4-28-97 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1997
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
APRIL 14, 1997 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS COMMISSION OF APRIL 21, 1997
PRESENTATION
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. ACCEPTANCE OF ELEVEN YEAR AWARD RECOGNIZING CITY OF RICHFIELD
AS A TREE CITY USA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 106
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. 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 RESOLUTION RELATED TO
IMPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALIZATION AT 1-35W WEST RAMP AT
76TH STREET IN CITY OF RICHFIELD C.L. 107
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR
SHERIDAN PARK SITE WORK, 65TH STREET AND THOMAS AVENUE, TO
HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA IN AMOUNT OF $231,721 C.L. 108
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR
SHERIDAN PARK BUILDING, 65TH STREET AND THOMAS AVENUE, TO
EBERT CONSTRUCTION IN AMOUNT OF $149,900 C.L. 109
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE FOR EL
PULSO DE LA VIDA AT ST. PETER'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 6730 NICOLLET
AVENUE, FOR MAY 10 THROUGH JUNE 28, 1997 C.L. 110
PUBLIC HEARING
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE FOR
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS;
AMENDING SUBSECTION 416.09, SUBDIVISION 3 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 111
0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
AIRPORT BUSINESS
6. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
9. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
10. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 861-9702.
REVISED LETTER DISCUSSED
AT 4/28/97 COUNCIL MEETING
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. III
Agenda April 28, 1997,
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance for the amortization of
nonconforming outdoor advertising displays; amending Subsection 416.09, Subdivision
3 of the Richfield City Code.
Background:
In 1987, the City of Richfield adopted a new sign ordinance. That sign ordinance
provided for enforcement of some elements of the new sign ordinance 10 years after its
initial approval. The impact of that ordinance was that business signs and outdoor
advertising display signs would have to fully conform with new ordinance requirements
in October 1997. For business signs that meant certain types of signs, such as rooftop
signs or signs that exceeded certain size requirements, will be required to comply with
the new ordinance in October 1997. The ordinance also provided that no outdoor
advertising signs would be permitted after October 1997.
The City Council has previously reviewed the signs that will be nonconforming as of
October 1997. This information has also been reviewed with the owners of the signs.
• Universal Sign owns the 16 outdoor advertising display billboards signs within the City.
Universal Sign has stated they believe that the City requirement to remove the signs
violates federal and state law and also is not required under the Richfield ordinance.
The City Attorney has reviewed the legal position of Universal Sign Co. attorneys and
has recommended a change in Richfield's local ordinance to clarify the amortization
requirement. The revised ordinance would provide for a three year amortization period.
The ordinance would also provide an option for an extension. The request for the
extension would be heard by a hearing examiner appointed by the City Manager
without an appeal to the City Council. The hearing examiner would be required to
review specific criteria including cost of the sign, depreciated value, remaining useful
life, length and remaining term of any lease, location of the display, character and uses
of surrounding neighborhoods.
The City Council has previously directed staff to work with the sign company to develop
and agreement regarding enforcement. The City Manager met with Mike Cronin
representing Universal Sign on January 9 to discuss the possible settlement provision.
Also, Mr. Cronin was advised that the City would be proceeding with the revised
ordinance. Mr. Cronin appeared at the March 10, 1997 first reading. City staff
contacted Mr. Cronin in early April. Mr. Cronin stated that he had not received direction
from Universal Sign regarding a settlement.
I?
?J
ecommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance providing for the
amortization of nonconforming outdoor advertising displays; amending Subsection
416.09, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Attorney has recommended that the City's current sign ordinance is
subject to misinterpretation and therefore, should be amended to clarify the
original intent.
2. Court rulings have provided clear direction regarding development of ordinances
which are likely to withstand legal challenges.
3. First reading was held on March 10, 1997 and the public hearing and second
reading were scheduled for April 28, 1997.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to approve this revised ordinance. If the
ordinance is not revised, a legal challenge on the local ordinance may be upheld
by a court. In any case, it is likely that the Universal Sign Co. will challenge this
ordinance.
2. The City Council could decide to revise the ordinance by providing that the
is, Council appoints the hearing examiner.
3. The City Council could decide to revise the ordinance by providing that the ruling
of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the City Council.
4. The City Council could decide to request further research regarding this matter
and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
5. The City Council could decide to wait for an agreement with Universal Sign Co.
Regarding enforcement on this ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of April 28, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
9 JDP:cak
BILL NO.
?a
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 416.09, SUBDIVISION 3 OF
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 416.09, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
Nonconforming outdoor advertising displays. Outdoor advertising displays
lawfully erected and located on the e4eetive date e +h,6 s bseG or prior to October
1, 1987 may continue subject to the following limitations:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision 2, paragraph (k) of this subsection, no
nonconforming outdoor advertising display may be expanded, rebuilt, relocated
or altered without being brought into conformity with the requirements of this
ordinance. This provision shall not apply to the following circumstances.
(1) The rebuilding of an outdoor advertising display which sustains
damage the repair of which in the opinion of the building official will cost
less than 50% of the replacement cost of the physical structure prior to the
0damage.
.
(2) Nonstructural alterations of modifications designed to improve the
appearance of the sign and changes of the new sign face.
(b) Any outdoor advertising display which is not used for advertising purposes for a
period of more than two years shall be deemed abandoned and must be
removed by the owner of the parcel on which it is located.
LcJ All nonconforming outdoor advertising displays, including displays relocated
under subdivision 2, paragraph (k) of this subsection, must be removed or
brought into compliance with this ordinance on or before May 31, 2000 or such
later date as may be granted in an extension obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this subdivision.
f?Q The owner of an outdoor advertising display may apply for an extension of the
deadline provided for in paragraph (c) of this subdivision:
M Applications for extension must be made to the director of
community development on or before May 31, 1999 on forms provided by
the City.
• 0 Upon receipt of a completed application, the director shall assign
the application to a hearing examiner appointed by the city manager and
a date shall be set for a public hearing before the hearing examiner.
Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 10 days prior to the
5-3 hearing and must also be mailed to the owners of properties located
wholly or partially within 350 feet of the property on which the outdoor
advertising display is located.
The hearing examiner shall render a written decision concerning
the application. In making the decision, the hearing examiner may
consider the following factors: (i) cost of the display and any
improvements thereto prior to the effective date of this ordinance; (ii)
depreciated value of the display; (iii) remaining useful life of the display;
(iv) length and remaining term of any lease under which the display is
maintained; (U lease terms in effect as of March 10, 1997; (vi) location of
the display in-relation to surrounding property uses; (vii) character of and
uses in the surrounding neighborhood; (viii) benefit to the public by
requiring the termination of the nonconforming use; (ix) burden on the
property owner by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use; (x)
length of time the use has been in existence and the length of time the
use has been nonconforming.
The owner has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to an
extension. The hearing examiner may grant an extension if the
amortization period provided in paragraph (c) unreasonably deprives the
owner of the opportunity to recover the value of the display and any '
improvements made thereto prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
The hearing examiner may extend the removal deadline for such period of
time as the hearing examiner determines reasonable under the
circumstances. The hearing examiner may impose reasonable conditions
upon the owner of the display, for the purpose of mitigating or alleviating
the harm caused by the nonconformity during the extension period.
LQ The decision of the hearing examiner is the final decision of the
city-.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
April, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
LI-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. iio
Agenda April 28, 1997
Issue Statement:
Request for a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida, 1145 Lilac Circle,
Victoria, Minnesota, to be located at St. Peter's Catholic Church, 6730 Nicollet
Avenue, for May 10 through June 28, 1997.
Background:
The applicant, Thomas William Bright, submitted an application on February 26,
1997 for a public dance license. These dances are scheduled for May 10, 17,
and 31 and June 7, 14, 21 and 28. They are scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. and
end promptly at 1 a.m. Dancing is done to a disc jockey and is the only activity
taking place. The applicant has a signed lease agreement with St. Peter's
Catholic Church for the dances to take place at their location.
Staff has had several conversations with the owner of the establishment and has
reviewed all requirements with him thoroughly. There will be no alcohol of any
kind served to anyone or available during these dances. The owner has
contacted Public Safety and made arrangements for a police officer to be
present at all public dances with the cost being incurred by the owner.
Arrangements will be made for an officer to be present for each evening's
activities.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida,
1145 Lilac Circle, Victoria, Minnesota, to be located at St. Peter's Catholic
Church, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for May 10 through June 28, 1997.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The owner has submitted the required information and paid the fees.
2. The owner has had several discussions with Public Safety staff and has
agreed to all the requirements of the public dance ordinance.
3. There have been no public safety contacts during these dances.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to approve the public dance license which
would mean that no dancing could take place on the premises.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for a public dance license is presented to Council for their
consideration at this time.
*Ja. rosser
JDP:cak
Respec ully submitted,
er
L4(2,,.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. log
Agenda April 28, 1997
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for Sheridan Park building, vicinity of 65th Street and Thomas
Avenue.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Budget adopted for 1997 includes $400,000 for the
redevelopment of Sheridan Park. The architect's estimate for the construction of
the picnic shelter and electric work to the site was $140,000.
Bids for the building at Sheridan Park were opened according to legal
requirements on April 18, 1997.
Vendor Total Bid
Ebert Construction $149,900
CM Construction 163,608
Parkos Construction 174,600
Morcon Construction 178,880
American Liberty 189,186
United Contracting 192,500
Melsinger Construction 198,400
Thor Construction 203,990
Minnesota Construction 209,000
Specialty 212,300
Mikkelson Wulff Construction 224,318
There were two add alternates for additional gazebos which exceeded the
budget considerably. These were for 23,700 and $27,900 for a total of 51,300.
In addition, there were two deduct alternates. The first deduct alternate would
eliminate the metal roofing to save $4,500. In both the architect's and staff's
opinion, the metal roofing option should be selected. Metal roofing reduces
maintenance costs significantly over the life of a roof, and extends the life. The
$4,500 would be recovered in reduced maintenance dollars in a very short period
of time. The second deduct alternate would be to eliminate the free standing
wall, reducing the project cost by $3,300. This wall contains electric outlets and
a shelf for picnickers to use for coffee pots, crock pots and the like and was a
very popular feature with the neighbors. Staff recommends retaining this feature
as well.
These reductions would result in a building cost of $142,100. However, the
savings in the short term would be inefficient for the project quality and
usefulness in the long term.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the Sheridan Park
building to Ebert Construction in the amount of $149,900.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Community Services Commission recommended, and the City Council
concurred by adopting the 1997 Capital Budget, that the park be
reconstructed. The neighbors opted for a picnic shelter type structure to save
money.
2. The bid submitted by Ebert was the lowest bid submitted by a responsible
bidder meeting specifications.
3. There is sufficient funding in the project allocation for the purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could recommend accepting the bid without one or both of the
deducts, however, staff believes this would be inefficient in the long term.
2. Council could add one or both of the add- alternates, However; this would
increase the cost of the project beyond the budget for less benefit to the park.
3. Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise. However, staff
does not believe a better price from a reputable vendor can be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the April 28, 1997 Council meeting in order to
facilitate the work on a timely basis.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
s
Q
I-
N
W
Z
Z
O ~
Co CF)
CL 00
0 r
LL -
_ -p Q O
U m Q
LL
0
F-
5
•
N
LO
ti
OO
C ?
p O
C%j
m?
Y O
aZ
ca 'o
cU
U a?i
cu
U cn
a) cu
0)
a) O
LL O
a. m
N Y
L
L f6
O 0-
t ?
i- c6
CO
U O
N
co
CU
CO :3
O
cu
N ?
E cc
Q aC:j
a) Q-
O
O >
O CD
C U
a) L-
a) O
E w
cu cu
O ,O
r a)
O a)
z Eti
c a) rn
o =•M
o
O N
L
!ter) v)
CL Q
O O :3 c
0-0
C O a)
a)
a) a
E Q.
t U)
a) a)
c ?
0 00 U
o
:3 a)
L
IL 3
a)
:r
cu
L
O Q)
N ?
L_ ^Q,
W
Y a)
O 0) Y
L a)
O
Un'U :tf
aa))
o
a)?co
LL cu
L^^
VJ
CU a) CO
N U
O V •= c
F-'2 0 Z
a)
N
CL
O
c6
a
cc
c
cu
N
N
N
N
.n
0
a)
H
°o Oo o °0 0 0
00 m O °r° O co
O O CD Cfl M- LO co
?.- o
O M
O d - ?t
N N
O 00
r
N N r
d9
V O O O O p 00
C Lp
D
O
N
ti
T-
O
T-
O
C)
LO
O
C)
O
O
W N M N N N N
Q
d ?., C)
O
O
O
O 0
O C)
O C)
O
to = O CN cu O O C) C)
O
L# Q Li) O L O O O
N N O N
Q C
69P
ar o 0 0 °O °O o
00 LO 00 CD 6
0 C;
00 00
l
Cl d7 N m CD f
-
td+ O M CC L6 CO
Q r
f?
O
O O
O Cl
O O
O O
O O
O
0 r O
I O O
co O
LO
di f` C4 t
M Cfl N r
,
Q r M CY) CM M M
r O O O O O O
C)
C) ?
co 0
O 0 0 0
d^ M O N
= ti
r O
N O
N
M CO
N Oo
N
Q
?' c c c c c c
L
m o 0
m
- 0 0
°LO 0 0
?m 0 0
Lm 0 0
Lm 0 0
LO
U
)
VI m m W m - m m
m
E
: O
O Z
O ?
o
Rf
Z C
O C
OZ
L CZ L
»?
N =' U Z L n c N Z Cn a)
mV g N•- oa o - C? 0 m
10 c
o m j ccuu '. U C C:
m
LP U ?
CD
L C _
0
-C cA a)
41 m
N C
Sd
c ecu
f1 o a)
sV.,
V
Mw O c L- a)
a.
:
=
Y
-
2
20
Dcn
O O
2(D
I'l C-,-
0
•
C
? O
O m
le
Oo L
r (B
•v a
C
.0 cu N
cu -0
O M
co X-- cu
^a_
O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
cc co o 0 0 0
0 r CO M It C3)
~ O
00
M
(D
r
O
r r N ?- r
O O 00 O O
Lf) 0
C) 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
M
O 00 O 00
Q N r r M
ar o o O
C) O
o
co a O 00 O 00
L- N O 00 LO
OCT
Q r
d C)
O
O C
O C)
O C)
O
O co O 0
O C)
O
CO N O LO
' O
LO 0
)
Q EA 4f?
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
cc
C-4 ci
C)
C-4
C C5
C) C=;
C)
L
ICT
00
O
O
O
R N N
C4
v M
N
Q
69-
4+ O O O O O
.
m
C O
C) N
00 O O
C) O
C)
L O O O It
.? O
N V'
N L
M O
N M
N
Q
(a4
C ? C C C
L
M p O
L m O O
U-) m O O
L co O O
L m O O
L m
N m m m co co
C
O O
O
O
U j
Z
C
V Z L O c
Z
U . U
Z c
C 2 _
U) a? ? U
ci-
U C:
p> m O > + O O c O
m U N tea.
N O
U m Q. N 'r-
co co U- O O
w _j
c
a)
a)
C
M
O
U
U
r`
rn
rn
r
co
N
L^
Q
Q
W
m
N
m
cn
c
O
U
C
a
cB
..Q
t6
N
O
07
..a
N
ca
N
U
0=
O
C
C
(B
.Y
a)
U
N
H
Y
N
U
U
a?
O
LL
a:
N
m
0
I?
APR-22-97 T U E 1 1 : 0 8 T H Q R S E C K ARCHITECTS LTD P. 0 i
•
ffi6rbeck
A R C N I T R C T 8
April 22, 1997
Ms. Gretchen Blank
Director, Recreation Services Department
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Bids for Sheridan Park Buildings
Dear Gretchen:
The low bidder was Ebert, Inc., 9350 County Road 19, P.G. Box 97, Loretto,
Minnesota, 55357. Their base bid was $149,900. Their bid Is In order and
they are experienced In park building construction,
The budget we are assuming Is as follows:
Less Fees/E penses 150,000
F? 20.0go
130,000
Plus Site Lighting (SRF Budget) S -M=
140,000
0
As mentiond-d the base bid by Ebert Inc. was $149,900. Further reductions In
this bid could be made if the two deduct alternates, #4 and #5, were accepted,
Accepting Alternate #4 (eliminate metal roofing):
Base Bid 149,900
Less Alternate #4 F1 -4,290
145,400
Accepting Alternate #5 (eliminate freestanding wall):
Base Bid 149,900
Less Alternate #5 It 3..3 go
146,600
Accepting both Alternates #4 and #5:
Base Bid ,900
'
Less Alternates #4 and #5 r
142
,
100
We recommend award to Ebert, Inc, as follows:
Base Bid $149,900
0
Sincerely,
Duane (Dewey Thorbeck, FAIA
copy: Scott Klempke, Ebert, Inc.
1405 WIISiew xtinel
mlgnnnSf?S A, mn ISS>403
fns. N 71 ¦ tltl$t!
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA z413
• Council Letter No. 108
Agenda April 28, 1997
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for Sheridan Park site work, vicinity of 65th Street and Thomas
Avenue.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Budget adopted for 1997 includes $400,000 for the
redevelopment of Sheridan Park. The park site work was estimated by the
Landscape Architect to be $213,571.
Bids for the site work at Sheridan Park were opened according to legal
requirements on April 18, 1997.
Vendor Total Bid
Hoffman & McNamara $231,721.00
Thor Construction $244,936.00
Barber Construction $268,451.40
Expert Asphalt Company $287,115.00
Originally, Thor Construction appeared to be the low bidder. However, two
errors were found in their bid. Their survey and layout costs were not included in
the bid grand total, and they h ad reduced the quantity in the resilient surfacing
on the bid form.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for Sheridan Park site
work to Hoffman & McNamara in the amount of $231,721.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sheridan Park is the last neighborhood park in the system to be built based on
the 1969 original Master Park Plan.
2. The bid submitted by Hoffman & McNamara was the lowest bid submitted by a
responsible bidder meeting specifications.
3. A reduction in concrete prices based on not accepting two building add
alternates should reduce the actual amount of the contract. Unit prices are
called out in the contract to allow for these adjustments. There is sufficient
funding in the project allocation for the purchase.
n
?J
L4 L3-)
• Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise. However, staff does
not believe a better price from a reputable vendor can be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the April 28, 1997 Council meeting in order to
facilitate the work on a timely basis.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja e . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 18,1997
10:00 a.m.
Sheridan Park Site Work
City Bid No. 97-4
City Project No. 420-40-752
46-J-
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Sheridan Park Site Work, as
advertised in the official newspaper on April 2, 1997.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Michael Eastling, Public Works Director
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Nancy Stroth, Deputy Clerk
•
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
Hoffman & McNamara 5% Bid Bond $ 231,721.00
Hastings, MN
Barber Construction, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 268,451.40
Hopkins, MN
Expert Asphalt 5% Bid Bond $ 277,055.00
Cologne, MN 287,115.00
Thor Construction, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 229,207.05
Minneapolis, MN * 244,936.00
* denotes revised and corrected bid after review of consultant
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
28, 1997 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
C ONSULTING GROUP, INC.
• Transportation ¦ Civil ¦ Structural • Environmental ¦ Planning • Traffic ¦ Landscape Architecture ¦ Parking
SRF No. 0962597
April 21, 1997
Ms. Gretchen L. Blank
Recreation Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Gretchen: -
SUBJECT: SHERIDAN PARK SITE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY BID No. 420-40-752
Bids for the above referenced projects were received on Friday, April 18, 1997.
The bids have been reviewed and checked and a complete bid tabulation is also enclosed. The
bids are summarized as follows:
Contractor Total Bid
Hoffman & McNamara Co. $ 231,721.00
Thor Construction $ 244,936.40
Barber Construction Co., Inc. $ 268,451.40
Expert Asphalt Co. $ 287,115.00
The total low base bid was 8.5 percent above the final Landscape Architect's Estimate for
Sheridan Park site improvements. Originally Thor Construction appeared to be the low bidder.
The following two errors were found in the Thor Construction bid which resulted in this
contractor no longer being the low bidder:
• Bid Item Number 1--The surveying and layout costs, were not reflected in the bid grand total.
• Thor Construction changed the play area synthetic resilient surface quantity on the bid form.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 ¦ Fax (612) 475-2429
An Equal Opportunity Employer
I
Ms. Gretchen Blank -2- April 21, 1997
The new low bidder, Hoffman & McNamara Co. has successfully performed similar work on
other projects in the City of Richfield and other municipalities. Therefore, we recommend award
of the contract to Hoffinan & McNamara Co.
The amount of the Contract to' be awarded to the Contractor should be determined by the City of
Richfield, based on the budget previously set for this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
i
Sincerely,,
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
W?L1t,11.Q?
v I Cu?
B J. Warner, ASLA, AICP
Principal
BJW/smf
Enclosures
•
so.
•
4R
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 107
Agenda April 28, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution to approve agreement to revise the existing traffic control
signal at the 1-35W ramp at 76th Street.
Background:
The proposed agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and the City of Richfield would revise the existing traffic control signal with
street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on the 1-35W
west ramp at 76th Street. More specifically:
The project work will add emergency vehicle pre-emption to the only signal lacking
this equipment on the 77th/76th Street arterial through Richfield.
Signal repair will move one signal pole for improved sight lines for east bound traffic
on 76th Street.
Light emitting diode red signal heads will reduce operating costs for electricity.
MnDOT will perform the work. The agreement calls for a cost share of 77% paid by the
State and 23% paid by the City. The project is estimated to cost $50,000 including
construction, engineering and inspection.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution which authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to
execute Minnesota Department of Transportation Traffic Control Signal Agreement No.
75960 between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and the City of
Richfield, S.P. 2782-269, S.A.P. 157-361-18.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed agreement is in the best interest of the community by providing
improved traffic control at the 1-35W west ramp at 76th Street.
2. The City's share for the cost of the improvements is reasonable for the
improvement to be provided.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not enter into an agreement. However, this would prevent the work from being
done and the work proposed in the agreement is in the best interest of the
community.
2. Request staff to negotiate the City's share of the cost for the work included in the
proposed agreement. However, this agreement is typical for this type of work. It
is unlikely the City's share would be reduced.
qP-)
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council approval of the agreement is sought at the April 28, 1997 Council meeting so
the necessary steps may be taken to complete the work in 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
•
9A-1
9 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATED TO IMPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALIZATION AT
THE 1-35W WEST RAMP AT 76TH STREET IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit:
To revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, emergency
vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 35W
West Ramp at 76th Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth and contained in Agreement No. 75960, a copy of which was before
the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are
authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the
City all the contractual obligations contained therein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of April, 1997.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
s
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 106
Agenda April 28, 1997
Issue Statement:
Acceptance of a Tree City USA Eleven Year Award.
Background:
Tree City, USA began as a 1976 Bicentennial project co-sponsored by the National
Association of State Foresters and the USDA-Forest Service. The National League of
Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are now co-sponsors as well. To become
(and remain) a Tree City USA, a community must meet four standards: a tree board or
department (which is the Community Services Commission); a city tree ordinance
(Richfield's ordinance provides for the planting, maintenance, care, protection and
removal of trees on public property); a comprehensive community forestry program, and
an Arbor day observance.
The Forestry Division pursues an aggressive diseased tree removal and disposal
program, as well as a planting project each spring. The Forestry Division budget
contains over $200,000 each year to achieve these goals, which is well above the
$2.00 per capita requirement for Tree City USA status.
In 1985, the City of Richfield applied to the National Arbor Day Foundation for Tree City
USA status. Richfield was named a Tree City USA for the first time in 1986. Since that
time, Richfield has applied for and received Tree City USA status each year. This will
be the eleventh year Richfield has been named a Tree City USA.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Eleven Year Award recognizing the City of Richfield as a Tree City USA.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield has promoted an effective community forestry program as an ongoing
process of growth and renewal, a program of planting and care that continues
through the years.
2. Due to this program, the City of Richfield has earned Tree City USA status for the
past eleven years.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the April 28, 1997 Council meeting. Public Works Director
Mike Eastling will be in attendance at the meeting to represent the Forestry Division.
Respectful) submitted,
Jame Prosser
40 City M ager .
JDP:cak