2010-07-20=099A COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION AGENDA
Monday, July 20, 2010
7:00 pm
Richfield Community Center (7000 NicolletAve)
I Commission Members Staff Liaisons j
I Reed Bomholdt Greq Mangold Bob Shotwell Jim Tq�itzhofer (Staff Liaison) Fred Wroqe (Council`
I Gerry Charnitz (Chair) Adan Nelson Joe $ igyer John vans Secrete Rick Jabs (Planninq Qom)
I Dan Edgerton Rodnev Schmidt Sarah Till JVC) Chris Reais !Finance d I _I
I I Michele Thom son 1
REGULAR COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING
1. Approval of Minutes
❑ Regular Meeting: June 14, 2010
2. Public Comment
❑ Items not printed on the agenda
3. Staff Reports
❑ Fourth of July
❑ Summer Playground and Lunch Program
4. Discussion Items
❑ Waste Hauling Activity (Topitzhofer)
❑ Tier -One Skate Park (Topitzhofer)
5. Committee Reports
❑ Transportation Commission (Shotwell/Charnitz)
❑ Bike Planning Group (Edgerton/Shotwell)
❑ Veterans Park Planning Group (Charnitz/Schmidt)
❑ Community Bandshell (Bornholdt/Jabs)
❑ FOWL (Bornholdt)
❑ Honoring All Veterans Memorial, Inc (Bornholdt/Schmidt)
❑ Planning Commission (Springer)
❑ Arts Commission (Thompson)
6. Next Meeting
To be discussed at meeting (Charnitz)
7. Adjournment
June 14, 2010 .9M DRAFT MINUTES UNTIL APPROVED BY THE CSC.
®JOINT RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
& REGULAR COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, June 14, 2010, Community Center (7000 Nicollet Avel
CSCMembers -_...- ... .... ...... ...-...,---.., -. ----- -------- - ------ _... -
Rodney Schmidt. Joe ringer, Sarah Till
Planning Commission Rick Jabs, Tom Rublein, Bob Hall, Dan Klitzenberylar, Maureen Scaglia, Dennis Schuller, Josh Root I
Staff Jim Topitzhofer, John Evans, Melissa Poehlman, Chris Regis I
Others I
ABSENT
CSC Members I Dan Ecjyerton
Council Liaison Fred roge I
I Call to Order I
Chamitz called the joint CSC/PC meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
I CIP/Cls I
Finance Manager Regis summarized the 2010 CIP, 2011-2015 CIB.
Call to Order I
Charnitz called the regular CSC meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
Approval of Minutes
Schmidt moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the regular May meeting. Approved, ayes all.
I Staff Reports I
Lincoln Athletic Complex
Topitzhofer provided an update. He said that the complex is nearly complete and play will begin on it soon.
Other
Park Ordinance Revisions
Chamitz summarized the Council meeting at which the park ordinance revisions were discussed. He said that the Council approved of taking
the revisions to public hearing.
I Discussion Items I
Waste Hauling
Topitzhofer said that Mangold brought the item after noticing the number of trucks coming through his neighborhood (19) on garbage day. He
and Topitzhofer said that fewer trucks may be easier on the roads, better for the environment, possibly cheaper for the residents, maybe safer.
Charnitz asked Topitzhofer what the options may be. Topitzhofer said that there has been discussion about contracting for one provider to
haul garbage. He said that it was concluded that people would prefer to have the choice of haulers. Thompson said that, on some days, some
haulers leave garbage cans laying around. Shotwell and Chamitz said that it's such haulers that make people prefer to have a choice.
Schmidt said that a single hauler would use bigger trucks that would do more damage to the roads. Springer said that they have a single
hauler in St. Cloud and it works well, but he's not sure of the size of the trucks. Shotwell said that maybe the City would impose a gross weight
limit for hauler trucks. Topitzhofer said that it may be that the City could limit the number of haulers in Richfield. He said that he will collect
more information from the City Manager and the City Engineer.
I Committee Reports I
Skate Park Planning Group: Topitzhofer said that the group will begin meeting soon (Edgerton, Mangold, Jabs, and Roger Schmidt).
Transportation Commission: Shotwell provided the report.
Bike Planning Group: Topitzhofer provided the report.
Veterans Park Planning Group: Charnitz provided the report.
Community Bandshell: Topitzhofer provided the report.
FOWL: Bomholdt provided the report.
Honoring All Veterans Memorial., Schmidt and Bornholdt reported on the Memorial Day event.
Arts Commission: Thompson provided the report.
I Next Meaina I
Regular CSC Meeting: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 7:00 pm, Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave)
Adjournment I
Schmidt moved, seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 pm.
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Agenda Item: Waste Haulers
Agenda Section: Discussion Items
Attachments: Memo to City Council dated June 4, 2009
Contact: Jim Topitzhofer
Recommended Action: None -discussion only
Commission member Greg Mangold brought an item for discussion at the last Commission meeting
regarding the negative impacts from a high number of garbage haulers that currently service the City. The
City has looked into the feasibility of limiting garbage haulers in the past and Jim Topitzhofer offered to
compile this information and present it to the Commission. The attached memorandum was sent to City
Council for discussion at a study session on June 4, 2009. The memo highlights options for residential
garbage collection and a recommendation by the City Manager to continue with open hauling.
Also attached is a collection of data from the Metro area regarding the impact damage on streets caused
by garbage truck traffic.
The Commission is welcome to discuss this topic further.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
June 4, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 95
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Residential Garbage Collection Options
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
(The following information was originally Issued on January 16, 2009, Council
Memorandum No. 11).
In response to a citizen inquiry in early summer 2008, the City Council requested City
staff investigate the possible options available for garbage collection service in the City
of Richfield. This memo is a brief summary of the findings of that effort.
Under Minnesota Statutes 115A.94 Subd. (3), cities have several options with respect to
organized garbage collection. However, as a matter of practice, except for city -staffed
collection, there are three major models that cities tend to follow with respect to the
organized collection of garbage and refuse. This memo will not consider a city -staffed
operation, where the city owns the garbage trucks and staffs the operation. The three
models referenced here are described as follows:
Collection of Garbaae by City Licensed Contractors (Open Haulina)
The most common model for garbage collection in the metro area is the system used by
cities such as Richfield, namely, Open Hauling. In essence, there is little regulation by
the city except that each residential and commercial garbage hauler must acquire a city
license to operate within the city and follow appropriate protocol for limiting collection
within certain zones of the city on proscribed days and allowable hours of operation.
There is no limit to the number of licensed haulers that may operate within the city.
Each resident is free to make contractual arrangements with the licensed hauler of their
choice at whatever rate is agreed upon. Moreover, there is no requirement that every
home have garbage collection. In some cases, two neighbors have agreed to use one
common container.
The city has no interaction with the hauler or resident with respect to the collection of
fees and does not collect any portion of the fees. City staff does not get involved in
disputes between the hauler and the resident, nor does staff handle questions regarding
billing, collections services and other related matter.
Citv Garbage Collection Franchise/Contract Agreement
Another option is for a city to create a franchise type of arrangement for organized
garbage collection (this could also be done by a contract). This model is typically
limited to residential garbage service. Under this type of system, a city would take bids
for different levels of service for the entire community or by major sections of the
community. The successful contractor would then be awarded the bid for city-wide or
area -wide collection under a franchise type of agreement. No other hauler would be
allowed to operate in the areas designated by the city. The rate would be uniform
through out the city for various levels of service and be guaranteed for a certain period
of time with limits on the level and types of increases that would be allowed.
The collection of fees would be done by the contractor. An option in this model of
service is to provide for some type of "franchise" payment to the city. The fee would be
to cover the cost of preparation and administration of the franchise agreement and to
pay for the customer service calls to the city that would be generated under this type of
arrangement. There is some limited city staff interaction with resident customers for
service related issues and problems.
This type of arrangement is not typical and there are few, if any, metro communities that
use an actual franchise for such service.
City Garbaige Collection
This is another model that is used by some cities in the metro area, such as St. Louis
Park. In this arrangement the city secures bids from garbage haulers for the exclusive
right to pick up all of the residential properties in that respective city. The rate is for a
period of time, such as one year, and may provide quotations for service for the
succeeding one or two years with limited increases. The city then adds a percentage
over that amount that forms the basis that is charged to the residents for service. For
example, the quarterly rate bid by the contractor might be $42 per residence per quarter
and the city might increase the charge to the resident to around $53 or $54 per
residence per quarter. The difference goes to the city for its costs of administering this
service.
In this type of arrangement, the city would typically establish an Enterprise Fund similar
to a water or sewer utility. The city collects the fees from the resident, usually included
on the city utility bill along with water and sewer charges, and then remits a city-wide
quarterly payment to the contractor. The garbage haulers have no interaction with the
residents for the payment of garbage collection fees. Any unpaid garbage collection
fees would be assessed to the property taxes of the subject property similar to
delinquent water and sewer accounts.
In this arrangement, the city would typically employ a new city position to administer the
collection service and handle complaints and scheduling matters. Since the service
contract is, in essence, between the resident and the city, residents would call the city
for billing concerns, pick-up schedule problems, service quality matter and other
collection related issue. The city also has the obligation of managing the contract with
the hauler.
This system will usually provide a savings to the resident, even after the city up charge
for contract administration is considered. This system typically provides a positive
revenue source for the City even with the hiring of additional staff, as is the case in St.
Louis Park.
One final thought on the St. Louis Park model is that the city is in a position to have
much greater Influence on the recycling aspect of garbage collection. In other words,
what items get recycled, how often recycling is picked up and promotion for recycling
efforts are all in the mix in this type of arrangement.
Cost of Service issues
In the Open Hauling system, the price is established by the hauler and the resident.
However, in such a "free enterprise" system the resident is free to periodically call a
number of haulers that are licensed in the community and get competitive quotes from
them. They are also free to go back to their current hauler and ask them to match a
lower quarterly cost, if, the resident finds one. This Is a common practice in the metro
area.
However, it is clear that in a system where one hauler is the only hauler in the area or
community, the rates are generally less costly. There are two primary reasons for the
lower cost to residents under a system other than the open hauler system. First, the
hauler may be paid a certain quarterly payment by the city and thus does not have to
handle billing issues and non-payment for services rendered. Secondly, operating costs
are reduced where the hauler is picking up virtually every residence on a block or
section of an entire community.
Of course, the trade-off for these savings is that the resident is tied to one service
provider and loses their freedom to choose a different provider when they are
dissatisfied with service.
Impacts on the Community
There are many impacts upon a community that may be considered in a full analysis of
which garbage hauling model is employed in a particular city. Disruption to citizens,
wear and tear on city roads, staff time required, quality of service, resident preferences,
costs, resident fees and revenues are all fair consideration in such a decision. Each
model has some impact on the community. A detailed analysis of those impacts could
be provided at a future date if the Council wishes to explore those matters further.
Staffina Considerations
At the present time, the City of Richfield is not staffed to undertake any service model
other than the Open Hauling system. If another service model was selected by the City
Council, it would require, at minimum, some staff time and legal assistance in setting up
such a system and writing the proper contract documents. The City would then need to
go through a bidding process, selection and ultimately, some level of administration.
With the current staff reductions and budget cuts faced by the City in 2009, the City will
be even less equipped to take on another function without additional revenue to cover
those costs. Again, if there are savings to the residents under some future garbage
collection system, there would need to be a mechanism for the City to recover some of
those savings to cover the costs of administration.
Finally, from a timing perspective, with the heavy staff involvement in the construction of
the new City Hall, it would be very difficult to find time from current staff to undertake
such a new service at the present time and provide the due diligence it would take to
implement this service.
Final Consideration
It is staffs recommendation that the City of Richfield continue with the Open Hauling
system for now. If there is consideration to move to another model in the future, staff
would recommend that the City Council give strong consideration to the city-wide
collection system employed by St. Louis Park. The St. Louis Park model would allow
the establishment of an enterprise fund to cover the costs and revenues of the system.
That system would provide a savings for Richfield residents and pay for all of the
associated City costs.
This matter is scheduled for discussion at the June 9, 2009 Special City Council
Worksession.
spectfully submitted,
St Dew
ity Manager
SLD:cak
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
Appendix 2E
Truck Traffic Issues
Among the comments heard during the public engagement work were complaints related
to truck traffic. These stem form concerns about the number of garbage trucks in an alley
or on a street during a week, and the reasons for concern included noise, wear and tear on
streets, safety, and pollution.
The following data were gathered on the issue of garbage trucks and traffic. References
cited are at the end of the summary.
Reduced wear and tear on streets
• Reduction of road impacts of overweight vehicles, especially during spring road
restrictions when roads are the most vulnerable to damage as the frost moves out
of the ground.
➢ "As they fill upon the route, many refuse collection vehicles operate
overweight, especially during the spring months when waste generation rates
increase but road weight limits may be at their lowest... Further, the number of
overweight vehicles using roadways increases the potential for paving
damage." (OBB, pg V-2)
➢ "The damage that garbage trucks inflict on City streets is magnified in the
spring when road restrictions typically restrict other trucks from using the
same streets." (Bonestroo)
.� "During the road restriction period, most refuse vehicles exceed the allowable
axle load limits. Because of the variable nature of refuse, these vehicles are
rated by volume capacity rather than by weight. Minnesota is said to have
some of the lowest allowable load limits when road restrictions are in effect;
therefore refuse vehicle manufacturers are not inclined to design vehicles to
meet Minnesota standards. Haulers generally acknowledge in some cases
when road restrictions are in effect, their fully loaded vehicles exceed the
allowable load limits. Tertiary (tag) axles and duel wheels are available on
some refuse vehicles of more recent design, but they are not generally used in
this area. Although these auxiliaries reduce the load on a road, they do not
guarantee compliance with road restrictions .... Mn/DOT will issue special
permits to haulers who apply for such permits. These permits increase the
allowable limit by 2,000 pounds/axle. Certain communities that enforce road
restrictions may grant exemptions to refuse trucks operating on their
residential streets. This practice is most common in cities with organized
collection." (Roseville, pg 21)
➢ "The number of exceptions to weight limits has direct bearing on the potential
for damage to pavement. An increase in the frequency of overweight vehicles
increases the risk of damage," (Chanhassen, pg 22)
• Reduction of relative impact on local streets of collection vehicles
➢ "According to research conducted as part of the City of Chanhassen
Organized Collection Study, MSW collection vehicles have road impacts
equivalent to 1,125 automobiles. Recycling vehicles represent the same
impact as 525 automobiles." (GBB, pg V-2)
Y Residential use of a typical cul-de-sac may generate 700-1,400 vehicle trips.
A single hauler serving the cul-de-sac exceeds the weekly residential usage
with an equivalent of 1,650 automobile trips. Five haulers serving the cul-de-
sac in one week create the impact of 8,250 automobiles."
o Minor residential street: 4,200-7,000 trips/week; five haulers 8,250
o Local residential collector 7,000-21,000; five haulers 8,250
o City collector street (MSA 9 ton roadway), 21,000-70,000 trips/wk
o The pattern is clear. With exception of the MSA streets, solid waste
collection vehicles currently serving the City create a significant portion of
the relative impact of vehicles on local streets. "(Chanhassen, pg 21)
[Note: presumably they are assuming each hauler does both MSW and
recycling]
➢ "In general, garbage trucks are the heaviest vehicles that regularly use City
streets. The impact that one garbage truck has on a City street equates to
roughly 830 cars." (Bonestroo)
➢ "The expected life of any street or alley surface is related to the traffic which
is carried by the street or alley. The roadway surface is particularly affected
by heavy wheel loads. The effect on a roadway of one refuse truck is
equivalent to 1,500 automobiles. This document has been documented by the
Research Section of Mn/DOT and is currently used by Mn/DOT in street and
highway design." (Metro Council)
Y "Garbage collection vehicles are perceived to be very destructive to the roads,
especially in the neighborhoods. Yet, there are only estimates of an equal
number of car loads for every run of a garbage vehicle. We have not been
able to find data which would reflect a "real" monetary savings to the
community by the elimination of competitive haulers through organized
collection. The weight of the vehicle which results in a negative impact to the
road surface is based on the weight per sq. inch of wheel base that meets the
road surface. Today all haulers are using third axle or flotation tires which
would lessen the impact of weight per sq. inch of wheel base meeting the road
surface." (Maplewood haulers' draft proposal, 1996)
Y Haulers serving Maplewood in 1996 offered an alternative plan, which
included: a) city would require haulers to use third axles or flotation tires on
their equipment to reduce roadway wear and tear, and b) routing to be
cognizant of load -sensitive streets, so that trucks are as empty as possible
when service accounts on them
➢ Haulers in Roseville commented: "the number of trucks/vehicles on a street is
not the cause of wear and tear on the streets; vehicle weight is the determining
factor." (Roseville, pg 17)
D Soils: "The cost of constructing and maintaining roadways is generally higher
in Chanhassen than in some communities, due to the clay soils prevalent in the
community. Protecting the integrity of the local street network may,
correspondingly, be a higher priority in Chanhassen than in other
communities." (Chanhassen, pg iii)
➢ Champlin implemented organized collection in 1987 in conjunction with
installation of sewers and new streets throughout the City; organized
collection was implemented to reduce street wear from the start (per JoAnne
Brown, City staff)
Pavement design manuals give load factor values to vehicle typed
o Car load factor - .0007
o Truck 18,000 lb/axle —1.0 load factor
o Garbage truck can be as high as 1.6 load factor
Another equivalency that design engineers use is 1 garbage truck trip = 1,000
car trips in terms of damage to pavement. Residential streets have average
daily traffic counts of 200 — 500 vehicles. (Roseville Public Works 2001)
Sonestroo = Memo to Rick Getschow, City Administrator, Lauderdale, from Paul
Heuer, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, Engineers & Architects,
4/9/01
Chanhassen = City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study. Final Report, 9/93,
Resource Strategies Corporation
GBB = Comparative Economic Analysis of MSW and Recvclina Collection in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, prepared for Metro Council by GBB, 9/94;
data from late summer through fall, 1993
Metro Council = Study of Oreanized Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
1985
Roseville = Ontions for Residential Waste Collection and Recvclina for Roseville, a
report to the Roseville City Council, prepared by Roseville's Citizen
Advisory Committee for Residential Solid Waste Management, 4/9)
Roseville Public Works 2001 = Impact of Heavy Trucks on Low Residential Streets,
presented by Duane Schwartz, Roseville Public Works Director, 10/11 /01
to Roseville Solid Waste Commission.
Saint Paul = An Intearated Solid Waste Management System for the City, of Saint Paul.
(1990)
MOANRICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 20, 2010
Agenda Item: Tier -One Skatepark Request for Proposal j
Agenda Section: Discussion Items
Attachments: Draft RFP
Contact: Jim Topitzhofer
Recommended Action: Review attached RFP and Schedule Public Meetinq
The planning group met on July 1 and developed the attached Request for Proposal (RFP). The
FP calls for the design, supply and installation of a concrete tier -one Skatepark, not to exceed a
cost of $70,000 with the following components:
• Street components only such as stairs, handrails & ledges.
• No ramp components.
• Incorporate at least one skate -able art component.
The attached map shows the
group's preferred location within
Augsburg Park. An alternative
location within Augsburg Park was
also determined.
A public meeting is scheduled on
July 28, 7:00 p.m. at the
Community Center. Commission
members are encouraged to
attend.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MN 55423
RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
DESIGN, SUPPLY & INSTALLATION
OF CONCRETE TIER -ONE SKATEPARK
AT AUGSBURG PARK
GENERAL GUIDELINES.
A. Requests For Competitive Proposals.
The City of Richfield is seeking competitive proposals from interested and
qualified companies for the design, supply and installation of a concrete tier -one
skatepark at Augsburg Park, 7145 Wentworth, Richfield, MN 55423.
B. Owner and Submission Information.
Interested companies should submit ONE COPY of their competitive proposals
to:
Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director
City of Richfield
7000 Nicollet Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Richfield Lake Park Proposal
Competitive proposals shall include all of the items set forth in Section II below.
Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals should be directed to Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director at 612-861-9394.
All proposals must be sealed and submitted to the Recreation Services
Department at the above address by 10:00 a.m. on
. Late submissions will not be considered.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE.
A. General Project Scope.
The City of Richfield Recreation Services Department is seeking competitive
proposals for the design, supply and installation of concrete tier -one skatepark
as defined in Section 11 B and C.
B. Budget
Design, supply and installation of the skatepark, soil samples, testing, soil
emending freight, delivery and sales tax and all other costs associated with the
project should not exceed the budget of $70,000.
C. Design and Cost Proposals
The Proposer shall provide a concrete skatepark design suitable for the
proposed site. If Proposer deems modifications are necessary to the proposed
site, these modifications should be indicated on proposer's plans and are subject
to approval by the City.
The design must meet the following guidelines:
1. Design to comply as a tier -one Skatepark as defined by the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
2. Concrete specifications should be based upon recommendations from the
City's Soil Engineer, James Samuelson, Braun Intertec, 1826 Buerkle
Road, St. Paul, MN 55110, 651-487-3245.
3. All edges should be reinforced with a metal type edge to prevent cracks and
chipping.
Design should include the following components:
1. Street plaza components only, such as stairs, handrails and ledges
2. No Ramps
3. Incorporate one skate -able art component.
Each competitive proposal submitted should reflect, by line item, the cost for the design,
purchase and installation of skatepark components, including all applicable sales taxes, freight,
and other costs associated with each piece of equipment. Costs should be broken down into
logical categories to aid the City in evaluation and include:
• All soft costs; including design, overhead, insurance, proposal, performance and payment
bonds, as well as all applicable sales taxes.
• All hard costs; including all work and materials related to the installation of concrete and
soil amendment.
Each Proposer must submit the following with bid:
• Written assurance that the design meets all applicable specs.
• Concept plan layout of design and catalogue(s) with proposed equipment and safety
surfacing identified for review by staff.
• Current warranty, insurance, and product specification information on all products and
materials included in your proposal.
• Written estimate of delivery and installation time frame.
D. Site Review
Each Proposer must visit the site to become familiar with terrain. See the
following exhibits for additional information:
Exhibit "A" - Park locator map which identifies the location of the park within the city.
E . References
Each Proposer shall provide a list of municipal references. Each
reference must include the name and address of the jurisdiction where the
Proposer has installed a concrete skatepark similar to the skatepark proposed for
this request, and the name and daytime telephone number of an individual, who
still works for the jurisdiction, that the City can contact. Municipalities should be
within the metropolitan area and the installation should not be more than five
years old.
III. EVALUATION AND SELECTION.
A. Desian Considerations
The design proposed will be a key factor in the selection process. The City
encourages innovative, interesting and exciting designs that will distinguish
Richfield parks and stand up to the elements.
B. Evaluation Criteria.
The Selection Committee will evaluate and rank each proposal against the
following criteria:
1. Overall design
2. Delivery and installation timeframe
3. Warranty provisions
4. Review/Inspection of previous installations and/or references
The recommendation of the Community Services Commission will be provided to the
City Council. The City Council will award the contract to the successful
designer/installer.
C. Contract and Insurance Reauirements.
The selected vendor will be required to enter into a contract with the City, provide
the City with a performance bond in an amount equal to the full amount of the
contract (or in the discretion of the City an irrevocable letter of credit) to assure
the timely performance of and payment for the work proposed, and assure their
availability to have the Project play equipment delivered no earlier than
, and the Project completed by . Insurance
requirements include:
Worker's Compensation Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and
maintain, during the life of the contract, Worker's Compensation Insurance
with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the State of
Minnesota. Such insurance shall protect the Contractor, or Subcontractor or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them from claims under
worker's compensation, disability benefit and other similar employee benefit
acts.
2. Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: The
Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this contract Public
Liability Insurance, Property Damage Liability, and Personal Injury
Insurance with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the
State of Minnesota. Such insurance shall protect the Contractor,
Subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor
or Subcontractor performing work covered by this contract from claims
arising out of public liability, property damage, or personal injury including
death, as well as claims for property damage which may arise out of work.
The Contractor's policy shall list the City as an additional insured on a
primary or non-contributory basis. The recommended minimum limits of
insurance per project are:
• General Aggregate $500,000
• Product -Completed Operations Aggregate $500,000
• Personal and Advertising Injury $500,000
• Per Occurrence (Bodily Injury & Property Damage) $500,000
3. Fire Insurance: The Contractor is responsible for insuring for fire, and
extended coverage including vandalism and malicious coverage on the work
included in the contract from the beginning of the work until final acceptance
of the completed project. The policies shall cover all work incorporated in
the project and all material in place or stored at the site for installation
against loss by fire and wind. This provision does not exclude material
partially paid for by the Owner. This insurance shall be for the full insurable
value of the material and shall be kept in full force until final acceptance of
the work by the Owner.
4. Automobile Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain
during the life of the contract Automobile Insurance with a company that is
lawfully authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The
recommended minimum limits of insurance are $1,000,000 combined single
limit (131 & PD).
All insurance referenced in paragraphs 1 through 4 shall be placed with
companies acceptable to and approved by the City prior to the commencement
of the work. The Contractor shall submit copies of the certificate with the City
prior to commencement of the work. Certificates of insurance will not be canceled
or allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to
the City. The City shall be shown on the General Liability coverage as an
"additional insured."
Any proposals received with limits lower than those referenced above may still be
considered for this project.
D. Reservations and Other Considerations.
1. The City of Richfield reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for
reasons of safety, quality, quantity, design or other issues deemed important
to the successful completion of the project. Any proposals exceeding the
maximum funding or footprint on the site will be excluded.
2. Proposals are to be submitted on or before 10:00 a.m.,
, to Richfield Recreation Services Department,
7000 Nicollet Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423, RE: Augsburg Skatepark
Proposal. For additional information contact Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation
Services Director, 612-861-9394. City Council award of contract is scheduled
on . Proposal amounts will need to be effective for
45 days after the above deadline.
3. The City reserves the right to accept proposals based upon factors other than
the lowest price as set forth in the evaluation criteria.
4. The City will not be responsible for any costs incurred by those submitting or
preparing competitive proposals. At the request of the Proposer, proposals
will be returned after the selection process has been completed and a vendor
selected.
5. The City reserves the right to revise the scope of the project based on budget
limitations and other relevant considerations.
6. The City reserves the right to select more than one provider for the Skatepark
Project.
7. Each Proposer must meet the City of Richfield contract requirements. The
City reserves the right to reject proposals that cannot meet contract
requirements.