSIS I I 1 I I 2 I 2 I I I I I I I I I { { LIGHTING LAYOUT I I I I I z I 3 I I I I I I I I I FEEDPOINT CONSIDERATIONS I { t I ( I z I I I I I I I I I I I PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS SIDEWALKS I I 1 I I 1 I { 4 I I I I I I I I I I BIKE TRAIL I I 1 I ( 1 ( I 4 I { { I I I I I I BUS ROUTES I 1 I I I I 2 I I { { { { I I I I LANDSCAPE DESIGN I I I I I I I I I { { { { I I SITE REVIEW I I I ( 1 I I I I I I I I I I { 7 { PHOTOS I I I I 2 1 I I I I I I I I I 60 I I DEVELOP OBJECTIVES { I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I ( I DEVELOP PRELIM CONCEPTS { { { { 18 I I I I I I I DRAWINGS I I { { 32 { I I ( I I I I I RIGHT- OF- WAY CONSIDERATIONS I I I I I I ANALYIZE EASEMENT NEEDS I I I I I I 4 I { I I { I I I I I PAGE 3 WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30-89 l 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 WORD BROOKLYN CENTER ` DIRECTOR , MANAGER I TENGRIC I P ENGRC T ` DENGRN I TECH I S TECN R I TECH. i S CREW Y I PROCESS I CLERICA I METTER I COMPUT. I EXPENSES I MILEAGE ............................... •---•'............. ................. .---------- ........... ------- '......................... .--..-...------..-------'---' ---------------------- •............................. LAYOUT NEEDS ALT. 182 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 4 GATHER OWNERS LIST ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 GATHER DESCRIPTIONS ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 AGENCYICITY COORDINATION ( ( ( ( ( ( EAW ( { { { 2 { { { { { { { { ( { { SURVEY NEEDS ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( { STORM SEWER DESIGN ( ( ( ( 1 ( ( 4 SANITARY SEWER CONCERNS ( ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( { WATER14AIN CONCERNS ( ( 4 ( ( 4 ( ( LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPTS ( 2 ( ( ( 4 ( ( ( ( LIGHTING CONCEPTS ( ( 2 ( { 1 ( ( ( { ( { ( ( ( ( { R/W - EASEMENTS ( ( ( ( 2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( { { PRIVATE UTILITIES ( ( ( ( 2 ( ( 2 ROADWAY LAYOUT ( { 2 ( ( ( ( PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ( ( ( ( ( PREPARE MAILING LIST { ( { { 1 { { ( ( ( ( 4 PREPARE EXHIBITS ( ( ( ( ( ( 4 ( ( 8 ( { ( ( { PUBLIC MEETINGS ( ( ( ( ( ( CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT ( 4 ( 4 ( 4 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( I ( ( 120 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW ( 2 ( 4 ( 4 ( 4 ( ( PUBLIC HEARING ( 2 ( 4 ( 4 ( ( ( BI- WEEKLY MEETINGS ( 3 ( 5 ( 2 ( 5 ( { 2 { { ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 50 PROJECT FUNDING ANALYSIS ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( { { { AGENCY FUNDING I 2 ( ( ( 2 ( ( SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ( 1 ( ( ( 1 I ( ( 4 ( ( ( ( ( ( 2 FEASIBILTY REPORT ( ( ( ( ( ( PAGE 4 WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30 -89 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 MIS BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR , MANAGER I i ENGR` C I P ENGR. I D ESIGN ENGR. I TECH I SENIOR I iECH. I S CREW Y I PROCESS I CLERICA I METER I COMPUT. I EXPENSES I MILEAGE I .. - --- WRITE I I I 2 I 8 1 I { { { I 4 1 I I I I I EDIT I 1 1 1 1 I 1 PREPARE DRAWINGS I 1 1 1 1 I 2 1 I 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I LOCATION MAP ROADWAY 8 STORM SEWER I I I I I I 4 1 I 8 1 I ( I I I I UTILITIES I I I I I I 4 1 I 8 R /W-EASEMENTS I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I TYPICAL SECTIONS I I I I I I 1 1 I 8 1 I I I I I I LIGHTING DETAILS I I I I I I 2 1 I 6 1 I I I I I I COST ESTIMATE I 1 1 2 1 I 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ROADWAY I I I I I I 4 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I PUBLIC UTILITIES I I I I I I 4 LIGHTING I ► 1 I I I 2 LANDSCAPE I I I I 6 1 I I I I I I I I I I I R /W-EASEMENTS I 1 I 1 I I I 2 1 I I I I I 2 1 I PRINTING AND BINDING I I ( I 1 1 I I I I I I 4 1 I I 750 I I PRESENT REPORT I I 4 1 4 1 { I I I 1 I I I I I I 80 PREPARE EXHIBITS I ( I I 2 1 { 8 { I 4 { I I 2 1 I 50 � I BASE PLAN LAYOUT I 1 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I PLOT TOPO I I I I ! I I I I 1 I I I I I I DRAFT TOPO I I I I I I I I 48 ESTABLISH ALIGNMENT I ( I I I I 2 1 t I 8 1 ( I I 1 16 I I I LAYOUT INTERSECTIONS I I I I 2 1 4 1 ( 8 1 I ( I { 1 I I PLOT EXISTING PROFILE I I I I I I I 6 1 I I I I I 6 1 I I REVIEW PRELIMINARY GRADES I I 2 1 I 4 I 8 PLOT EXISTING X I I I I I I 20 I I I I 20 I I I PAGE 5 WEST RIVER ROAD BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1.30 -89 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 ECT BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR I MANAGER ` TENGRiC I P ENGR. I DENGRN I TECH I S TECHH I TECH. S CREW Y PROCESS CLERICA I METER I COMPUT. EXPENSES i MILEAGE ` --'----'•-•---•--'-••-----••---•• ... .................. ........ ..... .- -------------- -............ '--- " ---••---- CHECK CRITICAL X-SECTIONS { { { { ( I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I CHECK UTILITIES ( ( ( ( { { 4 { { { { { { { { { { EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS I I I I I 2 1 I 8 1 I ( I I I 8 1 I I •- - "---'------------"--'----------------"------------"---'--------- PHASE 11 FINAL DESIGN, BIDDING & AWARD SERVICES ( I I I I I I I I I { ( I I I { FINAL ROADWAY DESIGN GENERATE EARTHWORK OUTPUT I I ( I I I I 8 1 I I ( I I 8 1 I I ADJUST SECTIONS AND GRADES { { 1 1 I 1 1 I 2 1 2 1 I I I I I 2 1 CALCULATE EARTHWORK SUMMARY { ( ( ( 1 { { 2 INTERSECTION DETAIL DESIGN ( I I 2 1 4 1 I ( I I I I I I I I 40 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN { { ( 4 1 2( I 4 STORM DRAINAGE REVIEW INITIAL DESIGN { { { { 2 ( { 2 { { { { { { I I ( 40 FINAL DESIGN ( { ( ( 2 ( { 8 ( ( ( { I I I { I { DETAILS I I I I I I 2 1 I I ( I I I I I I STORM SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE { I I I I I 4 1 ( I I I I I I I I SANITARY SEWER { { ( { ( I I I I I I I I I ( I FINAL DESIGN { { 1 { ( 1 { { 2 { { { { { { { { { I DETAILS I I I I I I I I I ( I I I ( I I I INPLACE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE I I I I I I 4 1 I I I I I ( I I I WATERMAIN FINAL DESIGN { { 1 { { 2 ( { 8 ( { { { I I I I I I DETAILS I ( ( ( ( I i I I I { I I I { { { LIGHTING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FINAL DESIGN { 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 8 1 ( { ( I I I I I I DETAILS 1 I I I I 2 1 2 1 I I I I I I I I I PAGE 6 mm mmm m =ism WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1 -30 -89 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 CHIEF I I I I I BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECT DESIGN LEAD SENIOR I { I { SURVEY WORD GENERAL GEODI- MISC. DIRECTOR MANAGER ENGR. ENGR. ENGR. TECH TECH TECH. CREW PROCESS CLERICA METER COMPUT. EXPENSES MILEAGE ............... .- .................... LANDSCAPE DESIGN FINAL SITE REVIEW I I I I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I I 40 I FINAL DESIGN LAYOUT ( 1 1 ( I 48 I I I I I I I I I I I I MATERIAL SCHEDULE I I I I 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I DETAILS I I I I 12 TRAIL /SIDEWALK ( ( ( ( ( ( I I I I I I I I I I FINAL REVIEW 8 DESIGN I I 2 1 I 4 1 I 2 1 I I I I I I I I I RETAINING WALL DETAILS ( ( I I I 1 1 I 2 1 I I I I I I I I I R/W - EASEMENTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l REVIEW NEEDS I I 2 1 I 4 1 I B I I I I I I I I I I WRITE DESCRIPTIONS ( ( 4 ( ( ( ( ( 50 ( ( ( 6 CHECK DESCRIPTIONS ( I I I 25 I ( I I I I 2 1 I I I I I AGENCYICITY COORDINATION ( ( ( I I I I I ( I I I I I I I LANDSCAPE DESIGN I 2 1 I ( 4 1 I I I ( I I I I I ( 40 FINAL ROADWAY DESIGN I I 1( I 2 1 I ( I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC 8 PRIVATE UTILITIES ( ( 1 ( ( 2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 40 R/W - EASEMENTS I I I I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I I I BID I i I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 . 5 I I I I I I AWARD I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 0.5 I I I I I I PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FINAL DESIGN REVIEW ( 4 ( 8 ( 8 ( ( ( ( ( ( I I ( I I I 80 MONTHLY MEETINGS I 2 1 4( 2( 4( I 4 1 I I I 3 1 I I I I 125 I QUANTITY TAKE OFF ( ( ( ( 2 1 20 I 20 I I I I I I I I I I FINAL COST ESTIMATE I I 2 1 I 4 1 4 1 8 1 I I I I I I 8 1 I I PLAN SHEET LAYOUT I I 2 1 I 2 1 I 2 TITLE SHEET ( ( ( ( ( ( 2 ( ( 4 I I I I I I I PAGE 7 s • WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30 -89 0 1 T-1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 AL BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR (.MANAGER I .ENGR'C I P ENGRC T I D ENGRN ( TECH I S TECH R I TECH. I S CREW Y I PROCESS I CLERICA I METTER I COMPUT. I EXPENSES I MILEAGE -••----'•-----... ..--•-•---------------•-•------ ----------------------------------'•- STATEMENT OF EST. QUANTITIES I I I- I 2 I I 8 I 4 I I I I I I 4 I I I SCHEDULES I I I I I ( I 4 I I I I I I 4 DETAILS AND TYPICAL SECTIONS I I I I I I 4 I I 6 I I I I ( I I I REMOVAL PLAN ( I I I ( I 12 I I 20 I I I I ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE I I I I 2 I I 10 I I 20 I I I I I I I I STORM SEWER I I I I 2 I I 8 I I 24 I I I I I I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I LIGHTING PLAN I I I I 1 I 6 I I I 16 I I I I I I I I LANDSCAPE PLAN I I I I 16 I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I R/W - EASEMENT PLAN I I I I I I 1 I B I I I I I I I I I TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN I I I 1 I 2 I 4 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I CROSS SECTIONS I ( I I I I 2 I 4 I I I I I I I I I SPECIFICATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I REVIEW CITY'S REQUIREMENTS I I 1 I I 4 I I I I I I ( I I I I I ROADWAY SPECS I I 1 I I B I I I I I ( 6 I I I ( I I TRAFFIC SPECS I I 1 i 2 I I I I I I - I 2 LANDSCAPE SPECS ( I 1 I I 4 I I I I I I 2 I I I I I I PERMIT APPLICATIONS I I 1 I I I I MPCA /MWCC 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 . 5 I I I I 30 I I WATERSHED I I I I 1 I i I ( I I 0.5 I I I I 30 I I DEPT. OF HEALTH I I I I 1 I I I I I I 0 . 5 I I I I 30 ( I CORP. OF ENGINEERS I I I ( 1 I I I I I ( 0 . 5 I I ( I 30 I I DNR I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 . 5 I I I I 30 I I COUNTY /STATE I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 . 5 I I I I 60 I I FINAL PLAN REVIEW I 4 I 2 I l I 4 I I 2 I I 6 I I I I I I 60 I I PAGE 8 it rr r r r r rr rr rr r® r r s r r r� rr WEST RIVER ROAD , BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 1-30-89 0 1 T -1 2 3 4 4 4 7 7 9 WORD GENERAL BROOKLYN CENTER I DIRECTOR I MANAGER I T ENGR� C P ENGRC T I D EN R. I TECH I S TECH R I TECH. I S CREW Y I PROCESS I CLERICA I ME�ER , COMPUT. I EXPENSES f MILEAGE ._____ •____________ ------------------- " ---_.__--___..__•________.___-.___________-'___-___.__.____.____-•-_______-_.-.__--_.-_---__-----_..___-.____-_____---__.__-______________._._____-__- BIDDING SERVICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLISH BID DOCUMENTS I 1 1 I I 4 1 I I I I I 2 1 I I I I I PRINT BID SETS I I I I 2 I I I { { I I 16 I I ANSWER CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS I I I I 3 1 I I I I I I I I I I ATTEND BID LETTING I 2 1 2( ( I I I I I I I I I I I 40 AWARD SERVICES EVALUATE BIDS I 1 1 2 1 I 2 1 I I I I I 4 1 I 4 1 I I PREPARE BID RECOMMENDATION I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 PREPARE CONTRACTS I I I I 2 1 I I I I I 8 ( I I I 30 I TOTAL PHASE I AND PHASE 11 HOURS I 43 I 125 I 73.5 I 399.5 I 77.5 I 309.5 I 148 I 263 I 15 I 51.5 I 23 I 10 I 90 I 4383 975 I 1528.5 TOTAL HOUF TOTAL PHASE I AND PHASE 11 COSTS I (1,524 I $2,888 I $2,605 I $6,502 I $1,025 I $4,793 I $1,974 I $2,458 I $441 I $422 I $164 I $250 I $1,620 I $4,383 I $244 I $24,795 DIRECT LAI $6,497 EXPENSES | � EXHIBIT F ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST � 1 24 8` � BROO�LIN CENTER PRE-�ONTRACT �OST ESTI�ATE - - � �m�w�- UE�T RIYER -OrD � it ITE- UNIT ESTIM�TE� E�TIM�T[D ESTIMATED UNIT AMOUNT m� PRI�E ALTE�N#TIYE 1 - OVERLAY �OMMON E%�AU�TI3N 2 �EMOVE BIT' PAVEMEMT 3 SAW�UT BITUMINOUS L'F' �GS0'8U 2'58 $21,S2S'0O �� 4 2341 �EAR �OU�SE TON 1��3'8� 12'58 $18,�3?'5� 5 2341 BITUMIHOUS MAT'L FOR MIX TON 87'�0 1S5'U0 �14,OS5'�U G PATCH MIX TON 28�'�0 S0'�0 �14.2�0'00 1�8�'0U 110 $l,1Uf'0U 8 A8�RE�A L S T3N �53.00 O.S0 $2,1SO'50 S 4" CON RETE WAL� S'F' 247�4.00 1'GU �39,S9U.48 �� 10 8'BITUMINOUS BIKE TRHIL S'Y' 4S23'O0 S'5� �2S,42G'50 BS18 COM�RETE CURB �ND �UTTER L'F' 3100'00 S'S0 �20,l50'00 12 BG18 MODIFIED L F S200 00 11.50 �5S,80�'80 13 8TORM SEWER SY8TEM 1'00 224UO'U0 �22,�OO'O� 14 SLOTTED DRAIN L'F' 520O'00 50'00 �2SO,ij00'00 15 LANDS�APINA L.�' 1'0O 100080.U0 �180,UU0'�0 1S SEED ACRE 1'O0 28UO'8O $2,000'08 �� lT SOD 8'Y' ?411'88 2'S0 �18,S2?'SO --------------- ESTIM�TED TOT#L COST ALT' 1 $G34,GS8'�O CONTIN8EN�IES $825`10?'B2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - RECOW�TRUCT �� 1 COMMON EXCAUATION �'Y' 1?185'88 3'U0 $51,5SS'00 2 SELE�T 0RANULAR BORROW C'Y. 1207S.O0 3.58 3 2341 WEAR �OURSE TON 1443.0O 12'S0 �18,83?'S0 BITUMINOU3 MAT'L FOR MIX TON �48'0O 165'�0 $�0,920'0� �� S 2331 BINDER i3OURSE TDN 1�43'0U 11'SU �16`SS4'S0 G 2331 BASE COURSE TON 3243.80 11.5O 7 233l BITUMINOUS MAT`L FOR MIX TON 248'00 16S'U8 �40,�20'00 0AL' 120O'O0 1'18 $1`320'0O � 9 AO��E�ATE �#SE �L 5 TON S7?3.UO S'S0 �31,?S1'SU COHOFETE WALK S.F. 24744.00 1'SO $3S,S3O'40 8'BITUMINOUS BIKE TRRIL �G23'O0 S'2S �24`2Y8.75 |� � 12 BG18 �ONCRETE 0URB AND �UTTER L'F. 83OO.00 G'5O $S3,95O'�0 � 13 STDRM SEWER SYSTEM 1.00 30400'88 $3�,40O'80 14 LANDS�APIN� L'8' 1'00 1000O0'00 $1UO,000'�O SEED l'00 20U0'UU �2,0UU'0U 1S SOD 8 Y 4 1 ?1 80 2 SO $18 S2? 5� --------------- ���� ESTIMATED TOTAL COST ALT' � �S4S.337'G5 (1 ONTIN0ENCIE8 $714`21S'SS � i | � 7Z Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PREPARATION OF A DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPLE USE TRAIL ALONG WEST RIVER ROAD AND WILLOW LANE FROM I -694 TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules has been established for the Environmental ualit Board which administer t Q y s he Environmental Review Program (Rules 6 MCAR SS 3.021- 3.056); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Minnesota Environmental Review P R i Program is to provide information to decision makers which allows them to incorporate environmental protection into the planning and design of projects that may have significant impacts on environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the Rules permit the preparation of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet when a project does not fall under the mandatory EAW requirements, yet the project is not exempt under 6 MCAR S 3.041 and when a governmental unit with approval authority over the proposed project determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the P P J project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, who is the governmental unit with approval authority over the proposed project, believes that the potential environmental effects should be reviewed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center initiates the preparation of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet and is designated the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this process. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing p f g ing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * * ` * * *R * ** 6R* *O ** PUBLIC WOR * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • City staff recommends that a new study be conducted to reevaluate and update the City's 1984 plans for improvements to the Municipal Water Supply System. The major reasons for updating the 1984 plan are: • To reevaluate the plan with reference to the high demands experienced during the drought of 1988. • To reevaluate the feasibility of providing treatment to the water supply system. In particular, it is proposed to evaluate the feasibility of installing an iron - and- manganese removal system. • To evaluate the system's ability to achieve compliance with new water supply standards as promulgated by the U.S. EPA, in accordance with the amendments to the Safe Water Drinking Act as adopted by Congress in 1986. A detailed report form the Director of Public Works is submitted herewith. Staff Recommendation City staff prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) which defined the scope of the proposed study and submitted that RFP to four engineering firms. After receiving proposals from these four firms, City staff evaluated the proposals and recommends that the proposal submitted by Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers from Kansas City, Missouri, be accepted. City Council Action Required ® Adoption of the resolution which is submitted for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended to the City Council that a study be conducted to reevaluate and update the City's 1984 plan for improvements to the municipal water supply system, with emphasis on the following factors: • Reevaluate of water usage e demands with reference to the drought g g experience of 1988. • Reevaluation of the feasibility of treating the water supply to improve water quality. • Evaluation of the system's ability to achieve compliance with the 1986 amendments to the Federal Drinking Water Standards Act. ® AND WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained four proposals to complete the needed studies in accordance with Scope of Services defined within a Request for Proposals prepared by the Director of Public Works; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated those proposals and recommends that the proposal submitted by the firm of Black and Veatch Engineers and Architects of Kansas City, Missouri be accepted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. It is hereby determined that the study described above is needed in order to update the City's plan for future improvements to the Municipal Water Supply System. 2. The proposal submitted by Black and Veatch Engineers and Architects is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with that firm to provide the services as described at a cost not to exceed $33,500. 3. All costs related to this study shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following oted against g g nst the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER R EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 1989 RE: Recommendation to Employ Consulting Engineering Firm to Conduct a Study and Prepare a Plan for Improvement of the Brooklyn Center Municipal Water Supply System DISCUSSION During 1981 and 1988, the City of Brooklyn Center imposed use restrictions on all municipal water system customers. The 1987 restrictions were needed because one large well was inoperational during the peak use period. In 1988 use restrictions were imposed during the severe drought period, from mid -May to mid - September. Current reports from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicate that there is a serious potential that the 1989 drought could be more severe than the 1988 drought, unless substantial precipitation occurs this spring and summer. To prepare for the 1989 summer season, the City has taken several steps to assure that the water supply system is able to operate with peak efficiency, i.e.. • Wells #2 and #3 have been rehabilitated and are "on- line ", ready to operate at peak capacity. • Well #8 is being rehabilitated. As noted in previous occasions, we have experienced serious problems with the well. However, we expect to have those problems resolved, and have it "on- line" by May 1. • An automated control valve has been installed at Water Tower No. 2 (at 69th Avenue and Dupont). This will allow a more effective use of all 3 of the City's water towers. In addition, we are currently conducting a survey of all metro -area cities which imposed water use restrictions last year. The purpose of the survey is to gather information regarding the use and effectiveness of various types of water use f r�.2 Page Two February 8, 1989 restrictions, special "features" relating to the restrictions which tended to make the restrictions more acceptable to the users while still remaining effective, the methods which cities used in getting information to their customers, and the enforcement policies and procedures. The survey will also obtain information regarding the cities' plans or thoughts regarding water conservation program and policies. Upon completion of this survey, (by early March) we will review the results and submit recommendations regarding changes and /or improvements to the policies and procedures used in 1988. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Detailed studies of the City's water supply and distribution system were conducted by the firm of Black and Veatch - in 1980 and 1984. Until our experience with the drought of 1988, we believed that those studies provided a basis for future system improvements for the foreseeable future. However, the demands experienced in 1988 far exceeded the maximum demands forecasted by those studies. Most other cities shared this same experience. In addition, previous studies have centered on two basic options regarding possible treatment of the City's water supply, i.e.; o No treatment for hardness, iron or manganese (i.e. - the existing system); or o Construction of a total water softening plant. Little consideration was given to a third option - i.e. installation of an iron and manganese removal system, without softening. Because the studies showed that the costs of construction, operation and maintenance of a full water softening plant would require the City to increase water rates to a level which is 4 to 6 times greater than our current rates, that option has always been rejected, and the decision has been made to "stay with the existing system ". The City's eight water supply wells contain manganese levels substantially above the recommended limits (0.11 to 0.47 mg /1 compared to the recommended standard of 0.05 mg /1). While this poses no health problem (the 0.05 mg /1 level is recommended only for aesthetic considerations), the presence of this amount of manganese is the cause for "black water" complaints. The iron content in the City's eight water supply wells is relatively low (i.e. 0.05 to 0.15 mg /1 compared to a recommended standard of 0.30 mg /1). Current advances in technology have made iron and manganese removal systems more effective and more economical than they were at the time the previous studies were done. ( Note : Although some systems exist which remove iron while not removing manganese, none to my knowledge remove manganese without removing iron). Accordingly, I recommend evaluation of an iron and manganese removal option. Page Three February 8, 1989 NEW EPA REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS In 1986 Congress adopted comprehensive amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act which mandated extensive additional testing of municipal water supply systems and the adoption of new standards relating to a very long list of possible contaminants. The USEPA has adopted standards for a number of those contaminants and is in the process of developing and adopting new standards. Although we do not believe at this time that these standards will have a dramatic impact on Brooklyn Center's system, we believe it is imperative that this matter be reviewed in detail - to avoid the possibility that the City could adopt and implement a plan which failed to assure compliance with those standards. RECOMMENDED STUDY The 1980 and 1984 reports indicated that the City has two basic options for increased water supply capacity, to meet the City's "ultimate" demand, i.e.: • Construct three additional wells; or • Construct one additional well and a 2.0 million gallon ground storage reservoir. As noted above, the following new issues need to be addressed: - impact of water demand - as experienced during the 1988 drought - feasibility of installing an iron and manganese removal system - compliance with new EPA standards Because any of these issues could dramatically impact the City's plan for future improvements, I recommend that the City employ a consulting engineering firm to conduct a study and assist the City in developing our plan for future improvements. Accordingly, a "Request for Proposals" (RFP), copy attached, was prepared and sent to four consulting engineering firms. Upon receipt of proposals from these four firms, those proposals were evaluated by City staff using the system shown on the attached evaluation form. Based on our evaluation, we recommend that the City employ the firm of Black and Veatch to conduct this study at a cost estimated not to exceed $33,500. As noted in the RFP, one goal of the study is to identify a construction schedule which will result in having additional capacity "on- line" by April 1, 1990. Black and Veatch's proposal indicates that their study will be completed in approximately four months. This would allow adequate time to design and construction of one or more wells by that target date. However, if the final plan as adopted calls for construction of wells, reservoirs, and /or treatment facilities, it would probably be difficult or impossible to have the reservoirs or treatment facilities on -line by that target date (all four firms conveyed Page Four February 8, 1989 this same message). Accordingly, the adopted plan would probably be a "phased developed plan ", with construction of well(s) for 1990 followed by additional improvements in future years. I recommend that the City Council accept and approve the proposal submitted by Black and Veatch. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfullyy submitted, Sy Kn7 Director of Public Works � � i Max Points McCOMBS-FRANK- PROGRESSIVE I SHORT-ELLIOTT- For BLACK & VEATCH ROOS CONSULTING ENGINEERS HENDRICKSON, INC. EVALUATION ITEM This (& EAH) (P.C.E.) (S.E.H.) Item I -------------- --------- overall Evaluation of Proposal "Scope of Work" 11 1 Review & Analyze Data II 2 I 2 1 2 2 Use Restrictions 2 1 2 2 2 Usage Forecasts 3 2 3 3 3 Treatment Needs (General) 4 3 I 4 3 4 Treatment Needs (EPA) 4 1 4 2 System Analysis 2 2 2 2 2 Cost Estimate/Rate Impact II 3 3 2 2 2 Firm's Experience with I 20 20 8 6 18 Similar Systems over 100 studies, Excelsior, Long Lake, Two members of this firm This firm lists 60 Listing of clients) Including Coon Rapids, Rockford, Cottonwood, have extensive . municipal clients In Eden Prairie, Duluth, St. Paul Park, Elk River experience with City of Minnesota and Wisconsin, Bloomington, St. Pau(, Mpts. As consultants, including Brooklyn Park, Mankato, Thief River they have completed a Coon Rapids, North St. II Falls, Worthington number of water quality Paul, Plymouth, Roseville studies. However, they & South St. Paul. List no experience with a municipal well water Supply System StUdy. Personnel assigned to project 20 20 7 12 15 Experience & Qualifications Primary experience in In Water Supply Systems wastewater treatment Special Items Noted 5 3 3 In Proposal 7 Proposal includes use of I Suggested option to II Black & Veatch Locate a well in the computer model of B.C. "Water Quality" problem distribution system area of B.C. Ability to Follow Up with 10 10 5 5 10 Design of Construction Plans & Specs Ability to Follow Up with 10 8 4 5 7 0 & M Support Location of office I 10 0 8 10 I 8 (Kansas City) (Plymouth, MN) (Brooklyn Center) (St. Paul, MN) City's Experience with Firm 1 5 0 1 I 3 on Water Supply Projects I I --------------- --------------- TOTAL POINTS (1 100 83 50 1 56 78 -------------------------------- -------------- -------------- Proposal Fees/Fee Structure Payroll cost x 2.7 I Hourly rate schedule Hourly rate schedule I "Per diem" with Maximum = $33,500 f with total not to exceed with Estimated Total estimated t otal $22,500 $27,340 f $29,900 II Note: This does not I Range = $25,500 to II II I include any computer $37,395 analysis of the distribution system. Estimated Time Schedule 4 Months NIS 3 Months 3.5 Months to Complete Study CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL JANUARY 17, 1989 General The City of Brooklyn Center is seeking assistance from qualified consultants to study the Brooklyn Center water supply system and make recommendations relative to supply, storage, and treatment needs. Scope Following is the proposed scope of this study: 1. Review the Report on Water Works Improvements for Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as prepared by Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, dated November 3, 1980. 2. Review the Report on Water Works Improvements for Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as prepared by Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, dated May 31, 1984. 3. Gather, review, and analyze system demand data for years 1983 through 1988, with special emphasis on the summer of 1988 (drought period). 4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the City's 1988 water use restrictions and of alternative plans for water use restrictions. 5. Make two projections of required supply for future years, one for "normal" years and one for "extreme drought years) ". 6. Study treatment need and alternatives to provide basis for decisions on whether to treat and extent of treatment. Study to include: a. Frequency and location of customer complaints. b. Evaluation of iron, manganese and hardness levels in well water. C. Effect of EPA regulations and drinking water standards on need for treatment in future. 7. Analyze supply/storage y requirements including compliance with I.S.O. standards and Minnesota Department of Health standards, based on: Option A. No treatment, no ground storage, all wells. ,�Yv CF ^r Halo -wnuan =� 1111 Option B. No treatment, ground storage reservoir, wells. Option C. Treatment with ground storage reservoir, wells. Note If the study recommends that the City's supply /storage capacity be increased to improve the City's ability to meet peak demands, one goal of the study shall be to describe a construction schedule which will result in having the required facilities "on- line" by April 1, 1990. 8. Prepare conceptual cost estimates and show impact of project improvements on water rates. 9. Present the results the studies in a bound report (20 copies to be submitted to the City). Submission of Proposals Three copies of the proposal shall be submitted to Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works, 6301 Shingle Greek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. Proposals shall be submitted no later than 11:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 2, 1989. Proposal Contents As a minimum, each proposal shall include the following: 1. A statement of the firm's experience in developing studies, plans and specifications and project management relating to municipal water supply systems, with special emphasis on this experience as it relates to well water supplies. 2. Identify personnel who would be assigned to work on this project, and other staff members with expertise in the field of municipal water supply systems. 3. Provide a list of at least 5 cities for which the consultant has provided similar services, and identify the person who may be contacted to provide references regarding such work. 4. Prepare a work plan and a proposed schedule for completion of the study. The work plan shall include a description of the method(s) you propose to use to forecast future system demands, and the type(s) of treatment you propose to evaluate for improvement of the quality of the City's water supply. 5. Identify the level of participation and services to be provided by the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. Submit a compensation proposal, describing the basic fee structure you recommend and your estimate of hours spent at each task and your estimate of the total costs for professional services relating to this study. Evaluation Evaluation of proposals received will be accomplished by Brooklyn Center City staff members. Evaluation criteria will include the City staff's evaluation of the relevancy and feasibility of the work plan and schedule for completion of the study, the firm's ability to follow -up with additional studies (if needed), and the firm's ability to provide design and construction engineering services for future system improvements. Following tentative selection of a firm to conduct this study, City staff will attempt to negotiate a finalized contract for services with that firm, based on a finalized scope of services, with a "not to exceed" dollar amount for those services. The finalized contract for services will then be submitted to the City Council for formal action. This Request for Proposal prepared by; Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works S CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 / /89 Agenda Item Number / 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A 5 -YEAR PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYSTEM DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DI ACTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ", nf MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation S Attached is a copy of a memo from the Office of State Aid /MNDOT in which we are requested to submit a 5 year program for construction on our Municipal State Aid Street System. Accordingly, our office has developed the proposed program as described in the attached resolution and recommend consideration thereof by the City Council. 1. Adoption of this resolution in no way commits the City to proceed with any or all of the projects listed. Rather, it is a preliminary program which indicates the City's need for funds and its intent to utilize its Municipal State Aid funds. One major purpose is to convince the State Legislature that cities do have projects which need to be constructed and that these funds will be properly utilized. 2. The resolution as prepared shows some over- programming in relation to available funds. While we believe that this program is needed to meet the City's transportation requirements, we offer the following comments: a. The estimated allotment decreases are due to the scheduled phase out of the transfer of funds from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax to the Transportation Fund. Unless this transfer is restored, the City must either reduce the program described in the resolution, utilize temporary advances from other municipal funds, or issue bonds to cover the unfunded portions of the projects. • b. Our estimated costs for most of the projects are conservative (i.e. - hopefully the estimated costs are high). c. Some projects may be delayed or dropped from the 5 year program, while • others may be added. We will be prepared to discuss the proposed program in detail at the February 13, 1989 Council meeting. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A 5 -YEAR PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYSTEM WHEREAS, it is estimated the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will receive Municipal State Aid Street construction funds in the amount of $732,060 in 1990 and then $679,030 per year for the succeeding four years for use in the construction of the City's designated Municipal State Aid Street System; and WHEREAS, the reduction in the estimated annual allotment is due to the expiration of a transfer of the State Motor Vehicle Excise Tax in 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule reflects the projected Municipal State Aid funds available for a Five Year Capital Improvements Program: Accumulated Funds Year Available 1989 Balance Available $2,172,286.36 $2,172,286.36 1990 Estimated Allotment 732,060.00 2,904,346.36 Available for Construction 1991 Estimated Allotment 679,030.00 3,583,376.36 Available for Construction 1992 Estimated Allotment 679,030.00 4,262,406,36 Available for Construction 1993 Estimated Allotment 679,030.00 4,941,436.36 Available for Construction 1994 Estimated Allotment 679,030.00 5,620,466.36 Available for Construction BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved: RESOLUTION NO. Year Location Estimated Cost 1989 Shingle Creek Parkway at Freeway Boulevard A. Turn Lanes $ 20,000 B. Traffic Signal 85,000 Shingle Creek Parkway at Brookdale Square A. Turn Lanes 40,000 B. Traffic Signal 85,000 Total 1989 Improvements $230,000 1990 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway Right of Way Acquisition 2,100,000 Total 1990 Improvements $2,100,000 1991 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway Reconstruction Roadway 2,000,000 Total 1991 Improvements $2,000,000 1992 Freeway Boulevard and 65th /66th Avenue Shingle Creek Parkway to Camden Avenue A. Overlay Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue 170,000 B. Widen and overlay 65th /66th Avenue from Humboldt Avenue to Camden Avenue 690,000 Humboldt Avenue - 65th Avenue to 70th Avenue Overlay 300,000 Total 1992 Improvements $1,160,000 1994 Lilac Drive at Brooklyn Boulevard and TH 100 A. Geometric improvements from TH 100 Southwest 1000 feet 360,000 B. Traffic Signals 85,000 Total 1994 Improvements $445,000 5 Year Total Cost - 1989 through 1994 $5,935,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, to the extent that encumbrances for improvement projects exceed the accumulated funds available at that time, the City will consider providing funding for those improvements by (1) using advances from other available municipal funds (as allowed by section G -2 -i of 14 MCAR 1.5032); or (2) by issuing bonds payable from future Municipal State Aid street allotments. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO Municipal Engineers November 7, 1988 FROM Kenneth Straus Q— 612 -296 -1662 State Aid ,4 �� * SUBJECT: Maintenance Requests Whenever a municipality desires to receive a maintenance allotment greater than the minimum, they must submit a written request not later than December 15th preceding the annual allocation, and must agree in writing to file a detail ed Annua I Mai ntenance Fxpen iture Report at the End of the year. Municipalities that sold Bonds and need additional Maintenance Monies to satisfy interest payments must submit a request for additional Maintenance Monies by specifying a set amount or a percentage of the allocation. A municipality may request and receive up to 25% of the allocation for mainte- nance. An Expenditure Report Form Fig. A 5- 892.506 or similar form can be used to show Maintenance expenditures. Documented expenditures which do not cover the amount received will result in Maintenance Monies being transferred back into the city's construction fund. Certification of Mileage Please certify your mileage as of December 31, 1988, and return to your Dis- trict State Aid Engineer by January 15, 1989. Instruction on completing the form is in the State Aid Manual under 5- 892.685. On the reverse side of the form list all new designations or revocations and changes in segment length. Be certain that any changes made in the Needs Study update are reflected in your certification of mileage, and have also been shown on the status map. These reports must agree. You will note in some instances your certification of mileage has been changed to correspond with your needs segment listings. Please check that these revisions and total segment lengths equal actual mileage between the two centerlines (The status map has been sent under sepa- rate cover by the Mapping Section and should be sent back to them.) 5 Year Construction Program Submit a 5 year construction program which was approved by the City Council. This program shall include sufficient projects to utilize all existing and anticipated funds during the life of the program. This is a requirement per resolution and is valuable to the Unencumbered Construction Fund Subcommittee as well as to the City Engineers in making city councils more aware of State Aid Funding. Needs Reporting data and segment listing will follow at a later date. If further information is necessary, feel free to call me at 612 - 296 -1662. BROOKLYN PARK 0 FOOD � fl � l SC4 F 1 .I I ( Btu S EL IC.AYL lz II I m II �[ IJE _.. I`ni - I 9111 C_ E I[-vE _PEPR EA CRYSTAL l r / - I. Qncneanl - MAJO� .i •i WIN Lb IE AYE j}j}j)' I �� MAJON AY�I EtE 'I J�y�tE _ ! 1 � VL E say i['1) ( M�(1. A..' /07�N7� 1. a /03 ED L ES RSD pri II�L�� _ rr 11 � Llfr�� 0 0 l._4 b. �1. 1 � ii. .G IaIEA �a.YE� /OS / a...D.. �L._l _�1lnILPgi D ` ° �\ ,/ O All A. AA.Y l IL V.___ -_JI< E MINI En S I C _w ♦ I L. - i to 1 DBF RD a d' x Ir � I @44 .7 ( /M '; • �2 I �� � � A5B _I(� 1[ 1 �// I(am C , ) I L z E N J •i ii 1_I _ �� ��NrE+. _y v_E - � \�.' z z • €E � • : '' if 4_.. ;i E � �� �t` y� � z i '6a � ba �t�� ••.� -• IL A __•_ I wns �� I. ASE �� � _��r__` °" r . .'�1� x A - URN If IN CENT A.E 1-1 uProN "I . � ""I'LL 4E � ^` -- /OY •SH NLL �'• ���� 1 1 T -1�L P2nti lAY_4 �� � \ ', cy?': � F �3N e o Y 'A Q J VCR�L 1 I I \\ �I IIEJ�3. W� f••�•. • ` O m { - ��c 1 {� A. j\ y , A ° � • y r I a NEw`lun �I " �I L.-.- All r p 1 (l Aatl _ f\9 t <`''`�*........ .. ✓i ° A Y ` .. b 1 l �a _. IC •. �[ _ • y � r � I 1 - 9YE DR BNUWN ,/ ( In V I L K H r � _1. AMEN VE N I F .� I I N O S �yYI ESI� - 1 �1 J VE I N y4 �1 I M m -) I f �� ....:� a ,n' 1�i _ i4y.. 108 i01 T D o r.� �L E � __. I t E N - I - Y �i. I�' C�• - ryyM.,.. • � ��6-H=i ILn� 1 n p R i _ __ �E A E ENSON -- rn D i� .DiEA All b I I I I I I t All 1 $ �- . tl m [1 I h" < 'L �. AYL�I� C_aMOt .E CAMDEN �� ' C __ SIM QELE �.LE•. 10O J E I�y 4 k1I� n 1 1 I A Q, ILL A, EP) -� �v i� N uoW � CO 111 [i I FRIDLEY X0 I a 3 I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number 7` REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ( HCDOT) TO DEVELOP PLANS FOR SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 152 (BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) BETWEEN 63RD AVENUE AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS DEPT. APPROVAL: �! SY KNAPP D ECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:� }- r No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation At its meeting on January 24, the Administrative Traffic Committee (ATC) received several requests for improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard, especially on the section from 63rd Avenue North to the North City Limits. All complaints relate to heavy traffic volumes, congestion, and a very high accident rate. Since Brooklyn Boulevard lies under the jurisdiction of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, the ATC recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution requesting the HCDOT to develop plans for safety and capacity improvements for this section of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152). City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ( HCDOT) TO DEVELOP PLANS FOR SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 152 (BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) BETWEEN 63RD AVENUE AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, current traffic volumes on CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) between 63rd Avenue North and the North City Limits of Brooklyn Center range from 33,000 to more than 48,000 Annually Averaged Daily Traffic (AADT); and WHEREAS, serious congestion problems daily on this section of Brooklyn Boulevard, especially between 65th Avenue and 69th Avenue North, demonstrate the need for improved roadway design geometrics and improved traffic control systems; and WHEREAS, a review of accidental records for years 1985 through 1987 has shown that approximately 175 traffic accidents occur each year on this section of Brooklyn Boulevard and that approximately 60 accidents per year result in personal injuries; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan includes recommendations for capacity and safety improvements, as well as a land -use redevelopment plan along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Traffic Committee has reviewed the above noted information and has recommended that the City Council request the Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) to develop plans for safety and capacity improvements to this section of Brooklyn Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) is hereby requested to review existing conditions and problems and to develop plans for safety and capacity improvements to CSAH 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) with special emphasis on the section between 63rd Avenue North and the North City Limits of Brooklyn Center. 2. The Cit y g y Manager and City staff are authorized and directed to submit this request to HCDOT, along with information relating to this request, and to assist and cooperate with HCDOT in developing additional information and plans for the requested improvements. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 22 7 /1 - 3/89 Agenda Item Number 1 t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT 1988 -H (FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE, ON FRANCE AVENUE, ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND ON 50TH AVENUE NORTH) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation During construction of the Logan Avenue, France Avenue, Lakebreeze Avenue, and 50th Avenue improvement projects (all included in Contract 1988 -H) a large number of changes were required which resulted in significant contract cost increases. In the attached report, City Engineer Spurrier details all of these changes.. After extensive review of this report on an item -by -item basis, I submit the following summary based on the 9 groupings as described: Group Net Contract No. Description of Group Cost Increase 1 Additional work authorized by City Council, but not previously formalized $ 6,044 2 Additional work required to satisfy conditions included in easements obtained from property owners $ 4,517 3 Additional construction costs incurred because easement could not be obtained for storm sewer (France Avenue) $12,030 4 Work items added to repair defects and /or to improve operability of City's public utility systems $ 6,327 5 Work items relating to changes made to privately • owned public utility systems (costs will be reimbursed b those public utility companies) 11 y P y P ) 502 $ , Group Net Contract ® No. Description of Group Cost Increase 6 Work items completed on a force account (i.e. time and materials) basis, because there was no way to identify these items during plan development without extensive and costly investigations (i.e. the cost of identifying these items in advance would have greatly exceeded the benefit received by including them in the contract) $28,341 7 Items which were shown in the construction plans, but which were inadvertently not included in the tabulation of planned quantities $14,921 8 Increased costs relating to miscellaneous changes in project quantities which became necessary during the course of the project to accommodate field conditions $28,844 9 Increased costs for removal and relaying a section of storm sewer as required because of an error by City's survey crew $ 7.206 Net cost increase to be included in "Supplemental Agreement No. 3" $119,732 In addition to the items proposed to be included in this proposed supplemental agreement, Mr. Spurrier notes that the contractor has submitted claims relating to 3 items, totaling $16,482.46. We have proposed to recommend payments totaling $11,103.55 for these items, but the contractor has refused to accept that proposal. Accordingly, we recommend that the City Council authorize the initiation of arbitration proceedings in the event no agreement can be reached by direct negotiations between our office and the contractor. Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT 1988 -H (FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE, ON FRANCE AVENUE, ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND ON 50TH AVENUE NORTH) WHEREAS, City Council entered into a contract on June 6, 1988, with Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. for the construction of Improvement Project No. 1988 -04, 1988 -05, 1988 -06, and 1988 -07; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined certain modifications as detailed in proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3 (copy attached) need to be made to the contract to facilitate the construction of the project; and WHEREAS, the contractor, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc., has agreed to the prices for the modifications as noted above, and has executed proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3; and WHEREAS, the contractor has also submitted additional claims in the total amount of $16,482.46 and the City Engineer has advised the City Council that, in his opinion, those claims are excessive and he has been unable to negotiate an acceptable price for the work relating to those claims. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Contract 1988 -H, providing for compensation for the additional work completed, as detailed therein, at a net additional cost of $119,732.17 is hereby approved. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute Supplemental Agreement No. 3 on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. There is appropriated the sum of $119,732.17 for the additional cost. This appropriation will be financed as follows: Special Assessments $ 7,388.97 MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2613) $ 97,945.41 Public Utility Fund $ 6,327.45 Other Northern States Power $ 8.070.34 Total $119,732.17 3. In the event City staff is unable to negotiate an acceptable resolution to the claims for additional payment made by the contractor, the City Manager is hereby authorized to initiate formal arbitration proceedings to obtain a resolution to the dispute regarding just compensation for the work relating to those claims. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer DATE: February 7, 1989 RE: France and Logan Avenue Area Projects Contract 1988 -H Supplemental Agreement No. 3 Introduction I have attached proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3 for the above - referenced contract. I have discussed these proposed changes with the contractor, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. The contractor agrees that the amounts proposed resolve all of the claims listed. The Supplemental Agreement does not include three other claims which could not be resolved. The unresolved claims are listed in Part III of this report. Respect - full submitted, Approved for submittal, H. R. Spurrier S Y 2 h ' a PP City ineer Director of Public Works INTRODUCTION Part I of this report covers proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Contract No. 1988 -H which makes the following changes: Item No. 1 Additions made for the Public Utility Division Item No. 2 Work that was required but not discovered in original preliminary study Item No. 3 Repair of damage caused by utility companies (i.e. U.S. West and Minnegasco) Item No. 4 Items that should have been included in Supplemental No. 2 (e.g., the change that realigned the storm sewer in 57th Avenue and Lilac Drive) Item No. 5 Work required due to a survey error Item No. 6 Realignment of the France Avenue storm sewer required because easement negotiations were unsuccessful Item No. 7 Work that was not included in original plans because easement dedication was made between the bid date and the time the contractor was notified to proceed Item No. 8 Items that takeoff t were omitted due to errors in original t g Item No. 9 Revision required to correct original grading Part II of this report contains the changes in the contract because of under and over estimation of original quantities which are also covered by proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3. An explanation of those changes will also be included. Part III lists claims which have been made by the contractor which remain unresolved at this time. PART I - PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO, 3 The following explanations cover the recommended contract changes: Item No. 1 - Additions made for the Public Utilities Division A. The original plan design specified lowering the 10" water main at Logan Avenue and 57th Avenue North. It was not anticipated that this a . lowering would shut down several major businesses in Northbrook Shopping Center and four blocks of residential users. The Center appeared to be on a looped system that could have alternate feed. It was deemed essential to install 2 -10" valves to eliminate shut down of service and improve the overall flexibility of the water distribution system. Invoice 885716 $3,434.27 885727 92.84 $3,527.11 B. The existing 4" sanitary service at 5712 Logan Avenue North was found to be defective as it entered the main sewer line and repair was required. A new 4" service pipe was installed from the main and under the 42" RCP storm sewer. Invoice 885724 $1,073.07 C. The Contractor was requested to install 8" wet tap on existing 10" CIP for 4629, 4639 and 4645 France Avenue to allow future water main loop when the subject property redevelops. This amount will be included in a future hookup agreement for the property. City Request $1,315.00 D. Water service to vacant lot in Robbinsdale was found to be in conflict with storm sewer outfall. This service had to be relocated (force account) or removed (force account) . A determination was made by Robbinsdale that the lot was unbuildable. The water service was removed at the main on France Avenue in accordance with City policy. Invoice 885707 $ 412.27 Total Item No. 1 $6,327.45 Item No. 2 - Work that was required but not included in the original plans. Claims A - N below occurred because the cost of the preliminary investigation to identify the work generally exceeded the amount 2 r t saved by identifying the problem. Accordingly, the best estimate of conditions is made and if those conditions are found to be different during construction, force account work for this item may be needed. Claims 0 and P below occurred because the work was not identified in the original study. A. Southbound Logan Avenue at 57th Avenue North encountered unstable subgrade at the proposed right turn lane, requiring removal and replacement of material at the negotiated price of 8.00 /C.Y. for 75 C.Y. Invoice 885722 $ 600.00 B. Reinstall a sanitary service to 1915 57th Avenue North (Milavetz Building). As -built data showed two services to this property. At the time of construction the commercial building was vacant and the apparently unused service to the adjacent lot was plugged at property line. On August 25, 1988, it was determined that the commercial building was being serviced • by the sanitary service on the adjacent lot (i.e. the line which had been plugged). The new service had to be reconnected with the additional installation of 35 linear feet of new 6" PVC sanitary service. Invoice 885736 $2,131.48 C. The existing catch basin on France was planned to be lowered. It was unknown at plan preparation that a storm sewer from Denny's Restaurant parking lot came into this catch basin under the slab. The storm sewer from Denny's had to be relaid and lowered to fit the lowered catch basin. Invoice 885710 $ 628.55 D. Replace existing 9" high casting on a sanitary sewer on France Avenue with 4" high casting. No adjusting rings were in place to allow lowering of casting to accommodate grade change in street construction. Alternative 3 methods of adjustment such as removing the cone section and placing short barrel section was more expensive. Invoice 885720 $ 701.83 E. Repair PVC storm sewer lead to Davies Water Company storage yard. This storm sewer lead was unknown at time of plan preparation and was crushed during construction on boulevard. No alternatives available. Invoice 885709 $ 217.61 F. NSP conduit in conflict with storm sewer alignment. The city submitted review plans to NSP prior to preparing final design. NSP failed to mark the review plans. The final plans were based on incorrect utility locations. A set of final plans was reviewed by NSP and no possible conflict was identified. The cables and conduit were field located and only one of two parallel conduits was marked. The contractor hit a second conduit and the grade conflict was identified. We could have demanded that NSP move their conduit, but that would have shut down the job and resulted in greater costs for everyone. The solution selected was to relay the storm sewer as necessary to modify grade so as to clear NSP. The realignment and lowering of a water main was required by the realignment. NSP agreed to pay $8,070.34, which was the cost of the relocation by force account less the original planned cost. Relay 24" RCP $ 2,119.50 Invoice 885701 3,596.22 885702 5,232.34 885703 780.19 885704 1,506.85 $13,235.10 Total Cost for All Work on This Item $13,235.10 Less Reduction to Original Planned Cost 5.164.76 Increase for Force Account Work $ 8,070.10 Less Payment by NSP $ 8.070.10 Net Increase for Force Account Work $ 0.00 4 r � G. An alignment change was necessary due to size of the NSP underground vault at th v 50 Avenue e and France v A enue and the depth of concrete conduits entering the vault. The size of the NSP vault was underestimated and interfered with the location of the proposed storm sewer. Relocation of conduits and vault was not feasible. When the storm sewer was realigned to clear the vault, it moved the storm sewer into conflict with a water main. The water main had to be lowered to accomplish the needed realignment. Invoice 885705 $1,102.11 885706 2,258.58 $3,360.69 H. Casting adjustment on existing MWCC interceptor manhole at 50th Avenue and Ewing Avenue. Grade adjustment on 50th Avenue exceeded available casting adjustment. A special order oversized manhole casting could replace the existing casting but that would have taken 6 - 8 weeks (October). So that 50th Avenue could be finished in a timely manner, we decided to cut down barrel section and install new flat slab top and the existing casting. The work did not not delay construction. Invoice 885726 $1,875.91 885725 1,803.15 $3,679.06 I. Contractor encountered a buried, abandoned concrete driveway or parking lot slab at 3715 50th Avenue North during shaping of boulevard slope. Removal of 18" topsoil and use of jackhammers to break and remove concrete was necessary. Invoice 885732 $ 463.64 J. Alignment change of 42" RCP on Logan Avenue at 57th Avenue. The 42" RCP was realigned to facilitate traffic movement during a Minnegasco as main relocation at 5 and Logan g 7th a L g Avenue. The work consisted of 5 r • realignment to provide clearances at a Minnegasco gas main crossing. The realignment resulted in a reduction of pipe and changed a precast manhole to a cast in place manhole. The pipe on site had to be returned to the manufacturer with a restocking fee. Invoice 885740 $ 455.11 K. Remove slab top, manhole block and cut down bell of 42" RCP. Rebuild to facilitate adjusting rings. Alternative was to special order shallow casting at considerable time delay for same cost. Invoice 885733 $ 452.11 L. Change to shallow castings on existing sanitary sewer manholes at 5716 and 5830 Logan Avenue in lieu of physically changing structures. This is the least costly of alternatives. Invoice 885738 $ 33.52 M. The electric service to Lift Station No. 6 and to the MNDOT traffic signal controller were buried underground as a part of new service installation. In order to bury the service, it was necessary to locate abandoned handholes and raise one of the handholes to finished grade. After the handhole was located a sidewalk panel around the handhole was repaired. Invoice 885744 $ 779.80 885748 162.06 Total $941.86 N. Rigid steel electrical conduit was installed under France Avenue at Lakebreeze and under the north driveway to Dale Tile and a handhole to bury the electrical service for MNDOT traffic signal controller. The conduit was installed prior to final grading of pavement area. 6 t • Letter dated January 3, 1989 160' -3" RSC $2116.80 10' -2" RSC 98.00 Handhole w /lid 448.59 Total $2663.39 0. Pour concrete steps at 4629 and 4625 France Avenue North. Steps were needed on service walks to these residences. The original plans did not make provisions for steps on service walks. It was not possible to negotiate a unit price with the contractor. The item was covered by the provisions related to force account. Invoice 885742 $ 622.84 P. When the 10 inch gate valve was added on Logan Avenue, south of County Road 57, the installation disturbed three additional traffic signal loop detectors (i.e. the repair of 3 loop detectors was already in the contract). The three additional detectors were smaller than other three loop detectors • bid and so the contractor agreed to install the additional loop detectors at a price that was $453.25 less than the bid price. Letter $2,321.75 Total Item No. 2 $32,508.54 Item No. 3 - Work required to repair damage caused by utility companies (i.e., U.S. West and Minnegasco) A. Soft spots in subgrade were created by the failure of compaction of a U. S. West trench. The soft spot repair was billed separately by the contractor. The cost of this invoice will be billed to U. S. West. Invoice 885745 $ 182.72 It was necessary to repair an area of bituminous subgrade and concrete removed by U.S. West for an emergency repair after the bituminous base was placed. The cost of this work will be billed to U. S. West. 7 Invoice 885723 $ 924.37 $1,107.09 B. A 4" steel gas main was relocated to facilitate storm sewer construction. The abandoned part of the main was left in place but that part interfered with storm sewer construction and had to be removed and disposed of. That cost of removal and disposal was billed separately by the contractor as force account and the cost will be billed to Minnegasco. Invoice 885721 $2,325.00 Total Item No. 3 $3,432.09 Item No. 4 - The following items should have been included in Supplemental Agreement No. 2 (i.e., the change that removed the trail along Lilac Drive and realigned the storm sewer in 57th Avenue and Lilac Drive) • A. Relocation of hydrant at 57th Avenue and No. Lilac Drive. When Supplemental Agreement No. 2 was prepared, the fire hydrant relocation at 57th Avenue and Lilac Drive was not included. A unit price for hydrant relocate was included in the bid, but due to the complexity of this relocate, that unit price could not be used. The work consisted of installing fittings, pipe and insulation to relocate the lead to the fire hydrant and avoid the storm sewer. It was not possible to negotiate a price with the contractor so the item was covered by force account. Invoice 885714 $1,575.86 B. Install 1 1/2" copper water service. At the time Supplemental Agreement No. 2 was prepared, it was unknown that a 1 1/2" service existed at 1915 - 57th Avenue North (Milavetz building). We had proposed to pay for these items at the bid price for 1 water service. The contractor did not realize this item was being paid under that bid item and was unwilling 8 to accept the amount due to additional material and labor costs for installation of 1 1/2" copper. It was not possible to negotiate a unit price with the contractor so the item was covered by the provisions under force account. Letter dated 8/7/88 $1,530.00 Total Item No. 4 $3,105.86 Item No. 5 - Work required due to survey error by the City's Engineering Division. A manhole was not staked properly and the contractor built 196 linear feet of storm sewer before the error was discovered. This item covers the cost of removing and relaying the storm sewer that was incorrectly placed. A. After the contractor installed 196 linear feet of 42" RC storm sewer on Logan Avenue North, north of 57th Avenue North, the pipe was found to be off grade by 1.0 feet too high. The variance from design grade was too great and so the pipe had to be removed and reinstalled at the correct grade. A unit price could not be negotiated and so the work was performed under force account. The accepted amount corresponds to the 10 hours required to relay the pipe. There were 6 additional hours of work claimed by the contractor that were rejected. The rejected hours were for lost time and for hours on items not related to subject force account work. Invoice 885718 $9,453.25 Rejected Amount 2,246.84 Total Item No. 5 $7,206.41 Item No. 6 - Realignment of the France Avenue storm sewer because easement negotiations were unsuccessful. The outfall for the France Avenue storm sewer is in the City of Robbinsdale. The original plan proposed to use an easement near the south City limits. The 9 property was in Robbinsdale, Robbinsdale was g g oin to benefit from easement acquisition and so Robbinsdale city staff agreed to assist in obtaining the needed easement. Robbinsdale staff was unsuccessful in contacting the property owners and suggested that Brooklyn Center staff try to obtain the easement. Brooklyn Center staff established contact with one of the property owners and after considerable negotiation, established a price that seemed reasonable to that owner i.e. $4,000.00). This occurred two weeks I before the scheduled award of contract. The owner wanted to review the offer with his partners before responding. The City's offer was based on the fact that an alternative alignment had an estimated value less than $5,000 and the total easement value was $4,000.00. The owner did not respond to phone calls received by an answering machine and was not home when we tried personal contact. • Finally, prior to the scheduled award, the property owner advised us that his partners needed at least $5,000 for the property. We saw a bidding situation beginning. At that point, we decided to use an alternative alignment. The alternative alignment used more pipe, had more restoration and had a less desirable, but acceptable hydraulic profile. The alternate alignment was estimated to cost $4,680.00 more than the planned alignment. The estimated cost was based on removing the curb and gutter and 5 feet of pavement adjacent to the curb. The realignment could not be used because of a conflict with utility cables and because the contractor could not operate his equipment in the proposed work area of the alignment. Accordingly the storm sewer realignment was moved so that 10 feet of additional pavement removal was required. 10 This change increased the removal and restoration cost $940 and the estimated realignment cost to $5,620. The contractor encountered two more problems immediately. These problems resulted in an additional cost increase of $3,820. The first problem was related to removal of bituminous pavement. The bituminous pavement along the revised alignment had a greater depth which increased removal cost. This area was approximately 200 feet long just outside our last soil boring. The pavement ranged in depth up to 15.5 inches. The second problem encountered was at the outfall. We had problems with the outlet. As proposed it was connected to the France Avenue culvert. That connection was not acceptable to the City of Robbinsdale. Accordingly, the pipe was realigned to discharge directly to Ryan Creek. There is a quantity overrun tabulated in Part II.2.A.(2) of this report on page 16 for the additional 117.7 linear feet of pipe installed. That quantity overrun was included in the estimated cost of the realignment. A. The revised alignment of the storm sewer outfall on France Avenue required removal of the east 1/2 of France Avenue into Robbinsdale. During removal by the contractor, the bituminous thickness range was found to be up to 15.5 inches. The depth was substantially greater than the depth noted in the soils report which did not cover this area. The contract unit price of $1.30 was intended to cover the removal of pavement 2 -4 inches thick. We agreed to pay $5.40 to remove pavement that was 15.5 inches thick. Letter of 8/7/88 294.6 SY @ 5.40 /SY = $1,590.84 Change $1,207.86 11 B. Realign storm outfall to R n arm an Creek. The work consisted of Ryan installing a structure to discharge the storm sewer to Ryan Creek and removing the connection to the France Avenue culvert. Invoice 885708 $1,790.38 885710 $1,054.83 Total $2,845.21 Summary of Costs Related to Item No. 6 Item Estimated Cost Actual Cost Change +( -) Planned Realignment $4,680 $4,446.97* ($233.03) Added Pavement Removal 383 1,590.84 1,207.86 Added Pavement Restoration 557 557.00 0 Modify Outfall 2,845.21 2,845.21 Total $5,620 $9,440.02 $3,820.04 *Includes Pipe Overrun Total Item No. 6 $4,436.05 Item No. 7 - Work that was not included in the original plans because construction easement dedication occurred after the contract was awarded. Final easement agreements required special work items that were not included in the contract. A. Northern States Power asked the City to place Class II rock at the NSP substation between bituminous bikeway and chain link fence as no irrigation system is available and maintenance of sod would be a perpetual problem. Cost of sod placement would have been $515.00. Net increase to contract $222.10. Invoice 885731 $ 737.13 B. Forming of service walks and steps was required at 3615 (Benning building), 3701 (Fun Services), 3707 (Helix building) and 3715 (Talmage building) - 50th Avenue North to existing industrial buildings. • 12 Invoice 885739 $2,016.62 . 885741 1,043.76 $3,060.38 C. Installation of 66.8 SF of sidewalk swale at 3715 50th Avenue North (Talmage building). $ 96.86 Total Item No. 7 $3,894.37 Item No. 8 - Bid items that were not included in the original takeoff: A. No unit price was provided on the original takeoff for the replacement of loop detectors for the traffic signals on France Avenue, south of TH 100. It was not anticipated that these detectors would be damaged. The relocation of the buried access handhole required reinstallation of the two detectors and handhole with lid. Letter dated January 3, 1989 Loop detectors $1,140.00 Handhole with lid 448.59 Total $1,588.59 Total Item No. 8 $1,588.59 Item No. 9 - Additional work required to correct the design grading. After inspecting the completed subgrade of the trail the design alignment was accepted. Reviewing the alignment a day later, an existing tree conflicted with bike safety. The contractor was ordered to revise the completed alignment. A. Trail modification on France Avenue at 4825 France Avenue (Dale Tile) after original alignment was completed. Invoice 885735 $ 127.90 Total Item No. 9 $ 127.90 Total Cost of Force Account Work Included in ® Proposed S.A. No. 3 (Total of Items No. 1 - 9) $62,627.26 13 1 1 PART II. CHANGES IN PLANNED QUANTITIES This portion of the report details changes in quantities due to over /under estimation of the planned quantities in the original contract. The following is a summary f the major changes i n the con t' amount o f y � g tract quantities. The final amo q the contract has not been established but an estimate of the number of units needed to complete that work has been included in the summary. 1. Logan Avenue North - Improvement Project No 1988 -04 (MSA 109 - 106 -02) A. Quantities omitted from the original contract (1) The pavement restoration quantities for North Lilac Drive and 57th Avenue North, south of County Road 57, were not included in the original contract. The omission resulted in an underestimation of the quantities and an overrun of cost for the following items. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Prices +( - ) Remove Bituminous Pavement 8,400 SY 8,954.1 SY 1.30 /SY $ 720.33 Class 5 Aggregate 2,668 TN 3,304 TN 5.60 /TN $ 3,561.60 Base Course Mixture 934 TN 1,179.26 TN 11.50 /TN $ 2,820.49 Wear Course Mixture 834 TN 1,110.05 TN 13.80 $ 3,809.49 Bituminous Curb 45 LF 456 LF 2.75/LF $ 1,130.25 TOTAL $12,042.16 (2) There was a substantial underestimation of driveway pavement and overestimation of curb and gutter. The curb and gutter was incorrectly included in the driveway aprons when the original quantity take -off was made. The result was cost underrun on curb and gutter and a cost overrun on driveway pavement. The bid price of driveway pavement is $22.00 per square yard the equivalent units for curb and gutter is $18.90 per square yard. The higher price of driveway pavement resulted in a net increase in contract cost. The change in quantities is shown below: 14 Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Prices +( -) 8" Concrete Driveway Pavement 280 SY 452.6 SY 22.00 /SY $ 3,797.20 B -618 Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,909 LF 2,187.5 LF 4.20 /LF ($ 3,030.30) TOTAL $ 766.90 B. There were changes in quantities as a result of additional work required but not included in the original contract. (1) When the items were established for Supplemental Agreement No. 2 (e.g., the agreement that revised the storm sewer alignment), a grade conflict between the storm sewer and a conflict with a sanitary sewer service to 2121 57th Avenue was not anticipated. The conflict occurred and it was necessary to remove and replace an additional 115.5 square yards of driveway pavement in order to relay the sanitary sewer service. The quantity overrun is shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price +( -) 8" Concrete Driveway Pavement 178.3 SY 274.3 SY 22.00 /SY $2,112.00 (2) Due to a very hot dry construction season, the quantity of water required for compaction and dust control overran planned quantities as shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price +( -) Water 10 MG 140 MG 20.00 /M $ 2,600.00 (3) Force account work to relocate water main in Supplemental Agreement No. 2 was underestimated. The additional work required increased the amount of force account work from $6,607.00 to $11,438.24. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price +( -) . Lower Water Main $6,607.00 $11,438.24 N/A $4,831.24 ' 15 (4) Other changes due to an underestimation and overestimation of planned quantities changed the final contract amount. Some additional work remains but the maximum quantities are fixed. The result of other changes increases the final amount by $3,349.97. (See detailed item -by -item tabulation attached i.e. Exhibit A). ($1.481.27) Sub -total cost increases due to quantity changes for Improvement Project No. 1988 -04 (Logan Avenue No.) $25,702.27 2. France Avenue North - Improvement Project 1988 -05 (MSA 109 - 105 -01) A. Quantity change as a result of additional work (1) Quantity change as a result of adding work on 48th Avenue North adjacent to 4748 France Avenue (Cass Screw Inc.). At the request of the property owner and according to an assessment agreement approved by City Council, part of 48th Avenue, east of France Avenue was improved. The additional work, estimated to cost $5,460.00. The actual cost was $584.46 more than the estimate. The property was assessed $7,388.97 more in accordance with the assessment agreement. The assessment offsets the additional cost. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price +( -) Aggregate Base 3945 TN 4197.2 TN 5.60 /TN $1,412.32 Base Course Mixture 987 TN 1101.77 TN 11.50 $1,320.36 Wearing Course Mixture 848 TN 1005.81 TN 13.80 $2,177.78 B -618 Conc. Curb & Gutter 4322 LF 4592.0 LF 4.20 $1.134.00 Total $6,044.46 (2) Additional storm sewer pipe was required for the realignment of the France Avenue storm sewer outfall when an easement could not be obtained in Robbinsdale. This cost is in addition to the costs contained in Part 1, Item No. 6B above (i.e. additional costs of $4,436.05 on page 12 of this report). II . 16 • Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 18" RC Pipe CL IV 350 LF 467.7 LF 22.00 /LF $2,589.40 (3) Due to a very hot, dry construction season, the quantity of water required for compaction, and dust control overran planned quantities as shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) Water 11.5 MG 140 MG 20.00 /M $2,570.00 (4) Additional driveway aprons were added at 4825 France Avenue (Dale Tile) (108.7 SY); 3721 50th Avenue (Talmage building) (97.1 SY); 4911 France Avenue (NSP site) (180.8 SY); and 4748 France Avenue (Cass Screw) (27.5 SY). These additions were made because the property owners did not establish special access requirements until after the . project was awarded. Where possible, we accommodated the special access requirements, but the quantities were not included in the original amount. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Conc. Driveway Pave (HE) 886 SY 1300.1 SY $21.00 /SY $8,696.10 B. Quantities Over /Under Estimated in Planned Work (1) There was a substantial underestimation of driveway pavement and overestimation of curb and gutter. The curb and gutter was incorrectly included in the driveway aprons when the original quantity take -off was made. The result was a cost underrun on curb and gutter and a cost overrun on driveway pavement. Taking original quantity as being the final quantity from (1) and (4) above, the change in quantities is shown below: 17 Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Cone. Driveway Pave (HE) 1300.1 SY 1595.4 SY 21.00 /SY $6,201.30 B -618 Cone. Curb & Gutter 4592 LF 3875.8 LF 4.20 /LF ($3,008.04) Total $3,193.26 (2) Other changes due to an underestimation and overestimation of planned quantities changed the final contract amount. Some additional work remains but the maximum quantities are fixed. The result of other changes increased the final amount by $430.77. (See detailed item -by -item tabulation attached - i.e. Exhibit A.) 430.77 Sub -total Cost Increases Due to Quantity Changes for Improvement Project No. 1988 -05 $23,523.99 (France Avenue North) 3. Lakebreeze Avenue North - Improvement Project No 1988 -06 A. Quantity change as a result of additional work (1) An additional driveway apron was added to 4010 Lakebreeze Avenue (Davies) (53.1 SY) . This addition was made because the property owner did not establish special access requirements until after the project was awarded. Where possible, we accommodated the special access requirements. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Cone. Driveway Pave (HE) 563.7 SY 616.8 SY 22.00 /SY $1,168.20 (2) Due to a very hot, dry construction season, the quantity of water required for compaction and dust control overran planned quantities as shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( - ) Water 4.5 MG 55 MG 20.00 /M $1,010.00 � 18 B. Quantities Over/Under Estimated in Planned Work (1) There was a substantial underestimation of driveway pavement and overestimation of curb and gutter. The curb and gutter incorrectly included driveway aprons when the original quantity take -off was made. The result was a cost underrun on curb and gutter and a cost overrun on driveway pavement. The change in quantities is shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Conc. Driveway Pave (HE) 466 SY 563.7 SY 22.00 /SY $2,149.40 B -618 Conc. Curb & Gutter 1963 LF 1279.6 LF 4.20 /LF ($2.870.28) Total ($ 700.88) (2) Other changes due to an underestimation and overestimation of planned quantities changed the final contract amount. Some additional work remains but the maximum quantities are fixed. The result of other changes increased the final amount by $3,217.13. (See detailed item -by -item tabulation attached). $3.217.13 Sub -total Cost Increases Due to Quantity Changes for Improvement Project No. 1988 -06 $4,694.45 (Lakebreeze Avenue) 4. 50th Avenue North - Improvement Project No. 1988 -07 (MSA 109- 104 -01) A. Quantity change as a result of additional work (1) An additional driveway apron was added at 3607 50th Avenue (Helix building) (86.0 SY). This addition was made because the property owner did not establish special access requirements until after the project was awarded. Where possible, we accommodated the special access requirements. The quantities below were not included in the original amount. Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Conc. Driveway Pave (HE) 292 SY 378 SY 22.00 /SY $1,892.00 19 (2) Due to a very hot, dry construction season, the quantity of water required for compaction and dust control overran planned quantities as shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) Water 4 MG 55 MG 20.00 /M $1,020.00 B. Quantities Over /Under Estimated In Planned Work (1) There was a substantial underestimation of driveway pavement and overestimation of curb and gutter. The curb and gutter incorrectly included driveway aprons when the original quantity take -off was made. The result was a cost overrun on driveway pavement and a cost underrun on curb and gutter. The change in quantities is shown below: Original Final Unit Change Item Quantity Quantity Price + ( -) 8" Conc. Driveway Pave (HE) 378 476.3 22.00 /SY $2,162.60 B -618 Conc. Curb & Gutter 1385 LF 906.8 LF 4.20 /LF ($2,008.44) Total $ 154.16 (2) Other changes due to an underestimation and overestimation of planned quantities changed the final contract amount. The result of the other changes increase the final amount by $118.04. (See detailed item -by -item tabulation attached). $118.0 4 Sub -total Cost Increases Due to Quantity Changes for Improvement Project No. 1988 -07 $3,184.20 (50th Avenue) 20 PART III UNRESOLVED CLAIMS Item No. 1 - Bid items that were not included in the original takeoff: A. No unit price for 4" concrete sidewalk was provided on the original bid form for France Avenue North due to an oversight during establishment of contract quantities. However, a unit price was included in the contract for Lakebreeze Avenue. It is the Engineer's recommendation that the sidewalk be paid using the price bid on Lakebreeze Avenue. 3959.8 SF was installed at the price of $1.45 /SF. The contractor is unwilling to accept this price unless favorable consideration is given the remaining claims. This item is a part of the restoration costs that were omitted from the original contract. Additional items are listed in Part II Section l.A(1) on page 15 of this memo. Contractor Amount Recommended Request Difference $5,741.71 $5,741.71* 0 * Provided amount of contractor request is paid on the following items. B. Installation of B -612 concrete curb and gutter on North Lilac Drive. There was 524.8 SF of B.612 curb and gutter on Lilac Drive that was removed and replaced as a part of restoration on 57th Avenue and North Lilac Drive. There was no unit price bid for B -612 in the original contract. We have proposed to pay the contractor at a unit price of $4.20 per linear foot (i.e. the unit price of B -618) plus $148.90 to change the form on the paving machine from B -618 to B -612. The contractor is unwilling to accept this offer and requests $9.00 per linear foot. Contractor Amount Recommended Request Difference $2,353.06 $4,723.20 $2,370.14 21 Item No. 2 - The cost attributed to moving the location of the "wet well" at the sanitary sewer lift station on Lakebreeze Avenue so that temporary service to the traffic signal at TH100 and France Avenue was not needed. A. Lift Station #6 location was moved 5 feet east and 3 feet north to allow construction of wet well without interfering with existing power source. The subcontractor, Layne Minnesota, requested an additional 3 feet to avoid "holding" power source pole during initial drilling. It was not feasible to provide a temporary power source as both the lift station and MnDot controller power were on the same pole. The amount recommended corresponds to the cost of a temporary source which was avoided by moving the wet well. The City would have been responsible for providing a temporary power source. Contractor Amount Recommended Request Difference $3,008.78 $6,017.55 $3,008.77 Total of Part III "Unresolved Items" Contractor Amount Recommended Request Difference $11,103.49 $16,482.40 $5,378.91 • 22 I C I i EXHIBIT A Proposed Supplemental Agreement No 3 Page 1 of 7 Contract 1988 -H Force Account Work Items Summary Item Recommended No Item Description Amount 1 Additions made for Public Utility Division $6,327.45 2 Required work not discovered in original 32,508.54 preliminary study 3 Repair of damage caused by utility companies 3,432.09 4 Items that should have been included in 3,105.86 Suppptemental Agreement No. 2 5 Work required due to survey error 7,206.41 6 Realignment of storm sewer in France Avenue 4,436.05 when easement could not be obtained 7 Work required on easement areas where ease- 3,894.37 ments were dedicated after bid date 8 Items ommited due to errors in original 1,588.59 quantity takeoff 9 Revision required to correct original 127.90 grading ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total Force Account Work Items in S.A. No 3 $62,627.26 Proposed Supplemental Agreement No 3 Contract 1988-H Chang Quantity Change Summary Quantity Change Improvement Project No Amount Logan Avenue Improvement Project No 1988 -04 $25,702.27 France Avenue Improvement Project No 1988 -05 23,523.99 Lakebreeze Avenue Improvement No 1988 -06 4,694.45 50th Avenue Improvement Project No 1988 -07 3,184.20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total Quantity Change in S.A. No 3 $57,104.91 Proposed Supplemental Agreement No 3 Contract 1988 -H Unresolved Claims Item Recommended Contractor No Item Description Amount Request Difference --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Items ommited due to errors in original $8,094.77 $10,464.91 $2,370.14 quantity takeoff 2 Cost of moving Lift Station No 6 wet well to 3,008.78 6,017.55 $3,008.77 avoid temporary service to MnDOT controller --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Unresolved Claims $11,103.55 $16,482.46 $5,378.91 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER THOMAS E SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY CONTRACT 1988 -H Printed: 18-Jan-89 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FRANCE, LAKEBREEZE, 50TH, & LOGAN RECONSTRUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOGAN AVENUE PROJECT 1988 -04 Page 2 of 7 MSA 109 - 106 -02 CONTRACT QUANTITIES TO DATE --------- -- ---- -------- - -- --------------- ----------- Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount ---- -- -- -------- --- --------- --------- - --- --- ------- ------- --- -- ----- -- --- -- -- - --- -- ---- -- - -- --- 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 115.00 8 920.00 5 575.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 20.00 8 160.00 1 20.00 2104.501 REMOVE CONCR C & G (ALL DSGNS)LF 1.00 1410 1,410.00 1549.7 1,549.70 2104.509 REMOVE CONCR STRUCTURE EA 80.00 6 480.00 6 480.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR DRIVEWAY SLAB SY 5.00 190 950.00 85.2 426.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR SIDEWALK SY 3.00 974 2,922.00 1084.8 3,254.40 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1.30 8400 10,920.00 8954.1 11,640.33 2104.511 SAWING CONCR PAVEMENT LF 3.50 250 875.00 0 0.00 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 1.50 2136 3,204.00 1444.3 2,166.45 2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING EA 50.00 4 200.00 3 150.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY, 4.00 `4686 18,744.00 4686 18,744.00 2105.521 GRANULAR BORROW (LV) CY 0.10 500 50.00 500 50.00 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA 180.00 15 2,700.00 15 2,700.00 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL M GA 20.00 10 200.00 140 2,800.00 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 5.60 2668 14,940.80 3304 18,502.40 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 51.8 7,459.20 58.96 8,490.24 2331.514-BASE COURSE MIXTURE- - - - 11.50 934 10,741.00 1179.26 13,561.49 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 54.2 7,804.80 59.61 8,583.84 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE IN 13.80 834 11,509.20 1110.05 15,318.69 2357.502 BIT MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1.10 380 418.00 608 668.80 2411.503 - CONCR SLOPE FOOTING SY 40.00 80 3,200.00 80 3,200.00 2411.503 CONCR SLOPE PAVING SY 18.00 125 2,250.00 125 2,250.00 2501.515 48" RC PIPE APRON EA 775.00 1 775.00 1 775.00 2503.511 12" RC PIPE LF 19.00 74 1,406.00 54 1,026.00 • 2503.511 18" RC PIPE LF 21.00 165 3,465.00 163.09 3,424.89 2503.511 21" RC PIPE LF 24.00 470 11,280.00 462.3 11,095.20 2503.511 27" RC PIPE LF 33.00 280 9,240.00 273.9 9,038.70 2503.511 42" RC PIPE LF 70.00 755 52,850.00 766.1 53,627.00 2503.511 48" RC PIPE LF 94.00 1018 95,692.00 1035 97,290.00 2503.571 INSTL. 48 RD LONG RAD. BENDS EA 485.00 b 2,910.00 9 4,365.00 2503.571 INST. 42' RC SHORT RAD. BENDS EA 380.00 12 4,560.00 10 3,800.00 2506.508 CONST MH 6' DIA BLOCK 0 -8 EA 2,400.00 2 4,800.00 2 4,800.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT MH, DSGN F EA 750.00 b 4,500.00 6 4,500.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT 42 TEE SECT. MH EA 1,300.00 4 5,200.00 4 5,200.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT 48" TEE SECT. MH EA 1,700.00 2 3,400.00 2 3,400.00 2506.508 CONST 4' MH Over 8 VCP (0 -8 1,000.00 2 2,000.00 2 2,000.00 2506.509 CCNSTRUCT C B, DSGN C EA 550.00 8 4,400.00 8 4,400.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES EA 260.00 20 5,200.00 20 5,200.00 2506.521 INSTALL CASTINGS EA 50.00 20 1,000.00 20 1,000.00 0506.622 ADJUST WATER VALUE BOX EA 115.00 5 575.00 10 1,150.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 2,450.00 1 2,450.00 1 2,450.00 2511.511 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SY 0.85 1128 958.80 1128 958.80 2521.501 4' CONCRETE WALK SF 1.25 14040 17,550.00 15636 19,545.00 2521.511 2" BIT. TRAIL (10 LF 5.10 2300 11,730.00 2300 11,730.00 2531.501 B -624 CONC. CURB & GUTTER LF 8.00 560 4,480.00 555 4,440.00 2531.501 B -618 CONC. CURB & GUTTER LF 4.20 2909 .12,217.80 2187.5 9,187.50 2531.507 6 1, CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 16.00 574 9,184.00 429.6 6,873.60 2531.507 8" CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVE (HE) SY 22.00 280 6,160.00 452.6 9,957.20 2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB LF 2.75 45 123.75 456 1,254.00 2554.511 INST TRAFF BARRIER, TEMP. LF 3.50 400 1,400.00 375 1,312.50 2557.501 CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 6.00 1805 10,830.00 2655.5 15,933.00 2571.544 TRANSPLANT SHRUBS EA 55.00 11 605.00 0 0.00 2575.501 ROADSIDE SEEDING AC 230.00 1.5 345.00 1.6 368.00 2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 5 LB 3.40 75 255.00 81.6 277.44 2575.505 SODDING SY 1.40 6996 9,794.40 6996 9,794.40 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TN --- -130.00 -3 - 390.00 3.2 416.00 2575.519 DISC ANCHORING AC 31.00 1.5 -46.50 1.6 49.60 2575.532 COMM. FERT, ANALYSIS 25-5 -10 LB.- 0.25 300 75.00 320 80.00 SPEC. 6 DIP CL 52 LF 30.00 30 900.00 19 570.00 • SPEC. 8 DIP CL 52 LF 30.00 33 990.00 23.8 714.00 SPEC. 8" PUC LF 10.00 782 7,820.00 776 7,760.00 SPEC. INSULATION SF 1.50 200 300.00 608 912.00 SPEC. RELOCATE SAN SERV. (4 LF 14.00 250 3,500.00 263.1 3,683.40 - a LOGAN AVENUE PROJECT 1988 -04 Page 3 of 7 MSA 109 - 106 -02 CONTRACT QUANTITIES TO DATE -------- --------- --------- -------------------------- Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount -- --- --- ------------- ---------------- - --- ------- --- -- ----- --- - --------- -- ---- ------ --- -- ------- SPEC. RELOCATE WATER SERV. (1 - -) LF 12.00 100 1,200.00 160 1,920.00 SPEC. RELOCATE HYDRANT EA 700.00 2 1,400.00 2 1,400.00 SPEC. EXTRA DEPTH OF MH OVER 8' . LF 70.00 23 1,610.00 20.67 1,446.90 SPEC. 10 DIP CL 52 LF 30.00 20 600.00 18 540.00 SPEC. PIPE FITTINGS LBS. 1.00 1000 1,000.00 620 620.00 SPEC. LOWER WATERMAIN (10 EA 950.00 1 950.00 1 950.00 SPEC. WOODEN BOLLARD EA 32.00 64 2,048.00 64 2,048.00 SPEC. 5/8 GALO. CHAIN LF 5.75 310 1,782.50 310 1,782.50 SPEC. RELOCATE LIGHT STANDARD EA 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 SPEC. SIGNAL SYSTEM CSAH 57 LS 3,700.00 1 3,700.00 1 3,700.00 SPEC. LOOP DETECTOR INSTALLATION EA 925.00 3 2,775.00 3 2,775.00 SPEC. 1 1/2 RS CONDUIT LF 7.00 310 2,170.00 197 1,379.00 SPEC. 2 11 RS CONDUIT LF 10.00 215 2,150.00 357.5 3,575.00 SPEC. STEEL HANDHOLE COVER EA 370.00 4 1,480.00 4 1,480.00 --- ----- -- -- -- -- --- --- -- - --- TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $448,281.75 $471,105.97 CHANGE ORDER NO 1 -------- -------------------- --------- ---- ---------- ---------- -- ---------- ---------- -- -- -------- 2503.511 12 RC PIPE LF 19.00 15 285.00 15 285.00 2503.511 42 RC PIPE LF 70.00 47 3,290.00 47 3,290.00 2503.511 48" RC PIPE LF 94.00 -73 (6,862.00) -73 (6,862.00) -- ------ - ----- -- ------ - -- --- TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO 1 ($3,287.00) ($3,287.00) SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 -- --- --- - ------- -- ------------- - ----- ---- - ------ --- ----- ----- - ---- ------- - --- ------ ------ - ----- 2503.501 REMOVE 12 RC PIPE LF 10.00 15 150.00 15 150.00 2503.511 REMOVE 8 INSTALL 24 RC PIPE LF 39.00 45 1,755.00 45 1,755.00 • --- --- -- - - -- -- - --- ---- ------ TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,905.00 51,905.00 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 -- -- - --- --- ------ -- ------------ -- ---- ---- ---------- -- ----- --- ------ ---- -- -- -- ------ --- --------- 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1.30 1235 1,605.50 1235 1,605.50 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR DRIVEWAY SLAB SY 5.00 141 705.00 141 705.00 2104.511 SAWING CONCR PAVEMENT LF 3.50 60 210.00 81.3 284.55 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 1.50 48 72.00 82 123.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 4.00 140 560.00 140 560.00 2105.521 DELETE GRANULAR BORROW (LV) CY 0.10 -500 (50.00) -500 (50.00) 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA 180.00 2.6 468.00 7.3 1,314.00 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 5.60 299 1,674.40 335 1,876.00 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 11.2 1,612.80 6.45 928.80 2331.510 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE TN 11.50 100 1,150.00 0 0.00 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TN 11.50 100 1,150.00 140.21 1,612.42 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 15.3 2,203.20 14.94 2,151.36 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TN 13.80 235 3,243.00 266.89 3,683.08 2357.502 SIT MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1.10 30 33.00 43 47.30 2411.503 DELETE CONCR SLOPE FOOTING SY 40.00 -80 (3,200.00) -80 (3,200.00) 2411.503 DELETE CONCR SLOPE PAVING SY 18.00 -125 (2,250.00) -125 (2,250.00) 2503.511 DELETE 12 RC PIPE LF 19.00 -24 (456.00) -24 (456.00) 2503.511 DELETE 48 -- RC PIPE LF 94.00 -22 (2,068.00) -22 (2,068.00) 2503.571 INSTL. 48" RD LONG RAD. BENDS EA 485.00 2 970.00 2 970.00 2506.508 DELETE 4 MH Ovr 8 11 VCP (0 -8 1 )EA 1,000.00 -1 (1,000.00) -1 (1,000.00) 2521.501 DELETE 41 CONCRETE WALK SF 1.25 -3250 (4,062.50) -3250 (4,062.50) 2531.507 8 11 CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVE (HE) SY 22.00 178.3 3,922.60 274.3 6,034.60 2557.501 DELETE CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 6.00 -1805 (10,830.00) -1805 (10,830.00) 2511.511 DELETE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SY 0.85 -1128 (958.80) -1128 (958.80)- 2521.511 DELETE 2 11 BIT. TRAIL (10 LF 5.10 -2300 (11,730.QO) -2300 (11,730.00) 2575.505 DELETE SODDING SY 1.40 -6996 (9,794.40) -6996 (9,794.40) 2575.505 SODDING WITH 4 11 TOPSOIL SY 1.90 6996 13,292.40 4749 9,023.10 SPEC. DELETE 8 11 PUC LF 10.00 -522 (5,220.00) -522 (5,220.00) SPEC. DELETE EXTRA DEPTH MH OVER 8' LF 70.00 -13 (910.00) -13 (910.00) SPEC. DELETE WOODEN BOLLARD EA 32.00 -64 (2,048.00) -64 (2,048.00) SPEC. DELETE 5/8" GALO. CHAIN LF 5.75 -310 (1,782.50) -310 (1,782.50) SPEC. LOWER WATERMAIN (FORCE ACCOUNT) 6,607.00 1 6,607.00 1 11,438.24 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 ($16,881.30) ($14,003.25) LOGAN AVENUE PROJECT 1988-04 Page 4 of 7 MSA 109- 106 -02 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT 5448,281.75 5471,105.97 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO 1 ($3,287.00) ($3,287.00) TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,905.00 $1,905.00 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 ($16,881.30) ($14,003.25) TOTAL PROJECT 1988 -04 /MSA 109 - 106 -Oe! $430,018.45 5455,720.72 FRANCE AVENUE PROJECT 1988-05 MSA 109- 105 -01 CONTRACT QUANTITIES TO DATE -------------------- ------ --------------- ----------- Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount - --- ---- ------ -- -------- -- ----- -- ---- ---- ---------- --- ------- ------- ----- ---- ------ -- -------- -- 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 110.00 2 220.00 2 220.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 20.00 2 40.00 2 40.00 2104.501 REMOVE CONCR C & G (ALL DSGNS)LF 1.00 60 60.00 299 299.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR DRIVEWAY SLAB SY 6.00 145 870.00 101.8 610.80 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR SIDEWALK SY 3.00 610 1,830.00 879.9 2,639.70 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1.40 10424 14,593.60 9039.4 12,655.16 2104.511 SAWING CONCR PAVEMENT LF 4.00 62 248.00 124 496.00 2104.513 SAWING LF - 1.50 1103 1,654.50 1650.5 2;475.75 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 4.00 5869 23,476.00 5869 23,476.00 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA 180.00 22.13 3,983.40 24.5 4,410.00 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL M GA 20.00 11.5 230.00 140 2,800.00 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 5.60 3945 22,092.00 4197.2 23,504.32 2231.000 PAVEMENT MILLING SY 1.00 2075 2,075.00 1457.1 1,457.10 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 110.6 15,926.40 111.46 16,050.24 2331.510 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE TH 11.50 987 11,350.50 1013.53 11,655.60 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TH 11.50 987 11,350.50 1215.77 13,981.36 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TH 144.00 55.2 7,948.80 55.31 7,964.64 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TH 13.80 848 11,702.40 1005.81 13,880.18 • 2357.502 BIT MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1.10 898 987.80 835 918.50 2501.515 18 RC PIPE APRON EA 270.00 1 270.00 1 270.00 2503.511 12" RC PIPE CL III LF 19.00 125 2,375.00 114.84 2,181.96 2503.511 15" RC PIPE CL IV LF 21.00 170 3,570.00 175.4 3,683.40 2503.511 18" RC PIPE CL IV LF 22.00 350 7,700.00 467.7 10,289.40 2503.573 INSTALL 15 RC PIPE APRON EA 250.00 1 250.00 1 250.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT CS OVER EXIST. RCP EA 800.00 2 1,600.00 2 1,600.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT MH, DSGN F EA 700.00 4 2,800.00 5 3,500.00 2506.509 CONSTRUCT C B, DSGN C EA 550.00 3 1,650.00 3 1,650.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES EA 240.00 9 2,160.00 10 2,400.00 2506.521 INSTALL CASTINGS EA 60.00 9 540.00 10 600.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTINGS EA 120.00 19 2,280.00 21 2,520.00 0506.622 ADJUST WATER VALUE BOX EA 110.00 4 440.00 7 770.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1,400.00 1 1,400.00 1 1,400.00 2521.511 2" BIT. TRAIL (10 LF 5.10 1120 5,712.00 982.5 5,010.75 2521.511 2 BITUMINOUS TRAIL (8 LF 5.10 220 1,122.00 229.8 1,171.98 2531.501 CONCR. C & G, DSGN 8 -618 LF 4.20 4322 18,152.40 3875.8 16,278.36 2531.507 8 CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVE (HE) SY 21.00 886 18,606.00 1595.4 33,503.40 2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB LF 2.75 80 220.00 0 0.00 2571.544 TRANSPLANT SHRUBS EA 55.00 23 1,265.00 0 0.00 2575.505 SODDING SY 1.40 4786 6,700.40 4829 6,760.60 SPEC. INSULATION SF 1.50 100 150.00 100 150.00 SPEC. EXTRA DEPTH OF MH OVER 8' LF 70.00 6 420.00 0 0.00 -------------- -------------- TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $217,021.70 $240,524.19 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 - - ------ ------- ----------------- -- --- ---- - -- ----- -- --- -- ----- --- --- - - ---- ---- - - - --- ------ ------ 2575.505 DELETE SODDING SY 1.40 -4786 (6,700.40) -4829 (6,760.60) 2575.505 SODDING WITH 4 TOPSOIL- _ SY 1.90 4786 9,093.40 4829 9,175.10 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 $2,393.00 $2,414.50 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $217,021.70 $240,524.19 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO -2 52,393.00` $2,414.50_ TOTAL PROJECT 1988-05/MSA 109 - 105 -01 $219,414.70 $242,938.69 LAKEBREEZE AVE PROJECT 1988-06 Page 5 of 7 CONTRACT QUANTITIES TO DATE -- ------------------------ --------------- ----------- Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount -------- ----------------------------- ---- ---------- ---------- ------- - ---- ---- --- --- --- --------- 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 1 7,000.00 2104.501 REMOVE 12" RC PIPE LF 6.00 30 180.00 27.74 166.44 2104.501 REMOVE CONCR C & G (ALL DSGNS)LF 1.00 270 270.00 138.5 138.50 2104.509 REMOVE CONCR STRUCTURE EA 80.00 1 80.00 1 80.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR DRIVEWAY SLAB BY 6.00 40 240.00 44.7 268.20 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR SIDEWALK SY 3.00 100 300.00 33.6 100.80 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BY 1.10 4075 4,482.50 4720.1 5,192.11 2104.511 SAWING CONCR PAVEMENT LF 4.00 50 200.00 0 0.00 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 1.50 355 532.50 618.5 927.75 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 4.00 1300 5,200.00 1300 5,200.00 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA 190.00 8.78 1,668.20 8.78 1,668.20 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL M GA 20.00 4.5 90.00 55 1,100.00 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 5.60 1455 8,148.00 1467.95 8,220.52 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 22.3 3,211.20 23.24 3,346.56 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TN 11.50 400 4,600.00 464.94 5,346.81 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 25.9 3,729.60 23.84 3,432.96 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TN 13.80 409 5,644.20 433.57 5,983.27 2357.502 BIT MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1.10 182 200.20 182 200.20 2503.511 12" RC PIPE CL III LF 20.00 30 600.00 29.74 594.80 2506.508 CONSTRUCT MH, DSGN F EA 700.00 1 700.00 1 700.00 2506.509 CONSTRUCT C B, DSGN C EA 550.00 1 550.00 2 1,100.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES EA 240.00 2 480.00 3 720.00 2506.521 INSTALL CASTINGS EA 50.00 2 100.00 3 150.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTINGS EA 125.00 8 1,000.00 8 1,000.00 0506.622 ADJUST WATER VALUE BOX EA 115.00 2 230.00 3 345.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 300.00 1 300.00 1 300.00 2521.501 4 CONCRETE WALK SF 1.45 1460 2,117.00 995.7 1,443.77 2521.511 2 BIT. TRAIL (10 LF 5.10 796 4,059.60 594.5 3,031.95 2531.501 CONCR. C & G, DSGN B -618 LF 4.20 1963 8,244.60 1279.6 5,374.32 • 2531.507 8' CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVE (HE) SY 22.00 466 10,252.00 616.8 13,569.60 2575.505 SODDING BY 1.40 2275 3,185.00 2986 4,180.40 SPEC. INSULATION SF 2.00 100 200.00 0 0.00 SPEC. LIFT STA. NO. 6 LS 63,000.00 1 63,000.00 1 63,000.00 SPEC. 8 D.I.P. FORCEMAIN LF 25.00 53 1,325.00 20 500.00 SPEC. DIV. OF FLOW & WET WELL MOO LS 4,000.00 1 4,000.00 1 4,000.00 SPEC. DEWATERING FOR L.S. NO. 6 LS 6,800.00 1 6,800.00 1 6,800.00 SPEC. 14 D.I.P. CL 52 LF 68.00 220 14,960.00 220 14,960.00 SPEC. CONNECT 16" DIP TO EXIST M.H. EA 50.00 2 500.00 2 500.00 SPEC. CRUSHED ROCK PIPE BEDDING CY 16.00 75 1,200.00 163 2,608.00 SPEC. DEWATERING SYS. FOR SAN. SEW. LS 6,500.00 1 6,500.00 1 6,500.00 SPEC. CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B-612 LF 9.00 30 270.00 33.6 302.40 SPEC. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SY 1.75 295 516.25 587 1,027.25 SPEC. TRANSPLANT TREE (TO 6 DIA.) EA 135.00 4 540.00 10 1,350.00 SPEC. GRANULAR BORROW (L.V.) CY 0.50 500 250.00 0 0.00 SPEC. PIP£ FITTINGS LB 1.50 800 1,200.00 510 765.00 SPEC. TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR SAN. SEW. LS 200.00 1 200.00 1 200.00 ---- -------- -- - ----- -------- TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $179,055.85 $183,394.80 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 -------- -------- --- --- ------ --------- ---- -- -------- ---- ------ ------------ - --- - -- --- --- -- - - ----- SPEC. 14" D.I.P. CL 52 LF 68.00 -220 (14,960.00) -220 (14,960.00) SPEC. 16" D.I.P. CL 52 LF 72.76 220 16,007.20 220 16,007.20 ----- ------- -- - ------ - - -- - -- TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,047.20 $1,047.20 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 -- ------ --- --- ------------ ------ ----- - --- -------- -- ------ ----- --- - --- -- -- - ----- ----- --- ---- 2575.505 DELETE SODDING SY 1.40 -2275 (3,185.00) -2986 (4,180.40) 2575.505 SODDING WITH 4 11 TOPSOIL BY 1.90 2275 4,322.50 2986 5,673.40 -------- --- - -- --- ----- -- - --- TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 - S1,137.50 $1,493.00 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $179,055.85 $183,394.80 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,047.20 $1,047.20 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 - - -- $1,137_50 - - -- $1,493_00 TOTAL PROJECT 1988 -06 $181,240.55 $185,935.00 50TH AVENUE PROJECT 1988-07 Page 6 of 7 MSA 109- 104 -01 CONTRACT QUANTITIES TO DATE -- --------------- ---- - ---- -------------------------- Item No. Contract Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount - ---- - -- - -- ----------------- --------- ---- ---------- - -- ------- ----- -- --- -- - -- ------- -------- - - -- 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 3,000.00 1 3,000.00 1 3,000.00 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 115.00 8 920.00 4 460.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 20.00 8 160.00 4 80.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCR DRIVEWAY SLAB SY 6.00 158 948.00 308.9 1,853.40 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 0.90 2765 2,488.50 3232.8 2,909.52 2104.511 SAWING CONCR PAVEMENT LF 4.00 110 440.00 62 248.00 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 1.50 240 360.00 308.4 462.60 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 4.00 1770 7,080.00 1770 7,080.00 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA 180.00 6.88 1,238.40 6.88 1,238.40 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL M GA 20.00 4 80.00 55 1,100.00 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 5.60 1085 6,076.00 1030.95 5,773.32 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 17.9 2,577.60 18.9 2,721.60 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TN 11.50 307 3,530.50 376 4,324.00 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 144.00 19.9 2,865.60 18.9 2,721.60 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TN 13.80 307 4,236.60 343.75 4,743.75 2357.502 BIT MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1.10 140 154.00 140 154.00 2503.511 15" RC PIPE Cl. IV LF 21.00 32 672.00 73.98 1,553.58 2503.511 21" RC PIPE CL IV LF 23.00 72 1,656.00 86.3 1,984.90 2503.511 24" RC PIPE CL IV LF 27.00 823 22,221.00 820.64 22,157.28 2503.573 24" RC SURGE BASIN EA 525.00 1 525.00 1 525.00 2506.508 CONSTRUCT MH, DSGN F EA 700.00 8 5,600.00 7 4,900.00 2506.509 CONSTRUCT C B, DSGN C EA 550.00 1 550.00 2 1,100.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES EA 240.00 9 2,160.00 10 2,400.00 2506.521 INSTALL CASTINGS EA 65.00 9 585.00 10 650.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTINGS EA 125.00 12 1,500.00 11 1,375.00 • 0506.622 ADJUST WATER VALUE BOX EA 115.00 3 345.00 6 690.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 400.00 1 400.00 1 400.00 2521.511 2" BITUMINOUS TRAIL (8 LF 5.10 537 2,738.70 498.4 2,541.84 2531.501 CONCR. C & G, DSGN B -618 LF 4.20 1385 5,817.00 906.8 3,808.56 2531.507 8" CONCR DRIVEWAY PAVE (HE) SY 22.00 292 6,424.00 476.3 10,478.60 2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB LF 2.75 70 192.50 91.4 251.35 2575.501 ROADSIDE SEEDING AC 230.00 2 460.00 2 460.00 2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 5 LB 3.40 10 34.00 10 34.00 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 1 TN 130.00 0.4 52.00 0.1 13.00 2575.519 DISC ANCHORING AC 31.00 0.2 6.20 0.2 6.20 2575.532 COMM. FERT, ANALYSIS 25-5-10 LB. 0.25 40 10.00 40 10.00 SPEC. INSULATION SF 2.00 100 200.00 100 200.00 SPEC. RELOCATE SAN SERV. (4 LF 12.00 180 2,160.00 0 0.00 SPEC. RELOCATE WATER SERV. (1 LF 12.00 120 1,440.00 0 0.00 ---- ---------- ------- - ------ TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $91,903.60 $94,409.50 CHANGE ORDER AGREEMENT NO 1 -------- ------- ---------------------- - --- -- ---- ---- ---------- ------ - - ---- -- -- ------ -------- ---- 2575.501 REDUCE ROADSIDE SEEDING AC 230.00 -1.8 (414.00) -1.8 (414.00) -- ----- - - - - --- --- ----------- TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AGREEMENT NO 1 ($414.00) (5414.00) SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 -------- ----------- -------------- ---- ---- -- ------ -- ------ ---- ------- --- --- ---------- ------------ 2104.509 REMOVE CONCR STRUCTURE EA 350.00 1 350.00 1 350.00 -- ------- -- - -- -------------- TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $350.00 $350.00 -------- - - - - -- ------- -- - - - -- SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 ----- - -- - ------ -- ----- ------ --------- - --- ---------- ---------- -- --- ------- --- -- ---- -- -- -- ------ 2575.505 SODDING WITH 4" TOPSOIL SY 1.90 1550 2,945.00 1907 1 3,623.30 -------- -- - - -- -------- ------ TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 $2,945.00 $3,623.30 R 50TH AVENUE PROJECT 1988-07 Page 7 of 7 MSA 109- 104 -01 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $91,903.60 $94,409.50 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AGREEMENT NO 1 (5414.00) ($414.00) TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 5350.00 $350.00 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 52,945.00 $3,623.30 TOTAL PROJECT 1988- 07JMSA 109 - 104 -01 $94,784.60 597,968.80 A M Original Estimated Contract Final Amount Difference ------------------------------ PROJECT 1988 -04 /MSA 109 - 106 -02 (Logan Avenue) SUBTOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $448,281.75 $471,105.97 $22,824.22 SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO 1 ($3,287.00) ($3,287.00) $0.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,905.00 $1,905.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 ($16,881.30) ($14,003.25) $2,878.05 ------------------------------------------- TOTAL PROJECT 1988-04/MSA 109 - 106 -02 $430,018.45 $455,720.72 $25,702.27 PROJECT 1988 -05 /MSA 109 - 105 -01 (France Avenue) SUBTOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $217,021.70 $240,524.19 $23,502.49 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 $2,393.00 $2,414.50 $21.50 TOTAL PROJECT 1988-05/MSA 109 - 105 -01 $219,414.70 $242,938.69 $23,523.99 PROJECT 1988 -06 (Lakebreeze Avenue) SUBTOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $179,055.85 $183,394.80 $4,338.95 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $1,047.20 $1,047.20 $0.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 $1,137.50 $1,493.00 $355.50 TOTAL PROJECT 1988 -06 $181,240.55 $185,935.00 $4,694.45 PROJECT 1988 -07 /MSA 109-104 -01 (50th Avenue) SUBTOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $91,903.60 $94,409.50 $2,505.90 SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO 1 ($414.00) ($414.00) $0.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $350.00 $350.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 $2,945.00 $3,623.30 $678.30 i ------------------------------------------- TOTAL PROJECT 1988 -07 /MSA 109 - 104 -01 $94,784.60 $97,968.80 $3,184.20 TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT 1988 -H $936,262.90 $989,434.46 $53,171.56 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO 1 ($3,701.00) ($3,701.00) $0.00 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 1 $3,302.20 $3,302.20 $0.00 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 2 ($10,405.80) ($6,472.45) $3,933.35 TOTAL CONTRACT 1988 -H $925,458.30 $982,563.21 $57,104.91 FORCE ACCOUNT WORK ITEMS INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 3 $62,627.26 $62,627.26 QUANTITY CHANGE INCLUDED IN PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 3 $57,104.91 $0.00 UNRESOLVED FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS IN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO 3 $11,103.55 $11,103.55 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONTRACT 1988-H $1,056,294.02 $1,056,294.02 * Estimated quantity change has already been included in this column CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IN STATE OF MINNESOTA *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: n, * * * * * * * * * * * ** PPS* D **** *P R * * * PUBLIC WORKS y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes Explanation In 1988 the Minnesota Legislature adopted a bill which provided for a transfer of a portion of the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) funds to funds established for the improvement of transportation facilities. Specifically, the new law provides that: • In fiscal year 1988, 5% of MVET funds would be transferred into transportation related funds. • Starting in fiscal year 1989, and continuing indefinitely, the amount of that transfer to transportation related funds would be increased to 30% of the total MVET funds available. • Of the amounts transferred to transportation related funds, 25% is to be used for transit system improvements - indefinitely. • During fiscal year 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the other 75% is to be placed into the "Highway User Fund" which, by constitutional amendment, provides that those funds be apportioned as follows: 62% to MNDOT 29% to Counties 9% to Cities over 5000 BUT starting in fiscal year 1992, a "Sunset Provision" contained in the law provides that the 75% (of the 30% MVET transfer) be placed directly into the "Trunk Highway Fund" instead of into the Road User Fund. By this provision, counties and cities will be cut out from receiving any portion S of the MVET transfer after fiscal year 1991. Impact on Brooklyn Center Based on current revenues to the MVET funds and the current formulas for distribution of Road User Funds through the Municipal State Aid Street System, the City of Brooklyn Center will receive approximately $53,000 per year additional MSAS allocations during the time that the MVET transfer is placed into the Road User Fund. If the "Sunset Provision" remains in place, the City's MSA allocations will again revert to the lower figure (i.e. approximately $679,000 per year instead of $732,000 per year). As related items, it is noted that: (1) numerous revisions in MNDOT policies in recent years have required increased City participation on most trunk highway improvement projects; and (2) MNDOT and the counties are attempting to turn back a number of streets and highways to local jurisdiction. Both of these items increase the cities' financial responsibilities at a time when legislative action reduces financial aids to the cities. Current Legislative Proposals In his 1989 budget message, Governor Perpich proposed the following changes to the MVET transfer law: o increase the MVET transfer to 35% in fiscal year 1990 o increase the MVET transfer to 45% in fiscal year 1991 o reallocate the entire MVET transfer, so as to redistribute the amount • available (estimated at $49 million) as follows: $23 million to Trunk Highway Fund $4 million to LRT $22 million to a "Local Assistance Fund" to be apportioned using the Local Government Assistance (LGA) formula not dedicated for street or roadway improvements. Attached hereto is a letter from Minnesota Good Roads Inc. which relates to the Governor's proposal. At this point it is unclear whether the Governor's proposal would result in an earlier "sunsetting" of the provision which allows cities and counties to receive a portion of the MVET transfer through the Road User Fund through fiscal year 1991, or whether those changes would occur sooner. And, of course, it is impossible to predict legislative action on the Governor's proposal. In addition, it is my understanding there are a number of other proposals relating to MVET funds forthcoming from various legislators - running the full gamut from elimination of the MVET transfer to a 100% transfer, and from decreases to the county and city state aid shares to increases in those shares. At any rate, this is an item which will have significant effects on the City's future ability to improve our Municipal State Aid Street System. Recommended Council Action Adoption of the attached resolution (as proposed or with revisions). Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IN STATE OF MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the 1988 Minnesota Highway Funding Act provided additional funding for Municipal State Aid Street Systems by way of a transfer of a portion of the Minnesota Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) funds to the Road User Fund; and WHEREAS, that Act also includes a "Sunset Provision" by which cities and counties will cease to receive a portion of the MVET funds in fiscal year 1992, and provides that all MVET transfers for fiscal years 1992 and beyond be allocated to the Minnesota Trunk Highway Fund and to the Transit System Fund; and WHEREAS, the Governor's 1989 budget proposal includes proposals to increase the level of MVET transfers, while also reallocating those transfers to include funding for non - transportation purposes; and WHEREAS, new policies and procedures recently adopted by MNDOT require increased levels of financial participation in trunk highway improvements by cities and counties; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature and MNDOT continue to increase their efforts to turn back trunk highways and county highways to municipal jurisdiction, thereby increasing the cities share of financial responsibilities while decreasing financial aids to the cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Council supports increases in the transfer of MVET funds, so long as those funds are dedicated to transportation system improvements. 2. The City Council strongly recommends removal of the "Sunset Provision ", and recommends that the law be amended to provide that all future MVET transfers be made to the Road User Fund instead of to the Trunk Highway Fund. 3. The City Manager is hereby directed to send copies of this resolution to area legislators, with a request for their support of the City's recommendations. 4. Legislators representing the City of Brooklyn Center are requested to sponsor legislation in support of the City's recommendations. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon v e' p vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS, INC. ® 3402 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55414 (612) 379 -7227 THE CITIZENS' VOICE FOR GOOD ROADS OFFICERS d ROBERT J cFARLIN C�dn FRED J. CORRIGAN Pressident ident ROB February 6 , 1/07 Executive Director St. Louis Park RAY FOSLID JERRY ANDERSON Vice President Asst. Executive Director Shakopee RAY LAPPEGAARD ROBERT M. JOHNSON Vice President Consultant GARY Dear City Engineer or Administrator: Vice President Maple Grove P Secreta y ° Enclosed is a letter to your City Council members Anoka PAUL BAILEY regarding the Governor's budget recommendations for Transpor- Tr Minne tation. Minneapolis BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROY ASPHAUG St. Louis Park JOHN M. BAILEY, JR. While no legislative bills have been introduced to Minnetonka PETER M. BECKMAN date, we feel the concept of usi -n r A?VETT revenues for purposes other than trans RICHARD P. BRAUN transportation would Set a dangerous percedent for A g Columbia Heights DONALD ia DEAN the future and make competition for funding in the General F�'utid St. Paul FRED DERESCHUK even more difficult. Please pass this letter along to your Minneapolis JOHN K.DOLAN Council for its consideration at your earliest convenience. Dodge Center BOB EGAN WILLIAMELSHOLTZ,JR. We look forward to your participation in our Legislative LITTON Roseville Breakfast in the Mn/DOT Cafeteria on February 15th at 8 :30 AM. St. Pa u I DAN FRENTRESS I hope you will have the opportunity t0 Brooklyn Park p y PP y personally call the DAVE GRAVDAHL legislators in your area and invite them to this event on behalf AWhVezy Point THYGROTTE of Our membership. rmont GUSTAFSON St. Paul H. B. (Bud) HAYDEN, JR. Thank you for your help on these issues. I look forward Plymouth BO St B HIL IKER to working with you in the coming months. BOB JENSEN Farmington GREG JOHNSON St. Paul Yours sincerely, BOB KING Brooklyn Park WILLIAM KONIARSKI Belle Plaine WES LANE Minneapolis BUSS L Bloomington H Bloom Fred J. Cor ington g JAMES P. LOANEY North Mankato Executive Director GEORGE W. MATTSON Shafer CHARLES McCROSSAN Maple Grove enclosed: letter to City Council members MICHAEL S. McGRAY Osseo JOE MICHEES Litchfield JOHN MILNE St. Paul ARLYN NELSON Buffalo KENNETH PAULSON St. Paul JERRY PETERMEIER Grand Rapids PALMER PETERSON Minneapolis E. J. RENIER Eden Prairie WILLIAM A. RICE Milaca DON BICKERS Worthington A. J. (Marty) ROMANO Minneapolis GARY RUDNINGEN Red Lake Falls AWW RT J. SCHMITZ an SILL age CHARLES J.SWANSON Stillwater JANE TSCHIDA St. Louis Park CARL WYCZAWSKI New Ulm MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS INC. 3402 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55414 (612) 379 -7227 — THE CITIZENS' VOICE FOR GOOD ROADS OFFICERS FRED J. CORRIGAN ROBERT J. MCFAR LIN President Executive Director St. Louis Park February 6, 1989 RAY FOSLID JERRY ANDERSON Vice President Asst. Executive Director Shakopee ROBERT M. JOHNSON RAY LAPP President Consultant Vice President St. Paul GARY SAUER Vice President Dear City Council Member: Maple Grove PAULRUUD Secretary Anoka RE: Governor's Budget Proposal - PAUL BAILEY Treasurer MVET transfer for local property tax relief Minneapolis BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROY ASPHAUG St. Louis Park JOHN BAILEY' JR. Minnetonka The Governor's recent budget proposal included additional PETER BECKMAN Paul transfer of TdIVE'T revenues from the General Fund to trannportation RICHARD P. BRAUN Columbia Heights programs - an additional 5% in 1989 and 10% in 1990. This - repre- DONALD K. DEAN St Paul sents the first time in Minnesota history that a Governor has recom- FRED DERESCHUK Minneapolis mended General Funds be used for transportation and continues the JOHN K. DOLAN Dodge Center commitment to eventually transferring 100% to transportation. BOB EGAN Maple Grove WILLIAM ELSHOLTZ, JR. RoseviElle FIELD Enclosed is a copy of the section of the budget relation to St. Paul DAN FRENTRESS transportation funding. I would like to draw your attention to yn Park DAVE GIRAVDAHL the proposal to use MVET revenues for the purpose of local govern - # e,eT Point TE ment aids, with no restrictions on how these funds would be emended. mcrt USTAFSON While the budget shows $22 million for this use, we understand the St. Paul H. B. (Bud) HAYDEN, JR, true number will be closer to $14 million. Plymouth BOB HILLIKER BOB t.Pauf N I urge you to consider these recommendations closely, as the GREGJOHNSON use of MVET funds for any purpose other than transportation would S Paul BOB KING threaten the intent of 1981 legislation identifying MIVET revenues Brooklyn Park for transportation WILLIAM KONIARSKI p rtation. and laid out a schedule to achieve 100% transfer WESILANEne to transportation by 1990. The revenues are critical to local, county SSLA Minneapolis R GSETH and state transportation systems and any diversion of these revenues JAMES PnLLOANEY for other purposes would seriously jeopardize the maintenance and North Mankato GEORGE W. MATTSON improvements identified as necessary to keep our communities and state Shafer economical) competitive. CHARLES McCROSSAN y com p Maple Grove MICHAELS.McGRAY Osseo JOE MICHELS Minnesota Good Roads has consistently taken a strong position JOHN Litchfield supporting pp ng a 100% transfer of MVET revenues for transportation funding. St. Paul ARLYN NELSON We urge you to carefully consider this recommendation and reject the Buffalo KENNETH PAULSON concept of diverting the transfer of TAVET funds for any purpose other St. Paul JERRY PETERMEIER than transportation. Grand Rapids PALMER PETERSON E. Minneapolis We look forward to working with you during the 1989 legislative Eden Prairie WILLIAM A. RICE session. Milaca DON RICKERS Worthington A. J. (Marty) ROMANO Yours sincerely, Minneapolis GARY R Red Lake Falls J. SCH R ERT J. SCHMI TZ ( \ an SILL loge A SWANSON Stillwatellwate Fred J. Corrigan, Executive Director r JANE TSCHIDA SL Louis Park CARL WYCZAWSKI enclosure New Ulm L_ S j Specific goals of the Governor include: "fo the Twin Cities metro olitan area P Rr s , e o nsib' Ali f 0 rt P ha • investme h' t activity is now dis- an orderly t program to repair persed among a number of state, regional and modernize our aging highway sys- and local agencies. Highway, transit and F: tems, transit systems, and buildings, light rail planning requires a more focused and coordinated effort. The • the development of creative alternatives, Governor questions the continued need such as light rail, to meet our future for the Regional Transit Board, and he transportation needs, suggests the Legislature should consider sunsetting the RTB as part of its effort to • predictable and secure funding sources restructure metro -area transportation to meet our longer -term infrastructure planning. Ir needs, and rrfateur Athl tics TherLL. • construction and acquisition of sufficient recommends that the 1989 Leg slau Physical assets to enhance our education continue the effort to develop the state's al programs and stimulate econom athlet development. ' t c infrastructure. The following projects, all needed to keep the 1990 Olympic Festival and the 1991 Special Recommendations Olympics events on track, are recom - ansportation The Governor recom- Legisladurer authorization by the 1989 Tr mends that the Legislature increase the I transfer of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax • $8.5 million to expand the Blaine (MVET) from its current 30% level to 35% sports complex, in 1990 and 45% in 1991. The $49 million generated by the transfer would be dis- •$3(x),000 to upgrade track and field '{ tributed as follows: facilities at the University of Min - • $23 million to the trunk highway fund nesota to Olympic standards, • $4 million to increase light rail fundin • $5.0 million to expand the the Giants and g g� Ridge complex, and • $22 million to local governments to • on St LouissRiver along center reduce local property taxes for transpor- Count to Carlton . y tation or other local purposes. Because this MVET transfer will not meet Other c ecommends that the 1989 session r Capital Investments The Gover- : all trunk highway funding needs, the Gover- nor also recommends that the Legislature he fallowing mmed ate ccapit a l l needs: index the gasoline tax to help insure ade- quate future funding as costs increase. • $25 million for repairs and construc- tion planning needed for the state's The Governor recommends that the Legis- Regional Treatment Centers, includ- lature restructure transportation planning in planning for g P g the first phase of state so CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number H__ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Mechanical Hoist DEPT. AP OVAL: Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Council approved an appropriation of $9,126 for a mechanical hoist in department #19. Three quotes have been received for this equipment. 1 recommend accepting the quote of $7,250 from G & G Service Station Maintenance. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MECHANICAL HOIST WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of one (1) mechanical hoist; and WHEREAS, three quotations were received as follows: Company Quote G & G Service Station Maintenance $ 7,250.00 Westside Equipment $ 8,027.00 Hale Company $10,495.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) mechanical hoist from G & G Service Station Maintenance, in the amount of $7,250.00, is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number 7 i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 2 -ud� ' Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) An appropriation of $23,500 was approved in the department #42 budget for 1989. Attached are the bid specifications which are recommended for approval. If approved, the bids will be opened on • March c 9, 1989, and submitted to the Council n o March 13, 1989. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specifications for the delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine are hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine in accordance with said specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL - SELF PROPELLED SINGLE DRIVER - OPERATOR HIGHWAY STREET PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE 1. GENERAL All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 2 p.m., March 9, 1989, and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope plainly marked "Bid for Pavement Marking Machine ". It is also understood that the City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities, and to award the contract to the best interest of the City. The pavement marking machine proposed and delivered to the City of Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready for operation in accordance with these specifications, with certificates of service, and inspection submitted at the time of delivery. Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand, or description mentioned in this proposal are descriptive, but not restrictive, and used only to indicate type and standard of material or equipment desired. The pavement marking machine the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable. Catalog information showing make, model, and complete specifications of the pavement marking machine the bidder proposes to furnish shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive information shall be cause for rejection of the bid. The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn Center in regard to the patent infringements and in case of suits against the City by other parties. He must defray all cost in connection with such suit and save the City harmless in all actions. 2. GUARANTEE The bidder shall furnish a manufacturer's standard warranty as a minimum and shall guarantee the equipment as to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material, and workmanship. All defective parts, material, and labor shall be replaced free of cost to the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. DELIVERY DATE The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City of Brooklyn Center for the earliest date possible. 4. AWARD OF CONTRACT Award of contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on, but not necessarily limited to, the factors of price, delivery date, parts and service, as well as analysis and comparison of specifications and performance. 5. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS Any objections to the specifications must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing five (5) days prior to the opening of the bids. 6. PROOF OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION Each bid shall be accompanied by proof that the bidder has Worker's Compensation Insurance in force. Such proof shall be in the form of a copy of the bidder's current insurance certificate or certificate of exemption from the State Insurance Commissioner. Four Wheel - Self Propelled Single Driver - Operator Highway Street Pavement Marking Machine VEHICLE CHASSIS SPECIFICATION Chassis: Chassis shall be of a type which may be serviced with routine maintenance procedures and for which parts and /or service are available at a local dealer. Engine: Engine shall be a four cycle, air cooled, gasoline -type with electric start and capable of developing 22 H.P. The engine shall be enclosed for operator safety. The engine shall be equipped with a dry -type air cleaner, fuel filter and muffler. The transport /striping ground speeds shall be controlled by both foot and hand lockable speed controls. Transmission: Transmission shall be of a standard automotive -type with a "H" shift pattern. There shall be three speeds forward and one reverse, synchromesh in second and high ranges. The transmission shall be directly bolted to the engine bell housing /clutch assembly. Drive Line Assembly: Drive line shall be of an automotive -type consisting of two universal joints and one drive shaft. The drive line shall directly connect the transmission to the two speed auxiliary transmission. Auxiliary Transmission: Shall be 2:1 reducing auxiliary transmission and shall provide an additional 3 forward speeds and one reverse. The auxiliary transmission shall be directly connected to the rear axle differential housing. The additional forward speeds shall allow the operator a wide range of precise striping speed for all applications. Rear Axle Assembly: The rear axle assembly shall be of an automotive -type with a differential axle drive and a 8:2 to 1 axle ratio. Chassis Frame: The chassis frame shall be constructed of heavy duty carbon steel channel. Non -slip steel diamond plate shall be utilized to cover the entire operator floor area. Brakes: Brakes shall be heavy duty hydraulically actuated, internal expanding drum -type on all four wheels, protected from sand, dirt and water. Parking Brake: Parking brake shall be foot - engaged disc -type located on the drive shaft. Suspension: Suspension shall be an automotive -type consisting of two shock absorbers and coil springs on the front axle with two multiple leaf -type springs and two shock absorbers on the rear axle. Steering: Steering shall be an automotive worm and gear -type with grease fittings at all major points. Tires: All four tires shall be pneumatic, 5:70 x 8, tubeless, load range B. Electrical System: Electrical system shall consist of a heavy duty minimum 42 amp alternator, a 12 volt gear- driven starting motor, 530 minimum CCC rated battery, two sealed beam hi -low headlights. Combination stoplight /taillight, and turn signals front and rear. For protection, the circuits shall be fused with the wiring harness enclosed in abrasion resistant loom. Chassis, Gauges, and Controls: Chassis shall be equipped with an electric horn, ammeter, fuel gauge, light switch, starter switch, hour -meter and engine tachometer. All vehicle shifting controls shall be conveniently located to the left of the operator with the brake, clutch and gas pedals located on the floor in front of the operator. The chassis control switches and gauges shall be located in front of the operator. Operator Seat: Operator seat shall be two passenger, vinyl clad with a backrest, hip restraint, handholes and seat belts. Fenders: All four wheels shall be covered with fenders. AIR, PAINT AND BEAD SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS System: y m: Air, paint and bead systems shall be incorporated components designed specifically for heavy duty pavement marking applications. Air Compressor: Air compressor shall be a single stage, twin cylinder, air cooled unit having a displacement of not less than 42 C.F.M. at 100 P.S.T. The air compressor /air system shall be protected by a preset safety air unloader valve which will permit the air compressor to provide the necessary working air pressure only when required. Once unloaded the air compressor shall run in a nonworking mode. A V -belt tension system shall be provided for easy maintenance. Air Compressor Air Receiver: Air receiver shall be built in accordance with the requirements of the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Codes. The air receiver shall be a separate unit removed from the air compressor. The air receiver shall be a ten gallon capacity tank with a preset air safety relief valve, pressure gauge, air release valve and a moisture condemnation drain valve. Air Compressor Drive Engine: Air compressor drive engine shall be a four cycle, air cooled, electric start, gasoline -type with two cylinders capable of delivering 18 H.P. This engine shall drive the air compressor at a constant R.P.M. regardless of varying striping terrains. This engine need only run during actual striping applications. Paint Supply Tank: Two paint tank assemblies shall be provided and built in accordance with the requirements of the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes. Each paint tank shall have a capacity of 20 U. S. gallons. Each paint tank shall have a 14" diameter gasket cover, held in position with easily removable "C" clamps. Each paint tank shall be equipped with an air inlet check valve, preset air safety relief valve, air pressure regulator, air pressure gauge, paint fill port, air release valve, hand operated agitator, and a ball valve at the exit port. Both paint tanks shall be interconnected with crossover plumbing. Paint Strainers: Paint strainers shall be provided in each paint tank supply line. This strainer shall protect all paint spray guns from foreign material. A cleanable /replaceable cartridge shall be provided in each strainer. 3 Paint Spray Guns: The paint spray guns shall be designed specifically for pavement marking applications and shall be heavy duty, internal atomizing, piston operated, pneumatically controlled bleeder -type. Each paint spray gun shall have as an integral part, a shroud which will produce a sharp line definition. This shroud shall be attached to the paint spray gun with a spring for easy removal and cleaning. An air oiler shall be provided for the on /off working parts of the paint spray guns. Reflective Glass Bead Supply Tank: One reflective glass bead tank assembly shall be provided and built in accordance with the requirements of the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes. This tank shall have a capacity of 240 lbs. of reflective glass bead material, 6 lbs. per gallon of available paint. This tank shall have a 14" diameter gasket cover, held in position with easily removable "C" clamps. This tank shall be equipped with an air inlet check valve, preset air safety relief valve, air pressure regulator, air pressure gauge, air release valve, quick disconnect fitting and an air /moisture separator. Reflective Glass Sphere Guns: The reflective glass sphere guns shall be designed specifically for pavement marking applications and shall be heavy duty, piston operated and pneumatically controlled. Each reflective glass sphere gun shall have as an integral part, a deflector nozzle which allows an even spread of material over the 3" to 6" painted line. The on /off control of the reflective glass sphere guns shall be coordinated with each paint spray gun for simultaneous operation. Each reflective glass sphere gun shall have a selection of four different nozzle /orifice sizes for all applications and coverages. Required bead flow shall be controlled by the air pressure in the bead tank. Pressurized Solvent Cleaning System: The pressurized solvent cleaning tank shall be built in accordance with the requirements of the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes. This tank shall have a capacity of 10 U. S. gallons. This tank shall contain an air inlet check valve, preset air safety relief valve, air pressure regulator, air pressure gauge, solvent fill plug, air release valve, and a second check valve on the solvent exit port. A solvent strainer assembly shall be located in the bottom exit port area of the solvent tank. This strainer shall contain a cleanable /replaceable cartridge. This unit shall contain two pressure solvent cleaning systems. One shall be a paint line /paint spray gun solvent cleaning system. The second shall be a paint spray gun tip 4 flushing system. Line flushing valves shall be located in the area of each paint tank exit port. Tip flushing valves shall be located in the normal operator area. Platform, Paint, Bead Tanks, Air Compressor, Air Compressor Drive Engine: An all steel constructed platform shall be attached to the vehicle frame to the rear of the operator. The paint tanks, bead tanks, air compressor and air compressor drive engine shall be bolted to this platform. This platform shall provide added overall unit strength and protect the components from road elements. Both the air compressor and the air compressor drive engine shall be bolted to a single separate platform and attached to the main platform with antivibration mountings. Paint Spray Gun /Reflective Glass Sphere Gun Carriage, Front Center: A floating paint spray gun /reflective glass sphere gun carriage shall be mounted in front of the unit. This carriage shall be center mounted and shall contain two pneumatic castered wheel assemblies that will provide a constant paint spray gun to ground surface relationship. Two paint spray guns shall be attached to this assembly. One paint spray gun shall be plumbed for double color applications and the second shall be plumbed for single color application. One reflective glass sphere gun shall be located directly behind each paint spray gun. The complete carriage assembly shall pivot and lock in a near vertical position for transport and easy paint spray gun /reflective gun sphere gun servicing. For equipment protection each paint spray gun /reflective glass sphere gun shall be mounted to swing upward if struck by a solid object during striping applications. Paint Spray Gun /Reflective Glass Sphere Gun Carriage, Outrigger: A floating paint spray gun /reflective glass sphere gun carriage shall be attached to the right hand side of this unit. This carriage /outrigger is designed to perform all edge/berm line striping applications and shall contain one pneumatic castered wheel assembly that will provide a constant paint spray gun to ground surface relationship. One single color paint spray gun and one reflective glass sphere gun shall be attached to this assembly. The complete carriage assembly shall pivot and lock in a near vertical position for transport and easy paint spray gun /reflective glass sphere gun servicing. For equipment protection the paint spray gun /reflective glass sphere gun shall be mounted to swing upward if struck by a solid object during striping application. 5 Solid State Electronic Timer System: The intermittent line timer shall be constructed of all solid state digital logic IC's, shall be capable of operating over the bottom range of 10 to 15 VDC and shall be protected against automotive level interference on the power line. For further protection against electrical and ignition interference, high level (12V).logic shall be used throughout and all time inputs shall have no more than 2.2k input: impedance. The timer shall be capable of operating over the 0 -70 degree centigrade industrial temperance range as well as a vehicle speed on 0 -20 M.P.H. The timer shall include a solid state counter and two sets of moisture /dust resistant, direct reading thumbwheel switches to allow overall cycle adjustability from 5.0 feet to 99.9 feet in 1 /10 foot increments and a paint to space ratio of 5 to 95 percent. By means of solid state circuitry only, it shall be possible to continuously advance or retard the total cycle from a remote position for accurate retracing of old intermittent lines. Provision shall also be made for remotely resetting the counter to the "zero" state by both manual "zero" switch and automatically upon discontinuing of intermittent line painting. The reset condition shall be indicated by an incandescent lamp with a red jewelled socket, marked "zero" on the control panel. The timer shall be driven from a vehicle wheel by means of a "V" belt. Paint Striping Controls: All paint spray guns /reflective glass sphere guns toggle switch electrical controls shall be labeled, panel mounted and located in the operator area. All air atomization (one for each paint spray gun) pressure regulators, related air pressure gauges and solvent tip flushing valves shall be accessible to the operator and located to the right of the operator. Line Guide Assembly: It shall be constructed of square steel tubing, be extendable from 64" to 74" and have one castered pneumatic wheel assembly. Plumbing Hoses, Etc. All paint hoses, air hoses, air lines shall be of proper size, tested in excess of normal working pressures and constructed in accordance for all paint striping application. Shrouds: The air compressor, air compressor drive engine and power train . components shall be guarded for operator safety. - g p Y 6 Unit Dimensions Miscellaneous: Wheel Base - 84" Turning Radius - 144" *Approximate unit length - 120" *Approximate unit height - 76" Thread Width - 40" Approximate travel /transport speed - 22.5 M.P.H. *Approximate unit width - 55" Unit Color - standard highway yellow *Unit construction will determine overall dimensions OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT (To Be Listed Separate) Canopy for operator area Air Agitator Fire Extinguisher Strobe Light (blue lens) Mirrors Tool Box 4'6" Hand Wand w/25' of Hose 7 VEHCHASS PROPOSAL FOR ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL - SELF PROPELLED SINGLE DRIVER - OPERATOR HIGHWAY STREET PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE TO: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Gentlemen: We propose to furnish and deliver one (1) pavement marking machine according to the specifications at the following bid price: 1. Bid Price 2. Delivery Date (calendar days) Signed: Title: Firm Name: Address: Date: Bid Opening: March 9, 1989, 2 p.m. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 2/13/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ] -- ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW RE / COMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes EXPLANATION • Areas adjacent to the Twin Lakes and to Ryan Lake have historically been subject to periodic flooding, with large fluctuations in the water levels of those lakes. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has recently completed: • the proposed Management Plan covering that entire watershed; • a special study entitled "Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Lake Outlet Modification "; and • adoption of a Resolution Defining District Watersheds Within Shingle Creek Watershed and Establishing A Capital Improvement Policy. Copies of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake study and of the resolution are attached. The major impact of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake engineering study is that it describes a system of improvements that can be made which will: • somewhat lower the maximum high water level in these lakes; • substantially reduce the length of time during which the lake levels remain high following a heavy runoff; while • maintaining the same "runout elevation" to assure that the lake levels • during normal and dry periods are no lower than they are with the present outfall system. I will be prepared to discuss the report and the implications of the resolution in more detail at the council meeting. INITIATION OF ACTION TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS To initiate action on the proposed improvements, I recommend that the Brooklyn Center City Council adopt the attached resolution requesting the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to prepare a feasibility study regarding the proposed improvement, and requesting the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale to join in this request. If this resolution is adopted and the Watershed Commission agrees to conduct the feasibility study, the study could be completed within one or two months, and at a relatively low cost, because the engineering evaluation has already been completed. The basic purpose of the feasibility study would be to apply the policy defined by the resolution to the proposal contained in the engineering report so as to determine the resulting cost apportionment to the cities. Following completion of the feasibility study, the Commission would then conduct proceedings similar to the "Chapter 429" proceedings which the City Council uses when considering improvements within the city for which special assessments are proposed to be levied. If the Commission then decides to approve the project, it issues orders to the cities in which the improvements must be made to proceed with construction of those improvements. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Adoption of the attached resolution i 7J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION WHEREAS, areas within the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale which lie adjacent to the Twin Lakes and to Ryan Lake experience wide fluctuations in lake water levels, sometimes resulting in considerable flooding damage; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has recently completed preparation of a proposed management plan for the Shingle Creek Watershed, and a special report entitled "Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification "; and has adopted a resolution establishing a Capital Improvements Policy, and WHEREAS, the Watershed Plan, the proposed outlet modification, and the capital improvement policy provide a basis for proceeding with improvements to the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet which will reduce flood damage resulting from high waters while protecting normal water levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. That the City of Brooklyn Center hereby requests the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to conduct a feasibility study for implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification. 2. That the Crystal City Council and the Robbinsdale City Council are hereby requested to support this request by the adoption of similar resolutions. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1, FINAL DRAFT TWIN LAKES/RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION - FINAL EVALUATION Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission September 8, 1988 Prepared by: Eugene A. Hickok and Associates A Division of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVE 1 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 TWIN LAKES OUTLET MODIFICATION 6 RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION 9 RYAN CREEK CHANNEL /PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS 11 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY MINNEAPOLIS 13 RYAN LAKE OUTLET AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 14 CONCLUSIONS 16 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Results of Hydraulic Analysis for Twin Lakes 7 Outlet Modification - 1 -Year Storm TABLE 2 - Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate for Twin 8 Lakes Outlet Modification TABLE 3 - Results of Hydraulic Analysis for Ryan Lake 10 Outlet Modification - 100 -Year Storm TABLE 4 - Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate for 15 Ryan Lake Outlet Modification LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - Project Study Area 2 FIGURE 2 - Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Drainage Area 4 FIGURE 3 - Ryan Creek Drainage System 5 FIGURE 4 - Flooding Resulting When Capacity of 12 48 -Inch RCP is Exceeded TWIN7.4 /MODTOC S , s ' INTRODUCTION A hydraulic analysis on Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake was undertaken by the Commission in 1986 during the 509 planning process to address concerns regarding recent high water levels maintained in Twin Lakes after significant rainfall events. During periods of low flow such as a 1 -year frequency storm, the 48 -inch RCP culvert under France Avenue controls the flow from Twin Lakes (see Figure 1). It was determined from the 1986 study that if a larger structure was placed at France Avenue, the time it takes for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a 1 -year frequency storm would be significantly reduced. During larger rainfall events such as 100 -year frequency storm, the smaller 36 -inch RCP culvert at the outlet of Ryan Lake was determined to control the water levels in the Twin Lakes/ Ryan Lake Basin. The 100 -year flood elevation projected by computer simulation methods would result in lake levels which would flood a number of homes adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. I A further hydraulic analysis was performed in 1986 to determine the 100 -year flood elevation that would result in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin if a larger structure was placed at the Ryan Lake outlet. It was determined that if the size of the Ryan Lake outlet was increased, the 100 -year flood elevation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin would be reduced. The larger outlet would also result in an increase in the peak discharge rate downstream in Ryan Creek. The effects of these increased flows in Ryan Creek were not determined as part of the 1986 analysis. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to determine which combination of structure modifications to the Twin Lakes outlet at France Avenue and the Ryan Lake outlet will result in the most desirable alternatives to increase the low flow capacity of Twin Lakes and reduce 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. Information previously generated in the 1986 analysis will be incorporated into this report. The costs associated with any outlet modification will be estimated and the resulting increase in peak discharges to Ryan Creek will be analyzed downstream to determine whether adequate channel capacity exists. Should flooding occur in Ryan Creek under existing conditions or as a result of any proposed upstream modifications, measures to increase downstream capacity such as channel improvements, larger storm sewer, etc. will be considered and costs estimated for these improvements. -1- 6 Kyllawn �J� X 1 1 i m _ ark �� I � ��LJ� Lrjde 946 l - - -- - - -_-� j� I �� BAas C� KE ,f-� �� I �,�� C 1 ae -4 �a_ - _ / ���• �• S THI I A E C�u i Iw ��� �,� /��': ■� . z zl z • i I L 'Northportll`�1 �1 Park i i � � / Q Lions i� +� i C Park Nopore ch_ L_J_— 0 rth E it ':'� AVE • fi �� l � s I I I � l �� 3 N In L J - �� C /9�� � � 4i S� ,- _ Jlf I LL —_�„ � { I II u oy _ 5z4 �AV€ N �) i 5)ST av ,Park $e h Webb lso. �� _ r ugh ch OUTLET 36 RCP Ca%nag \ � INV 849.10 i n � OUTLET48' RCP��' INV 85135 Q F,, RYAN LAKE IA � a �000�ooc - r - Ldk — �.� Ilj`- orin Sch 1 �n anllto Sch��,�< I n TT H vE �� , i `� ' �I� en Y gh I P?t, p A C a t� r � � �I m �I \ {{I.rte{II, II I,U� iP k dr l f �ELFU �i vE�I 'P �'LJ i � rklF . E .i�e� Ir�� ! �� ass f L �h gh \ I� T � .N C �� Z U LIU ( � ; � C� r cre Her ch 1 1, r i ria gle Pat �L V L Z ' O •\" �t� I Z i��'L�L It. � N � qZ', i A I Hi' l ch �,� Park P rk� � H I SHINGLE CREEK WMC E.A. HICKOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 PROJECT STUDY AREA HYDROLOGISTS -EINGNMERS PIG 1 MINNVEAPOLIS - NIMMSOTA EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake The Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake drainage area consists of 5,720 acres of urban land located in the south central portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed. This drainage area consists of six subwat rsh d located in arts of Brooklyn Center, 9 e es p y , Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, New Hope and Robbinsdale (see Figure 2). A 48 -inch RCP culvert with an invert elevation of 851.35 is located at France Avenue and is the outlet for the Twin Lakes system. This culvert controls the discharge from Twin Lakes during low flow events such as a 1 -year frequency storm. During larger storm events such as a 100 -year frequency storm, the smaller 36 -inch RCP located under the railroad tracks in the northeast corner of Ryan Lake, at an invert elevation of 849.10, controls the discharge from both Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. Thus, the existing Ryan Lake outlet causes the reservoirs to function together as one basin. The 36 -inch RCP outlet from Ryan Lake is connected to a 54 -inch RCP storm sewer which outlets to Ryan Creek east of T.H. 152. The 54 -inch storm sewer also picks up local drainage from Howe Fertilizer, Inc. as well as drainage from the intersection of 49th Avenue and T.H. 152 and low areas along T.H. 152 and the railroad tracks. Ryan Creek Ryan Creek, which consists of both open channel and storm sewer, flows easterly along 49th Avenue in Minneapolis outletting to Shingle Creek (see Figure 3). The first 1,600 feet of the creek between T.H. 152 and Russell Avenue is open channel. There is a 48 -inch CMP culvert located in the channel under a driveway across from Russell Avenue. East of Russell Avenue, Ryan Creek is enclosed in a storm sewer. The first section of storm sewer consists of 870 feet of 48 -inch RCP which was built in 1955. The remaining 2,000 feet of storm sewer increases to a larger 60 -inch RCP at Oliver Avenue. The 60 -inch RCP, which outlets to Shingle Creek, was installed in the previously open channel in 1981 and 1983. A storm sewer line was installed in the spring of 1988 along the south side of 49th Avenue from Washburn Avenue east past Sheridan Avenue where it outlets to Ryan Creek. This RCP storm sewer ranges in size form 18 -36 inches and collects runoff from a 19 acre drainage area. Additional runoff to Ryan Creek along 49th Avenue is collected in catch basins at the intersections of Russell, Queen, Penn, Oliver, Morgan, Knox and James Avenues. -3- SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED l MSC 1 MSC 5 �\ \ ' J �( � MSC 4 „ i �� Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Drainage Boundary U C 4 MSC 6 MS � , r- Legal Watershed Boundary - -- Subwatershed Boundary � - J Msci II ` —f 1 a Subwatershed Outlet/ J MSC 3 Outlet Control Structure / � I. 7 J USC i USC 3 \ ` J / \ LSC 5 \ •US 2 TLS �` )'• I «. r0,v USC a t y '� TL ly�pt ti U5- 10 �r r SC USC USC 9 L� Tl 3s.t� "C i - I TL , 2 l•J C - „a SC 2. L L vz o z I iA 1 FU Scab In Miles NORTH SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION E.A. HICKOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 TWIN LAKES / RYAN LAKE DRAINAGE AREA HYDROLOGISTS -ENGNJEERS FIG 2 MINNEAPOLIS - MINNESOTA UL ' J 1 � l�J � �J U ' � W TM � 'Lam• twc. I It1t( � It t I lUl� _ __ _ — � I —R�•� ti•Ir 4LT'"a n•nl 1°' —A t» —__ — e ..o s•.a ^SE � .�laa+01L0.4[1 f � aW rasl Iw o.w �..r Z F I 2 1 J Zr Z r. o m z , z a I J . z Z cc a _ x- o „a. O W ° O W W W- 0 Q' O lu e `w it N i »_• Z d W ' I O O O• J W J Y p"a• o � yam" INV 843 6 ; �19 W asy _ A f 49TH A E 49TH AVE, — �.............. 48'RCir'� ' ,f.,., .a `s �.,.. ,�.� ..... , ... aa....� ,�1 LAP •18 36'RCP 48'CMP ;,f%`� `°"" 60'RCP ""' K'r' Iy°°� °W I .y„ z uas Y S0O LINE RAILROAD O LLAJ '� tsae ,at.o y ua T 1 � INV 849.1 HUMBOLDT YARDS t " ! s •».:� � z o RYAN LAKE Y W • OPEN CHANNEL. n a n + - -- STORM SEWER -- • ZA i t,fu ia•a w.e 1NO � zl ' r,• z • • ; AVE.t a N.wn Azo ..) e• i I �• i �.l z vNE RR c9� } =j I II �•� a > .,.a ..e .a).o awn u..• A» 16)• •ao AVE. ,• N. uo co o _ 4 t W� 1} I C i Z� tC , 1+• ;__ °Srf`• - �! .-0�4 - 1!- - --k -o°T _ -' -O-f'� _- r -¢ m. - -v- - 3- .pira3 R I W y i" _� ,aso 8 t tam. m >, .,xa X19 ,uea. ]tD tu+si 1P t,n tua= ltl2 ,•a.o . ♦.e x 31 Z °R ui .341 `• sus • sf o tsos , • ULO - _ ` - - > - a .•. a t... .ass < • '19V a♦ _ _ ♦ tW -,. .... ...-. ... .•)a q} — . -_- tiffs 4 � , O LC1 r• - --- '__ °_ -'�-°1�s"' _.. wa._. ,.ss amt *� er°r -o �D- sZ�•!o- sr -o-ZT'_ i *_ �r°e+ .f . w.a 4 T" w.o AV .••e N. waa rao Gs ,•to wno aeo ntw re ,na 1 a ..,. �uaw •�" fa. 4!� 'n<' rt+s iL•� eas fiLY f `' < �.rt.W c• t ^— w t "9 LORING `� W o).a W 3 =e 19 •b z ' ( T ,>.wr) 5" SCHOOL a•o ` a,• - u+r +f 1 �� _ Z f ♦ � ` ra,e t 9� llf] . s ws rn 44Trr;' °b 1 SLLJ N . t >.e , ,a•:• . � , + ta,s _,. - rs• ., AVE L lil M O b tilG y 1 w , am - ( • ( I 41 1 `L` � fA �`S • n SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION E.A. HICKOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 SCALE 1 "- 500' HYDROLOGISTS -ENGINEERS FIG 3 N RYAN CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM MINNEAPOLIS- MINNESOTA TWIN LAKES OUTLET MODIFICATION The hydraulic analysis on Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake undertaken by the Commission in 1986 consisted of analyzing the hydraulic capacity of the existing 48 -inch RCP outlet at France Avenue as well as three different alternatives to increase the capacity of the outlet and reduce the time necessary for lake levels to recede. The SCS TR -20 computer runoff model was used to simulate the effects resulting from a 1 -year frequency rainfall event on Twin Lakes considering four different outlet configurations. The following Twin Lakes outlet structures were analyzed: 1. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert. 2. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus one 18 -inch RCP culvert. 3. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus two 18 -inch RCP culverts. 4. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus three 18 -inch RCP culverts. The inverts of the 18 -inch RCP culverts were set at an elevation of 850.0. These culverts would be downstream of a 35 -foot long weir. The weir was set at an elevation of 851.35 to continue maintaining the existing runout elevation of Twin Lakes since low lake levels in the past have been a problem. The 18 -inch culverts were selected because they will be flowing full when water reaches elevation 851.5, thereby providing a high flow capacity when lake elevations range from 851.4 to 851.8. Results The results of the hydraulic analysis for the Twin Lakes outlet modification at France Avenue are summarized in Table 1. The time necessary for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a 1 -year frequency storm was significantly reduced by increasing the capacity of the outlet. As shown in Table 1, if three 18 -inch RCP's were added to the existing 48 -inch RCP at France Avenue, the time necessary to lower Twin Lakes from a peak elevation of 852.0 to 851.5 will be reduced from 600 hours to 85 hours, a difference of about 21 days. Modifications to the outlet at France Avenue will result in greater discharges and an increase in lake levels downstream in Ryan Lake during the 1 -year frequency storm. Since the Ryan Lake outlet controls the discharge during a 100 -year frequency storm, modifications to the France Avenue culvert would not affect 100 -year lake levels of the basin since this structure equalizes lake levels in Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. Cost Estimate A Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate to install one, two, or three additional 18 -inch RCP culverts at the existing outlet under France Avenue in conjunction with a 35 -foot long weir is shown in Table 2. -6- TABLE 1 RESULTS OF HYDRALLIC ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES OUTLET - 1 -YEAR STORM (Assumes existing 36 -inch RCP is in -place at Ryan Lake outlet) Description of Peak Time to Drain From Peak Elevation Twin Lakes Outlet Elevation Peak Q Time to Peak Elevation to in Ryan Lake at France Avenue (NGVD) (cfs) Peak (hrs) Elevation 851.5 (hrs) (NGVD) 48 -inch RCP 852.1 4.8 28.0 600 849.8 (Existing) 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 14.5 26.2 185 850.4 one 18 -inch RCP 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 24.1 25.6 107 850.8 two 18 -inch RCP's 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 32.9 25.2 85 851.1 three 18 -inch RCP's TWIN7.4/MODT1 _ 7- t TABLE 2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE FOR TWIN LAKES OUTLET MODIFICATION JACK INSTALLATION OF ONE 18 -INCH PIPE UNDER FRANCE AVENUE ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION OF 35 -FOOT LONG SHEET PILE WEIR Itern No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization L.S. 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 2 Jack 30" Diameter Steel Casing L.F. 60 $ 150 $ 9,000 (1/4" Thick) with 18" RCP 3 Construct Jacking Pit L.S. 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 4 Rip Rap Class III, S.Y. 36 $ 25 $ 900 1 -Foot Thick with Filter Fabric 5 Restoration (Erosion Control L.S. 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Blankets) 6 Construct Bentonite Seepage Each 2 $ 300 $ 600 Dams 7 Furnish and Install Steel S.F. 210 $ 25 $ 5,250 Sheet Piling TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $22,750 ENGINEERING (10%) $ 2,300 ADMINISTRATIVE ( 5 %) $ 1,150 CONTINGENCIES ( 7 %) $ 1,600 TOTAL $27,800 *If two 18 -inch RCP culverts installed, increase total project cost by $8,500. If three 18 -inch RCP culverts installed, increase total project cost by $16,000. TWIN7.4/NgDT2 -8- t RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION High water levels in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin resulting from a 100 -year frequency storm over the watershed is an important concern of the Commission since flooding of low -lying structures adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake will occur. The downstream capacity of Ryan Creek to handle 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake will be determined as part of this study. Existing drainage problems along Ryan Creek will also be identified which may be adversely affected by providing a larger outlet at Ryan Lake. Hydraulic Analysis A hydraulic analysis using the SCS TR -20 computer runoff model was used to simulate a 100 -year frequency runoff event to determine both peak discharge rates to Ryan Creek and projected 100 -year flood elevations in the Twin Lakes/ Ryan Lake Basin. Four different outlet configurations at Ryan Lake were analyzed. The existing and proposed outlet structures would continue to maintain the current runout elevation of Ryan Lake at 849.10. The existing 36 -inch RCP would continue to be used, while the outlet capacity would be increased by the installation of an additional outlet pipe under the railroad tracks alongside the existing 36 -inch RCP. The maximum outlet size for Ryan Lake considered in this analysis is a 54 -inch RCP equivalent since the existing outfall to Ryan Creek is a 54 -inch RCP under T.H. 152. The following Ryan Lake outlet structures were analyzed: 1. Existing 36 -inch RCP 2. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 18 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 42 -inch RCP) 3. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 24 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 48 -inch RCP) 4. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 30 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 54 -inch RCP) It is important to note that storm sewers discharging to Ryan Creek downstream of Ryan Lake will not be affected by peak discharge rates from Ryan Lake since peak discharges from Ryan Lake will occur much later. Results The results of the hydraulic analysis for the Ryan Lake outlet modification are summarized in Table 3. The 100 -year peak elevation in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin will be lowered as a result of increasing the capacity of the outlet. As the peak elevation of the basin is lowered, the number of low -lying structures that will experience flooding is reduced. However, the peak discharges downstream to Ryan Creek will be increased. As shown in Table 3, the installation of a 30 -inch RCP in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP (equivalent to a 54 -inch RCP) will lower the 100 -year peak elevation from 855.9 to 855.1, a difference of 0.8 feet. By lowering the peak elevation 0.8 feet, the number of structures below the 100 -year peak elevation that will experience flooding is reduced from 47 to 25, a difference of 22 structures. The corresponding peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek will be increased from 90 cfq to 135 cfs. -9- t TABLE 3 RES _ ULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR RYAN LAKE OUTLET 100 -YEAR STORM Peak Number of Description of Ryan Lake Elevation Structures Below Peak Q Time To Outlet Under Railroal Tracks (NGVD) Peak Elevation* (cfs) Peak (hrs) 36 -inch RCP (Existing) 855.9 47 90 185 36 -inch RCP plus 18 -inch RCP 855.5 39 107 167 (Equivalent 42 -inch RCP) 36 -inch RCP plus 24 -inch RCP 855.3 33 120 159 (Equivalent 48 -inch RCP) 36 -inch RCP plus 30 -inch RCP 855.1 25 135 152 (Equivalent 54 -inch RCP) * Number of structures adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake with lowest opening elevations bel( fie projected 100 -year peak elevation. Additional structures located near Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake, specifically in the southwest corner of Ryan Lake, may also experience flooding at the Peak elevations shown. TWIN7.4 /MODT3 -10- RYAN CREEK CHANNEL /PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS A channel /pipe capacity analysis of Ryan Creek was completed to determine the flow capacity of the creek and to identify any existing flooding problems. All field information necessary to complete the analysis was provided by the City of Brooklyn Center. Field work performed in April and May of 1988 included taking cross- sections of the open channel, determining invert elevations of the existing storm sewer system, and determining centerline elevations along 49th Aven ue. ow t intersection f L es o enin ti n t the 0 opening elevations s of homes located a e 49th Avenue and Russell Avenue were also determined. Channel Capacity The estimated capacity of the open channel varies from 115 cfs to 422 cfs and thus has adequate capacity to handle estimated 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake under existing outlet conditions. During field inspections, the channel was found to be in relatively poor condition. Dense brush, tall weeds, and small trees are present in some places within the channel bottom and along the banks, particularly east of Sheridan Avenue. Assorted debris such as tires, trash, cans, metal boxes, boards and tree stumps is also present within the channel. The brush and debris reduce the hydraulic capacity of the channel and may create obstructions in the downstream storm sewer system. The 54 -inch RCP outletting to Ryan Creek east of T.H. 152 has approximately 1.5 to 2 feet of sediment within the pipe at the outlet. Pipe cleaning and channel excavation would be necessary as part of any outlet modification of Ryan Lake to assure adequate capacity is provided. Pipe Capacity The pipe capacity of the existing storm sewer system enclosing Ryan Creek between Russell Avenue and Shingle Creek was determined. The 48 -inch storm sewer at an average slope of .056% has a capacity of 40 cfs while the 60 -inch RCP further downstream has an average slope of .25% and a flow capacity of 140 cfs Existing Flooding Problems The relatively flat slope and shallow depth of the .48 -inch storm sewer will result in flooding of the low area at the intersection of Russell and 49th Avenues as well as backing up water in the Ryan Creek channel. Figure 4 shows the area flooded when the capacity of the 48 -inch storm sewer is exceeded. Stormwater will eventually flow along 49th Avenue to the east to a low spot at the intersection of Oliver and 49th overflowing to catch basins draining to the larger 60 -inch storm sewer. It does not appear that any homes or businesses along 49th Avenue will experience direct flooding if the storm sewer capacity is exceeded since the area is relatively flat and stormwater will be contained mostly within the streets overflowing down 49th Avenue to the east. Some minor flooding will occur in front yards and in the parking lot on the south side of 49th Avenue. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake resulting in larger peak flows downstream in Ryan Creek, the increase in flood levels will be insignificant due to the overflow capacity of 49th Avenue. Residents along 49th Avenue have reported water seepage in basements when water is present in Ryan Creek. -11- Z _ tit co 2 Z X _ et z y Q J x 3 z a 0 oc Z 0 z � z Lu x tu co) N f » aw " 50 »a � a p I �, x ,, ,:: 'e, �...,> 5 � y� ,. e ;,, `#t „?.:> :. "•. � „'r -'.:m, '..ate' g ���.. ::_ t R y > tefi v 4 i , tr Y I� I > x , , s , r :'._ ;• ., ,.,...a �. J� + t yre '..,_ �.- f.. ...�, ,. ,� ,. �� >.w N; <: '79f"' a... w fi R , s • .;;: x :# '.: ,.. ', „ .,: '.. .' a, ....._, ,....: - °>» 3,,,,'k'. '�'^_ -3a �,. > -,: •... Q TR. s � x , ti I y - " „ a „ - f , R , a , M1 i n� r w. r t » Y. r , I , yam '. �, �_ -• ":':. "" � � �. k�, ti , t 4 Y. "W 11 r t f v x. , , , ry N a f SCALE V-200' �z MartxHriRa III\ ti LAPOLIS N SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED M NAGEMENT COMMISSION E.A. HIC KOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 FLOODING RESULTING WHEN CAPACITY OF 48 IS EXCEEDED HYDROLOGISTS-ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS- MINNESOTA FIG 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY MINNEAPOLIS Construction plans have been prepared by the City of Minneapolis to bypass the existing 48 -inch RCP located in the street by constructing a 54 -inch RCP storm sewer along the south side of 49th Avenue. The proposed 1,140 feet of 54 -inch RCP would extend from the existing 60 -inch RCP at Oliver Avenue west along 49th Avenue ending 180 feet west of Russell Avenue. The proposed storm sewer will replace 260 feet of open channel including the 48 -inch CMP culvert under the driveway across from Russell Avenue. The proposed 54 -inch storm sewer will have a flow capacity of 120 cfs at the design slope of 0.33 percent. The existing 48 -inch RCP will be connected to the proposed 54 -inch RCP at Queen and Oliver Avenues and utilized as a relief drain if necessary. The construction of the 54 -inch storm sewer is scheduled for 1989, however, it is considered a low- priority on the Mayor's Budget Report. The estimated cost to install 1,140 feet of 54 -inch RCP by City crews is $390,000 In a letter to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission dated June 3, 1988, the City of Minneapolis requested that this storm sewer improvement project be considered for possible capital improvement funding by the Commission. A 60 -inch RCP constructed at the same slope would have a flow capacity of 160 cfs. As informed by the City of Minneapolis, additional costs associated wit such a design change from a 54 -inch to a 60 -inch RCP storm sewer (i.e., construction plan changes, miscellaneous engineering, etc.) would be minimal since City crews would be installing the storm sewer. The estimated cost to install 1,140 feet of 60 -inch RCP is $404,000 or an additional $14,000. Below is a summary of the hydraulic capacity of the existing and proposed storm sewer system in Ryan Creek. - Existing system Capacity of 48 -inch RCP - 40 cfs Capacity of 60 -inch RCP - 140 cfs - Storm sewer extension proposed by the City of Minneapolis (48 -inch RCP replaced by 54 -inch RCP) Capacity of 54 -inch RCP - 120 cfs Increase storm sewer extension capacity by installing a 60 -inch RCP instead of a 54 -inch RCP Capacity of 60 -inch RCP - 160 cfs* *Storm sewer system will be limited to 140 cfs, the capacity of the existing 60 -inch RCP downstream from Oliver to Shingle Creek. -13- r. RYAN LAKE OUTLET AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS Under existing conditions, the downstream capacity of the 48 -inch RCP storm sewer between Russell and Oliver Avenues is inadequate to handle estimated 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake. If improvements are made to the storm sewer system as proposed by the City of Minneapolis, the capacity of the storm sewer will be increased from 40 cfs to 120 cfs. As shown in Table 3, the 100 -year peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek is estimated to be 120 cfs if a 24 -inch RCP is installed in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP. The downstream capacity could be further increased to 140 cfs if a 60 -inch RCP is installed instead of the proposed 54 -inch RCP. However, with minor surcharging of the 54 -inch RCP and utilization of the 48 -inch RCP bypass, the capacity would be increased to 140 cfs. As shown in Table 3, the 100 -year peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek is estimated to be 135 cfs if a 30 -inch RCP is installed in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP. Any proposed modifications to the Ryan Lake outlet should include sediment cleanout of the 54 -inch RCP outfall pipe and channel excavation along Ryan Creek to lower the channel bottom grade. The existing channel bottom grade will need to be lowered an average of 2.5 feet over a distance of 1,300 feet to match the invert of the existing 54 -inch RCP outfall east of T.H. 152 and the invert of the proposed storm sewer inlet west of Russell Avenue. This channel improvement will not only improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek to adequately handle peak discharges from Ryan Lake but will also clean the channel of unsightly debris and other materials. Cost Estimate A Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate to install an additional 18 -inch RCP, 24 -inch RCP, or 30 -inch RCP at the existing outlet of Ryan Lake in conjunction with Ryan Creek channel excavation is shown in Table 4. -14- TABLE 4 PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE FOR RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION JACK INSTALLATION OF 18" RCP UNDER RAILROAD TRACKS ALONG WITH RYAN CREEK CHANNEL EXCAVATION Item No Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization L.S. 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 2 Jack 30" Diameter Steel Casing L.F. 70 $ 150 $ 10,500 (1/4" thick) with 18" RCP 3 18" Flared End with Rip Rap L.S. 1 $ 400 $ 400 and Filter Fabric 4 96" Diameter manhole Each 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 5 Jacking Pit With Dewatering L.S. 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 6 Construct Bentonite Seepage Each 2 $ 300 $ 600 Dams 7 Construct Inlet Skimmer Each 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Structure 8 Restoration (Erosion Control L.S. 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Blanket with Seed and Fertilizer) 9 Soil Stabilization (Trench C.Y. 10 $ 10 $ 100 Rock) 10 36" RCP Flared End with Rip L.S. 1 $ 500 $ 500 Rap and Filter Fabric 11 Channel Excavation C.Y. 3,400 $ 4 $ 13,600 12 54" RCP Sediment Clean Out L.F. 450 $ 8 $ 3,600 13 Restoration (Hydro - Mulching) Acre 1.5 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 14 Clearing and Grubbing Acre 1.0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 46,300 ENGINEERING (10%) $ 4,600 ADMINISTRATIVE ( 5 %) $ 2,300 CONTINGENCIES ( 7 %) $ 3,300 TOTAL $ 56,500* * If 24 -inch RCP is installed, increase Total Project Cost by $1,800. If 30 -inch RCP is installed, increase Total Project Cost by $3 TWIN7.4/MDDT4 -15- CONCLUSIONS The objective of this study is to determine which combination of structure modifications to the Twin Lakes outlet at France Avenue and the Ryan Lake outlet will result in the most desirable alternatives to increase the low flow capacity of the Twin Lakes outlet and reduce 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. If a larger outlet is provided at France Avenue, the time necessary for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a 1 -year frequency storm will be significantly reduced. The outlet of Ryan Lake located under the Soo Line railroad tracks controls water levels in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin during a 100 -year frequency storm. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake, the peak elevation will be lowered. As a result, the number of low -lying structures that would experience flooding during a 100 -year storm will be reduced. A larger outlet from Ryan Lake will result in an increase in peak flows downstream in Ryan Creek. Under existing conditions, the downstream capacity of the 48 -inch RCP storm sewer between Russell and Oliver Avenues is inadequate to contain 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake. Flooding will occur at the intersection of Russell and 49th Avenue resulting in minor flooding of front yards and the parking lot on the south side of 49th Avenue. Stormwater will eventually overflow to the east down 49th Avenue and drain to the larger 60 -inch RCP storm sewer at Oliver Avenue. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake, the increase in flood levels at 49th and Russell will be insignificant due to the overflow capacity of 49th Avenue. The City of Minneapolis is proposing to bypass the existing 48 -inch RCP by constructing a 54 -inch RCP to increase the flow capacity of the storm sewer. The existing 48 -inch RCP will be connected to the proposed 54 -inch RCP and utilized as a relief drain if necessary. The proposed 54 -inch RCP will accommodate 100 -year peak discharges from the existing 36 -inch RCP outlet at Ryan Lake as well as peak discharges from a proposed 42 -inch and 48 -inch RCP equivalent outlets. With minor surcharging, the 54 -inch RCP storm sewer along with the 48 -inch RCP bypass will have adequate capacity to handle 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake with a proposed 54 -inch RCP equivalent outlet. The 54 -inch RCP equivalent was the largest outlet size considered for Ryan Lake since the existing outfall to Ryan Creek is a 54 -inch RCP under T.H. 152. -16- RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this study indicate that capital improvements are needed to accomplish the Commission's goals of increasing the low flow capacity of the Twin Lakes outlet and reducing the 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. The following improvements are recommended. 1. Increase the low flow capacity of the existing 48 -inch culvert under France Avenue by placement of three 18 -inch RCP's (or equivalent capacity) alongside the existing culvert at a lower elevation. Install a weir upstream of the outlet to maintain the existing runout elevation. Estimated Cost: $43,800 2. Lower the projected 100 - year flood elevations in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin by increasing the flow capacity of the existing 36 -inch RCP outlet from Ryan Lake. Install a 30 -inch RCP alongside the existing outlet pipe at the same runout elevation (54 -inch RCP equivalent); clean out the existing 54 -inch RCP outfall to Ryan Creek under T.H. 152; and perform channel excavation along Ryan Creek to lower the channel bottom grade and improve hydraulic capacity of the channel. Estimated Cost: $60,000 3. Participate in the cost - sharing with Minneapolis in the installation of the 54 -inch RCP storm sewer. The method of cost - sharing has not been formally determined at this time. Methods of cost - sharing that may be considered include a) cost - sharing contribution from each agency contributing stormwater based upon containment in pipe of the 10 -year peak flow from each agency's tributary watershed, and b) cost - sharing contribution from each agency contributing stormwater based upon containment in pipe of the design storm normally used for pipe sizing purposes within that community. In both cases, overflow that may occur from the pipe system shall pass downstream without causing significant property damage by flooding. -17- 5 � , RESOLUTION DEFINING DISTRICT WATERSHEDS WITHIN SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED AND ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has met and spent considerable time studying and discussing how to define capital improvements necessary within the watershed and how to determine cost - sharing for said improvements, and WHEREAS, the Commission has studied the Joint Powers Agreement and more particularly Article VI, Subd. 25; Article VII, Subd. 4; and Article VIII, Subd. 5, and WHEREAS, Article VI, Subd. 25, of the Joint Powers Agreement gives the Commission the power to define and designate subtrunks and subdistricts within the watershed and authorizes the Commission to separate the watershed into different subtrunks and subdistricts and to allocate capital improvement costs to a subtrunk or subdistrict area if that district is the only area that benefits from the capital improvement, and WHEREAS, Article VII, Subd. 4, provides that the Commission shall have authority to separate the watershed into subtrunks and subdistricts if the capital improvement project and costs only benefit a subtrunk or subdistrict area, and the Commission is further given authority to . determine that a capital improvement benefits only a subtrunk or subdistrict area, which area shall be responsible for said costs, and allows the assessment of the costs to the subdistrict area rather than the entire watershed, and WHEREAS, the Commission has met and worked with its consulting engineers to establish a trunk system or subtrunk system which can be logically explained to the member communities, and as a result of those studies and discussions, the Commission has determined that the Shingle Creek watershed should in effect be divided into three capital improvement districts, and WHEREAS, attached to this resolution is Exhibit A consisting of four maps, as follows: 1. Page 1 shows the Shingle Creek trunk system marked to show the main conveyers of surface waters within the Shingle Creek watershed and which are determined to be a joint responsibility of the nine member cities. The Shingle Creek trunk system is described as follows: Shingle Creek from its confluence with the Mississippi River in Minneapolis upstream to its confluence with Bass Creek and Eagle Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park; Ryan Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis upstream to and including Structure 25 at France Avenue in Robbinsdale which is the outlet for Subwatershed TL1,Structure 25; Bass Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek and Eagle Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park upstream to and including Structure 7 at County Road 18 on the border of Plymouth and New Hope, which is the outlet for Subwatershed USC6 • and Eagle Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek and Bass Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park upstream to and including Structure 10 at Magda Drive in Maple Grove which is the outlet for Subwatershed USC3. 2. Page 2 outlines District A which is the entire watershed and determines that capital improvement costs along Shingle Creek from its confluence with the Mississippi River upstream to its confluence with Ryan Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis shall be the responsibility of the entire ater in District A. w shed as set forth 3. Page 3 outlines District B which is that area draining to Shingle Creek upstream of its confluence with Ryan Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis. Capital improvement costs to the Shingle Creek trunk system serving District B, including Bass Creek and Eagle Creek as described in Paragraph 1 above, shall be allocated to the municipalities and properties lying within District B. 4. Page 4 outlines District C which is that area draining to Ryan Creek upstream of its confluence with Shingle Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis. Capital improvement costs along Ryan Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek upstream to and including France Avenue in Robbinsdale shall be allocated to the municipalities and properties lying within District C, and WHEREAS, Article VIII, Subd. 5, of the Joint Powers Agreement directs that the Commission shall apportion all capital costs based on 50% of the cost being allocated on the basis of real property values of each member within the boundaries, and 50% of all capital costs being allocated on the basis of area within the established boundaries, and allows this basic formula to be modified by a 7 /9th vote if: (a) any member receives a direct benefit from the capital improvements, which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit; or (b) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more members, which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification of the 50/50 formula, and WHEREAS, based on the engineering reports and data, the total watershed can logically be divided into three districts since the water from what is previously described as District B finds its way to its final outlet by going through Bass Creek, Eagle Creek, and the north reaches of Shingle Creek, as outlined on page 3 of Exhibit A, and the waters that find their way o the Mississippi from District Care channeled through Ryan Lake Y PP g Y and Ryan Creek and WHEREAS, this Commission believes that those two districts along with the total watershed are responsible for that area of Shingle Creek which,runs from the confluence of Shingle Creek and Ryan Creek to the Mississippi River and, -2- WHEREAS, this division of the watershed into districts is the most logical and the fairest method of dividing capital improvement costs, recognizing that modifications to the 50/50 division of costs for improvements will require a 7 /9th vote as outlined in the Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Commission discussed submitting the division of the watershed into districts to the City members for ratification and to formally change the Joint Powers Agreement, but the Commission believes that this would be very confusing and difficult to explain and would be time - consuming, and believes that the current Commission and its successor Commissions will understand the logic of the policies adopted by this resolution, and WHEREAS, for purposes of this resolution a capital improvement is defined as a project whose purpose is to improve the Shingle Creek Watershed trunk system. Said system improvement(s) shall correct hydraulic deficiencies to a point whereby the trunk system will meet or exceed all provisions of the Shingle Creek Water Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, as follows: 1. For the purposes of the division of capital improvement costs now and in the future, the watershed shall be divided into three districts. Said districts are as follows: a. District A is the entire watershed, which shall be responsible for capital improvement costs along Shingle Creek from its confluence with the Mississippi River upstream to its confluence with Ryan Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis. b. District B is that portion of the watershed draining to Shingle Creek upstream of its confluence with Ryan Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis. District B shall be responsible for capital improvement costs on the Shingle Creek trunk system serving District B which includes Shingle Creek from its confluence with Ryan Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis upstream to its confluence with Bass Creek and Eagle Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park; Bass Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek and Eagle Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park upstream to and including Structure 7 at County Road 18 on the border of Plymouth and New Hope, which is the outlet for subwatershed USCG; and Eagle Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek and Bass Creek south of I -94 in Brooklyn Park upstream to and including Structure 10 at Magda Drive in Maple Grove which is the outlet for Subwatershed USC3. ' C. District C, that portion of the watershed -3- draining to Ryan Creek, shall be responsible for capital improvement costs along Ryan Creek from its confluence with Shingle Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis upstream to and including Structure 25 at France Avenue in Robbinsdale which is the outlet for Subwatershed TL1. 2. Capital improvements within the aforedescribed Districts shall follow the procedures outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement, but the cost allocations shall be divided by the districts described in paragraph 1 above. At the hearing for each capital improvement, the Commission may deviate from the 50/50 area /assessed valuation division if there is a finding by 7 /9th vote that any member community receives a direct benefit which can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit, or if the direct benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification of the 50/50 formula. 3. The Capital Improvement program described herein does not cover ordinary maintenance. The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the use of funds from the annual levy for ordinary maintenance. The Commission intends to establish standards for ordinary maintenance to be sure that the trunk system described herein functions hydrologically the way it is designed to meet the standards set out in the approved management plan. Each municipality shall provide at its cost the ordinary maintenance to maintain the integrity of the hydrologic operations of the creek. Extraordinary maintenance may be considered as a capital improvement under the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement. Any member City may outline a problem with the trunk conveyance system and ask the Commission to declare the need for repairs to be extraordinary maintenance. The Commission may determine the maintenance to be extraordinary and determine the solution to be a capital improvement. All requested improvements categorized as capital improvements shall follow the hearing process established by the Joint Powers Agreement. 4. The Commission realizes that water quality and ground water problems will grow in importance in coming years. The Commission does not believe that it currently has sufficient information as it relates to the problems or the solutions to attempt to establish a policy for those costs. Those problems will have to be faced in the future and the Commission recognizes that this policy resolution is not a determination of how those problems or costs will be resolved. 5. Successor Commissions who serve the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization and its member communities are hereby requested to think long and hard before changing the district capital improvement policy enacted by this resolution. The current members of the Commission will now be proceeding on capital improvement projects and will be making their cost determinations based on the policy herein adopted, and it would be very unfair in the future to members who will now be assessed costs if there is a major deviation in policy. The current members understand that this program may have to be fine -tuned in the future, but insert this paragraph in the resolution as a word of caution to their successors who will be interpreting the Joint Powers Agreement and this policy statement. (Final Draft Adopted January 12, 1989) -4- OHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED .MSC B i• - osxo �\ wsc 4-1 c �SCSo rl � r1T r J x w5c 1 -• C \ r MSC 20 MSC 7 I \ wsc • �>" MSC 3 \\ � Msc x. si,w ct 1 C J- - mscz MSC 6 ,.+ USC 4 „/ MSC d 16 � L} c ,.r1�Nt" �.. � - r c b56,w 0. i 7 t566w / wK {Ow i wsc 6 6 3 1 1 (Nr w5.[ 6- ]w i ) wst 1 -Sf. w ox ]•n,r M5C3 / wsc 1•sl5w o N 1 n _ / 7 10 �.. usC 3 f.w u.. c Sc / F -� J -j e © \ USC 1651 Ji• 5.565W r..,\.., r N \ LSC3 0.000_._._. _. _. _.' _"„�'` -'-' -- - ----'---'-- ' tsc 5.630. TL S-639W j USC 6 r` 1 1 I LSC ~ t «. `« USG 9 0..' `..' -0 tlq USC B , Vsc 4F r N� Tt 1.4 Lsc3 ! CNT]TAL �� i TL 3 // \ USC n l - s,o.. isc ev LSC / , TL n a w , i 7w .f IIxWL , .NI,1[..Otl] f , LSC Z-34P SHINGLE CREEK TRUNK SYSTEM !j -c 2 t i i SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED C 6 -A MSC B os 1fO «St 6 -# C50 j _ C MSC ?a Q' /MSc 99- MSF Bo �'• MSC « -. M 3 «x :. 6l.w f t J 1 MSC 6 '! dp USC 4 M5C �} m 1 blb6w MSC 60w � i -� sc t 1.l*r u f.mr MSG i l•6fsW USGJ `." I.. �S• DISTRICT A © \ USC ) Si !l65w f \•�...\ L SC 5 1 \ TL 3 �— `f .- - C l-6f6w l.._ 5.6199 Y l i r•. USC ' L \ r... USC ►••• l ® SC B ( r rL Z USC 12 � ' - - - -•- -• -•- - «f /' � • f *t 1•62r LSCS �- / ✓� I TL 3 r (sc p lw ! - TL I - i i ® c 2 -34• ' � 1 SHINGLE CREEK TRUNK SYSTEM i _r L5G Ao t. i 4WINGLE CREEK WATERSHED . -. MSC 9 olio 15 r \ Ysc a. 50 rst T•A _ f SC 20 F � /MSC 56 -A CJ' J bf BO N. MSC 7 r i MSC A MSC �tl t i l � 16 MSC? rA awovt / b MSC 6 i USC4 © DISTRICT B MSC4 16 Mom aR 5,6. M w — r 1566w NS t 6 7W MSC S. 5 9P Y5 1.5a► l»� c— ' / i.{l5w i us ntv' M5C3 1 [, USC J tae. t «, ' 5c � � \ L SC 3 �U1 TL6 ._....._. _._.. _.__.._ _._.- •- - %r l 656w Y ~� • - •- �.- -�_.yi TL 5.619* \ j r- \\ i ail USC s ? r i ,, _ 1 L sc usc t... ce L 4 /0 n i -ini S r3 L TL 3 n t•aAOw �1 LSC / O -/ cst TL TL i -641w a ® 1 D 64 / I— 1 O tw 2 { SHINGLE CREEK TRUNK SYSTEM { t i i '.._�L:....... HINGLE CREEK WATERSHED C 6.A MSC B OSSCO '- �_ I, (�SCSa � J YSC 1•A ! 1 ` r --- ...... MSC 20 ~ Mk 80 , N• 1 MSC7 ( \ i USE A 'tL_� MSC 3 " - M sc z _ ro YAK 611OV[ MSC 6 '— ®` u W � \ USC 4 J MSC 4 161 4 fD -- sc ..R9x/o' � \ / • /Msc i 1 1.966w i 6Ow ` i MSC M 6 61W I i lN. C/I I SC 6- 7W MSC 1.69W i� ux ! 111P MSC 3 i 7 10 USC 3 n«. u.. Sc / LSC 3 rL t USC p \ U 1 r— I _ USC 6 i ± 1 . 1 L SC ®IIwM M UJY 9 IN/ lNI us 8 TL 4 :�\ R ..� DISTRICT C f - -- - \ \ y- � j =--- use b l Mt IL 1.4 SC5 r J ! toot i- CAr C t r n,_ IOW USC u \ usC 7 l rL _ Lsc i iK i i � � 1• TL �' g ' . - � 1 ..._j � 6 � MV/164IOLf 1 L 1.341 1 i 1 �' twv 1 SHINGLE CREEK TRUNK SYSTEM j _ L z it i ....... tt1. r i r 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number 2K REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE LOAN OF PRELIMINARY BREATH TESTING INSTRUMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL:+ Signature .`title James Lin say,''Ghie'f of Police MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety has received grants for the purchase of preliminary breath test instruments. • They are currently in the process of obtaining several of these instruments, called "Alco Sensors ". These devices are very useful on the street as a preliminary (pass /fail) test to determine whether the officer has an intoxicated individual. The Department of Public Safety will be distributing these test instruments on a loan basis. They will stand all costs of purchase and also maintenance as long as they have the funding. There is no rental fee for the loan of the equipment. They will also train officers in its operation free of charge. Execution of the agreement will allow the police department to receive up to five (5) of these units as they become available. RECOMMENDATION: To pass the resolution authorizing the City Manager and Chief of Police to enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the loan of preliminary breath testing instruments. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE LOAN OF PRELIMINARY BREATH TESTING INSTRUMENTS WHEREAS, the city has been notified by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that a limited number of "alco sensor" preliminary breath testing instruments are available to loan to law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, the police department finds the use of such instruments valuable in law enforcement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety for the purpose of receiving from the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, preliminary breath test instruments on a loan basis for use by law enforcement officers to assist in the detection of motorists who may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.121, or local ordinances in conformity therewith. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and the Chief of Police be and they hereby are authorized to execute such agreement. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. j CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date _;2,�/3 e% Agenda Item Number 7L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF W. M. MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM A MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY'S RADIO SYSTEM DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature t title James Lindsay, Chi f of Polic * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes The city last had a reviewal of its radio communications equipment in 1981. As a result, some new equipment was added in 1982. City • departments using radio equipment have experienced various problems. In order to make better requests in the 1990 budget requests, it was proposed and adopted that $7, 000. 00 be used in 1989 to hire a consultant. This consultant would measure, evaluate and make recommendations on the radio equipment. The City has obtained a proposal for this service from W. M. Montgomery and Associates. Montgomery performed this same service in 1981 on the e city s radio equipment. He was also responsible for drawing up the specifications and supervising the installation of the new equipment in 1982. Montgomery's ro osal is within the proposal budgeted amount. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the hiring of W. M. Montgomery and Associates to perform a measurement and evaluation and make recommendations on the city's radio equipment. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF W. M. MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM A MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY'S RADIO SYSTEM WHEREAS, the various city departments have experienced some problems with various radio equipment; and WHEREAS, the police department has $7,000.00 approved in its 1989 budget under #4323, Radio Unit Communications; and WHEREAS, the city has obtained a proposal for the measurement, evaluation and recommendations on the city's radio system from W. M. Montgomery and Associates, who performed this service in 1981 and are familiar with the city's equipment; and WHEREAS, this proposal is within the budgeted amount for the performance of this service. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brookl ► Y n Y Center hire the services of W. M. Montgomery and Associates to perform the services of measurement, evaluation and recommendation on the city's radio system as per their proposal. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: February 9, 1989 SUBJECT: Engineering Review of City's Two -Way Radio System The 1989 police budget has $7,000.00 approved for the hiring of an engineer to measure the performance of all city departments' radio equipment. Attached is a proposal submitted by W. M. Montgomery. Montgomery is the engineer who performed the same evaluation in 1981. He also wrote t the specs and supervised the new radio system installed in 1982. Montgomery's proposal will provide the same measuring of performance as before. All equipment was not replaced in 1982. The survey will determine the serviceability of each piece of equipment. The results of the survey will be used in preparation of the 1990 budget by the various city departments. I have reviewed the proposal. It meets the requirements of the city and the amount budgeted for this purpose. g h p rpos I recommend the hiring of W. M. Montgomery to perform this service. I 1 W. M. Montgomery & Associates 3618 Rainbow Drive • Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone (612) 473 -6985 February 5, 1989 Fir. Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center Minnesota 5 430 Brooklyn � 5 Dear Tyr. Splinter: Thank you for your invitation to quote engineering services to measure two-way radio performance for the City of Brooklyn Cen- ter. Our gustation follows instructions received on Wednesday, February 1, in a meeting with yourself and Messrs. Lindsay, Boman, and Knapp. We propose to bring appropriate test equipment to radios at the Municipal and Public Works Buildings plus fire stations for a disciplined measurement program of equipment performance. Each radio ,ill be measured for: * transmitter frequency error * transmitter power output * transmitter modulation deviation * antenna incident and reflected power * receiver sensitivity * receiver desensitization * ambient noise level * insertion loss of RF protection devices These measurements and will be compared to original equipment performance specifications for the types of radios in question, results of our Proof of Performance tests on police radios made in 1982, and the most recent trouble reports by supervisory personnel of each department. Review of these trouble reports, when compared to our measurements, will provide a perspective on performance of the maintenance contractor. Data obtained through our measurements plus our subjective eval- uation of equipment condition will be an important part of repair /replace /upgrade decisions you plan to make in coming months. We will consider: a) repetitious trouble reports for the same problem b) reports of no trouble found c) measured performance versus nameplate rating d) maintenance specifications given to the contractor Communications Systems - Planning & Engineering Mr. G.G. Splinter February 5, 1989 Page 2 e) maintenance contract administration f) maintenance cost These performance indices will be compared to similar equipment we have examined on other projects so you will have a proper frame of reference to evaluate our remarks concerning the per- formance audit and accompanying measurements. I estimate it will require five days for myself plus a technician to measure and evaluate mobile and portable radios in the police, fire, and public works departments, plus stations which serve these departments. I estimate it will require another 24 hours of engineering time to evaluate collected data and prepare a written report. Estimated cost for this work is: 64 hours engineering time @ $80 $5,120 40 hours technician time @ $55 2,200 Total estimated project cost $7,320 This estimate presumes radios will be available on an organized schedule so we won't have significant idle time between r.oLeasure- ments. We can assist you in some small measure by evaluating as many public works radios as possible in the late afternoon and early evening to avoid disrupting work schedules. It probably makes little difference to the police and fire departments what time of day our work is done since their responsibilities don't follow the regular business day. Our first opportunity to do this work, as of this writing, is the week of February It might turn out than we will not be able to devote five days in Brooklyn Center without interruption. Our report, with comment on measurements and recommendations for im- provement, will follow about two weeks after conclusion of the measurement program. Cost will be invoiced on an hourly basis against the above esti- mate. A single invoice will be rendered when the report is sub- mitted. Thank you for your continued confidence in our work. V ry truly yours, • W.•. Montgomery� Q� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13tH day of February , 19 , at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 17 relating to personnel. P g P Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 RETEATING TO PERSONNEL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section-17-106 PROBATION PERIOD. Subdivision 4 . Affects Vacation Leave Benefits. During the initial probationary period, but not during a promotional probationary period, employees will not be entitled to [sick leave or] vacation leave during the first six months of service. After six months of service employees will be entitled to [sick leave and vacation leave, ave the sick leave and va cation leave to be accrued from the start of the robation p ary employment. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption an(: upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 12, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1988 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Ellamae Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1988 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. ADJOURN 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the 1988 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to existing Commissioners Wallace Bernards and Lowell Ainas and to new Commissioner Kristen Mann. CALL TO ORDER 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Nelson then called to order the 1989 Planning Commission. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. ELECTION OF 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Commissioner Bernards nominated and Commissioner Johnson seconded the nomination of Commissioner Molly Malecki to be the 1989 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Chairman Nelson asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. Voting in favor of Commissioner Molly Malecki for 1989 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem were: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Commissioner Malecki was elected 1989 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary stated also that the 50' setback requirement from major thoroughfares probably was adopted in 1968 with a comprehensive amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 1 -12 -89 -1- Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a sidewalk along the south side of 57th Avenue North. The Planner responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked whether the setback would be calculated from the curb line. The Secretary responded in the negative and explained that the setback was calculated from the right -of -way line, or property line, along the south side of the 57th Avenue North right -of -way. He explained there is a boulevard of approximately 15'. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the house met the 50' setback requirement. The Secretary responded in the negative. He calculated from the site plan submitted that the setback was apparently about 35 feet. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the rationale for the 50' setback. The Secretary answered that it was to set buildings back and protect from noise, odor, vibration and provide some visual relief. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the 50' setback would not allow greater safety in getting out of the driveway. The Secretary answered that it would also have that effect. Commissioner Johnson asked whether setbacks on major thoroughfares cover most of the nonconformities in the City. The Secretary answered that many of the structural nonconformities are along major thoroughfares. He pointed out that there are many nonconforming homes and garages along 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as along County Road 57• Commissioner Malecki stated that she did not consider Humboldt Avenue North and 69th Avenue North to be in the same category. The Secretary answered that 69th Avenue North west of West River Road was once a County road which was vacated by the County east of Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that there are plans to upgrade 69th Avenue North, west of Shingle Creek Parkway, possibly to a four -lane road. Commissioner Malecki asked whether 69th west of Shingle Creek Parkway would still be a major thoroughfare if the ordinance were amended to define major thoroughfares as four -lane streets and roads. The Secretary responded in the negative. He added, however, that 69th could be specifically included in the definition or that roadway improvements in the future might make 69th a four -lane street and thus, a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the applicant would be able to rebuild on the existing slab. The Secretary answered that the garage was more than 50% destroyed and that if it were less than 50% destroyed, the applicant could have rebuilt at the existing 12' setback. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of the property at 5658 Logan Avenue North, told the Planning Commission that there was no way that she could keep up a driveway 50' long. She added that the greater setback would take out her garden and that she would probably have to sell the house because she would'nt be able to keep it up. She also stated that her neighbor is a widow as well as she and that they watch each other's property. She stated that this would be impossible if the garage were placed 50' back from the right -of -way line. She concluded her remarks by again stating that she could not take care of such a large driveway. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89001) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Swanke of 5659 Knox Avenue North (the house directly east of the Anderson residence) stated that the garage, if placed 50' back from 57th, would shade her garden. She added that she would not be able to keep an eye on her neighbor's house nor her neighbor on her house. She stated that since both Mrs. Anderson and she were widows, it was vital to them that they be able to see each other's back yard and house. Chairman Nelson asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the Y p g g application, hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 1 -12 -89 -2- • CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on Application No. 89001. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning Commission for their preference on the application. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that the Commission should consider an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares. He stated that nonconforming structures will be with the City for a long time and it may be better to resolve these nonconformities now. He suggested that the Commission perhaps discuss an ordinance amendment at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was also in favor of an ordinance amendment. He recommended that the Commission look at areas with the most nonconformities and eliminate those nonconformities by an ordinance amendment. The Secretary asked Commissioner Johnson whether he meant to amend the ordinance so that Brooklyn Boulevard would also not be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson responded in the negative and added that 57th west of Logan should continue to be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson asked where most of the nonconforming structures are located. The Planner answered that most of the nonconformities are along County Road 57, along 69th Avenue North, and along Bass Lake Road. He added that there are few, if any, nonconformities along Xerxes Avenue North or along Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 20' setback as proposed would be okay. The Secretary answered that, if 57th in this area were no longer a major thoroughfare, the normal ordinance setback requirement would be only 15 since it is a lot of record prior to December 1957. He added that the applicant would probably continue with a 20' setback so that a car could be parked between the sidewalk and the new garage. The Secretary asked Mrs. Anderson if that was the case. Mrs. Anderson responded in the affirmative, stating that she did want to be able to park a car in front of the garage. The Secretary stated that the Commission could table the application and direct staff to bring back language for an ordinance amendment for the next meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION N0. 89001 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89001 and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares in the Zoning Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single- family homes to the south from R5 (Multiple family) to C1 (Service /Office). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary added that restrictive covenants are private and are not the responsibility of the City to enforce or necessarily abide by in its zoning of property. The Secretary also added that the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting would be open and less formal. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the rezoning application had been initiated now because of the renewal of the covenant coming at about this time. The Secretary answered that last summer the City Council considered acquisition of lots along 1 -12 -89 -3- Brooklyn Boulevard. There was also some inquiry by a real estate agent about the possibility of multiple family development. The City Council had indicated that it did not wish to see multiple family development in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and asked for the rezoning action to C1 to commence. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the City would not have to observe the private covenant. The Secretary explained that the City was not bound by the private covenants insofaras they would inhibit the City from exercising its legitimate zoning authority. He pointed out that in the past private covenants had been illegally used to bar blacks and other minorities from buying homes in given subdivisions. He stated that such discriminatory covenants are not legal and could not be enforced. He stated that the covenant on the three homes along Brooklyn Boulevard was probably legal, but that the City is not a party to it. He stated that the covenants were used to do zoning in the 1950's to prevent land adjacent to residential subdivisions from being used for a gas station or similar commercial use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89002 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Mr. William R. Williams of 4018 65th Avenue North stated that he felt the Cl zoning as proposed was probably appropriate for the property in question. He stated that he felt that the existing multiple family zoning was inappropriate and that C2 zoning would also be inappropriate. He stated that he would like to see buffers created, notably fences, rather than berms, when commercial development is proposed adjacent to the residential neighborhood. He stated again that he agreed with the proposed C1 zoning of the property. Commissioner Malecki asked which lots were under the private covenant. Mr. Williams and the Secretary stated that it was Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block 1 of the subdivision (the three lots next to the large vacant parcel). In response to Mr. Williams comments, the Secretary explained that there is no plan for development as yet. He stated that the City is not necessarily going to spearhead a development of the property in the near future. He explained, therefore, that staff did not know what the layout of the proposed development would be and where buffers would be appropriate. Mr. Willard Bartos of 4106 65th Avenue North stated that the last two developments probably did not go forward because of the poor access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked what types of development could be built on the property besides office buildings. The Secretary responded that the Cl zone allows for service /office uses, including real estate offices, medical clinics, accountants offices, etc. He then listed some C2 uses which are not allowed in the Cl zoning district, including retail sales, restaurants, gas stations, etc. In response to a question from Mr. Bartos about the location of a possible access road, the Secretary stated that there are many possibilities, including perhaps locating it across from France Avenue North. He stated that it was too early to speculate on a development layout. Mr. Bartos stated that they did not need any more traffic on 65th and that he would be against any development that would increase traffic in that area. Mr. Hershal Olson of 6532 Brooklyn Boulevard stated that a number of the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard in this area were for sale in the last year and asked why they had not been bought up. Chairman Nelson pointed out that the City had no plan for redevelopment as yet. Mr. Olson asked whether the City owned the large 4.5 acre parcel. The Secretary responded in the negative and added that the City does not own any of the property in consideration. He stated that the City Council decided 1 -12 -89 -4- i last summer that it did not want to spend public money to acquire the houses, but would rather rezone the property and wait for a developer to acquire land and put together a development package. Mr. Lee Evensen of 4112 65th Avenue North briefly discussed access to the R5 zoned vacant lot. He noted that the City took the position with the Church on the Move and the proposed office condominiums that no commercial traffic could come from Indiana. He stated that the homeowners in the area were in favor of prohibiting access from Indiana. In response to another comment from Mr. Evensen, the Secretary clarified that all of the land in question has been zoned R5 since at least 1968. Mr. Evensen noted the difficulties of access off Brooklyn Boulevard and pointed out that the southbound traffic does not slow down until the light at 65th. The Secretary stated that changes have been considered to the freeway ramp from eastbound 94 to southbound Brooklyn Boulevard including the possibility of making the traffic come to a complete stop rather than allowing a merge lane. He stated that nothing has been done along these lines and that the matter may still be studied further. He added that access to the large vacant parcel does exist, but is very, very difficult. Mr. Evensen stated that access to the vacant parcel would have to be a right turn in and out only because left turns would be too dangerous. The Secretary agreed and noted that a condition of both the church and the office development was the extension of the median within Brooklyn Boulevard to make access to the large parcel a right -in /right -out access only. Mr. Evensen asked whether the City had been approached about buying any of the properties. The Secretary stated that the City has considered buying some of the homes, but has declined to do so to this point. He added that the City has recommended that the single- family homes be acquired to improve access to the large vacant parcel. The Secretary explained that the R5 zoning allows three - storey apartments at up to 16 units per acre and that the City could not deny such a development proposal under the current zoning. He explained that, although the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend high- density residential in the area, the Zoning Ordinance prevails over the Comprehensive Plan in establishing development rights for given parcels of land. Mr. Evensen asked whether the property in question could become zoned C2 at some time in the future. Chairman Nelson stated that there would have to be a public hearing and full rezoning process before that could happen and that the neighbors would be notified. The Secretary added that he could not guarantee against the possibility of C2 zoning someday, but that it does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan as of today. Mr. William R. Williams again asked that the City consider ways of protecting the single- family homes for whatever type of development was ultimately built on the property. He again stated that he preferred fences over berms and asked that the neighbors be consulted when development plans are proposed. The Secretary answered that there are requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for buffers and screening of commercial developments adjacent to single - family zoned property. Mr. Williams stated that he would like to see something like a freeway fence. Mr. Bartos suggested only half seriously that the City buy up the whole area and turn it into an industrial park. Chairman Nelson stated that the public hearing will be reopened after the Neighborhood Advisory Group has submitted its comments. The Secretary stated that staff would try to set up the neighborhood meeting soon, possibly somewhere in the neighborhood. 1 -12 -89 -5- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89002 and refer the proposed rezoning to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Neighborhood Advisory Group Liaison Assignment The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Commission the need for liaison assignments to the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He stated that Commissioner Malecki would represent the West Central Neighborhood, Commissioner Bernards the Southeast Neighborhood, Commissioner Ainas the Northwest Neighborhood, Commissioner Sander the Northeast Neighborhood and that Commissioners Johnson and Mann would have to decide who would represent the Southwest and Central Neighborhoods. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business for the January 26 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Chairman i 1 -12 -89 -6- i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Company, Inc. Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance to allow construction of a garage 20' from the 57th Avenue North right -of -way instead of 50' as required of all structures on lots abutting major thoroughfares. Fifty- seventh Avenue North is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is also County Road 57 and all county roads are defined as major thoroughfares in Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 57th Avenue North, on the east and south by single - family homes, and on the west by Logan Avenue North. Gorco is submitting the application on behalf of the owner, Mrs. Lois Anderson. All variances from the Zoning Ordinance must meet the Standards for a Variance set forth in Section 35 -240 (attached). Briefly stated the four standards are: (a) a particular hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience would result if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; (b) the circumstances are unique to the parcel of land and are not common generally to other property in the zoning district; (c) the alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and has not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel; and (d) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Mr. James Coplin of Gorco Construction has submitted a letter (attached) arguing in favor of the proposed variance. Mr. Coplin first explains that Mrs. Anderson's detached garage was destroyed in a car accident and was demolished under the City's directive. The garage slab is about 12' back from the north property line. tor. Coplin acknowledges that 12' is too close, but adds that a 50' setback for the garage would create hardships for Mrs. Anderson. One hardship identified is the lengthening of the driveway. It will cost more and will require more effort to clear in the wintertime. (Mrs. Anderson is elderly and lives alone) . Also, it will reduce the enjoyment of her rear yard. Mr. Coplin also notes that setting the new garage back 50' would place it considerably back from the neighboring garage to the east. That garage is approximately 20' from the right - of -way line of 57th Avenue North. Placing the garage back 20' would put the buildings in line and would allow for off - street parking in front of the proposed garage. Staff do not regard the difficulties cited by Mr. Coplin to be "hardships" as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. They are certainly inconveniences, but the size, shape, topography and location of Mrs. Anderson's lot do not prevent her from having a sizable garage on her property. The driveway, while long for a corner lot, is not particularly long when composed with other driveways for detached garages which are generally set back further than the dwelling on interior lots. Regarding the other Standards for a Variance: the circumstances of this lot are not at all unique. There are many corner lots abutting major thoroughfares in the City that are 75' in width and have nonconforming structures located on them. The goal of the Zoning Ordinance is to gradually eliminate nonconforming structures by applying the current ordinance requirements when nonconforming structures are destroyed. Regarding standard (c), we would acknowledge that inconvenience of 1 -12 -89 -1- Application No. 89001 continued placing a new garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North is a result of the new (relative to the old garage and the lot) requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for a 50' setback and has not been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel. As to the public welfare and potential injury to other property, the proposed garage would probably not diminish property values, but would undercut the major thoroughfare setback. Indeed, if this variance request is granted, there will be almost no way of denying similar variance requests in numerous cases around the City, effectively repealing the major thoroughfare ordinance. If the Commission is disposed to grant some relief to Mrs. Anderson (and to the dozens of other nonconforming structures adjacent to County Road 57), it could recommend a change in the Zoning Ordinance definition of a major thoroughfare by deleting County Road 57 and possibly other roads from the definition which have numerous nonconforming structures adjacent to them. The majority of nonconforming structures exist adjacent to 69th Avenue North west of Shingle Creek Parkway, on County Road 57 (which follows 57th from Highway 100 to Humboldt and then south on Humboldt to 53rd) and along Bass Lake Road west of Brooklyn Boulevard ( County Road 10). One possible amendment would be to define major thoroughfares as all four- lane streets and roads in the City. This would keep the major thoroughfare designations for the busiest streets and roads (and would add Summit Drive, John Martin Drive, and a small section of Earle Brown Drive), but would eliminate dozens of nonconformities along 69th Avenue North and along 57th Avenue North and Humboldt Avenue North. Many structures along Bass Lake Road, west of Brooklyn Boulevard would remain nonconforming as Bass Lake Road is a four -lane road. We recommend that the Planning Commission seriously consider such an amendment. Such an amendment would affect many nonconforming single- family homes and would relate building setback with right -of -way width. A traffic count map is attached for the Commission's review, but we do not recommend that traffic count be the sole determinant of what is defined as a major thoroughfare since these counts are subject to change. If 57th east of Logan were no longer classified as a major thoroughfare, the minimum side corner setback for Mrs. Anderson's home would be only 15'. In any event, we do recommend denial of the proposed variance on the grounds that the Standards for Variances are not met and noting the following facts: (a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. (b) The circumstances upon which the variance request is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. (c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1 -12 -89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The City requests that the vacant parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single - family homes to the south be rezoned from R5 (multiple family) to C1 (service /office). The properties in question are all presently zoned R5 and are bounded by 194 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by three four - plexes on the south end, and by single - family homes on the south and west (see area map attached). Background In the past five years, there have been two development proposals for the large (4.5 acre) vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard. In 1983, Larry Cramer proposed an office condominium development of about 20 units, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. each. Although allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone, it was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. levard. The Plan recommended mid - density residential development (townhouses) along the boulevard from approximately 63rd Avenue North up to the freeway. The City responded to the proposal by adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to recommend service /office uses interchangeably with mid - density residential uses all along Brooklyn Boulevard. A special use permit was approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. The R5 zoning was left intact for the time being. The office proposal did not go forward, however, because Mr. Cramer was unable to obtain financing for the project. In 1985, Foundation Stone Ministries proposed a church for the large, vacant parcel. Churches were not a permitted or special use in the R5 zone, so they applied for a rezoning to Cl, in which "religious uses" are listed as a permitted use. The rezoning request was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, but was denied by the City Council. Instead, the City Council acted to allow churches in the R5 zone as a special use. A special use permit for the church was granted; however, for reasons which were never made clear, the church chose to locate elsewhere. It is likely that the soil problems on the site played at least some part in the church's decision to go elsewhere. There are severe soil problems on the site which will require correction for full development of the site. Another factor which may inhibit development of the rezoned district is that the single- family lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard are under a restrictive covenant which prohibits commercial use of those lots. Thus, even if the single- family lots are rezoned to Cl, development of the properties for service /office use may be blocked unless all the other property owners in the plat release these lots from the restrictive covenant. The covenant is coming up for renewal in the relatively near future. This may, therefore, be a good time to seek such a release. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? 1 -12 -89 _1_ Application No. 89002 continued We do not believe that the lots in question are any longer appropriate for residential use. We believe there is a benefit in zoning the property to Cl, allowing for a low - intensity commercial use and precluding residential development of the property. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Cl zoning is very compatible with single- family uses and is often used as a buffer zone between single - family homes and more intense zoning districts. We believe a low -rise office development will perform such a buffering function in this case also. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning ;district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes they can. A higher zoning district such as C2 would have some limitations because some uses comprehended in the C2 zoning district cannot abut Rl zoned property. Likewise, some uses allowed in the R5 zone - namely the residential uses - are not really appropriate for these properties. We believe, therefore, that the R5 zoning is no longer really appropriate. The C1 permitted and special uses more closely fit the constraints of developing and redeveloping these lots. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? No, there have not been significant changes, except for an increase in traffic along the freeway and along Brooklyn Boulevard. The increased traffic is one key reason why a residential zoning of the property is no longer appropriate. Another change that has occurred over the past ten years is that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to recommend service /office use as well as mid - density residential in this section of Brooklyn Boulevard. High density residential development as is comprehended by the exiting R5 zoning is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to insure that development and redevelopment of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At present, the R5 zoning would allow for high - density residential development which would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A low -rise office development will be the most compatible land use in this location, given the surrounding land uses and roads. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes, but there will be difficulty in redeveloping the single- family lots for any use. It is hoped that some or all of the single- family lots will be combined with the large, vacant parcel so that n g a improved access � p p can be arrang for the site. The one acre minimum lot size for Cl lots along major thoroughfares will require that there be some combination of land parcels among the single- family lots before, or in conjunction with, redevelopment. It would probably be easier for the single- family lots to be used for access and parking. However, there are office 1 -12 -89 -2- Application No. 89002 continued developments on Brooklyn Boulevard with similar lot depths; so it is certainly possible that the single- family lots could be converted to smaller office developments. We do not recommend home conversions in this area as a long run use of the property. The most efficient use of the land would result from clearing the existing houses and building new office buildings on parcels at least one acre in size and with consolidated access. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? We feel generally that this is not a good location for residential development. The single- family lots in particular have insufficient depth to buffer residences from Brooklyn Boulevard and arrange for parking and driveways on the site. It is possible, but not really desirable. Again, most of the single - family lots are too narrow to meet the minimum R5 width of 100 This lack of width would require consolidation of land parcels for redevelopment. The same would be the case, of course, with office redevelopment. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The proposed rezoning is certainly warranted by the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends service /office development in this area of the boulevard. As to the lack of developable land in the C1 district, there is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts, except perhaps the industrial districts. Finally, we believe the rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community in that it should provide eventually for an appropriate use that is compatible with both the adjacent roadways and the adjacent single - family homes. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is a City - initiated rezoning. As we have stated above, there is definitely merit to the proposed rezoning beyond the interests of the property owners. The property owners would probably prefer a rezoning to C2 since that would allow for more intense development. Such a rezoning would, however, exceed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Procedure The standard procedure with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and then table the application, referring it to a neighborhood advisory group (in this case the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group). The neighborhood advisory group will meet sometime within the next month or so and then convey its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Commission will then continue the public hearing and finally make its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a hearing and ultimately makes the final decision. Based on this procedure, we recommend that the application be tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. 1 -12 -89 -3- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 26, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioners Bernards, Johnson and Sander had all informed the Commission of their absence and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1989 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for the construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89001 attached). The Secretary also briefly reviewed the purpose of the application, the accident that had destroyed the previous garage, and the proposal to rebuild at a 20' setback. The Secretary told the Commission that 69th Avenue North between Shingle Creek Parkway and Brooklyn Boulevard may be expanded to four lanes in the future and would, thus, become a major thoroughfare again under the proposed definition. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she understood what was being proposed. Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of 5658 Logan Avenue North, responded in the affirmative and explained that it was not a truck that hit the garage, but a trailer that had no safety chain. She also stated that she would keep the 20' setback as proposed because it would allow her to park a car between the sidewalk along 57th and her new garage. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89001, on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the ordinance standards for variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in uestion ' but are common to other q residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. 1 -26 -89 -1- r ,A C) Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson then inquired of the Commission as to whether they recommend the ordinance amendment drafted by staff. Commissioner Malecki asked whether she understood correctly that, if 69th Avenue North becomes a four lane street, it would become a major thoroughfare again. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, adding that it would only be a major thoroughfare where widened to four lanes. He noted that there is no plan as yet to widen 69th west of Brooklyn Boulevard where it is a county road. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDEFINING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Definition of Major Thoroughfares as all four lane streets and roads. Votingin favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval by the City of Brooklyn Center of the land bordering the freeway, generally south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commissionr Information Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary added that he would like the Commission to review the ordinance language amending the uses permitted in the I -1 zone. He noted that the language in the ordinance draft would eliminate all C2 uses except service /office uses from the I -1 zone. He reviewed with the Commission some of the C2 uses that would be eliminated, including retail sales, restaurants, and some service uses. He stated that the Commission should take a close look at what would be taken out of the I -1 zone. He stated that the initial concern was to prevent fast food restaurants and budget motels at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that he recommended that the Commission not go as far as the draft ordinance, but rather consider allowing the permitted C2 uses in the I -1 zone, while excluding the special uses such as fast food restaurants and transient lodging. In response to a question from Chairman Nelson as to the vacant parcels involved, the Secretary showed the Commission a map of the commercial and industrial park and pointed out existing vacant parcels in the I -1 zone and the parcels that would be rezoned under the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the proposed ordinance covers the things that he would not like to see in the I -1 zone, including retail centers. He stated that he did not think a restaurant would go on the I -1 zoned land remaining. Chairman Nelson asked whether the ordinance would eliminate a dining facility. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that he would not recommend going that far. He stated that he would also allow retail uses in the I -1 zone. He noted that there is some retail that would still be allowed as an accessory use to manufacturing, and wholesale, etc. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could restrict the type of retail uses that would go into the I -1 zone. He stated that he did not want to see a strip shopping center built in the I -1 zone. The Secretary stated that the Commission could look at ordinance language in 0 1 -26 -89 -2- 5 restricting retail establishments in the I -1 zone. He stated that some retail uses have been allowed, such as Schmitt Music and the former Carriage House use west of Shingle Creek. He admitted that allowing retail uses in the I -1 zone could open up the possibility of a strip shopping center, but he doubted that such a use would be proposed. Commissioner Ainas acknowledged that a strip shopping center was not expected, but he would still like to prevent it. Mr. Al Beisner, the representative of Richardson and Sons, the owner of much of the vacant land left north of the freeway, commented on the ordinance amendment changes. Chairman Nelson asked about the possibility of restaurants at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Beisner stated that he had talked to representatives of a couple of restaurants interested in locating at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary briefly reviewed the areas proposed for rezoning to C2 and asked Mr. Beisner to comment on the reality and potential for the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner stated that he had contacts with a company that wanted to put a furniture showroom similar to Schmitt Music west of the Schmitt Music site. He also stated that a restaurant could be proposed at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the area at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is a very popular corner and will be in the future. He predicted that the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard would probably be demolished and redeveloped in the next five years or so. He stated that he understood the aim of the ordinance amendment, but would still like to allow restaurants in the I -1 zone. Commissioner Malecki stated that it sounded as if the vision Mr. Beisner had of the land along Freeway Boulevard involved more commercial than industrial uses. Mr. Beisner stated that that could be what works out. He stated, that because of the first ring suburb location of the industrial park, the City would not see much warehousing proposed in this area, but would see more service - oriented uses. He stated that he did not want to see the City zone out future possibilities for the industrial park. Commissioner Ainas asked whether Mr. Beisner foresaw a strip shopping center in the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner answered in the negative, but stated that a retail showroom /warehouse type use, similar to Schmitt Music might be proposed. The Secretary pointed out that what spurred the rezoning proposal was interest on the part of fast food restaurants and budget motels to locate at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that staff did not believe such uses would reflect well on the industrial park and the Planning Commission and City Council had concurred with that judgement. He went on to explain that the uses south of Freeway Boulevard were basically commercial in nature even though they were located in the industrial park zoning district. He stated that staff had become concerned that the City would be unable to defend in court a denial of a special use permit for a fast food restaurant and a budget motel since similar uses had been allowed in the area south of Freeway Boulevard. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could distinguish between a large and a small restaurant in its use regulations. The Secretary stated that the City already distinguishes between convenience food restaurants and other eating establishments. He also pointed out that a liquor license requires a restaurant to have at least 150 dining seats. Commissioner Malecki asked whether Schmitt Music wouldn't fit under the category of retail sales as an accessory use to wholesale and warehousing uses. The Secretary stated that it possibly could, but that that building was originally an appliance showroom and warehouse for Kennedy and Cohen. Commissioner Malecki noted that there had been educational uses in the I -1 zone such as a dance studio. The Secretary also pointed out some other uses that had been allowed, including gymnasiums. 1 - -89 -3- r Mr. Beisner stated that he was concerned that the City not send the message that some good things for the industrial park would be kept out. The Secretary suggested that the application could be tabled until the next study meeting when a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be brought back for the Commission's consideration. He added that, in the interim, staff could get further input on potential uses from Mr. Beisner. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone else wished to comment on the proposed rezoning. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to table the application and continue the public hearing until the next study meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89003 AND CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003 - City of Brooklyn Center ) Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Ainas, to table Application No. 89003 and continue the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson added that he would like to see language that would allow an upscale type restaurant in the I -1 zone, but definitely not a fast food restaurant. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Residential Facilities The Secretary then introduced the topic of how to regulate community based residential facilities within the City. He pointed out that the City has retained Donn Wiski as a consultant to help the City develop regulations governing community based residential facilities. He noted also that the City has retained Peter Patchin to study property value changes that occur due to the location of group homes in residential neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the preliminary results of Mr. Patchin Is study do not appear to support the contention that property values decline when a group home is located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donn Wiski, of Resolution, Inc., then distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a preliminary report entitled Community Based Residential Facilities Regulatory Framework Evaluation. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission some of the graphs and tables in the report. Mr. Wiski stated that one key term used in zoning regulations is the residential unit and how that unit is defined. Mr. Wiski stated that, many years ago, cities had a mixture of land uses within a given district. He stated that zoning regulations for some time then sought to separate uses into homogeneous districts, but that now regulations were moving back in the direction of allowing some mixture of uses within districts. He cited Riverplace as an example of a mixed use development. He added that court decisions have been moving toward a more liberal definition of the family unit to include group occupancies as well as family occupancies. Mr. Wiski pointed out that there has been a decline in state hospital occupancy over the last 30 years. He stated that the trend toward deinstitutionialization has been matched by more people coming from single family homes into supervised living facilities. He informed the Commission that there are far more offenders living in supervised living arrangements than are actually confined in prisons or.jails. Mr. 1 -26 -89 -4- Wiski told the Commission that the City cannot discriminate in deciding who can live where. He reviewed with the Commission a table which summarized the types of community based residential facilities that operate under various state rules. He stated that the task of the Commission is to develop a land use regulation to overlay these operational rules governing residential facilities. He stated one potential area of regulation would be the size of the facility. He pointed out that supervised living facilities P P g ilities tend to be smaller in number of clients than those where total care is offered, such as nursing homes, which tend to be large institutions. Mr. Wiski reviewed various ways to distinguish facilities, among them: living arrangement, living support, support type and facility size or level of activity. He suggested that it should be possible to distinguish between independent living facilities and service dependent living facilities. He added that regulations should cover what is permitted in various districts and number of persons per housing unit. Mr. Wiski then reviewed various implementation options, including: a) do nothing b) comply with State preemption c) revise definitions of family and supportive housing, and d) adopt regulations including: permitted uses with conditions, special uses with special conditions, and a separate special use permit process. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission policy considerations dealing with group homes, including district uses, new districts, and regulations or conditions governing group homes. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wiski whether his task was to help the City devise regulations to deal with community based residential facilities. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and stated that it was important for the City to have a policy and regulations in place before proposals for group homes come forth. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there were other communities that have such policies. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative, mentioning Plymouth and Eden Prairie among other cities that have dealt with the issue. He stated that each community has to look at the issue and devise a policy for itself. The Secretary explained that the City had contracted for a broader based study than just dealing with the Bill Kelly House. He stated that there were concerns regarding property values and safety impacts of community based residential facilities. He added that the City can only regulate land use aspects of community based residential facilities, not operational considerations. He stated that community based residential facilities will be here, whether we like them or not. He stated that legal decisions have been laid down protecting the rights of facility residents to locate in residential zoning districts and limiting the scope of local regulation. He explained that Mr. Wiski is laying out possibilities that the City can have for regulating such fa ' g g cilities but that the State has reem t ed some of th P A e decisions. Mr. Wiski recommended that the regulations set conditions for community based residential facilities and, if they are met, such facilities should be allowed. Chairman Nelson concluded that the Commission is being told that it cannot say no and get away with it. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and reiterated that cities cannot discriminate on the basis of who can live where. The Secretary commented that one option would be to allow group homes as a permitted use with limited occupancies consistent with State law and not have any special use category. He asked whether the special use process has helped or served any purpose in resolving differences between group home advocates and neighborhood residence. He noted that, in the case of the Bill Kelly House, attitudes have not changed as a result of the public hearings. He went on to explain that the moratorium imposed on 1 -26 -89 -5- group homes was to allow time for a study of possible land use regulations governing group homes. He added that the City cannot deny a facility with 7 to 16 clients in a multiple family zone, since State law mandates that such facilities are permitted uses in multiple family zoning districts. Mr. Wiski commented that, when the State preempted zoning authority on facilities with six or fewer clients, it quieted down the neighborhoods, since there were no public hearings and no debate on whether such a facility could be located in a residential neighborhood. He added, however, that there should be limits as to what can be allowed in both single family and multiple family districts. The Secretary informed the Commission that he has had contacts with people in the neighborhood group (near the Bill Kelly House) and with a legal representative of the Bill Kelly House. He stated that he would expect people to show up at future meetings where these regulations will be discussed. He concluded by stating that the issue before the Commission is how to regulate community based residential facilities generally, not just the Bill Kelly House. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Chairman 1 -26 -89 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting with direction to staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining "major thoroughfares." We have prepared an amendment which would define major thoroughfares as all four lane highways, roads, and streets in the City. A listing of such thoroughfares include the following: - Interstate 94 - Highway 100 - Highway 252 - County Road 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) - County Road 10 (also Bass Lake Road - Shingle Creek Parkway - Freeway Boulevard (from Xerxes Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North) -John Martin Drive - Summit Drive - Xerxes Avenue North from Highway 100 to just south of 59th Avenue and from 194 to Shingle Creek Parkway. Humboldt Avenue North from 194 to 69th Avenue North. -Earle Brown Drive from John Martin Drive to Summit Drive. -57th Avenue North from Logan AVenue North to Highway 100. The major thoroughfares newly defined as such under the ordinance amendment are: John Martin Drive, Summit Drive, and Earle Brown Drive from John Martin Drive to Summit Drive. The existing major thoroughfares which would be deleted under the new definition are: - France Avenue North from Highway 100 to 50th Avenue North - County Road 57 from Logan to Humboldt and Humboldt from 57th to 53rd. -69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to the west City limits. - Humboldt Avenue North from 69th to 70th Avenue North. Most of the nonconforming structures along existing major thoroughfares are along County Road 57, Bass Lake Road (west of Brooklyn Boulevard), 69th west of Shingle Creek Parkway (including County Road 130), and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road would continue to be major thoroughfares under the proposed ordinance amendment. There are also plans in the works for widening 69th Avenue North, possibly to four lanes, but it is expected that a number of nonconforming houses would be removed if that project goes forward. The addition of Summit Drive to the list of major thoroughfares would make Brookview Plaza shopping center nonconforming as to setback (It is set back 35` from Summit). No other nonconformities would result. While the proposed ordinance amendment does not eliminate all nonconformi ties, it does eliminate far more than it creates. We believe relating setback to street width is an appropriate way of protecting public health and safety. 1 -26 -89 _�_ Application No. 89001 continued Maps are attached showing existing and proposed major thoroughfares and specifically those thoroughfares added and deleted by the proposed ordinance amendment. We continue to recommend denial of the requested variance on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1 -26 -89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89003 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Generally.between 194 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to Days Inn and between I94 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. Request: Rezoning The City requests that the land bordering on the freeway (north and south) south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive be rezoned from I1 ( Industrial Park) to C2 (General Commerce). The land in question is partially vacant and partially developed. It includes the Holiday Inn, La Casita Restaurant, Econolodge (formerly Thrifty Scot), Budgetel, and Earle Brown Bowl north of the freeway. South of the freeway it includes Brookdale Corporate Centers I, II and III, the Earle Brown Farm, and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Many adjacent vacant parcels are also included. Please refer to the attached area map for a designation of the properties included in this rezoning proposal. Background The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire on the part of the City to make the I -1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for office, warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses, and wholesale trade. Proposed along with the rezoning is an ordinance amendment that would eliminate from the I -1 zone certain special uses allowed in the C2 zoning district, including transient lodging, convenience food restaurants, bowling alleys, movie theatres, gymnasiums, eating establishments offering live entertainment, etc. Many permitted uses in the C2 zoning district, including retail sales and eating establishments not offering live entertainment would continue to be allowed by special use permit. The Commission may wish to recommend eliminating these uses as well. To do so would make Schmitt Music nonconforming (though perhaps their sales could be compreheded as accessory to a wholesale or warehouse function). Nevertheless, we would not favor the development of a strip shopping center at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. To prevent that would require eliminating ,most retail sales from the I -1 zoning district or rezoning that area to perhaps CIA, allowing only service /office uses with no height limitation. The City staff have received, over the past few years, a number of inquiries regarding the land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Among them have been inquiries into the possibility of developing the area for fast -food restaurants and /or budget motels. We believe the parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is prime land and that its development will reflect favorably or unfavorably on the industrial park and, to some extent, on the City itself. We do not believe that development of a fast -food restaurant and /or a budget motel would be appropriate for this key parcel. However, they would be allowed by special use permit under the current ordinance A c _ concept p .plan for a high-rise office buildin g was also submitted approximately two years ago, but has gone nowhere due to the excess of such space in the northern suburbs at this time. Nevertheless, we believe such a development would be more appropriate in that location. The ordinace amedment proposed would continue to allow office uses in the I -1 zone by special use permit. Simply eliminating certain commercial uses from the I -I zone would result in many uses between 194 and Freeway Boulevard, and the transient lodging proposed for the Earle Brown Farm, becoming nonconforming uses. This is certainly not a desirable 1 -26 -89 _1_ Application No. 89003 continued result. The alternative is to rezone most of the I -1 land south of Freeway Boulevard to C2, recognizing the commercial nature of the development in this area and allowing it to continue as conforming. We propose that the City do the latter and, thus, this application is put forward for consideration. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The effect of the rezoning and ordinance amendment is to reduce the overlap between the I -1 and C2 districts and to explicitly plan for commercial rather than industrial development on the land near the freeway. The proposed rezoning ratifies a trend which has been prevalent in the area near the freeway and limits the uses which may be developed in the industrial park. The resulting benefit is that commercial uses will be allowed to locate near the freeway, while the industrial park will be reserved for industrial and office uses. We believe there is benefit to this action because it will prevent or reduce the commercialization of the industrial park and will preserve it as a place for employment rather than a place for trade and commerce. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? South of the freeway, the zoning district abutting the existing I -1 zone is the C2 zoning district; so, of course, the new C2 zoning designation will be compatible. North of the freeway, the new C2 district will abut the I -1 zoning district. While the proposed ordinance amendment will create a greater distinction between the two zones, we certainly do not believe these zones are incompatible. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed.zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? We believe they can. The area in question abuts the freeway and has almost no residential abutment. There need be no extensive buffers which might compromise the buildability of certain parcels. Nor are there any limitations such as gas stations not abutting Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? One major physical change has been the redesign of the Highway 100/194 interchange eliminating some movements and the opening up of the Shingle Creek Parkway /194 interchange. These roadway modifications have brought much more traffic to Shingle Creek Parkway, especially south of the freeway where it is the most direct route to Brookdale. The increased traffic at this interchange has tended to boost 1-26 -89 -2- Application No. 89003 continued commercial demand for the area and has led to the construction of two motels and a restaurant north of the freeway and three major office buildings south of the freeway. As to zoning changes, there have been other rezonings of land south of the freeway from I -1 to C2. Apparently, after the adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most of the land between County Road 10 and I94 was zoned I -1. As the system of roadways was completed in the late 60's and early 70's, development proposals for commercial use were approved with rezoning of land to C2, ultimately to its present configuration. Prior to 1973, C2 uses were not allowed in the I -1 zone. Then, in 1973, an ordinance amendment was adopted allowing certain C2 uses by special use permit. Later, more C2 uses were allowed as designated in the present ordinance. One rationale behind the amendment was to give the City more discretion in approving commercial uses near the freeway. The I -1 zoning was, thus, retained and special use permits were granted for the commercial uses north of the freeway and the office buildings south of the freeway. The rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment before the Commission represent a change in strategy. We no longer have confidence that certain C2 uses can be denied, even though they are special uses in the I -1 district. In effect, we are saying that the trend of commercialization near the freeway should be ratified by rezoning where it has already occurred, but should be prevented - by ordinance amendment - from further infiltrating the industrial park. The Shingle Creek Parkway freeway interchange has made the land close to the freeway too valuable for traditional industrial development. Since I -1 uses are not likely to be built on the land in question, and since denial of special uses is at least difficult, we recommend the proposed rezoning and ordinance amendment as the best strategy for controlling development in the future. (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The public purpose of the rezoning is to more clearly define both in terms of real estate and ordinance regulations the location and content of the industrial park. To do that, it is necessary to place freeway- oriented commercial development in the commercial district - C2, and tighten up the allowable uses in the I -1 zone. This action will, we hope, preserve the character of the industrial park, while allowing commercial uses to locate on the most valuable land next to the freeway. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes. All the properties in question are of adequate size for commercial development and face no extraordinary buffer or use limitations because of residential abutment. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? There has never been a formal proposal for an industrial use on the parcels contained 1 -26 -89 _3_ Application No. 89003 continued in the rezoning proposal. There are existing commercial uses and office buildings which have been approved by special use permit in the I -1 zone. We would expect that even if the I -1 zoning remained, development proposals would likely be for commercial rather than industrial uses. The topography of the land in question is suitable for either use. The recent replat of the land south of Freeway Boulevard and east and south of the Earle Brown Bowl has created a number of smaller parcels most likely for development of small commercial establishments, not large speculative industrial buildings which characterize the industrial park. The primary factor of unsuitability is location. Because of their proximity to the freeway and the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange, the parcels to be rezoned are more suitable for commercial development with freeway visibility. Such uses are presently allowed in the I -1 zone, but will not be in the future if the proposed ordinance amendment is adopted. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The land covered by the rezoning is contained in areas 6a and 11 of the Land Use Revisions Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan (attached). Area 6a covers most of the parcels north of the freeway. The recommendation for 6a is "light industrial." The proposed zoning and a number of existing land uses in the area are clearly not light industrial, though the zoning has been for light industrial (and by special use permit, commercial uses). A Comprehensive Plan amendment may be warranted, creating a separate area for commercial development north of the freeway. Area 11, south of the freeway, was the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1986 in which the recommendation for the area was changed from service /office to "Mixed Use Development (including High Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)." The proposed C2 zoning is certainly consistent with this Plan recommendation. As to to the lack of developable land in the C2 zoning district, there is vacant C2 zoned land near 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 in the northeast neighborhood. However, with the upcoming construction of the City County Credit Union, there is no more vacant C2 land left in the vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm. As to the best interests of the community, we would argue that preserving the industrial park as a place of employment and keeping commercial uses in areas for the most part south of Freeway Boulevard is in the best interests of the community. The present zoning designation and use restrictions do not, we feel, adequately protect against the "commercialization" of the industrial park. We believe such commercialization is detrimental to the industrial parkin terms of its character, aesthetics, traffic control and parcelization. Reducing the options for development in the I -1 zone is the only way of distinguishing clearly between the I -1 and C2 zoning districts and limiting commercialization to appropriate locations. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is not an owner- initiated rezoning. The effect of the rezoning will be to make some commercial uses which are now special uses, permitted uses. At the same time, 1 -26 -89 -4- Application No. 89003 continued industrial uses will be prohibited. We believe the net effect for the property owners will be somewhat positive, but not really to the detriment of the community. It seems clear from past history that the development of the subject property would in all likelihood be commercial even under the I -1 zoning. The proposed rezoning recognizes this reality and zones for it openly. Procedure Normally, rezoning applications are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. However, there is no neighborhood advisory group for the commercial and industrial park in the center of town. The Planning Commission itself serves that function. A public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting and notices have been sent. The Commission should open the public hearing and take whatever comments are offered. The Commission may certainly table the application if it wishes to and /or direct staff to prepare a resolution concerning the matter. We recommend that any favorable action on the rezoning be accompanied by action on the draft ordinance amendment also before the Commission. 1 -26 -89 -5- CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN Council Meeting Cate 2/ Agenda Item Number qez, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application #89001. Submitted by Gorco Construction. DEPT. APPROVA Signature - title Director of Panning and Tnspection * * * * * * * * *r * * * * * * * * * *s * * ** *,taut * * * *,t,r•,t * int * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Planning Commission Application #89001 is submitted by Gorco Construction on behalf of Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of the property at 56 8 Logan P 5 Avenue North. The he application involves a request for a variance from the zoning ordinance provision • which requires a 50 foot building setback for all structures on lots abutting streets which are defined as major thoroughfares. Mrs. Anderson's garage was accidentially damaged when a trailer struck it. The damage was extensive enough to require the garage to be totally demolished. She wishes to replace the garage at a 20 foot setback rather than the 50 foot setback requirement contained in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission first considered this application on January 12, 1989 (see Planning Commission minutes and information sheet attached) at which time the application was tabled and the staff was directed to prepare a draft ordinance amendment re- defining major thoroughfares. The matter was again considered by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1989 (see minutes and information sheet attached) at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the standards for a variance were not met, sighting 3 specific reasons (see page 1 & 2 of the Commission's 1/26/89 minutes). The Commission also recommended approval of an ordinance amendment that would re- define major thoroughfares to include all highways, roads and streets of 4 lanes or more in width. County Road 57, east of Logan Avenue, is not 4 lanes and, therefore, with the ordinance amendment the garage could be rebuilt with a setback less than the 50 feet required by the current ordinance. In fact, the ordinance amendment, would allow a minimum setback of 15 feet, although Mrs. Anderson proposed to have a 20 foot setback for the garage. Since the time of the Planning Commission's recommendation, I have had the opportunity to discuss the effect of the ordinance with the Director of Public Works • who has expressed concern with eliminating the major thoroughfare designation for streets that carry high traffic volumes and might well. be widened in the future to 4 lanes or more. He has suggested that we look again more carefully at the major thoroughfare designations, particularly 69th Avenue North, west of Shingle Creek Parkway and also 57th Avenue North, east of Logan Avenue. Page 2 Planning Commission Application #89001 continued • The staff has also discussed further the pending application and offer for the City Council's consideration the fact that the reasons for the 50 foot, or extraordinary, setback along major thoroughfares g � are to mitigate the affects of noise odor vibration, fumes, etc. associated with major thoroughfare traffic. These things, for all practical purposes, do not have an adverse effect on accessory buildings, such as in the case presented by this application. A prinicipal structure, such as Mrs. Anderson's home, is affected by noise, odor, vibration, fumes etc. We, therefore, recommend as a way of responding to the application, that the City Council consider amending the ordinance by exempting accessory structures in any yards from the requirement of the major thoroughfare setback. Such an ordinance amendment has been drafted and is recommended for first reading. The staff will continue to study the major thoroughfare designations and definitions, in light of potential 4 lane streets and make various recommendations for change to the City Council in the near future. Also it is recommended that the City Council deny the variance requested under application #89001 on the three grounds (a -c) recommended for denial which can be found on pages 1 & 2 of the Planning Commissions' January 26, 1989 minutes. • I MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 12, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1988 Planning C6= ssion was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson and Ellamae Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1988 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki Bernards Johnson o nson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. ADJOURN 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the 1988 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to existing Commissioners Wallace Bernards and Lowell Ainas and to new Commissioner Kristen Mann. CALL TO ORDER 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Nelson then called to order the 1989 Planning Commission. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. ELECTION OF 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Commissioner Bernards nominated and Commissioner Johnson seconded the nomination of Commissioner Molly Malecki to be the 1989 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Chairman Nelson asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. Voting in favor of Commissioner Molly Malecki for 19$9 Planning ommission Chairman rman Pro tern were: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Commissioner Malecki was elected 1989 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. APPLICATION NO. $9001 (Gorco Construction) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary stated also that the 50 setback requirement eQ from major thoroughfares probably was adopted in 1968 with a comprehensive amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 1-1249 -1- Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a sidewalk along the south side of 57th Avenue North. she Planner responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked whether the setback would be calculated from the curb line. The Secretary responded in the negative and explained that the setback was calculated from the right -of -way line, or property line, along the south side of the 57th Avenue North right -of -way. He explained there is a boulevard of approximately 15'. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the house met the 50' setback requirement. The Secretary responded in the negative. He calculated from the site plan submitted that the setback was apparently about 35 feet. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the rationale for the 50' setback. The Secretary answered that it was to set buildings back and protect from noise, odor, vibration and provide some visual relief. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the 50' setback would not allow greater safety in getting out of the driveway. The Secretary answered that it would also have that effect. Commissioner Johnson asked whether setbacks on major thoroughfares cover most of the nonconformities in the City. The Secretary answered that many of the structural nonconformities are along major thoroughfares. He pointed out that there are many nonconforming homes and garages along 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as along County Road 57. Commissioner Malecki stated that she did not consider Humboldt Avenue North and 69th Avenue North to be in the same category. The Secretary answered that 69th Avenue North west of West River Road was once a County road which was vacated by the County east of Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that there are plans to upgrade 69th Avenue North, west of Shingle Creek Parkway, possibly to a four -lane road. Commissioner Malecki asked whether 69th west of Shingle Creek Parkway would still be _ a major thoroughfare if the ordinance were amended to define major thoroughfares as four -lane streets and roads. The Secretary responded in the negative. He added, however, that 69th could be specifically included in the definition or that roadway improvements in the future might make 69th a four -lane street and thus, a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the applicant would be able to rebuild on the existing slab. The Secretary answered that the garage was more than 50% destroyed and that if it were less than 50% destroyed, the applicant could have rebuilt at the existing 12' setback. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of the property at 5658 Logan Avenue North, told the Planning Commission that there was no way that she could keep up a driveway 50' long. She added that the greater setback would take out her garden and that she would probably have to sell the house because she would Int be able to keep it up. She also stated that her neighbor is a widow as well as she and that they watch each other's property. She stated that this would be impossible if the garage were placed 50' back from the right -of -way line. She concluded her remarks by again stating that she could not take care of such a large driveway. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89001) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Swanke of 5659 Knox Avenue North (the house directly east of the Anderson residence) stated that the garage, if placed 50' back from 57th, would shade her garden. She added that she would not be able to keep an eye on her neighbor's house nor her neighbor on her house. She stated that since both Mrs. Anderson and she were widows, it was vital to them that they be able to see each other's back yard and house. Chairman Nelson asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the application, hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 1 -12 -89 -2- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on Application No. 89001. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning ommission fo lic g r their preference on the application. ation. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that the Commission should consider an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares. He ,stated that nonconforming structures will be with the City for a long time and it may be better to resolve these nonconformities now. He suggested that the Commission perhaps discuss an ordinance amendment at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was also in favor of an ordinance amendment. He recommended that the Commission look at areas with the most nonconformities and eliminate those nonconformities by an ordinance amendment. The Secretary asked Commissioner Johnson whether he meant to amend the ordinance so that Brooklyn Boulevard would also not be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson responded in the negative and added that 57th west of Logan should continue to be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson asked where most of the nonconforming structures are located. The Planner answered that most of the nonconformities are along County Road 57, along 69th Avenue North, and along Bass Lake Road. He added that there are few, if any, nonconformities along Xerxes Avenue North or along Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 20' setback as proposed would be okay. The Secretary answered that, if 57th in this area were no longer a major thoroughfare, the normal ordinance setback requirement would be only 15', since it is a lot of record prior to December 1957. He added that the applicant would probably continue with a 20' setback so that a car could be parked between the sidewalk and the new garage. The Secretary asked Mrs. Anderson if that was the case. Mrs. Anderson responded in the affirmative, stating that she did want to be able to park a car in front of the garage. The Secretary stated that the Commission could table the application and direct staff to bring back language for an ordinance amendment for the next meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89001 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AME11D� 1ENT — — Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89001 and direct to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares in the Zoning Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki,Bernards, Ainas, J none. The motion passed. ohnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then intrcduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single - family homes to the south from R5 (Multiple family) to C1 (Service /Office). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary added that restrictive covenants are private and are not the responsibility of the City to enforce or necessarily abide by in its zoning of property. The Secretary also added that the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting would be open and less formal. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the rezoning application had been initiated now because of the renewal of the covenant coming at about this time. The Secretary answered that last summer the City Council considered acquisition of lots along 1 -12 -89 _�_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Company, Inc. Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance to allow construction of a garage 20' from the 57th Avenue North right -of -way instead of 50' as required of all structures on lots abutting major thoroughfares. Fifty- seventh Avenue North is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is also County Road 57 and all county roads are defined as major thoroughfares in Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north by_,57th Avenue North, on the east and south by single - family homes, and on the west by Logan Avenue North. Gorco is submitting the application on behalf of the owner, Mrs. Lois Anderson. All variances from the Zoning Ordinance must meet the Standards for a Variance set forth in Section 35 -240 (attached). Briefly stated the four standards are: (a) a particular hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience would result if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; (b) the circumstances are unique to the parcel of land and are not common enerall to other ed hardship g Y property in the zoning district; (c) the alle g p is related to the requirements of the ordinance and has not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel; and (d) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Mr. James Coplin of Gorco Construction has submitted a letter (attached) arguing in favor of the proposed variance. Mr. Coplin first explains that Mrs. Anderson's detached garage was destroyed in a car accident and was demolished under the City's directive. The garage slab is about 12' back from the north property line. Hr. Coplin acknowledges that 12' is too close, but adds that a 50' setback for the garage would create hardships for Mrs. Anderson. One hardship identified is the lengthening f the driveway. It g will cost more e and will require more effort to clear in the wintertime. (Mrs. Anderson is elderly and lives alone). Also, it will reduce the enjoyment of her rear yard. Mr. Coplin also notes that setting the new garage back 50' would place it considerably back from the neighboring garage to the east. That garage is approx_mately 20' from the right - of -way line of 57th Avenue North. Placing the garage back 20' would put the buildings in line and would allow for off - street parking in front of the proposed garage. Staff do not regard the difficulties cited by Mr. Coplin to be "hardships" as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. They are certainly inconveniences, but the size, shape, topography and location of Mrs. Anderson's lot do not prevent her from having a sizable garage on her property. The driveway, while long for a corner lot, is not particularly long when composed with other driveways for detached garages which are generally set back further than the dwelling on interior lots. Regarding the other Standards for a Variance: the circumstances of this lot are not at all unique. There are many corner lots abutting major thoroughfares in the City that are 75' in width and have nonconforming structures located on them. The goal of the Zoning Ordinance is to gradually eliminate nonconforming structures by applying the current ordinance requirements equirements 4rhen nonconforming structures are destroyed. Regarding standard (c), we would acknowledge that inconvenience of 1 -12 -69 _1_ Application No. 89001 continued placing a new arage b 1 g o back 50 from 57,,h Avenue North is a result of the new r ( elative to the old garage and the lot) requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for a 50' setback and has not been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel. As to the public welfare and potential injury to other property, the proposed garage would probably not diminish property values, but would undercut the major thoroughfare setback. Indeed, if this variance request is granted, there will be almost no way of denying similar variance requests in numerous cases around the City, effectively repealing the major thoroughfare ordinance. If the Commission is disposed to grant some relief to Mrs. Anderson (and to the dozens of other nonconforming structures adjacent to County Road 57), it could recommend a change in the Zoning Ordinance definition of a major thoroughfare by deleting County Road 57 and possibly other roads from the definition which have numerous nonconforming structures adjacent to them. The majority of nonconforming structures exist adjacent to 69th Avenue North west of Shingle Creek Parkway, on County Road 57 (which follows 57th from Highway 100 to Humboldt and then south on Humboldt to 53rd) and along Bass Lake Road west of Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 10). One possible amendment would be to define major thoroughfares as all four - lane streets and roads in the City. This would keep the major thoroughfare designations for the busiest streets and roads (and would add Summit Drive, John Martin Drive, and a small section of Earle Brown Drive), but would eliminate dozens of nonconformities along 69th Avenue North and along 57th Avenue North and Humboldt Avenue North. Many structures along Bass Lake Road, west of Brooklyn Boulevard would remain nonconforming as Bass Lake Road is a four -lane road. We recommend that the Planning Commission seriously consider such an amendment. Such an amendment would affect many nonconforming single-family g g family homes and would relate building setback with right -of -way width. A traffic count map is attached for the Commission's review, but we do not recommend that traffic count be the sole determinant of what is defined as a major thoroughfare since these counts are subject to change. If 57th east of Logan were no longer classified as a major thoroughfare, the minimum side corner setback for Mrs. Anderson's home would be only 15'. In any event, we do recommend denial of the proposed variance on the grounds that the Standards for Variances are not met and noting the following facts: (a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. (b) The circumstances upon which the variance request is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. (c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1 -12 -89 -2- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROCKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 26, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioners Bernards, Johnson and Sander had all informed the Commission of their absence and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1989 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for the construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89001 attached). The Secretary also briefly reviewed the purpose of the application, the accident that had destroyed the previous garage, and the proposal to rebuild at a 20' setback. The Secretary told the Commission that 69th Avenue North between Shingle Creek Parkway and Brooklyn Boulevard may be expanded to four lanes in the future and would, thus, become a major thoroughfare again under the proposed definition. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she understood what was being proposed. Mrs. Lois Anderson, the owner of 5658 Logan Avenue North, responded in the affirmative and explained that it was not a truck that hit the garage, but a trailer that had no safety chain. She also stated that she would keep the 20' setback as proposed because it would allow her to park a car between the sidewalk along 57th and her new garage. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89001 (Gorco Construction) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89001, on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the ordinance standards for variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. 1 -26 -$9 -1- c) Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson then inquired of the Commission as to whether they recommend the ordinance amendment drafted by staff. Commissioner Malecki asked whether she understood correctly that, if 69th Avenue North becomes a four lane street, it would become a major thoroughfare again. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, adding that it would only be a major thoroughfare where widened to four lanes. He noted that there is no plan as yet to widen 69th west of Brooklyn Boulevard where it is a county road. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDEFINING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Definition of Major Thoroughfares as all four lane streets and roads. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval by the City of Brooklyn Center of the land bordering the freeway, generally south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commissionr Information Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary added that he would like the Commission to review the ordinance language amending the uses permitted in the I -1 zone. He noted that the language in the ordinance draft would eliminate all C2 uses except service /office uses from the I -1 zone. He reviewed with the Commission some of the C2 uses that would be eliminated, including retail sales, restaurants, and some service uses. He stated that the Commission should take a close look at what would be taken out of the I -1 zone. He stated that the initial concern was to prevent fast food restaurants and budget motels at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that he recommended that the Commission not go as far as the draft ordinance, but rather consider allowing the permitted C2 uses in the I -1 zone, while excluding the special uses such as fast food restaurants and transient lodging. In response to a question from Chairman Nelson as to the vacant parcels involved, the Secretary showed the Commission a map of the commercial and industrial park and pointed out existing vacant parcels in the I -1 zone and the parcels that would be rezoned under the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the proposed ordinance covers the things that he would not like to see in the I -1 zone, including retail centers. He stated that he did not think a restaurant would go on the I -1 zoned land remaining. Chairman Nelson asked whether the ordinance would eliminate a dining facility. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that he would not recommend going that far. He stated that he would also allow retail uses in the I -1 zone. He noted that there is some retail that would still be allowed as an accessory use to manufacturing, and wholesale, etc. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could restrict the type of retail uses that would go into the I -1 zone. He stated that he did not want to see a strip shopping center built in the I -1 zone. The Secretary stated that the Commission could look at ordinance language in 1 -26 -89 _2_ I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting with direction to staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining "major thorou hfares." g � g We have prepared an amendment which would define major thoroughfares as all four lane highways, roads, and streets in the City. A listing of such thoroughfares include the following: - Interstate 94 - Highway 100 - Highway 252 - County Road 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) - County Road 10 (also Bass Lake Road - Shingle Creek Parkway - Freeway Boulevard (from Xerxes Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North) -John Martin Drive - Summit Drive - Xerxes Avenue North from Highway 100 to just south of 59th Avenue and from I94 to Shingle Creek Parkway. - Humboldt Avenue North from I94 to 69th Avenue North. -Earle Brown Drive from John Martin Drive to Summit Drive. -57th Avenue North from Logan AVenue North to Highway 100. The major thoroughfares newly defined as such under the ordinance amendment are: John Martin in D rive, Summit Drive, and Earle Brown Drive from Summit Drive. John Martin Drive to The existing major thoroughfares which would be deleted under the new definition are: - France Avenue North from Highway 100 to 50th Avenue North - County Road 57 from Logan to Humboldt and Humboldt from 57th to 53rd. -69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to the west City limits. - Humboldt Avenue North from 69th to 70th Avenue North. Most of the nonconforming structures along existing major thoroughfares are along County Road 57, Bass Lake Road (west of Brooklyn Boulevard), 69th west of Shingle Creek Parkway (including County Road 130), and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road would continue to be major thoroughfares under the proposed ordinance amendment. There are also plans in the works for widening 69th Avenue North, possibly to four lanes, but it is expected that a number of nonconforming houses would be removed if that project goes forward. The addition of Summit Drive to the list of major thoroughfares would make Brookview Plaza shopping center nonconforming as to setback (It is set back 35' from Summit). No other nonconformities would result. While the proposed ordinance amendment does not eliminate all nonconformities, it does eliminate far more than it creates. We believe relating setback to street width is an appropriate way of protecting public health and safety. 1 -26 -89 _1_ Application No. 89001 continued Maps are attached showing existing and proposed major thoroughfares and specifically those thoroughfares added and deleted by the proposed ordinance amendment. We continue to recommend denial of the requested variance on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category f inconveniences n as discussed of a hardship lscussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1 -26 -89 _2_ l�11d =s� w EL RAN H Ems IM i dO 77.84' i t 8 20' --- Proposed n , 37 --- , ---�sc Garage ° i v H x 45' a c h z � w w z w w O rn 30' House Lot 016 Block 003 Meadowlark Gardens Addition Scale: 1" = 20' 77.58' iaaN LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 20'x 20' Proposed Garage Placement Drawn For: Mrs. Lois Anderson 5658 - Logan Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 560 -6249 By: Gorco Construction Company, 10700 Hwy 1# 55, Suite # 280 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 542 -9626 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1989 at P.M. at the City Iial.l, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, regarding setbacks for major thoroughfares. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons :,re available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 561- 5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDINC CHAPTER ,5 OF THE CITY ORDL ANCES REGARDING f'AJOR THOROUGHFARE SETBACKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLO6vS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section ?5 -400. TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUTREfVIENTS. Every use of land within the City of Brooklyn Center shall conform to the following minimum requirements which are applicable to the Land Use District in which such use is contemplated. (Note: Refer to applicable footnotes) Yard Setbacks (10) (12) 10. Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35 -900 shall in all cases be at least 50 feet, measured from the street right - of -way line, except for accessory structures [in rear yards] or where the property abuts a marginal access street or where_ the property abuts a noise wall or noise berm constructed by NNDOT or where the City Council finds that excess right -of -way mitigates the effects of traffic noise, dust and fumes. In such cases, the setback requirements shall be as contained in the Table of Minimum District Requirements. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this _ day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indic =ate matter to be deleted.) • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER c ouncil Meeting Date 2 /13/88 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STATUS REPORT ON HRG RECYCLING EFFORTS AND STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION DEPT. APP Owe Signature MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attache *************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The HRG has recently completed negotiations with a recycling contract vendor for providing services to Crystal, Brooklyn Center, and New Hope (HRG). The successful proposal was accepted from BFI, Inc. Three other vendors submitted proposals. One was initially rejected because the HRG did not believe they had the capacity and economic capability to serve the HRG cities. The HRG proceeded to negotiate with the remaining three vendors: BFI, Waste Management, and Super Cycle. After final review of the results of the negotiations, the BFI proposal was accepted because it represented the best cost advantage to the recycling group, and they best met all the conditions of our proposed contract. New Hope is currently proceeding to establish the starting of recycling on or about April 1 of this year. Crystal and Brooklyn Center, because of their desire to coordinate the recycling with a consortium type coordinated refuse hauling system, has been put on hold in its recycling efforts because of a lawsuit by BFI. Within the last week or so, the HRG has let a contract to purchase recycling containers and awarded that contract to Shamrock Industries. Shamrock, by contract, is required to deliver sufficient numbers of containers to allow New Hope to start their recycling program in April and the remainder of the contract is to be fulfilled by delivery within the month of May. If the judge's ruling on the case brought by BFI occurs in a timely fashion in early March, it would be possible for Brooklyn Center to proceed with a coordinated consortium refuse hauling system and recycling by approximately June or July of 1989. However, the variable in this process is whether or not the judge will give a timely decision and what type of an appeal may be taken after the judge's action. Hennepin County has an incentive program in which if a community reaches 10% recycling in 1989, it stands to receive additional "incentive" funding from the county. We've estimated that if we start our recycling program on or about the middle of 1989, we can achieve the 10% recycling level and receive full benefit of Hennepin County's incentive funding. However, if we start after that date, then we would stand to fall short of it and not take advantage of the full county funding. An additional factor the council ought to be aware of is the fact that approximately June or July of 1989, the county will be instituting an increase in the landfill dumping charges of approximately $50 per ton. This will translate into an approximate $60 per year increase in the fees paid by our residential users to our licensed refuse haulers. It would appear that these increases in costs will be passed on by our refuse haulers to their customers, and these increases could start impacting the bills of our residential users mid to late summer of 1989. This Monday evening I would like to take some • of the council's time to discuss the current status of all these events and give us an opportunity to update our two new council members on these activities. Attached please find copies of two articles from the current League of Cities magazine relating to proposed legislation on recycling. Please read the two articles carefully as they do an excellent job of framing some of the recycling issues and explaining the impacts and the contradictions in alternate • recycling philosophies and programs. The passage of a deposit for beverage containers, while on the surface well intended, could have a devastating economic impact on our proposed recycling program and the programs already working in the metro area. If such a bill is passed, we will have to totally re- examine the economics of recycling efforts in the metro area. I would like to request the council to consider directing staff to inform our legislators of our opposition to container deposit legislation and express the rationale for our opposition in the language contained in Josephine Nunn's attached article. • r � ORDINANCE NO. 89 -2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COLLECTION PRACTICES OF RUBBISH HAULERS BY PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF SPECIFIC COLLECTION ROUTES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1 . Section 8.143(2) " Routes " of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Routes Eaeh residential eelleetef shall establish with the Eity an aeeeptable sehedale aE fegalav eelleetien mays and areas in the Eity and the eelleeter- shall eemply with eueh sehedule emeept as pravided belew. The City, under the direction of the City Mana or his d esignee, shall establish speci refuse and recycling collection districts and s pecific days of collection within these districts for all licensees. The purpose of this provi is to coordinate and facilitate same d a y within s aid districts throughout the City. Said coordination is necessary to encourage citizen participation in the City's re cycling effort, to insure complianc with state m andates for solid was management as set - forth in Minn. Stat Chapter 115A and to insure complianc of the Cit contractual obligations as a member of the Hennepin Recycling Group pursuant to the Joint and Cooperative Ag reement for Solid Waste Disposal. Also, said coordination will be beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of New Hope citizens and streets limiting the number of refuse and recycling vehicles u sing said streets at a_ y one time. The following considerations will be utilized by the City Manager or his designee to establish the collection districts: a. household counts within the districts; b, compatabilit y with the licensees existing refuse collection stops to the extent p ossible; C. compatability with municipal boundaries to the exte possible; d. coordination with recycling collection to the extent possible — Section 2 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1989. Mayor Attest: City Clerk (Published in the New Hope - Golden Valley Post on the day of 1989.) Viewp oint Deposit would increase recycling of containers Rep Willard Munger, Chair, should do everything we can to reduce states that have container deposit pro - House Environment the amount of material being sent to grams indicate that all but one realized Co mmittee landfills. Container deposit would net employment gains of at least 365 reduce the amount of solid waste dis- jobs and up to 4,783 jobs. (One had no Like a majority of Minnesotans, I am posed of in Minnesota by an estimated net gain or loss in the number of jobs a proud and long -time supporter of 314,000 to 838,000 cubic yards per in the state.) Minnesota could be container deposit legislation. Although year and would save an estimated $2 expected to gain between 4,000 and public opinion polls consistently indicate million to $5.8 million a year in disposal 5,000 jobs. that most Minnesotans want beverage Fourth, container deposit would containers to carry a deposit to encour a 3 age recycling and re -use, the Minne ' �0, reduce the litter that blights our road - = ways and mars our landscape. Con - sota Legislature has ignored the _ sumers would be less likely to toss publics wishes for more than a decade cans and bottles from car windows or Placing a nickel or dime deposit on leave them at picnic sites when they beverage containers would encourage � a - � R�; would be worth cash, and for those consumers to return these containers ' entre likely to redemption centers or retailers to ;° -> that are left behind P eneurs redeem the deposit. The benefits of � would pick them up, just as they would such a system are numerous. `f:. _ �, pick up piles of nickels and dimes found First, containers would be removed lying along the sides of highways. from the solid waste stream. Minne- Despite these and other obvious ,_ sota is facing a critical shortage of benefits to the state, lawmakers in landfill space and we as state leaders, Minnesota traditionally have not voted de s, t� to support container deposit legislation 4 ' 4 because of an all-out lobbying effort League adds �,. 4 against the proposal that is waged by an unholy alliance of labor and industry. new column �� In the past, here's what has happened: Industry threatens to pull out of A new feature of Minnesota Minnesota if container deposit is Cities is Vie enacted, taki View point. This section Rep. Willard Munger ghigh- paying jobs out of will be a monthly column the state. Labor, which fears the loss addressing various topics of costs. In addition, since a growing of its members' jobs, joins hands with concern to cities. Writing th amount of solid waste is incinerated, the employers and works hard to viewpoint columns will be city or container deposit would improve the defeat the bill based upon the empty state officials, legislators, or f y efficiency of waste -to- energy facilities threat made by industry. Lawmakers others with a particular interest in by removing the glass and aluminum, of both political stripes vote against the the topic. which also can cause slag to form in bill— despite the experience of the The opinions expressed in the ;" some incinerators. other states that have had a job columns are not necessarily the Second, by ensuring a steady supply increase and despite research that indi- League's possition on the topics. of recyclable materials, container cates Minnesota, too, would experi- j The purpose of Viewpoint is to deposit would encourage the develop- ence a net gain in jobs. present both sides of the various ment of additional recycling centers, It is interesting to note that the issues. increase the rate of recycling and help same special interest groups who We welcome letters to the fought my comprehensive packaging preserve the natural resources that k editor expressing your opinion on serve as the raw materials for these and recycling legislation in 1973, first the topics addressed in the containers. of its kind in the nation, which was column. Third, container deposit would cre- challenged and carried to the Minne- ate jobs. Studies in six of the nine Please see Munger, page 12. 10 Minnesota Cities Munger continued 'Hopefully, Minnesota lawmakers sota Supreme Court, are the same eventually will listen to the majority of special interest groups still fighting their constituents who support con - deposit legislation. The packaging law tainer deposit and Minnesota will join set forth a policy of eliminating undesir- the nine other states that have experi- able packaging on a case by case basis. enced the benefits of container deposit. Again in 1977, I authored another Container deposit would reduce the solid waste bill—the ban of non - return- amount of garbage going into our land - able plastic milk containers —the first of fills. It would increase employment in its kind in the nation. The legislation Minnesota. It would preserve raw was upheld by the U.S. Supreme materials. It would reduce the litter Court. But again, this same special scattered across our land. interest group, in partnership with the My 33 years in the Legislature have nation's plastic giants, influenced the taught me that there are those who will Legislature the following session to tell us that we must sacrifice our repeal this historic and far - reaching environment to pay for economic devel- legislation. The legislation was an opment and prosperity. I have never attempt to reverse this country's subscribed to that notion. In fact, much throwaway mentality. of our state's economy is dependent There are those who cry crocodile upon our natural resources such as tears about the environmental mess we agriculture, tourism, forestry, mining have created but fight those who and manufacturing and other busi- attempt to do something about it. This nesses locate here because our strin- is the case of opponents of the deposit gent environmental standards provide legislation. for clean air and water. Throughout the debate on this issue, The Select Committee on Recycling however, public support for container and the Environment (SCORE), which deposit has remained strong and con- brought together many divergent inter - stant, thanks in large part to the hard ests to discuss ways to reduce waste work of groups like the League of and to encourage recycling, is a good Women Voters of Minnesota and oth first step toward these goals. I am ers that have been consistent in point- hopeful that Minnesota's industry, ing out the benefits of the program. labor, and Legislature will recognize Public opinion polls relfect the public's the inherent benefits of container concern for environmental protection deposit and will join with the majority and the consumers' willingness to par- of Minnesotans .who want to make ticipate individually in protection container deposit legislation a second efforts, like container deposit. step. ■ I Beverage containers male municipal recycling programs work Josephine Nunn, Member, system the counties are developing percent of the aluminum cans, for Metropolitan Council in the region; instance —at a cost of $40 a ton. • There's the danger that people will In 1988, at a cost of $10 million, we However one phrases it, coming out think they're doing enough if they recycled an additional nine percent of against deposits on beverage con- return their pop bottles and cans. our trash (over and above the 23 tainers always feels a little like attack- percent recycled in 1985). But that ing motherhood. Add to that having to same $10 million would have paid for oppose Willard Munger on an environ- mental issue, and you may sense how less than half that amount of cans and perverse this feels. I'd like the Metro- law. bottles, under the container deposit politan Council to be on Rep. Munger's Even though the containers don't side every time. a� So it's with some trepidation that I amount to much by volume, the glass try to explain why the Metropolitan bottles and aluminum cans do represent Council opposed container deposit in the most valuable items for recycling. One recycler who handles all forms of the 1988 legislative session, and still � °`� opposes it. glass he collects make up about 25 recyclables says the aluminum and Part of my trepidation also is � �� er of V q because I could easily argue the "pro" p cent his volume but 60 percent side of this issue. The reasons for �:` of his income. container deposit are pure, clean, and If a recycling firm could contract with easy to understand. The "con" side is supermarkets and process a high vol- more complicated. It has to do with ume of those profitable bottles and cans why bother dealing ith the rest g economics and waste management sys of the recyclable materials? And where information. teens, and other more - abstract does this leave our counties and cities? �'� �� To summarize, the reasons for Under the system now operating and opposing container deposit at this stage Jo Nunn expanding, cities and counties have set in our solid -waste planning are five- up curbside collection programs to fold: To start with, beverage containers meet their recycling goals. They're represent about 4.4 percent of our encouraging citizens to recycle every- • Beverage containers make up only a trash, and that includes large plastic thing possible, from newspapers and small part of our trash, so dealing soft -drink bottles that aren't being cardboard to metal cans and foil. The with them is dealing with only a small recycled because they're hard to han- region's current goal is to recycle piece of the trash problem; dle. Even if there was a 95 percent almost 40 percent of our total waste. • Collecting those containers by them- rate of redemption of these beverage Taking the relatively high- ticket selves doesn't make economic containers, it would reduce our total items out of the curbside recycling sense, because collecting them will waste by a small amount. programs removes the elements help - cost something yet will leave the bulk At the same time, collecting those ing to pay for those programs. If cities of recyclables untouched; redeemable bottles and cans would cost couldn't cash in on the glass and alumi- • Removing them from the curbside something. Under the law proposed in num, they would have to find other recycling collection programs makes the 1987 and 1988 legislative sessions, ways to pay for collecting that other 75 the rest of recycling much less prof- we estimated the costs would be $300 percent of recyclables. itable and more expensive; a ton for the recycled containers. With a container deposit law the • Container deposit is a step backward Meanwhile, we're already recycling a value of materials lost to recycling from the comprehensive recycling huge amount of those containers -85 Please see Nunn, p. 12. February 1989 11 Nunn continued programs now existing or planned in the seven - county area would be $1.5 million a year, according to council estimates. And it would cost local gov- ernments 28 percent more to do the job. More tax dollars, that is. Let's look back a few years, when hardly any recycling programs were available. At that point, I believe con- tainer deposit would have been a good first step. In fact I was an ardent supporter of container deposit legisla- tion in the past. States passing such a law years ago went on to build upon it and broaden their approach to recycling. We, however, already have the foun- dations of an advanced recycling sys- tem, a comprehensive approach. Since we need a system for ketchup bottles Y P anyway, we might as well use the same system for everything. Container deposit at this stage would be going backward. The time for that kind of "public awareness" effort is long past. It doesn't fit in with our broader approach. And if we started it now, many people might easily believe that because they took their beverage containers in, they were "recycling." So, Rep. Munger, there you have our side of the issue. I propose setting this issue aside and placing our ener- gies into tackling the bigger problem: getting manufacturers and bottlers to use only recyclable materials. How about it? ■ /l� I Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 13, 1989: BULK VENDOR Curtis Products, Inc. 2516 Dodds Ave. D & G Vending, Inc. 4313 NE Washington Street Peterson Vending 1709 Hickory Hill Sanitarian CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. � 7� t L i Sanitarian CIGARETTE American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Ave. N. Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. S. Brid eman's g 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Ave. N. {� The Gift Shop 2 2 00 Freeway Blvd. ,�/ , (,t)Qn City Clerk II}}jjff F.,j�` FOOD ESTABLISHMENT � Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean 1119 Brookdale Center Sanitarian fZ ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT t j Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Sanitarian NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala -Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 2550 Kasota Ave. Health One 2810 Co. Rd. 10 Modern Control 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Ave. S. American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Service 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6200 Penn Ave. S. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Greek Pkwy. Consumer Vending 3014 Lyndale Ave. S. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle D. L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Automotive 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Northern States Power 4501 68th Ave. N. I Service America Corporation oration P 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. MTC 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. Brookdale Ford 2550 County Road 10 Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Group Health, Inc. 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Police 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian tit PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala -Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 2550 Kasota Ave. N. Modern Control 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Ave. S. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Canteen Company 1091 Pierce Butler Route Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Ave. S. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Consumer Vending 3014 Lyndale Ave. S. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Ave. N. Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Jimmy Jingle 1304 East Lake Street Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Builders Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. Fingerhut Telemarketing 6860 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Creek Pkwy. TCR Corporation 1600 67th Ave. N. Norcroftt 229 South 4th Street Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Ave NE Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. MTC 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 E. Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Sanitarian READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Tombstone Pizza Corporation 6850 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian SIGN HANGER Schad -Tracy Signs 1654 E. Cliff Road (2 }`_i,1��{� � Building Official SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT The Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Blvd. Gift Shop, Too 1501 Freeway Blvd. Maid of Scandinavia Company 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Kay -Bee Toy & Hobby 1320 Brookdale Center Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center _f Fun Services, Inc. 3615 50th Ave. N. Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: Zs D. K. Weeks, City Clerk