The URL can be used to link to this page

10-25-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2005 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum)" Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of October 5, 2005; (2) Special City Council Worksession of October 10, 2005; (3) Special City Council Meeting of October 11, 2005; (4) Special City Council Worksession of October 11, 2005; and (5) Regular City Council Meeting of October 11, 2005 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Resolution supporting Richfield Public Schools operating levy referendums • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of contract renewal with Chief's Towing, Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue, for Public Safety towing services from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006 S.R. No. 194 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance modifying gas franchise fee on, CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within City of Richfield and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 195 Notes: 6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance modifying electric franchise fee on Northern States Power dba Xcel Energy for providing electric service within City of Richfield and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 196 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 7. Consideration of resolution regarding two-lane roundabout as preferred design for new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue and financing plan for proposed improvements Staff Report No. 197 Notes: 8. Consideration of resolution regarding two-lane roundabout as preferred design alternative at 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvements and resolution regarding preferred alignment providing certain transit enhancements for 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection project Staff Report No. 198 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and selection of one of four contract alternatives for City Hall roof replacement Staff Report No. 199 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 10. City Manager's report Notes: 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum. (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: OTFIER BIISINESS AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # 199 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, .2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the acceptance of bids for the City Hall roof replacement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and approve one of four alternatives. II. BACKGROUND At the July 26, 2005 City Council Meeting, the following four options were presented to the Council: Option 1: Continue to patch the roof as it leaks. City Hall will continue to have major failures in the roof, which may cause serious damage to the building and its contents. Current leakage in the parapet is entering the walls and causing damage around windows and in the walls that will only get worse. Option 2: The City can overlay the existing roof with a rubber membrane, which would have a life expectancy of ten years and cap the parapet with metal for an estimated cost of $200,000. Option 3: The City can fix the parapet and overlay the existing roof with a rubber membrane in sections doing the worst areas first over a period of years. The roof is divided into four separate sections. 1025CityHallroof Option 4: The City could do the original replacement budgeted in 2003 of an asphalt roof with a life expectancy of 20 plus years for an estimated cost of $350,000. Staff received direction from the Council to proceed with the design of a 10-year rubber roof to be bid with several alternates. At the August 9, 2005 Council meeting, Council approved the purchase of engineering services from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates to prepare plans and specifications for roofing improvements at City Hall. Specifications were prepared, the job was advertised and specifications were sent out to six contractors. A pre-bid meeting was held on October 6, 2005. At that meeting several of the contractors expressed concern about the difficulties of applying aself-adhered rubber roof in the late fall and winter and suggested that they might be able to give a better price at this time of year for abuilt-up asphalt roof. An addendum was prepared allowing bidders to also bid a 3-ply modified bitumen roof with a 10-year warranty and a 4-ply modified bitumen roof with a 20 year warranty. Bids were received from two contractors and the bid tab sheets and blue prints showing the areas defined as alternates are attached. Surprisingly, the 3-ply built- up asphalt roof good for 10 years was low bid and even the 4-ply built-up roof good for 20 years was less than the single-ply. rubber roof. Staff and the engineers believe this occurred because late fall installation of rubber roofs can be difficult and contractors are looking for- hot roof jobs at this time of year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A bid opening was held on October 13, 2005 for the Richfield City Hall roof replacement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The leaking roof and parapet will continue to cause more damage to the building and could cause health concerns if not replaced. C. FINANCIAL The approved 2003 Building Services budget has $300,000 on line item 7230 for building improvements and roof repairs. D. LEGAL All contracts or purchases over $50,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by public notice. • All contracts or purchases in excess of $25,000 require Council approval. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Repair the entire roof with MBR-2 (Modified Bitumen Roof - 4-ply) for a total cost of $225,006. • Repair the leaking parapet (Alt. #1) and the two worst roof sections which contain wet insulation (Alt. #2 and Alt. #5) with MBR-2 and repair bad scuppers and drains in those areas for a cost of $121,172. • Repair the leaking parapet (Alt. #1) and negotiate with the contractor to lower scuppers on the perimeter of the roof to reduce pooling in heavy rains at an estimated cost of $25,000. • Do nothing and take a chance that City Hall can get by with patching the roof as has been done the last few years. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes Bonestroo's bid tabulation Blue print of City Hall's roof VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None q- I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening October 13, 2005 2:00 p.m. Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement BRAA Project No. 000673-05111-0 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 29, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Mike Eastling, Public Works Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Name Berwald Roofing Co. Inc. No. St. Paul Commercial Roofing Inc. Little Canada PART 1 -LUMP SUM BASE BID $5,000.00 $11,126.00 ROOF REPLACEMENT Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with SPR-1 $224,972.00 $259,791.00 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-1 $205,311.00 $277,284.00 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-2 $220,006.00 $276,180.00 PART 2 -ALTERNATE BID ITEMS Alternate No. 1 $21,310.00 $25,266.00 Alternate No. 2 -Area 1 with SPR-1 $45,500.00 $39,049.00 Alternate No. 2 -Area 1 with MBR-1 $40,804.00 $49,312.00 Alternate No. 2-Area 1 with MBR-2 $43,978.00 $51,232.00 Alternate No. 3 -Area 2 with SPR-1 $41,500.00 $33,500.00 Alternate No. 3 -Area 2 with MBR-1 $36,978.00 $41,284.00 Alternate No. 3 -Area 2 with MBR-2 $40,093.00 $42,882.00 Alternate No. 4 -Area 3 with SPR-1 $29,200.00 $18,853.00 Alternate No. 4 -Area 3 with MBR-1 $27,461.00 $23,504.00 Alternate No. 4 -Area 3 with MBR-2 $28,518.00 $24,597.00 Alternate No. 5 -Area 4 with SPR-1 $47,200.00 $41,627.00 Alternate No. 5 -Area 4 with MBR-1 $41,969.00 $46,261.00 Alternate No. 5 -Area 4 with MBR-2 $46,084.00 $48,431.00 Alternate No. 6 -Area 5 with SPR-1 $25,300.00 $22,469.00 Alternate No. 6 -Area 5 with MBR-1 $21,668.00 $27,679.00 Alternate No. 6 -Area 5 with MBR-2 $24,490.00 $28,728.00 G-~ Name Berwald Roofing Co. Inc. No. St. Paul Commercial Roofing Inc. Little Canada Alternate No. 7 -Area 6 with SPR-1 $5,100.00 $7,734.00 Alternate No. 7 -Area 6 with MBR-1 $4,558.00 $7,807.00 Alternate No. 7 -Area 6 with MBR-2 $4,793.00 $7,974.00 Alternate No. 8 -Area 7 with SPR-1 $4,100.00 $8,340.00 Alternate No. 8 -Area 7 with MBR-1 $3,752.00 $6,979.00 Alternate No. 8 -Area 7 with MBR-2 $3,900.00 $7,066.00 Alternate No. 9 -Not Used Alternate No. 10 -Area 9 with SPR-1 $3,650.00 $5,051.00 Alternate No. 10 -Area 9 with MBR-1 $3,318.00 $5,607.00 Alternate No. 10 -Area 9 with MBR-2 $3,500.00 $5,694.00 Alternate No. 11 -Wet Insulation with SPR-1 $300.00 $1,491.00 Alternate No. 11 -Wet Insulation with MBR-1 $300.00 $1,491.00 Alternate No. 11 -Wet Insulation with MBR-2 $300.00 $1,491.00 Alternate No. 12 - Tuckpointing/Caulking $30,000.00 $35,623.00 Alternate No. 13 - Prefinished Metal Flashing in lieu of sloped mortar $3,795.00 $3,384.00 PART 3 -UNIT PRICE BID Replace Unsuitable Metal Decking $650.00 $690.00 Replace Roof Drains $1,500.00 $1,225.00 BID BOND PROVIDED PROVIDED ADDENDUM 1 & 2 PROVIDED PROVIDED The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the October 25, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ~~ Bonestroo Project Name: Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement 0 Rosene Anderlik& City Project No.: 67000-7230 BRAA File No.: 000673-05117-0 Associates - engineers&nrcnitects ~ Bid Opening: Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005, 2:00 p.m. Owner: City of Richfield Bidder No. 1 Bidder No. 2 BID TABULATION Berwald Roofing Commercial Roofing No Item Units Qty Total Total ................................................. ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGED PART 1 -LUMP SUM BASE BID: 1 Mobilization/Demobilization Cost 2 ROOF REPLACEMENT Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with SPR-1 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-1 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-2 Yes Yes Yes .................................Yes LS 1 I $ 5, 000.00 I $ 11,126.00 LS 1 $ 224,972.00 $ 259,791.00 LS 1 $ 205,311.00 $ 277;284.00 LS 1 $ 220.006.00 $ 276.180.00 TOTAL PART I -LUMP SUM BASE BID Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with SPR-1 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-1 Total Roof Replacement and Exterior Restoration with MBR-2 PART II -ALTERNATE BID ITEMS: 3 ALTERNATE NO. 1: INSTALL NEW PREFINISHED METAL COPING SYTEM WITH TREATED WOOD BLOCKING OVER EXISTING CAST CONCRETE PARAPET AT EDGE OF ROOF AS INDICATED ON DRAWING A801 AND A802 DETAILS. 4 ALTERNATE NO. 2: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 1 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATEDAN SHEETS A801 AND A802 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 229,972.00 $ 270,917.00 LS 1 $ 210,311.00 $ 288,410.00 LS 1 $ 225,006.00 $ 287,306.00 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 000673-05117-0 BT-1 Bonestroo ~ _ T Project Name: Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement Rosene 0 Anderlik & City Project No.: 67000-7230 BRAA File No.: 000673-05117-0 Associates Engineers6Architects Bid Opening: Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005, 2:00 p.m. Owner: City of Richfield Bidder No. 1 Bidder No. 2 BID TABULATION ~ Berwald Roofing. Commercial Roofing No Item Units Qty Total Total 5 ALTERNATE NO. 3: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 2 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 6 ALTERNATE N0.4: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 3 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 7 ALTERNATE NO. 5: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 4 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 8 ALTERNATE NO. 6: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 5 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 11 $ 41.500.00 11 $ 36.978.00 I $ 41 11 $ 40,093.00 I $ 42 1 ~ $ 29,200.00 ~ $ 18,853.00 1 ~ $ 27,461.00 ~ $ 23,504.00 11 $ 28.518.00 I $ 24.597.00 11 $ 47,200.00 I $ 41,627.00 11 $ 41,969.001 $ 46,261.00 11 $ 46,084.00 I $ 48,431.00 1 I $ 25,300.00 I $ 22,469.00 1- $ 21,668.001 $ 27,679.00 1 ~ $ 24,490..00 ~ $ 28,728.00 000673-05117-0 BT-2 ~ ~~ Bonestroo Project Name: Richfield City Hall Roof Re placement Rosene o Anderlik & City Project No. : 67000-7230 BRAA File No.: 000673-05117-0 Associ2tes Engineers&Architects Bid Opening: Thursday, Oct. 13', 2005, 2:00 p.m. Owner: City of Richfield Bidder No. 1 Bid der No. 2 BID TABULATION Berwald Roofing Commercial Roofing No Item Units Qty Total Total 9 ALTERNATE NO. 7: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 6 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 5,100.00 $ 7,734.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 4,558.00 $ 7,807.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 4,793.00 $ 7,974.00 10 ALTERNATE NO. 8: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 7 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 4,100.00 $ 8,340.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 3,752.00 $ 6,979.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 075501N LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 3,900.00 $ 7,066.00 11 ALTERNATE NO. 9: N/A 12 ALTERNATE NO. 10: REPLACE THAT PORTION OF ROOF DESIGNATED AREA 9 ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS' A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 3,650.00 $ 5,051.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 3,318.00 $ 5,607.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 5,694.00 000673-05117-0 BT-3 ~~ Bonestroo Project Name: Richfield City Hall Roof Replacement o Rosene Anderlik & City Project No.: 67000-7230 BRAA File No.: 000673-05117-0 Associates Engineers6Architects Bid Opening: Thursda y, Oct. 13, 2005, 2:00 p.m. Owner: City of Richfield Bidder No. 1 Bidder No. 2 BID TABULATION Berwald Roofing Commercial Roofing No Item Units Qty' Total Total 13 ALTERNATE NO. 11: REPLACE THE AREAS OF THE ROOF WHERE ROOF INSULATION IS NOTED TO REQUIRE .REPLACEMENT ON DRAWING A801 FURNISH AND INSTALL SPR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07530 AND AS INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 300.00 $ 1,491.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-1 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 300.00 $ 1,491.00 FURNISH AND INSTALL MBR-2 SYSTEM PER SECTION 07550 IN LIEU OF SPR-1 INDICATED ON SHEETS A801 AND A802 LS 1 $ 300.00 $ 1,491.00 14 ALTERNATE NO. 12: LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 35,623.00 PROVIDE TUCKPOINTING AND RE-CAULKING OF PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS AND WINDOWS AS INDICATED ON DRAWING A201 AND A802 15 ALTERNATE NO. 13: LS 1 $ 3,795.00 $ 3,384.00 PROVIDE PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING IN LIEU OF SLOPED MORTAR AS PER DETAILS C/A802 AND UA802 PART III -UNIT PRICE BID: 16 REPLACE UNSUITABLE METAL ROOF DECKING SF 100 $ 650.00 $ 690.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE METAL ROOF DECKING WITH NEW 20 GAUGE GALVANIZED 1-1/2" DEEP METAL ROOF DECKING TO MATCH EXISTING 17 REPLACE ROOF DRAINS EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,225.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF DRAINS WITH NEW ROOF DRAINS TO MATCH SIZE OF EXISTING. PROVIDE ROOF REPAIRS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY OF ROOFING SYSTEM. 000673-05117-0 BT-4 A °~ o f' I~O '+Nj x-ql~ Z~CA ~m ` A ~ V 8 ~F a~ ~ ° ~o gzoz ~ I _ •"Qo o y m ~QO N ,h~C Z~ ~~ a~ N ~B~ ~~D -C ~ Oy ssZO(~]O Am~~ ~ m my Af p~ae g.~..... ,sK~''°'" ~ yf ~ m _ vt sx+nr a++•R ~ Z d N AZ2Z ~ ~~ ~ r '+1 ~~,nex+~ y ~Z 8 Op ~ ~ xr s'^'"a~ Oyjv ~p ~O DC d ~QavA ; N OO F~ l / ~oo~ g ~ LEI ~ ~ ~~~ ° d $v~ zr~ . 0 / ~m d °z~ ~ i ~ D d ~~ ~ o ~ + ~ ~ `.may I ~ p; ~ .. ~, :~`: `, ~ ~`.~ .~ ~> /. ~A iAO~ Z~AO OS~ / ~~ n~ l ~`. .`.Ij~B ~-n ~~ ~,~ 4 0 ors; J ~ d. `. , .. ``til°Z- o ~/ doo ~~ ~' ' -• ~~ d -, -- . _..., , _ _ ._ .~-- -- d o _. ~. _. ~~~ .._ -- -~ ~.:. - _ _ ......_. _... d ~ o '~ u~1~, ~. .._ ......._..._ .._ ._........ - - . ~... _ RL1R _ .~ _ ..... _ OO N hM ..,. ;y..1sa.....,. .. ._ N - - - - - ~+7 O Z N f'1 ....„,... W -D A D O A ~F..n,. ,.,. ,,.. d Z O CC `.I d z ti ` ___ .. .. .,.,. ":`: ti,.,~,~,,,~,m~:~ .I L____... .. .......... . ..._~._,.m..... ~.... .. . . -~ o ~ i ~' .....,_._.. C 00 ~W VA ZZ~ ~ ~ r7~ ~ ~ ~E ~~rrII 4 ~j = o n ~~~ BQo~ ~ O ~~ a D ~ D A r~ ® ~O ~Opp pN~ ~`y p ~~ ODC V ~ ~ 'D Zf~. AO> ~D c m $z m .HOC) A OZA ®° - ~ p I : I ~ ~ r- (~ o~ ~ cAO ~~ _ _ ~ mo N N D ~D ~~ ~ N m~ a® y ~C~ W ~ N A 0 ~~ - U1 N y ; x Shin ~-1C I ~ $Y y~ R~' n ~ \ C V ~ O ...... NZZ ;'`I~ .. ~ OO~~C~C A ; o ~ '~-~ $~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ o=~..II~~ =g ~~ZZ ° I ~, Z '~ dl ~O CA C ~Z =D 'D "• al 8 m ~ D R~R~ ~ ~ ~~~ m~ ooz;tn 1~ siW-~~o 4 ~~y RI ~ ~Zm a MI g°,, A II ®o ~ mml 4 ~~ j~ o g ~~ k c'gz~° C ~ Q-'i~ " A~ 4 >r ~r~~y rl L_]I ~~O A m ~~ M C~r ~ yO A;ObC .T~. I ~`~I n O ~I C ~ ~ O an~ ~ e~~SSS II £o ~ ~~~ ~` a "' ~ ~ D A~~ ~ ~ $o ~ -.1 O ~ ~ i m 'i ~ o o.... a. ~.il.. __ .._...... _ .. _.. ° ~N D (~~ ~ ` ~ W \ ozx Aovz ppmm m ~`xI m mm (~ N N OZx yy OZU ON -iZA~J mm N o~ W N 'O VIJ OxOm ~ OQO~ OZQ ~ 5 oc ~~~~~ gg A aiA A ~~A '~o° ~ ~r6^ ~°j~' ~~nr Q~~ ~m 1viA0A~ ~~ o vN ~ r'a ~7Zgi o~c ~ a~~ $° F ~zz Z° ~~>o~z 6 ~y m m m ~ rl z ~ o~ ?wr~i ~yy~,o -1~ mOrmr--\O ~ Z f A~ ~ Z O~ ~~ ~ 30i ZO N ~ O O ZO° ik ~~.ZpI Zp ~~~U~~ ~ n O ~ S m;0 000 ~G)y?~O ~ZA O ~ ~1 ~W O W ® O ®O AQ 2(~~ xA A~g~ Vi ~ ~ Q CN ~~ N zr5yzi ~~ ~ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z J A ° ~' ~~y m~ m~oz m ~ ~ 10 ~ o° // ~~ C] A ~ A O 'J Oy O $A~~ ~ O ~ A ~ ~~ D~ ~ ° '~P° '+ O° n ~m~ Ey!~l p ~ ~ ~p N o~ ~ !'nN~ m ~ ~ Zb F1~ ~~~ rs-TO !~-. ~g ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 y°p ~ N~N ~ ~ N N --i AA O ~ RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TNIS PLAN, SPECIFlCA710N, OR REPORT SURVEY Bonestroo St. Paul Office WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION s ~ 2335 West HI hway 36 AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHRECT DRAWN TRJ Rosene 9 UNDER THE UWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA J CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT ®Anderlik & st. Paul, MN 55113• PRINT N,ME BRUCE P. PAULSON DESIGNED BPP o ~ Associates Phone: 651-636-4600 ~ APPROVED ePP a •••,~ ROOF PLAN EnglReers & Ar[hi[eCts Fax: 651-636-1311 SIGNATURE: DATE 9-29-05 1 ww.6anestmo.cam ®80NESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERUK k ASSOCIATES, INC. 2005 DATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 LIC. NO. 20910 PROJ. N0. 6~J-05-1 t I AGENDA SECTION: RE~:SOT LITTON AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # jgg ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: fir'"" SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY _ _ -- - - ,:~~' MANAGER: .~-'' ~ , _,-- ,,~ ~,,, __ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the of preferred design and alignment of the new intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions: • Approve the two-lane roundabout as the preferred design alternative at 66th Street and Portland Avenue • Approve a preferred alignment that provides certain transit enhancements for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection ro'ect. II. BACKGROUND For many years the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue has experienced operational and safety problems. In December 2004, the City of Richfield's Transportation Commission began a traffic study to address these problems.. The Transportation Commission prepared study goals and objectives in eight categories: o Safety o Transportation/Transit o Access 1025Portland66th o Land Use/Right-of--Way Needs o Community Themes/Aesthetics o Neighborhood Concerns o Maintenance o Benefit/Cost To promote public involvement since February 2005, the Commission has mailed two newsletters to residents, and held three open houses and one public hearing. About ten alternatives were considered initially. Further analysis reduced the number to four alternatives that would meet the study's objectives plus the Do Nothing alternative. The five design options considered were: • Do Nothing; • Single left-turn lane on all four legs plus aright-turn lane on the north leg; • Double left-turn lanes on all four legs; • Double left-turn lanes on 66th Street and single left-turn lanes on Portland Avenue; and, • Two-lane roundabout (the layout is attached) Based on public comments. and the study results, the Transportation Commission recommended the two-lane roundabout as the preferred alternative for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue .intersection. The rationale for this position is contained in the attached resolution. If approved, construction would begin in 2008. The Planning Commission will meet on October 24, 2005 to finalize its preferred alignment and consider certain enhancements that will indicate the need for additional right of way for the project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The reconstruction of 66th Street and Portland Avenue has been identified as a priority in the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The roundabout design will still require Hennepin County approval. • Council must approve the financial plan for the intersection improvement. (See attached.) • Two-lane roundabouts are new to the state of Minnesota. • $2.0 million in Federal Highway funds will be lost if the project is not ready for bid by September 30, 2006. C. FINANCIAL • The City needs to identify $4.6 million in local funds to match a combined $4.2 million in Hennepin County and Federal Highway funds already committed to this project. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to address any concerns. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve one of the three other design alternatives with traffic signals. This would result in increased costs and right of way impacts. • Reject recommendation and defer back to the Transportation Commission with specific instructions of what the Council would like to see differently. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution to accept Two-Lane Roundabout as preferred design alternative • Resolution to approve the preferred alignment that provides certain transit enhancements • Financial Plan for Improvements at 66th and Portland Ave. • Layout of Alternative 5 -Two-Lane Roundabout • Record of public hearing comments received on Sept. 7, 2005 • Guiding Land Use Principles for Intersection Alignment Options at 66t" Street and Portland Avenue VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Steve Lindgren, Chair of the Transportation Commission and Executive Director of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, Gary Ness and Maureen Scaglia of the Transportation Commission. • Donna Drummond, Chair of the Planning Commission • Residents and business owners of 66th St./Portland Ave. neighborhood. ~r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TWO-LANE ROUNDABOUT AS THE PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE AT 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has recommended the Two-Lane Roundabout as the preferred alternative at 66th Street and Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, this alternative improves safety at the intersection including reduced severity of crashes; and WHEREAS, this alternative provides increased long-term capacity; and WHEREAS, the cost of this alternative is less than the cost of other build alternatives; and WHEREAS, this alternative will require less right-of--way than the other build alternatives; and WHEREAS, this alternative is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will provide opportunities for landscaping; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County still must approve the design because both 66th Street and Portland Avenue are county roads. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TWO-LANE ROUNDABOUT IS APPROVED AS THE PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A SEPARATE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS BE PERFORMED. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ALIGNMENT FOR THE 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has recommended that the Two-Lane Roundabout design, be approved as the preferred alternative at 66th Street and Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended a preferred alignment for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvement that facilitates land use planning and accommodates pedestrian, transit and streetscape elements; and WHEREAS, this alternative will require less right of way than the other build alternatives; and WHEREAS, the alignment options were evaluated based on future reuse possibilities consistent with the. City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD APPROVES THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMISSION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AT 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIAN, TRANSIT AND STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS.. Adopted. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~/ O O r O r d C Q O O O O O O O O ti O O O O 0 0 0 0 'a O O ~t~ 0000 d'O~lf) ~ lf~ O ~ O M O I~ O ~ d ~ ~h t1~ ~ ~ ~ M r Ln E/-} ff3 ~}} Gs C ~~+ (~ ~ > Q '" ~ cn "~ C C O tC ,~ ~ to E C '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C :~.-. O cn ~ w ~~ ~U *'' ~ U ~N ~ ~ ~ ~~0 ~ ~ c ~ o w U~ m ~ ~ ; . u j E y ,_ ~U aim ~¢~ ~Q 3 ~~ c crn O fn ~ J C O ~ J d a o i ~ ~ c o t ~ U U p ~U~ c ca 0 a c as a~ L w+ t ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O `~-' O O O 00 O O O 0000 0000 G1 3 0~ N C40 O MO~00 d ~ O N N ~} Ef-} 6F} ~r ~~NO p ~ ~ d- ~ E!> CO Q. Q ~ ~ ao c ~ ~ ~ ~U ~ ~~ y- 'C >+~ ~ -~ tL lL W ~ a m 3-u, oQ ~ c~ a ~ i ~ ~,~~~~ m°p= cao~ . L ++ 2 ti- ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~- ii cCOC ti _ ii U U U ~ ~ p ~ ~j ~ a~ U C C c~ G O .... N N c 0 m vCJ G a; o Z Q Z -.~ m m O z o~ 2 m m 3~ ~~ ~0 O~ <~ 3D mz zo a r .~ m~ _~ ZZ z pD a = m H m o b7 -I ® 111 A~ e Q ~¢ s ~~ ~ a ~s¢~ ~~~ s' g g~ x o n x C (~i ~ a m ) _ ~ 66th Street and Portland Av ~ ~ enue Intersection Improvement Study .Public Hearing Testimony September 7, 2005 1• William Svoboda 6620 Portland Avenue Concerned about the roundabout and the safety of the children going to the park. Witnesses a lot of red light runners from his yard. Response: When considering the roundabout alternative, pedestrian safety has been questioned more than anything has. Research and practice indicates that with the proper design pedestrian movements can be accommodated just as safe if not~safer at a two-lane roundabout than a traditional signalized intersection. Research also shows sight-impaired pedestrians need positive guidance to locate the crosswalks at a roundabout. With that said, we still question the operational hazards of a roundabout where pedestrians. are concerned. If the roundabout alternative is selected, much attention will be given to the pedestrian movements. We continue to search for and obtain information regarding edestrian movements at roundabouts. 2• Morris Nilsen, Owner of Morris Nilsen Funeral Home 6527 Portland Avenue Many.land use plans do not show the funeral home. Understands this public hearing is focused on alignment and intersection type. His business has a very uxiique traffic movement (funeral .procession) the left turn medians prevent left turns from his roe Currently, more than half of his business utilizes that left turn. Concerned about acce P t hisy.ro e because of raised medians. Traffic peaks around noon and early evening. Aso l ~e alternatives processions leave his site all at once late morning or late afternoon. Eighty-five percent of all traffic enters his site by the north driveway on Portland Ave. There are no optional ways to enter the site with a raised median because of Veterans' park behind his property. The alignment shift to the north will produce some impact but the shift to the east will have a severe impact. Moving the road closer to his property would increase the traffic volume and would adversely effect his property. He believes two left-turn lanes are not needed on Portland Ave. He is not against the roundabout. He has driven them and believes they are doable acid U-turns are easier and natural on roundabouts than on divided intersections. Res once: None needed. 3• Cyril Toay 6920 Oakland Avenue Who is pushing change at the intersection, the city or county? He has lived here for 18 years. He questions the signal timing. The amount of green time for east-west traffic has been lengthened while the time for north-south traffic has been shortened. People take chances when delayed and cause accidents. Signal timing is contributing to the problem. He questions the data from Hennepin County showing this is the worst intersection. The County data shows it's not the worst. There's no hard data. I don't think it is the worst. If I'm not mistaken, removing gas stations would take gasoline tax revenue from Richfield. We need that. In any case, it's good to have gas stations. Primarily a residential area. He doesn't want the intersection to be like 77th and Lyndale, 76~ and Penn, or 66a' & Penn. If gas stations are removed, there will be expensive EPA clean up to eliminate soil contamination. The project will be very costly. He thinks the City Hall should be moved to Cedar Avenue where land is available for development. In the last 18 years there have been no left turn arrows on all four legs. Response: The City initiated the intersection improvement project with support from Hennepin County. Staff has requested that Hennepin County revise the signal timing at the intersection to allow for more green time on Portland Avenue. We have also had discussions with the County to consider different lane assi turners going north on Portland Avenue. Historical crash datais available four theate left. intersection. The most recent data we have had on file is 2001 data received from the '" County in December 2004 which shows this intersection ranked 1st. More current crash data was not available at the public hearing simply because the project process has moved past determining the problem. We understand that the safety and delay problem is caused by the high volume of traffic at this intersection and the number of left turning vehicles. 4. John Sieberz 6434 Washburn Avenue Has lived in Richfield for 52 years. He is not happy with the roundabout alternatives at both. 66th and Portland and 66th and 17th Avenue. He listed disadvantages: (1) Loss of tax revenues due to loss of homes and businesses; (2) residents rely on existing businesses located in Portland/66th area; (3) Minneapolis has put in and taken out roundabouts in the Kenwood district; (4) he is experienced with roundabouts in Clearwater, FL. He feels it is a real mess; (5) Funeral processions won't work; (6) Will slow down emergency vehicles; (7) Confusing for elderly who have difficulty with roundabouts, They may avoid the intersection; (8) He opposes taking the American Legion Hall and the Moms Nilsen Funeral Home; (9) The roundabout will cause traffic delays and people will avoid the intersection and more traffic will be on the residential roads; (10) Why are there only 21eft turn signals? Suggest adding two more signals to see if they reduce crashes. It is worth a try. He is not sold on roundabouts. Response: The roundabout design has demonstrated the least impact on surrounding properties, saving many residential parcels. Clearwater, Florida has a large fountain in the center of a roundabout circle that has caused crashes with wet pavement and the fountain is a distraction for motorists. Emergency vehicles will actually experience reduced delay using a roundabout. The city has not proposed acquiring the American Legion Hall. The Nilsen Funeral Home is impacted in varying degrees depending on the particular design alternative and alignment option being considered. All proposed alternatives will reduce traffic delays to some degree. In other roundabout cases, some people initally may avoid the intersection because they are unfamiliar with roundabouts. Over time drivers adjust to them. Short-term signal improvements are being considered, however, long-term safety and delay problems cannot be addressed without added right- of-wa to accommodate left turn movements (left turn lanes . 5• Elizabeth Arnold 1466 East 66th Street earnoldl@mn.rr.com Testimony: Her driveway fronts onto 2nd Avenue.. She is a Crime Watch Captain and has spoken to her neighbors. Residents north of 66d' Street wait for gaps in 66d' Street created by the traffic signal to make left turns onto 66d' Street. Has. not heard how people living along 66th Street would be accommodated if the roundabout goes in. Main concern is .the constant flow of.traffic with the roundabout. There is speeding on 2nd Avenue to 66~' St. and Nicollet Avenue. She has never seen a police officer issue a ticket for running a red light. She prefers Alternative #2 but suggested adding aright-turn lane on the east leg for traffic to go north. Cars cut through the BP service station. Please consider the needs of residents. In addition, the following letter was received from Elizabeth Arnold: To the Richfield Transportation Commission Members and Richfield City Council Members, I have very strong safety concerns regarding the continuous traffic flow a roundabout at Portland Avenue and 66d' Street would create away from the intersection. Residents living along 66th and Portland, deal with this every day now, Thank God for the stoplight.. It gives a "break" in traffic allowing resident to get out of their driveways and to make safe turns from the side streets on to these two busy streets. It also allows bicyclists and pedestrians the chance to cross the streets safety. Please remember that 66d' is NOT a flat road between Portland and Nicollet. I live at the bottom of the BIG hill on the NW corner of 66d' and 2"d. Today when attempting to make a left turn (on the north side of 66d') going east, your sight line is only one block Come down 2 durin evenin rush hour and making a left turn. You have only one block to see traffic coming over the hill from Portland. (FYI -the sightline is even smaller on 3rd and 66d' if you are in a caz'...not sure about a higher vehicle.) If it's cleaz, you still need to look back at the traffic from Nicollet to make sure you can safety make the left turn and by time you look back to the hill, a car(s) is coming over the hill and you hastily make your turn. That little "safe break" in traffic was caused by the stoplight turning RED going east and west on 66~' breaking the flow of traffic. With a roundabout, traffic will keep flowing and it is NOT going to be "15 MPH" down 66d' street once the motorists get pass the roundabout intersection at 66d' and Portland (15 MPH roundabout speed limit). The "safe breaks" in traffic will no Ionger exists during peak hours. Will anyone ever be able to safety pull out of their driveways or successfully make turns on to 66d' or on to Portland from a side street? Will anyone able to cross the street on foot without getting killed with continuous flow of traffic during rush hour caused by a roundabout? Richfield is a city of residents. You aze only looking at the intersection of 66d' and Portland. You need to know that what you decide will affect the lives of the residents who live down the road. I know what I am talking about from personal experience. In high school, I was hit by a car making a right hand turn on to 66d' from 3rd Ave. I was riding my bike on the north sidewalk (required by city law at the time). The driver, who lived on 65d' and 3rd, approached the intersection and came to a stop as I crossed 3rd street. He looked right at me, then looked at the traffic from Portland (crest of the hill), saw an opening in traffic and turn. His wife screamed which I could hear over the closed car windogw due oethe ho s mummers day and he slammed on the brakes. My bike was under his front left wheel and I was thrown into .the middle of 66d'. It is only by the grace of God I am here today. I was running a little late and decided to weaz my catcher pads instead of carrying them and putting them on at the field. The pads took most of the force of the caz bumper, which allowed me the presence of mind to see the oncoming cazs over the hill as I was lying in the middle of 66d'. I quickly crawl out of the street before I would have been hit again. The 66~' and Portland intersection needs improvement. I would be interested to see what the traffic enforcement has been in the first six months of this year and all of last year in regards to motorists running the red light. How many tickets have been issued? I have never seen a patrol car go after a red light violator. The citizens are correct in their assessment of the light issue in regards to the left turn arrows. Currently, the left turn arrow on 66d' going east turns off and light remains green at the same time the light turns green going west: Remember the traffic on 66d' going west has no left arrow and has been waiting at a red light while traffic going east is moving and making left turns It is incredible how many eastbound drivers think they have the right way to turn left as traffic begins going west. Motorists speed up trying to turn left before the westbound traffic makes it across the intersection. This problem (source of many of the accidents) could be resolved by giving 66~'s east and west bound traffic the green light at the same time, then give the west bound traffic the red light (making them stop) and then turn on the left turn arrow for the east bound drivers. This does NOT resolve the left turn issues for the west bound drivers nor for the north bound drivers on Portland nor the congestion problems. The solution is single left turn lanes on for all four corners. This should resolve the problems of congestion and multiple accidents. There is no need for multiple left turn lanes per corner based on a 1 % annual increase of traffic. This percent was given to the commission in the June meeting per their request. The minutes of the meeting read: Tony Heppelmann provided a handout on 66th Street/Portland Avenue 2030 traffic forecasts, which were completed with assistance from Mr: Glen Van Wormer. The forecasts assumed none- ercent annual owth rate from existin eak hour traffic r~ '- D counts. Adjustments were made for known changes in access and redevelopment in the area. The Hennepin County Department of Public Works is comfortable with the WSB/SEH traffic forecast of one- percent annual growth. I am wondering WHY do you need to divide the street with cement so far down? I understand you don't want traffic blocked with drivels turning into the gas stations...so, only go as far down as property line of the gas stations. There is no need to block the funeral home's driveway or Oakland Avenue's access to 66~' street. I hope the city takes no homes if possible or it is kept to a bare minimum of one or two. It appears that BP (Amoco) will have to be taken based on their location of their gasoline tanks if any property is required. Why not use the land the city already owns on the northeast side. Yes, the pool will lose the parking along 66'~ street but there's still plenty of parking and BP will have to go. No one will lose their homes if you move this project to the north by a few feet to make room for the turn lanes. You still can take additional footage from the other properties .without forcing them out of business. This would also lower the projected costs of the project. Just take the footage that is , needed to make the intersection safe. This is not a Planning Commission issue. This is a Transportation Commission issue which I thought was to make the intersection safe for ALL the residents. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. Feel free to call me or email me with any questions or concerns Response: City staff has requested that Hennepin County disconnect the traffic signals at this intersection from signal coordination plan along 66~` Street so that Portland Avenue receives additional green time. In addition; other short-term signal operation schemes are being considered, including adding left turn arrows to the northbound and westbound lanes. Raised medians are used to improve safety. Their impact on adjacent properties will be analyzed as part of the project design and access modifications will be made whenever safe and reasonable to lessen the impact of the medians. Roundabouts do reduce the gaps for side street access downstream but greatly reduce the delay at intersections. The alignment evaluation takes into consideration the impact on adjacent arcels. 6• . Terri Drimel 6617 Portland Avenue She is disappointed by the lack of participation by neighbors. The Commission at one time or another has already addressed many comments she has heard at the open house during the project process. She believes the City should inform those that will be affected sooner, rather than later. The more information that can be delivered, the better. Keep residents informed. They had no plans to move in the next ten years. Her stress level is high. She hopes that she has helped put a human face on this decision for the Commission to consider. She and her husband do not want to be bought out, they-did not ask for this.. They know the corner is dangerous, she has heard crashes several times a month from her property. She has seen benches crashed into and mowed. Worried for her chiIdren's safety as they crossed the street. She heard a father wail when his child died in a crash. Traffic and safety have worsened here and continues to, you are moving forward to address these issues. Please remember it is not just about statistics and traffic flow projections and alignments. Your decision has an affect on people, not only where they commute, but also where they live, work and play. Res onset None needed. 7• Marsha Schoeneman (speaks on behalf of the family) 67314th Avenue She has_ lived here 45 years. Her biggest concern is the discrepancy between the information she has obtained from Hennepin County and what the City is telling her. The newsletter states that Hennepin County ranks the intersection as the worst suburban intersection based on three factors - from what she heard from Hennepin County it is third. She thinks before we spend a lot of money there ought to be other things tried. Federal funding impacts will likely affect the money set aside to com lete this ro'ect. The- City and Henn in Coup need to try the left turn signals '~ in all four directions. Postpone this project and try other methods. She's not sure the residents are getting the whole story because the information she received from the City conflicts with what Hennepin County is telling her. Response: The most recent data we have on file is 2001 data received from the County in December 2004 which shows this intersection ranked 1st. Discussion with the. County has clarified that the information given out to residents was not based on their 3-part rating system. Tom Johnson of Hennepin County was not sure why any other rating was shared. City staff is currently working with the County to review the signal operations at this comer. We do understand that regardless of what short-term changes are made to help the intersection operate better now, there is still need for a permanent, long-term solution. 8. Heidi Gaibor 6915 Wentworth Avenue Was at the first open house and is familiar with the project. Has lived here for over 40 years and does not remember left turn arrows on the northbound and westbound legs of the intersection. We do pay attention to the intersection because her sister was involved in a fatal ped/vehicle crash here about 35 years ago, The roundabout is too costly, both in terms of construction and having to take property. Believes roundabouts would be unsafe and confusing for pedestrians and cars. She suggested trying signal phasing on all four legs to make it safer (split phasing). It does not require right of way or. cost a lot. Keep it simple, think of needs rather than wants. We need a safer more organized way to get through these intersections and left turn arrows will accomplish that. Res onse: Refer to res onse to #5. Elizabeth Arnold's comments on left-turn arrows, 9. Robert J. Wagner 681411th Avenue Sixty-sixth Street and Portland Avenue has hills and always has had problems. There have always been major accidents at this intersection. He has driven through roundabouts for 35 years in this country and in Europe. He loves roundabouts. Roundabouts also take less right of way. If you use left turn signals, you need that designated left turn lane. It won't work to share through traffic with left turning traffic. Res onse: None needed. 10. Jack Mooney, Owner of BP Service Station 6545 Portland Avenue He believes the city's cost estimates are too low for the project. It cost him $350,000 for underground tanks; tax records show $250,000. He does $4 million in annual sales, and has the only car wash at the intersection. He also owned the gas station at 66~' Street and Cedar Avenue. At that site there was no relocation site available in Richfield. This is their last store in Richfield; they have owned businesses in this city for 32 years. Have long-term employees. In the past 16 years he has not seen enough done'with the existing signal like split phasing the signal (one direction at the time). A lot of money for not trying simple fixes. He has a petition signed b 1,000 customers saying they don't want the gas station to go. Small businesses have been treated unfairly. Remember whom you are impacting, try to help him remain in Richfield. Response: Typically tax records do not accurately represent the purchase value of properties. City staff is requesting that the current signal be separated from a coordinated signal plan along 66~' Street. This will give additional green time to traffic on Portland Avenue. However, this is only a-short-term solution that will not address long-term ca aci or safe concerns. 11. Jennifer Turrentine 6743 4th Avenue Big decision with a significant amount of money.. It's not sufficient to just say that the county has tested the various options with the signal. No hard data to support these claims. It's not a big request to do a study and get some hard data to show that other options will not work. It would be irresponsible to move ahead with this big of a project with out clearly looking at the alternatives. ~ I© Response: Since December 2004, signal modification changes, including left turn an'ows on all directions, have already been considered as a long term solution. However, none of the possibilities offered any long-term improvement. Staff is convinced that right of way is necessary to make this intersection operate at a safe and acceptable level. In the short-term City staff has asked the County to separate the signal from a coordinated signal network along 66~' Street. This will give additional green time to traffic on Portland Avenue at the ex ease of 66~' St: traffic. 12. Tim Teachout, Owner of TNT Automotive 601 East 66th Street He has been on the southeast corner of the intersection since 1981. In December, the City started out wanting to-make the intersection safer. At the time he realized that was a good idea. As the project proceeded, it became more of a major redevelopment project than a simple traffic solution project. Are we trying to fix traffic or redevelop .Richfield? There maybe simpler plans to just fix the traffic. Keep it simple. Safety of walkers and children trying to get across.. He questions the city assertion in the newsletter that it does not favor roundabouts.. It seems as though the roundabout has a secret life of its own and nobody's going to spring it on us until later on: A lot ofpeople will be affected bythis project. The City should be honest with what they want, is it a traffic solution or redevelopment project? If they approach it honestly we can talk about what they want and stop disguising redevelopment as a traffic solution. Response: The purpose of the intersection improvement study is to find a safety solution. Land use has been following. along in the process to help guide the City Council in their decision process. In 1990; when the County initiated the same project, the City rejected their plan because there was no consideration of land use changes to accompany the proposal. The Project newsletter was. intended to generate interest and featured roundabouts so that all residents became aware that the Transportation Commission was considering roundabouts a~ a design option of two intersections, 66~' St. and Portland - Ave. and at 66 St. and 17 Ave. 13. Larry Feldsien, Owner of Sinclair Station 1001 E. Cliff Road Burnsville, MN 55337 Our concern is fuel delivery, i.e., getting a transport truck in.and out of our site safely. The transport is 65 feet long (trailer and tractor). We can schedule deliveries during times when traffic volumes aze low. Our site is small and does not allow the transport to maneuver onsite to turnaround. None needed. Will be considered in -r i Planning Commission Guiding Land Use Principles for Intersection Alignment Options at 66th Street and Portland Avenue August 22, 2005 The City Council established a moratorium on major building and land use changes at the referenced intersection in December 2004. Primarily the Transportation Commission and Planning Commission have been studying roadway and land use impacts and alternatives. Community leader visioning, neighborhood and community open houses, and ongoing comment, feedback and analysis have occurred. The following guiding principles are both a summation and a framework for roadway and land use decisions throughout the rest of 2005. Strategic • Roadway design is scheduled to be reviewed and approved by the City Council in October 2005. • Final land use considerations and market analysis can follow in response to the approved design. • Plan approval secures necessary funding and allows property acquisition to proceed for impacted property. • A construction start of spring 2008 is anticipated (date pending). • Remainder parcels are available to modify land uses and redevelop starting in spring 2009. Visioning • The intersection is an identifiable gateway and transportation route. • The intersection is unsafe, visually unappealing, congested, and devoid of greenery and attractive, coordinated pathways and lighting that have become a communlty standard at other gateways: • The intersection is a focal point and connection to Veteran's Park. • The intersection is part of a neighborhood of commercial, multi-unit housing and single family housing uses. • A community campus is envisioned. • A complementary and improved -mix of commercial multi-unit housing and single family housing is envisioned. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning and Land Use Considerations While the intersection design continues to be evaluated, the roadway alignment of the selected design is influenced by existing and future land uses. A northern and eastern alignment is proposed. This offers the best response to retaining existing uses where possible and the best opportunities for new uses in the future where existing uses are impacted. The following information summarizes that position, quadrant by a quadrant. The Northwest Quadrant • Make the quadrant more park like with a coordinated effort with the existing adjacent apartment owner. Parking, green space and property access and circulation must be improved. • The existing commercial area is not adequate in terms of size, off-street parking space, and buffering to adjacent multi unit residential after roadway improvements are installed. • The commercial property Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation at the corner should be modified to allow for medium density multi residential or mixed use. • Near term, single family homes along Portland Avenue and north of 66th street should be rehabilitated; resources need to be identified. • Long .term, higher density single family housing should continue to be designated in the Comprehensive Plan. 082205 66th Street & Portland Ave d -/ '~ The Southwest Quadrant • The commercial property and multi-unit housing has the potential to remain or be converted to new commercial and medium density housing uses long term. • The commercial and higher density single family property Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation should continue with a new mixed-use configuration also possible. • Near term, single family homes along Portland Avenue and south of 66th street should be rehabilitated; resources need to be identified. .The Southeast Quadrant • A north and east alignment affects both the commercial and residential property uses. • The existing T&T service commercial property is reduced in size and may require adjacent, commercially zoned property that presently has residential uses to remain .viable. • The printing shop is removed. • Single family homes between 66th Street and 67th Street are removed. • The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation allows commercial uses to be retained and/or reconfigured; including consideration of a mixed-use option. • The Comprehensive Plan calls for higher density single family uses along Portland Avenue. The roadway project allows the planned uses to be implemented. Redevelopment resources need to be identified. The Northeast Quadrant • The BP commercial property is removed by roadway improvement; the size reduction does not allow independent commercial uses. • As a first step, the remaining parcel at BP introduces a new; sought public realm. • However, the corner parcel remains disconnected from Veteran's Parkas the Funeral Chapel surrounds the remainder. • The Funeral Chapel has expressed concern about the viability of their commercial property with the roadway improvement. • The Zoning (commercial) is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (Public and multi-unit housing). • The American Legion and Funeral Chapel need to be redesigned to match roadway improvements. • Additional resources need to be identified long term to expand the desire for a greater public realm. Miscellaneous Guiding Principles: • All changes/removal of existing uses should coincide with the planned addition of properly design buffering next to adjacent single family property. • Marketing experts have insufficient information to determine if roundabouts offer viable commercial locations. • Streetscape elements (lighting, plantings, pedestrian walkways) need to be introduced .throughout the roadway improvement area. Additional resources need to be identified to fund these improvements. AGENDA. SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 Ri1SOLUTIONS 9 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of preferred design of the new intersection at 17th Avenue and 66th Street. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Adopt the attached resolution approving atwo-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue • Approve financing plan for proposed improvements. II. BACKGROUND The. City prepared an Airport Mitigation Plan in 1996 in response to the Minnesota State Legislature's decision to expand the existing airport site. In the area north of 66th Street,. Ryan Companies has proposed a new commercial development, known as Cedar Point. Anew intersection has been proposed to create. a new north-south arterial, to maintain access to Cedar Avenue as well as providethe main entrance to the shopping center. The Richfield Transportation Commission has conducted a study of the intersection and generated two design alternatives. Since August 2005, the Commission has held two public open houses, mailed two newsletters to residents and held a public hearing on the need for a new intersection. The Commission is unanimously recommending the use of a two-lane roundabout at the intersection including a bike 1025 66th-17th Intersection path and walkway on 17th Avenue that eventually will connect to Taft Park, based on safety, capacity and other evaluation criteria (see attached resolution). Landscaping in the public right-of--way will be done as part of the landscaping plan for the Cedar Point Project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Proposed improvement is consistent with Goal 4 of City's Comprehensive Plan- Encourage and facilitate the preservation and development of a transportation infrastructure that provides a high degree of accessibility for destinations in and around Richfield. • Proposal is consistent with the City's adopted Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The roundabout design will still require Hennepin County approval. • The intersection improvement will not proceed until Ryan Companies commits to build the Cedar Point Project. • Council must approve the financing plan for the $4.5 million intersection improvement. • Two-lane roundabouts are new to the state of Minnesota. C. FINANCIAL • The project depends on Council approval of a $4 million special assessment bond with the developer paying 20% of the project costs. Remaining funding will be provided by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds (gas tax revenues.) D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be able to answer questions about the use of Section 429 bonds for public improvements. TERNATIVE • Approve a design including a signalized intersection. This alternative involves similar right-of-way impacts but may cost slightly more than the roundabout. TTACHMENTS • Resolution approving Two-Lane Roundabout as the preferred design alternative • Financial plan for 66th Street and 17th Avenue intersection improvement • Preferred layout for 66th Street and 17th Avenue intersection • Record of public hearing comments received on Sept. 28, 2005 AL PARTIES • i oaa Nonenoerger a Commission. AT MEETING ~zlie Vermillion of the Richfield Transportation '~-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TWO-LANE ROUNDABOUT AS THE PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE AT 66TH STREET AND 17TH AVENUE INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has recommended the Two-Lane Roundabout as the preferred alternative at 66th Street and 17th Avenue; and WHEREAS, this alternative improves safety at the intersection including reduced severity of crashes; and WHEREAS, this alternative provides increased long-term capacity; and WHEREAS, the cost of this alternative is less than the cost of the other build alternative; and WHEREAS, this alternative will require similar right-of-way to the other build alternative; and WHEREAS, this alternative is compatible-with the surrounding neighborhood provides good land access and will provide opportunities for landscaping; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County still must approve the design because 66th Street is a county road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TWO-LANE ROUNDABOUT. IS APPROVED AS THE PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE 66TH STREET AND 17TH AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A SEPARATE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS BE PERFORMED Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk -~ 0 rn 0 d c m a s O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O ~ O O O t~p O O O O d'Or~ ~ MOI`O ~' ~ ~ ~ ~-' y + ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ w tC O p 0 ~ ~ C L (n O ~ j ~ ~ 0 L ~ ~ N Q .N ~ (~ _ ~ U ~ ~ +-r U ~ ~ O 6 U ~ ~ O ~ O ~U p ~ p ~ ~ c 7 yL+ V1 OU Om ~ Q~ ~S~ ~ U~ Q C fA d 'a O f!1 ~ Q O O L QJ W ~ -~-• u w Q tC m ~ ~ LL ~ ~' >' ~ O , N N ~ 00 O . U U I- ~ ~ ~ U 1-- C O a c ea .... d L s. ~... ~ ~ ~ _ R O O O O O O O O O _ .~ yy+ ~ ~ ~ 00 0000 ~ d ~ ~- 0 Q ~ ~~~~ O O p 0 ~ O O N N CC OD O MO~op ~ ~ C1 ~ N ~}} ~} d3 GO ~ r O F ~ OD N O CO ~ ~ ~ L ~ ... ~ } 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~. ~ a ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o ~~. 1O 'L ~O ~ 'a ~ ~ W • „ a a° ~ ~=QQ a cn 0 ~v O~ ~ ~ Q ~ a ~ L ~ 0 ~~ > ~,~ m> ~ >,cW O m '~ .~ cn =~o~= ao 3 ~~ ~ C (/~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ J ~ Q O O L J C ~, G~ ~ 3= N O C ~ ~ O~ '" d to ~ C I`-' O ~ U 6 L La V V U~ ~ O~U~ , ZQ e~osauuiW `plat;yoib ~o /(~I~ ~ ~ 1N3W3A021dW1 N011~3S2131N1 1f108tlaNf1021 ~ 3f1N3Ad y~14 ~ 133211S H199 ', ~~ "~' f+ iJ OOL 13 OOl 0 H1tlON /Nr/,~ ~!,/,~! ~,~, w/Urlidq ,M/N roIJaRN /OV6l5 ~l!/uil purlvy /~!$ ~/IMJl KN Vrod OEM MVNW$ O~~d O ~~I~B Y~~d p Jroro-IS pwacb.y ~llWl YrsobM ~v nwttub D ,~ 66th Street and 17th Avenue Intersection Improvement Study Public Hearing Testimony .September 28, 2005 1. Larry Woznizka 6744 Wentworth Avenue Has two concerns: economic costs and noise impact for noise abatement on city. Developer has not completed an EIS for Cedar Point Project which would indicate the times and how much traffic, the traffic specifics impact, and the noise abatement that would be coming forth from this project. Is also concerned that this improvement is scheduled ahead of the project at 66~` Street and Portland Avenue. Believes the proposed improvement at 66~' Street and Portland Avenue is a greater concern to the city. It is fully developed and has traffic hazards. The 66t'' Street and 17~' Avenue intersection is in an undeveloped area. The developer should be responsible to pay for the entrance into a new development. Who sponsored or paid for the engineering costs up till now? The developer should pay for the cost of the construction including engineering costs. Last night four houses were approved by the City for purchase on the east side of 17~' Avenue south of 66~' Street. There was no source of funds identified. The City Manager when asked the question scrambled a little bit and confessed that he wasn't sure but thought that the funding would probably come from assessments. Funding to buy these four homes needs to be identified. He takes issue with the use of ad valorem assessments to pay for the improvement. How are we paying for these improvements including for redevelopment? He wants to go on record as favoring the improvements at 66~' Street and Portland Avenue to be built first. Mr. Foley's response that four houses were financed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission incorrect. But they are located south of the four houses the City approved for purchase last night. How do we pay for the rest of this intersection and for the development? Response: The developer is preparing an environmental document. The construction schedule at 66t'' and 17~` Avenue is influenced by the developer's schedule. The schedule for 66t'' Street and Portland Avenue will be postponed at the request of MnDOT. Reconstruction of I-35W and 62 Crosstown will result in the closing of Lyndale Avenue interchange on I-35W for a period of time. MnDOT has asked the City to delay work at 66~' Street and Portland Avenue until the Lyndale Avenue interchange is reopened. The developer will be responsible for paying for part of the cost of the intersection including engineering costs on the order of $800,000. To meet the developer's needs a very limited north leg of the intersection could be built. However, the City wanted to build the entire intersection all at once to serve the area south of 66~' Street. The cost of building the entire intersection was in excess of the benefit to the developer. The Metropolitan Airports Commission agreed to purchase four homes on 17~` Avenue. Council member Kilian said the first six houses south of 66~' Street are to be purchased for the intersection project. Commission Chair Steve Lindgren said these questions about funding are a ro riate but he doesn't know if the are out of our urview. 2. John Hafertepe, 652617th Avenue Had a question. If three houses on west side of 6500 block of 17~' Avenue north are to be purchased by the City, how do you anticipate getting access to driveways (e.g. 6526 and 6520 17~' Avenue) of the five remaining houses on the west side of the 6500 block of 17t'' Avenue? If left turns won't be possible. Are those people to turn left and go up to 65~' Street? Response: Tony Heppelmann of WSB explained that the plan was that 17~` Avenue would remain in place in its current configuration and be stub-ended north of the three parcels to be acquired by the City of Richfield. There would be access to the new ' 17~' Avenue out to the new intersection or people would travel north on existing 17~' Avenue to 65~' Street to get to and from their homes. If the whole area is redeveloped, there would be left-turn access into the area. And those properties would be developed with one access into that whole area. Council member Bill Kilian noted that he wasn't sure ~~~ how access would be provided to his home in the 6600 block of 17th Avenue. Until the decision is made, there is a state of flux for this area.. There could be a cul-de-sac in that area. Mr. Heppelmann explained that it could be a cul-de-sac or a loop street could be built to connect to 16th Avenue. The existing 17th Avenue will remain in place for access to 17th Avenue south of 66th Street. 3. Council Member Fred Wroge 124 East 70th Street What happened to the potential to make the entrance at 17 % Avenue so we have a row of townhomes on the odd side of 17t'' Avenue for the people on the even side of 17th Avenue to be looking at rather than the commercial development. He thought that was the original plan. His second question was who gave Ryan the authority to go in on the even side of 17th Avenue asking to buy houses? How is this going to affect this whole program? He's confused as to where that came from and why that is going on. It was his impression that a row of townhouses would be facing the commercial development on 17 % Avenue and would block the view of the commercial area for single-family homes. He is concerned with the loss of homes. He is also concerned that the intersection has kept moving west and is taking more homes. Maybe we could have planned a better entrance into Cedar Point. Response: The 6500 block of 17th Avenue is part of the redevelopment area. Tom Foley explained that Ryan has a right to ask to buy homes if people are willing to sell. If Ryan is successful, they believe they will have a larger parcel for redevelopment. It is a part of a larger redevelopment area.to the west of 17th Avenue. The location of townhomes facing single-family homes is in the area west of 17th Avenue as far as 16th Avenue that would be a larger structure with housing. Commission member Bob Shotwell explained that the placement of the signal at 17th Avenue provided the spacing needed from the west ramp signal at Highway 77 so that cars wouldn't form a queue to block access to the businesses on 66th Street. Tony Heppelmann explained that the design had always been to have the Cedar Point entrance at 17th Avenue. When the layout of the development changed, we were able to move it to 17th Avenue. Commission member Lezlie Vermillion also noted that only 500-550 feet of spacing between signals does not allow much room to develop left-turn lanes. Tony Heppelxnann agreed with her. Lezlie asked how close is the left-turn opening on the north leg of the new intersection? Tony answered about 150-200 feet. Commission Chair Lindgren believed, that the Planning Commission would have discussed the development. He would like to see the developer talkin with the ublic. This Commission has a du to address safet issues. 4. Andrew Hartle 633217th Avenue Has had experience with the roundabout at Minnehaha Falls with cars and bikes. It was not a good experience. Minnesotans don't yield for bikes or pedestrians. He thinks it will be difficult to educate people. Trucks serving the Home Depot and Target stores will use the roundabout as the main entrance. They will take up part of the second lane in the roundabout. He just doesn't think roundabouts are the way to go. Res onset No res once needed. 5. Josh Davis 6833 13th Avenue With either plan are there corners in any plan for gas stations on the south side of 66th Street near 17th Avenue? Or will there be flowers and grass? In the future there will be no gas stations on the east side of Richfield? The plan doesn't show reuse on south side of 66th Street at 17th Avenue. For some of that land it could again be for commercial Response: Chair Lindgren said this is outside our jurisdiction. You will still have zoning issues to deal with. Commission member Vermillion- you raise a good point. At the corners you create raised medians to protect those left turn lanes. If you beak the medians, you are defeating the purpose of creating a safe intersection. Commissioner Shotwell- All freeway exits, as in Alexandria for example, you go into a filling station off of a side street. So our fillin stations aren't on a main dra an more. That's the ~- modern way to do it. Council member Bill Kilian- There is Phillips 66 station on 66~' Street at 13"' or 14`" Avenue. It may be a Sinclair station. It is a little higher price. You make a ood oint that eo le like thin s that are convenient for them. 6. David Grossklaus 682413th Avenue Two comments. He goes by the roundabout at Minnehaha Falls. Cars don't yield to bikes or pedestrians. People in Minnesota don't know how to yield. It is not in their nature. He supports what Andrew Hartle said about roundabouts. The other question is when was the traffic study completed and when was it updated. Response: Tony Heppelmann responded that the original traffic study was done in August 2004 and was updated just recently. The developer will prepare an EAW (environmental assessment worksheet) that will include a discussion of traffic. The developer's EAW will be available within two months. On the traffic side the City's traffic study included an estimate of future development along Cedar Avenue for 600,000 square feet of commercial space. The downturn in air traffic is considered temporary and will robabl bounce back. AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC BEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 196 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of second reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and consideration of the resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of the attached ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield, and • Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. III. BACKGROUND ~ • The City first adopted an Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003, to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding. monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to large commercial and industrial customers at a monthly meter charge of $65. • As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $6.50 per month increase on the large commercial and industrial classification. 1025electricfranch isefee • As part of the current 2006 budget preparation process, a 3% franchise fee increase is being proposed as part of the budgeted 2006 revenues. This increase will amount to a .05 Cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to $2.15 per month on the large commercial and industrial classification. • As a formality, the City Attorney has recommended that the new change to the fee schedule be adopted through an amendment to the Franchise Ordinance. • First reading of the ordinance was held on September 27, 2005. The public hearing notice was published in the Richfield Sun Current on October 13, 2005. • The attached resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance must be approved unanimously by Council. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. • Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. • A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2006 budget and accepted by the electric company pursuant to the franchise agreement. • The fee increase was noticed and will be implemented by the electric company commencing with the January 2006 billing. • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 3% increase amount to approximately $14,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2006 budget D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Electric Franchise ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None, as the fee schedule change should be memorialized through the Franchise Ordinance. V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • Proposed ordinance. • Resolution. I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I b'/ ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER DB/A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE .WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1987-27, a Franchise Agreement between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee design as authorized in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise. (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2003-25, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of Xcel Energy as to amount and notice period, to which Xcel Energy has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2003-25, the franchise fee imposed on Xcel Energy under its Electric Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's. January 2006 billing month. Subd. 3. Payment and Fee Design. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.3 of the Franchise. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the city will control. Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. ~~~ Subd. 5. Record Support for Payment. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is -the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives that Xcel Energy will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing. month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. S. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2006 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 2005. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 2005. Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~~ EXHIBIT A XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Residential Sm C & I -Non-Dem Sm C & I -Demand Large C & I Fee Per Meter $ ~A 1.65 $ 4:95 5.10 $~-11.33 $~58 73.65 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. ~O' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX E OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has adopted the above referenced ordinance, amending Appendix E to the Richfield City Code, and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER D/B/A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to modify the franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy under its Electric Franchise Agreement commencing with the Xcel Energy's January 2006 billing month. FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential 1.65 Sm C & I =Non-Dem $5.10 Sm C & I -Demand $11.33 Large C & I $73.65 Franchise fees are to be collected by the utility and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. The utility may surcharge the fees to its customers as permitted by law. The City will review the ordinance by June 20, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Administrative Services Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Chris Regis, Finance Manager at 612-861-9723. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~' STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS I95 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of second reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield and consideration of resolution authorizin summa ublication of the ordinance. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of the attached ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield, and • Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. III. BACKGROUND • The City first adopted a Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance in December 2003, to be implemented in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to LVDF (Large Volume- Dual Fuel) customers at a monthly meter charge of $10. • As part of the 2005 budget process, the City Council included 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This 10% increase amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $1 per month increase on the LVDF classification. • As part of the current 2006 budget preparation process, a 3% franchise fee increase is being proposed as part of the budgeted 2006 revenues. This increase CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER 1025gasfranchisefee will amount to a .05 Cent per month increase in each residential meter and up to .33 Cents per LVDF (Large Volume-Dual Fuel) classification. • As a formality, the City Attorney has recommended that the new change to the fee schedule be adopted through an amendment to the Franchise Ordinance. • First reading was held on September 27, 2005. The public hearing notice was published in the Richfield Sun Current on October 13, 2005. • The attached resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance must be approved unanimously by Council. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. • Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2006 budget and accepted by the gas company pursuant to the franchise agreement. • The fee increase was noticed and will be implemented by the gas company commencing with the January 2006 billing. C. FINANCIAL • The cumulative annual fees generated by the 3% increase amount to approximately $8,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2006 budget D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Gas Franchise ordinance. TERNATIVE • None, as the ree scneau Franchise Ordinance. ge should be memorialized through the ~ V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • Proposed ordinance. • Resolution. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None. 5 -f ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Code Appendix E is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003-10, a Franchise Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy ("CenterPoint"), the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint in an agreed upon amount and fee design, as set forth in Section 6.1 of the CenterPoint Franchise. (b) Pursuant to City Ordinance 2003-24, the City exercised its right to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint. This includes the right to modify the fee amount with the consent of CenterPoint as to amount and notice period, to which CenterPoint has consented. Subd. 2. Franchisee Fee Statement. Pursuant to Ordinance 2003-24, the franchise fee imposed on CenterPoint under its Gas Franchise is hereby amended. The amended fee schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance, commencing with the CenterPoint's January 2006 billing month. The franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by CenterPoint for its use of Public Ways and Public Ground in the City. Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth as follows. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however each change shall meet the same notice requirements and may not occur more often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed any amount, which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for Gas service. The Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times, provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information that is not public data which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or any other information regarding specific customers. Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such 5.`--~- utility company for the cost of the fee and that CenterPoint will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Support for Payment. CenterPoint shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective. date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon CenterPoint by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by CenterPoint's representatives that CenterPoint will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give CenterPoint at least. sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of CenterPoint to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 2005. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 2005. Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ ~ :3 EXH/BlT A CENTERPOINT GAS FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Residential Comm-A Comm/Ind-B Comm/Ind-C SVDF-A SVDF-B LVDF Fee Per Meter $ ~8- 1.65 $ ~8 1.65 $ 4~-5 5.10 $~AA 11.33 $~A~11.33 $~-11.33 $~A~11.33 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. 5 ~-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX E OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has adopted the above referenced ordinance, amending Appendix E to the Richfield City Code, and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to modify the franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy under its Gas Franchise Agreement commencing with the CenterPoint Energy's January 2006 billing month. The franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by CenterPoint Energy for its use of Public Ways and Public Grounds in the City. Fee Schedule Class Fee Per Meter Residential 1.65 Comm-A $1.65 Comm/Ind-B $5.10 Comm/Ind-C $11.33 SVDF-A $11.33 SVDF-B $11.33 LVDF $11.33 Franchise fees are to be collected by the utility and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. The utility may surcharge the fees to its customers as permitted by law. The City will review the ordinance by June 20, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Administrative Services Department during normal .business hours or upon request by calling Chris Regis, Finance Manager at 612-861-9723. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of October 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 194 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME. TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the renewal of the contract with Chiefs Towing, Inc. for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2005 throu h November 30, 2006. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the renewal of attached contract for Public Safety towing services, December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006, between the City of Richfield and Chief's Towing; Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue South, Bloomington, MN; • Approve an increase of 2.2% in price for all categories, revised proposal attached. II. BACKGROUND The City currently has a contract with Chiefs Towing,, Inc. for Public Safety towing services. Chiefs Towing, Inc. was awarded the contract for 2005 and would like to renew the contract for the year 2006, as the contract expires on November 30, 2005. The contract can be automatically renewed if both parties agree to the 1025 Chief's Towing Contract Renewal renewal and if Chief s notifies the City in writing 30 days in advance of the expiration of the contract that they wish to renew. Chief's Towing, Inc. is located in the City of Bloomington and previously contracted with the City of Richfield for Public Safety towing services. Their performance during the contract period was satisfactory. They meet all requirements stated in the contract and currently tow for Bloomington Police. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Chief s notified the City that they wish to renew the contract. • The Public Safety Department wishes to renew the contract with Chief s Towing, Inc. • Contracts for services need not be competitively bid. • The contract has numerous conditions that must be met. Chief's Towing, Inc. is a reputable, established towing business that meets all contract requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A six-month notice must be given by either party in writing to terminate the contract. • On December 1, 2005, Public Safety must have towing services. This is particularly important with the possibility of snow emergencies occurring at any time. • Chief's is a large towing company that can handle the needs of Public Safety regarding seizure/impound vehicles and comply with City ordinances that a smaller company could not handle effectively. C. FINANCIAL • The current contract with Chief's reflects rates from 2005. Rates will increase 2.2 percent for the period December 1, 2005 -November 30, 2006. This is according to the Consumer Price Index as it relates to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. • There is adequate funding in the Public Safety budget to cover the increased costs. D. LEGAL • The. City Attorney has reviewed and approved the past contract with Chiefs Towing, Inc. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not sign the contract. However, Public Safety must have towing and impounding services beginning December 1, 2005. V. ATTACHMENTS • Towing contract for December 1, 2005 -November 30, 2006. • 2005 Specifications for Towing, Impounding and Storage of Motor Vehicles (Exhibit A). • Revised Proposal form indicating rate changes for contract year beginning December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006(Exhibit B) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~~ -' AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES THIS AGREEMENT is made this 30th day of November, 2005., between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Chief's Towing, Inc., located at 8610 Harriet Avenue South (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City has a need to contract for the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City requires that the towing operators are located within three (3) miles of the City limits; and WHEREAS, the Contractor is the operator of a towing and storage facility within three (3) miles of the City limits and has the expertise and capabilities to provide the required services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from December 1, 2005, to November 30, 2006, subject to termination as provided in Subdivision V. II. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. The Contractor shall tow, impound, and store all motor vehicles, which are ordered removed under the direction of the police chief, or the fire chief, of the City of Richfield or their authorized and legal representatives. The Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for its towing and storage services pursuant to those fees specified in the Contractor's Proposal (Exhibit B). It is ~~J~ agreed that neither the City nor the Richfield Police Department is responsible for any charges as a result of towing and/or storage, with the exception of those vehicles identified by the Police as subject to forfeiture, and that the Contractor assumes liability for any unpaid charges. B. The Contractor agrees to provide the services, as proposed, and perform all other terms and conditions according to the City's Specifications-and the Contractor's Proposal, incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. C. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Contractor's (including its officials, agents or employees), performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Contractor. D. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Contractor's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The Contractor and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The Contractor represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. ~~ 3 Any and all personnel of the Contractor or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Contractor under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Contractor, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. E. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. F. The Contractor agrees to maintain for the full term of this Agreement, the following minimum insurance coverage: a) $1,000,000.00 Comprehensive General Liability insurance, Business Auto Policy with $1,000,000.00 limits and Garage Keeper's Legal Liability... ,~A-~ b) Workers' Compensation insurance covering all employees of the Contractor, or his agents, in accordance with the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law. Certifications of insurance must be filed with the City and shall include a provision that states the insurance company shall give,the City at least 25 days written notice prior to cancellation, non-renewal, or any material change in the policy. The Contractor further agrees to name the City of Richfield as additional insured on said comprehensive general liability policy. G. The Contractor agrees to furnish on or before the date this Agreement becomes effective, an acceptable corporate surety bond in the amount of $10,000, payable to the City of Richfield and subject to approval by the Richfield City Attorney, for the faithful performance of all duties and obligations imposed under the terms and conditions of the Agreement. III. DUTIES OF THE CITY The City agrees to pay the Contractor the flat rate charge of $140.58 per vehicle for the towing and storage of vehicles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture and which are subsequently released to the Police Department. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. This agreement represents the entire Agreement between the Contractor and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. B. The Contractor agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and not discriminate on the basis ~~ of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. The Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought, alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the Contractor. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. C. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this contract. D. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. E. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.06, Subdivision 4. F. The City and the Contractor agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties ~1~~~ hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding ornon-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful,. either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving six (6) months advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. DATED: DATED: CITY OF RICHFIELD BY: BY: Its Mayor Its Manager CHIEF'S TOWING, INC. DATED: BY: Its: ~~-~ EXHIBIT A 2005 SPECIFICATIONS TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES GENERAL: It is the intent and purpose of these specifications to specify and detail the requirements for the Towing, Impounding and Storage of Motor Vehicles for the City of Richfield 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, on an as needed and directed basis. Such direction is to be by the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, or their authorized and legal representatives. The contract for service shall commence on December 1, 2005 and terminate on November 30, 2006. The City reserves the right to extend the contract for additional (1) one year periods if such an extension is permitted by the Contractor, the standard of service is satisfactory, and, has the approval of the Richfield City Council. At the time of contract extension, the contractor may request a price increase for all categories to be effective during the contract extension period. Any requested increase shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index for the Minneapolis/St Paul urban area and have the approval of the Richfield City Council. Application for extension and price increases or decreases shall be initiated by the performing contractor, must be submitted in writing and be in the hands of the proper Director of Public Safety at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of contract expiration. All of the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles under this contract shall be in accordance with Minnesota Chapter 1686 and any section of the Richfield City Code related thereto. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 1. ,The contractor must own or have direct access to satisfactory equipment and trained, available personnel, in order to provide immediate and prompt service as ordered and requested by the authorized City officials. 2. The contractor must own or have available within (3) miles of Richfield's city limits the following equipment as a minimum: A. Two trucks having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 4 ton or more, to be equipped with a crane and winch, and further equipped to control the movement of the towed vehicle, and B. Equipment sufficient and designed to move a completely demolished vehicle by means. of dollies or low-bed trailers. A listing of all equipment to be utilized shall be submitted to the City. Such listing shall show the make and model of all equipment available for use under this ~~'~ contract, along with size and all other pertinent information, such as specialized equipment not necessarily herein specified, but which may be a factor in performing effectively and efficiently. All equipment to be used by the contractor under this contract shall be maintained in good repair and condition. The City reserves the right to inspect the equipment from time to time for the purpose of determining that equipment condition is in conformance with the terms and conditions of the specifications and the contract. 3. All storage and parking. lot facilities and all equipment to be used by the contractor under this contract must be located within (3) miles of Richfield's city limits. The storage and parking lot facilities must meet all of the applicable State building code standard and municipal license and zoning requirements, including those relating to screening and landscaping of the City in which the facility is located. 4. The facilities proposed to be utilized under this contract must have the capability of storing a minimum of one (1) vehicle inside and a further capability of providing storage for a minimum of (25) twenty-five vehicles outside. Inside storage will be necessary only when so requested or directed by an authorized official of the City of Richfield as identified in these specifications. When a direction is given to store a unit inside, such directions may be accompanied by certain instructions for security measures to be employed. The security responsibilities become the responsibility of the storing agent while the unit is in their keeping. 5. The Contractor performing under this contract shall assume all and full responsibility for the conduct of his/her employees. The Contractor guarantees that all of the employees performing under this contract will be adequately trained in their profession, will respond promptly to all calls, will provide safe and adequate equipment (as herein specified), be clean and neat in appearance, use decent language, free of profanity, and treat the public courteously at all times. Request for service from the Richfield Police Department must be given priority by all dispatchers. Failing to meet any or all of the requirements of this. section may result in cause for terminating the contract at any time as per the conditions specified for contract termination. 6. The Contractor will be solely responsible for loss or damage to any vehicle, including all equipment and contents, from the time direction is given by the authorized City representative turning the vehicle over to the Contractor or his Agency and until such time as the vehicle is legally released to the registered or actual owner or legal agent thereof. 7. The performing contractor must agree to maintain proper records of all vehicles .received. The record keeping system shall meet the approval of the Richfield Public Safety .Director and records are to be available at all times for inspection by authorized City officials. The records must include a copy of the .police impounding report. A report shall be submitted monthly to the Richfield Public Safety Director. detailing all vehicles stored or released during that current month. All contents of such reports shall meet-the approval of the Richfield Public Safety Director. ~rl ~ I 8. All vehicles towed or impounded are to be released only upon proper authority of the Richfield Public Safety Director, except for private tows. 9. While performing under this contract and under these specifications, the Contractor or their designated representative(s) must be present at the storage facility six (6) days a week, Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (excluding. legal holidays) and from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 1:00 p.m. each Sunday and all legal holidays, for the purpose of releasing vehicles to authorized claimants. Police requested releases will be handled anytime. 10. It shall be agreed under this contract that motor vehicles will not be driven at anytime during the towing procedure. In the event that the vehicle is without tires or has flat tires, the performing Contractor agrees to tow the vehicle without damaging the wheels and further agrees not to tow any vehicle on its rims, on wheels without tires, or on flat tires. 11. Upon arrival at the scene of a tow where a vehicle accident has occurred, the performing Contractor, in addition to the physical removal of the vehicle, assumes full responsibility for removing any vehicular parts or other debris, excluding liquids and other commercial cargo, resulting from the accident.- This clean-up is to be completed without any additional compensation. 12. The performing Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for his/her towing and storage services pursuant to the fees submitted in the accompanying bid proposal. The Contractor shall agree that neither the City nor any Department thereof is responsible for any charges as a result of towing and/or storage and that the Contractor assumes all liability for any and all unpaid charges. NOTE: This Provision and these Specifications are in no way a law or regulation relating to "price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property," under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 14501(c)(1)(1997). 13. If an involved private owner/operator makes a timely request for a tow by other than our Contractor, such request shall be honored by the Police Department. In either instance, the owner/operator is solely responsible for all associated charges. 14. For vehicles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture, and subsequently released to the Police Department pending the outcome of forfeiture proceedings, the performing contractor shall indicate a flat rate charge per forfeited vehicle. The flat rate shall include the towing, storage on the date of the tow, and three days of storage after the date of the tow. The flat rate applies to all cars, vans, small trucks,. 4-wheel drive vehicles, utility vehicles, and motorcycles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture to the City. 15. Should the Contractor fail to appear at a designated tow point .within twenty (20) minutes after receiving a call for a tow, the City reserves the right to call another towing service to perform the work. If the Contractor is called and is unable to respond due to conditions beyond their control, the authorized City officials shall be immediately so informed, and the right is hereby reserved to call another service to perform the work. ~~-i~ If, at any time, it becomes necessary for the City to request the services of another towing service for the reasons detailed above, the City retains the right to hold the Contractor retained under this contract responsible for any additional charges over and above the fee schedule recorded in this bid -proposal. Such charges shall be assessed only if the response time is due to negligence or laxity on the part of the contractor, which negligence might include equipment failure. 16. The Contractor performing under this contract shall operate and maintain its parking and storage facility in compliance with the terms of this contract and all State and City applicable laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations that are presently in effect, or which may hereafter be adopted. 17. No alterations or modifications of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties hereto. 18. In the event of a.breach by the Contractor of any terms or conditions of this agreement, the City shall have, in addition to any other legal recourse, the right to terminate this agreement forthwith. 19. Either party may terminate. this contract upon the serving of such termination notice to the other, in writing, (6) six months prior to the intended termination date. 20.A copy of this contract, along with the authorized fee schedule, shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the Contractor's place of business. INSURANCE: The successful Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until the specified insurance coverages have been obtained. The Contractor shall file, with the Richfield City Clerk, all certificates of insurance or documentation thereof indicating that all specified insurance have been obtained and are in full force. The City of Richfield shall be named as an additional insured on said comprehensive general liability policy. The following coverages are required as minimums: Public Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 Comprehensive General Liability (including assault and battery). 2. Business Auto Policy with all coverages (all vehicles), with $1,000,000 limits. 3. Garage Keepers' Legal Liability. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance covering all employees of the Contractor, or his agents, working under this contract in accordance with the Minnesota Workers Compensation Law. „ The Contractor shall agree to provide to the Richfield City Clerk, 25 days prior written notice in the event any policy is canceled or a material change is effected and each policy 3~-~I must contain a provision that the insurer notify the Richfield City Clerk immediately if a policy is canceled or a material change has been effected. PERFORMANCE BOND: On or before the date that the contract between the City and the Towing service becomes effective, the Contractor shall file with the Richfield City Clerk an acceptable Corporate surety bond in the amount of $10,000, payable to the City of Richfield and subject to the approval by the Richfield City Attorney for the faithful performance of all duties and obligations imposed under the terms and conditions of the contract. ~~ - l a- EXHIBIT B REVISED PROPOSAL-FORM CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN PROPOSAL FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDI NG AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RICHFIELD CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASE 12/1/2004 12 MONTHS 12/1/2005 THROUGH ENDING 6/30/03 THROUGH 11/30/2005 2.2% 11/30/2006** Towing of impounded cars, trucks (under 1-1/2 ton capacity), motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and unattended utility trailers towed from within the City of Richfield $66.15 $1.46 $67.61 Towing charge for same from Outside the City of Richfield $66.15. $1.46 $67.61* Mileage charge for same $2.25 $.05 $2.30 Towing of trucks (larger than 1 ton capacity) within the City of Richfield $110.25 $2.43 $112.68* Towing charge for same outside the City of Richfield $110.25 $2.43 $112.68* Mileage charge for same $3.05 $.07 $3.12* USE OF WINCH WITH TOW Car (Per hour maximum of $66.06) $16.50 $.37 $16.87* Truck (Per hour maximum of $109.25) $27.60 $.61 $28.21* Use of Dolly $16.50 $.36 $16.87* Use of low-bed trailer or truck $82.70 $1.82 $84.52* (Flatbed Required) Storage Charges First 24 hours or fraction thereof: A. Inside Storage $29.75 $.65 $30.40* B. Outside Storage $22.05 $.49 $22.54* Each Additional. 24 Hours or Fraction Thereof: A. Inside Storage $29.75 $.65 $30.40* B. Outside Storage $22.05 $.49 $22.54* Forfeitures Vehicles forfeited to the City of $137.55 $3.03 $140.58* Richfield *Cents are rounded 1025 Chiefs Towing Contract Renewal