The URL can be used to link to this page

05-16-17 - CC Agenda Packet (entire)AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 16, 2017 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call 2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A.Approval of Minutes 1. Council/Manager Meeting - January 10, 2017 2-3 2. City Council Meeting - May 2, 2017 4-6 B.Approval of City Check Register 7 C.Licenses: 1. Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park 8-9 D.Minutes: 1. Human Services Fund - April 10, 2017 10 2. Open Space & Recreation Commission - March 27, 2017 11-12 E.Bids and Quotes 1. Award Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction Contract 13-14 2. Award Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction Observation and Engineering Services Contract 15-21 F.Receipt of April 2017 Financial Reports 22-31 G.Board/Commission Appointments 32 H.Board/Commission Reappointments 33-34 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Approve Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Feasibility Study 35-98 B.Approve Master Partnership Contract Between the City of Golden Valley and State of Minnesota 17-23 99-118 C.Approve Pipeline Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the Proposed Construction of Two Eight Foot by Six Foot Reinforced Concrete Pipes 119-146 D.METRO Blue Line Extension - Community Advisory Committee Appointments 147 E.Review of Council Calendar F.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT UNOFFICAL MINUTES COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA January 10, 2017 Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, Physical Development Director Nevinski, Planning Manager Zimmerman, Planning Associate/Grant Writer Goellner, Parks and Recreation Director Birno, Recreation Supervisor Stutzman and Administrative Assistant Nally. The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. 1. Presentation by Maxfield Research and Consulting - Golden Valley Housing Inventory Mr. Matt Mullins, Vice President of Maxfield Research and Consulting, was in attendance to give a presentation to the Council on the Golden Valley Housing Study Preliminary Findings. Mullins discussed the findings and said the project scope was to provide a custom comprehensive housing study to identify the current and future housing needs for Golden Valley residents and how their housing needs could be met both short and long-term. He discussed the tools needed to implement in order to achieve the goals and answered questions from Council regarding the presentation. 2. Presentation by Grounded Solutions Network - Mixed-Income Housing Policy and Tools Planning Associate/Grant Writer Goellner reviewed the proposed housing goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mullins and Planning Manger Zimmerman answered questions from Council regarding the need for affordable housing in the future. Mr. Robert Hickey, Grounded Solutions Network, was in attendance to give a presentation to the Council regarding developing a mixed-income housing policy and provided an overview of what may be included in the policy, for example: zoning and/or financial benefits, consistent affordability expectations, use of public money and should it be mandatory or voluntary. He answered questions from Council regarding the presentation. There was Council discussion regarding what the next steps may be to enact a mixed- income housing policy and zoning changes that may be needed. Ms. Goellner said the next step is to bring some policies that may be selected to the April Council/Manager meeting for further discussion. 3. Teen Committee Parks and Recreation Director Birno was in attendance to follow up on a discussion from the October 2016 Council/Manager meeting regarding the state of the Teen Committee and to discuss more extensive youth involvement in the political process in the City. He reviewed a spreadsheet of surrounding municipalities regarding youth involvement. Mr. Birno answered questions from Council regarding how staff would conduct outreach to teens for the committees, what the options for teen involvement may be, and ways to make teens feel involved in the community. Staff is recommending that potential youth serving on the Committee or on Board/Commissions live or attend school in Golden Valley and be in grades 9 through 12. Unofficial Council/Manager Minutes -2- January 10, 2017 3. Teen Committee - continued Recreation Supervisor Stutzman provided possible ideas of how the recruitment process might work, and the opportunities youth would have. The Council discussed strategies on how to recruit teens, marketing tools needed, what the age the youth may be, how to encourage involvement, the opportunities for the youth, how a mentoring program may work, and different ways to contact teens whether it is through the local schools or youth involvement committees, The next step is for the Council to consider Board and Commission by-law changes to add youth members. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA May 2, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Andy Snope and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros and City Clerk Luedke. 1C. Presentation: Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman - “Crime Update” Hennepin County Attorney Freeman provided an update on the crime rate numbers in the City of Golden Valley and surrounding areas and answered questions from Council. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of May 2, 2017, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the consent agenda of May 2, 2017, as revised: removal of 3E-Adopt a Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 10, 2017, and Arbor Month - May 2017 and the motion carried. 3A.Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April 20, 2017. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C1.Approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive, for the 2017 Golden Valley Fire Relief Street Dance on Saturday, June 24, 2017. 3C2.Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. 3D.Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Special Planning Commission - April 12, 2017 2. Planning Commission - April 12, 2017 3. Board of Zoning Appeals - February 28, 2017 4. Human Rights Commission - March 27, 2017 5. Environmental Commission - March 27, 2017 6. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - March 16, 2017 3E.Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 10, 2017, and Arbor Month - May 2017. 3F.Authorize City Manager to sign agreement with Twin City Tennis Camp. 3G.Adopt Resolution 17-21,Amending the 2017 General Fund Budget. 3H.Adopt Resolution 17-22, Modifying 2017 General Wages and Salary to include Human Resources Director, Acting Building Official, and Temporary Building Inspector Positions. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- May 2, 2017 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3E. Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 10, 2017, and Arbor Month - May 2017 Council Member Fonnest stated this year is the 30 th year that the City has received a Tree City USA award and provided information regarding this year’s Arbor Day celebration. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt a Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 10, 2017, and Arbor Month - May 2017 in the City of Golden Valley and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Approval of Public Art Policy City Manager Cruikshank presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Cisneros answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the proposed Public Art Policy. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 17-23, adopting a Public Art Policy upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6B. Announcement of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the 2017 Bike Rodeo on May 3, 2017, at 6 pm at the Golden Valley City Hall Campus. Some Council Members may attend the 2017 Animal Humane Society’s Walk for Animals on May 6, 2017, from 8 am to 1 pm at the Golden Valley Animal Humane Society located at 845 Meadow Lane North. Some Council Members may attend the Hopkins Race and Equity Initiative event on May 8, 2017, from 6:30 to 8 pm at Eisenhower Community Center located at 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins. Interviews for the Bottineau Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will be conducted on May 9, 2017, at 5:15 pm in the Council Conference room. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on May 9, 2017, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Arbor Day Celebration on May 10, 2017, at 12:30 pm at Good Shepard School located at 145 Jersey Avenue South. Some Council Members may attend the PRISM’s Annual Taste of the Burbs Gala on May 11, 2017, from 5:30 to 8:30 pm at the Sheraton Minneapolis West located at 12201 Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- May 2, 2017 6B. Announcement of Meetings - continued Some Council Members may attend the City of Crystal’s - “Explore our City Bus Tour” on May 11, 2017, from 6 to 8 pm at the Crystal City Hall located at 4141 Douglas Drive. Some Council Members may attend the Run Meadowbrook Run 5K on May 13, 2017, at 7 am at Brookview Park. Some Council Members may attend the Vehicle Fair on May 13, 2017, from 10 am to noon at the Crystal Community Center located at 4800 Douglas Drive. The next City Council Meeting will be held on May 16, 2017, at 6:30 pm. 6C. Mayor and Council Communication City Manager Cruikshank updated Council on the 10 th Avenue Culvert situation. He stated that the City is continuing to work with the Union Pacific Railroad on a cooperative agreement and answered questions from Council. There was Council discussion regarding the project. The Council thanked the Human Service Fund, city staff, sponsors, and volunteers for a successful Run the Valley event. Mayor Harris gave a shout out to the students of Global Golden Valley for attending the open forum before the meeting. Council Member Clausen said this year’s Pride Festival will be held on June 11, 2017. Council Member Fonnest gave a preview of some of the events coming up at this year’s festival. 7.ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments •Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. “No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council.” As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $30 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments •Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME SHELTER CC DATE APPROVED Hoffman, Michelle 05-27 11am-4pm Small 05-16-17 School, Elizabeth 06-01 11am-10pm Small 05-16-17 Vagle, Nicholas 06-10 11am-4pm Small 05-16-17 Bece, Christine 06-18 11am-4pm Small 05-16-17 Mattson, Robert 07-23 5pm-10pm Small 05-16-17 Harris, Gbolu 08-13 5pm-10pm Small 05-16-17 Flores, Nora 08-26 5pm-10pm Small 05-16-17 Breheim, Julie 09-09 5pm-10pm Small 05-16-17 Lee, Angela 05-30 11am-4pm Large 05-16-17 Dang, David 06-02 11am-4pm Large 05-16-17 Peterman, Becky 06-08 11am-4pm Large 05-16-17 Wilkerson, Jody 06-14 5pm-10pm Large 05-16-17 Krutzig, Gail 06-21 11am-4pm Large 05-16-17 Jyrkas, Tim 07-11 11am-4pm Large 05-16-17 Moseley, Molly 08-06 5pm-10pm Large 05-16-17 Tackett, Jacob 08-13 5pm-10pm Large 05-16-17 Britton, Renee 08-22 11am-10pm Large 05-16-17 Golden Valley Human Services Fund (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes April 10, 2017 Present:Denise La Mere-Anderson,Aaron Black, Hilmer Erickson, Peder Hanson, Sarah Meyerring, Scott Charlesworth-Seiler and Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison. Call to Order: La Mere-Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:58 p.m. Agenda Changes or Additions:Changes made to March 13. March 13 Minutes:Charlesworth-Seiler moved and Erickson seconded the motion to approve the minutes from March 13. The motion passed unanimously Run the Valley: Runner Update:Erickson reported on race numbers to date and anticipates more to register in the final week. Current numbers are 10k-93, 5k-93, 5k walk-52, and 12U-16. Sponsor Update:Reviewed the list of sponsors, with discussion on new and returning sponsors. Plans are to contact businesses earlier in the fall, for 2018 sponsorship. Volunteers: Erickson stated that more volunteers are needed and ideas where shared on how to recruit. La Mere-Anderson requested weekly updates of runner and volunteer numbers, to the commission, until the run date. Duties/Assignments: Information was reviewed and confirmed with commission. Other Business: Golf Classic and Lawn Bowling Event:Review of last year’s event and discussion on what needs to be done this year. Non 502c3 Agency Funding: Tabled until next meeting. Square Credit Card Reader: Hanson wanted to revisit the idea of having a phone, with a square credit card reader, to receive funds at community events. Erickson stated that it might be possible, but explained some of the challenges involved. Adjournment:Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting, Hanson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Denise La Mere-Anderson, GVHSF Chair Brian Erickson, Staff Liaison GOLDENVALLEYOPENSPACE & RECREATIONCOMMISSION MeetingMinutes March27, 2017 1.CalltoOrder Rosenquistcalledthemeetingtoorderat6:30pm. 2. RollCall Present: Commissioners: RogerBergman, CindyCarow-Schiebe, BobMattison, GillianRosenquist, and KimberlySanberg. Staff: RickBirno, DirectorofParksandRecreation; JohnStutzman, Recreation Supervisor; SheilaVanSloun, AdministrativeAssistant; CherylWeiler, CommunicationsCoordinator; LindseyFuhrman, Web/GraphicDesigner; EmilyGoellner, AssociatePlanner/GrantWriter; andMark Saunders, Brookview BrandingConsultant. Absent: AndyBukowski, JohnCornelius, KellyKuebelbeck, andDawnSpeltz. 3. Agenda Changes orAdditions None. 4.ApprovalofMinutes – February 27, 2017 MOTION: MovedbyBergmanandsecondedbyMattisontoapprovetheFebruary27, 2017meeting minutesasamended. Motioncarriedunanimously. 5. GoldenValley BicycleandPedestrian PlanningPresentation – EmilyGoellner Goellnerexplainedthatresultsfromseveraltaskforcemeetings, anopenhouselastfall, andanonline survey, concludedthatresidentsdesireanimprovedbicycleandpedestriansystemthroughout GoldenValley. Thoseresultswerethencompiledandcitystaffworkedwithconsultantstocreatea planforimprovements. Goellnerdisplayedamapandexplainedtheplans. Shealsosaidtheyplanto applyforgrantsforfunding. 6. Brookview BrandingPresentation – MarkSaunders and CherylWeiler Saundersdiscussedbrandingandnamingideas. SaundersandWeilerthenpresentedbrandingnames andreceivedfeedbackfromtheCommission. HesaidtherewillbetwofocusgroupsheldonMarch29 at5:30pmand7pmatBrookview. Theywillusethefeedbacktohelpmakeadecisionandmove forwardwiththebrandingprocess. 7. Recreation SummerProgram Presentation – JohnStutzman Stutzmandiscussedupcomingsummerprograms. Hesharedhisnewideasandplansfortheseason anddiscussedhowthenewprogramswillincreaseparticipation. 8. Commission andStaffUpdates BrookviewConstruction Birnosaidconstructionisstillthreeweeksbehindschedule. Heandstaff arestillworkinghardtogettheindoorplayareatomeetcompliance. Healsosaidtheywillbepouring concretewithintheweek. Comprehensive PlanParks Community Open House Theopenhouse willbeheldonAugust7at 6pmatGoldenValleyCityHallCouncilChambers. RunTheValley atMeadowbrook for2017 BirnosaidtheeventwasmovedtoMeadowbrook due toconstructionatBrookview. Driving RangeBuilding Birnosaidthebuildinghasbeenresidedandreceivedacoldstoragearea addition. OpenSpace & RecreationCommission Minutes March27, 2017 Page2 9. Adjournment MOTION: MovedbyBergmanandsecondedbySanbergtoadjournat9:15pm. Motioncarried unanimously. ATTEST: JohnCornelius, Chair SheilaVanSloun, AdministrativeAssistant Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Award Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction Contract Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician Summary Bids for the 2017 Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction Project, City Improvement Project #17- 13, were opened on May 5, 2017. Six bids were received and are listed below: Hoffman & McNamara $443,980.20 Sunram Construction $460,644.00 Peterson Companies $530,425.10 Urban Companies $592,038.00 Friedges Contracting $626,727.54 Meyer Contracting, Inc.$630,812.75 Staff has reviewed the bids and found them to be accurate and in order. The total bid for the construction portion of the project is $443,980.20 and is included in the 2017 CIP (DD-001 page 118). Hennepin County will be contributing $150,000 toward the construction contract as part of the Construction Cooperative Agreement. Attachments •Location Map (1 page) Recommended Action Motion authorizing a contract with Hoffman & McNamara in the amount of $443,980.20 for the 2017 Douglas Drive project landscaping contract, City Project #17-13. Olympia St K e l l y D r Kno ll St P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e N Country Club Dr Sandburg Rd Z a n e A v e N Winsd ale St B r u n s w i c k A v e N F l o r i d a A v e N Hampshire L n Lindsay St O r e g o n A v e N Phoenix St Thotland Rd W i l l s P l A d a i r A v e N N e v a d a A v e N Wynnwood Rd Turners C r o s s r o a d N M a r y l a n d A v e N Alfred Rd C i r T o l e d o A v e N U n i t y A v e N S c o t t A v e NDawnview Ter B r o o k r i d g e A v e N W i n f i e l d A v e M a n c h e s t e r Dr Westbrook Rd L a m p l i g h t e r L n W el c o m e Woodstoc k A v e X e n i a A v e N TopelRd GreenValley Rd DuluthLn MarieLn W WestmoreWay WolfberryLn KentleyAve FaribaultSt ArcherAve N A d e l i n e L n K i n g s t o n C i r V a r n e r C i r G r e e n v i e w L n H a m p s h i r e A v e N K e l l y D r Plymo uth Ave N L i l a c D r N HamptonRd J e r s e y A v e N Winnetka Heights Dr L o u i s i a n a A v e N Winsdale St Z a n e A v e N F l o r i d a A v e N J e r s e y A v e N Pho eni x S t L o u i s i a n a A v e N T o l e d o A v e N V a l e C r e s t R d N Frontage Rd Wes t c h e s t e r C i r WoodstockAve C l o v e r L n S Frontage R d L i lacLoop G o l d e n V a l l e y R d M i nnaq u a D r HeritageCir StCroix Ave N C o n s t a n c e D r E A v e N W e l c o m e A v e N Sandburg L n MadisonAve W H aroldAve Y o s e m i t e A v e N O a k G r o v e KennethWay W e l c o m e E l l i s L n C o l o r a d o Valley-woodCir Medicine Lake Road / County Road 70 S c h u l l e r I d a h o A v e N Y o s e m i t e A v e N E d g e w o o d A v e N I d a h o A v e N Knoll WestbrookRd U n i t y A v e N St Lilac D r N N Frontage R d C loverleafDr L i l a c D r N St Croix AveN T o l e d o A v e N S c o t t A v e N L i l a c D r N L i l a c D r N A v e C o n s t a n c e D r W Cir Z a n e A v e N Cir DuluthStreet /Cou nty Road 66 U n i t y A v e N H i g h w a y 1 0 0 GlenwoodAve P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e N G o l d e n V a l l e y R d Maryla n d A v e N HampshirePl Plymouth Ave N S F r o ntage RdHighway 55 / Olson Memorial Highway 456766 4567102 D o u g l a s D r D o u g l a s D r I 0 1,000 2,000500Feet Print Date: 5/11/2017Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2017).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.Douglas Dr Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. E. 2. Award Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction Observation and Engineering Services Contract Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Tom Hoffman, Water Resources Technician Summary Staff has received a proposal from the consulting engineering firm of WSB & Associates, Inc. dated April 20, 2017, for project management, project administration, and construction inspection services for the 2017 construction of Douglas Drive. The proposal totals a not-to- exceed amount of $239,121 and will be billed on actual hours worked. Services breakdown as follows: •Douglas Drive Landscaping Construction (#17-13) - not to exceed $76,688 •Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project (#10-04) - not to exceed $162,433 These amounts are included in the 2017 CIP (DD-001 page 118) and include construction observation of City and Joint Water Commission utility work. Attachments •Location Map (1 page) •Professional Services Agreement Dated April 20, 2017 (5 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into a contract with WSB & Associates, Inc. for the project administration, project management, and construction observation services for the 2017 Douglas Drive Landscaping Project (#17-13) and the Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project (#10-04) for a not to exceed amount of $239,121. Olympia St K e l l y D r Kno ll St P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e N Country Club Dr Sandburg Rd Z a n e A v e N Winsd ale St B r u n s w i c k A v e N F l o r i d a A v e N Hampshire L n Lindsay St O r e g o n A v e N Phoenix St Thotland Rd W i l l s P l A d a i r A v e N N e v a d a A v e N Wynnwood Rd Turners C r o s s r o a d N M a r y l a n d A v e N Alfred Rd C i r T o l e d o A v e N U n i t y A v e N S c o t t A v e NDawnview Ter B r o o k r i d g e A v e N W i n f i e l d A v e M a n c h e s t e r Dr Westbrook Rd L a m p l i g h t e r L n W el c o m e Woodstoc k A v e X e n i a A v e N TopelRd GreenValley Rd DuluthLn MarieLn W WestmoreWay WolfberryLn KentleyAve FaribaultSt ArcherAve N A d e l i n e L n K i n g s t o n C i r V a r n e r C i r G r e e n v i e w L n H a m p s h i r e A v e N K e l l y D r Plymo uth Ave N L i l a c D r N HamptonRd J e r s e y A v e N Winnetka Heights Dr L o u i s i a n a A v e N Winsdale St Z a n e A v e N F l o r i d a A v e N J e r s e y A v e N Pho eni x S t L o u i s i a n a A v e N T o l e d o A v e N V a l e C r e s t R d N Frontage Rd Wes t c h e s t e r C i r WoodstockAve C l o v e r L n S Frontage R d L i lacLoop G o l d e n V a l l e y R d M i nnaq u a D r HeritageCir StCroix Ave N C o n s t a n c e D r E A v e N W e l c o m e A v e N Sandburg L n MadisonAve W H aroldAve Y o s e m i t e A v e N O a k G r o v e KennethWay W e l c o m e E l l i s L n C o l o r a d o Valley-woodCir Medicine Lake Road / County Road 70 S c h u l l e r I d a h o A v e N Y o s e m i t e A v e N E d g e w o o d A v e N I d a h o A v e N Knoll WestbrookRd U n i t y A v e N St Lilac D r N N Frontage R d C loverleafDr L i l a c D r N St Croix AveN T o l e d o A v e N S c o t t A v e N L i l a c D r N L i l a c D r N A v e C o n s t a n c e D r W Cir Z a n e A v e N Cir DuluthStreet /Cou nty Road 66 U n i t y A v e N H i g h w a y 1 0 0 GlenwoodAve P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e N G o l d e n V a l l e y R d Maryla n d A v e N HampshirePl Plymouth Ave N S F r o ntage RdHighway 55 / Olson Memorial Highway 456766 4567102 D o u g l a s D r D o u g l a s D r I 0 1,000 2,000500Feet Print Date: 5/11/2017Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2017).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.Douglas Dr A WSB &&Assoc- Infrastructure■ Engineering■ Planning■Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 April 20,2017 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427 Re: Douglas Drive Construction—2017 Season Proposal for Construction Administration Services City of Golden Valley, MN Dear Mr. Oliver: WSB &Associates, Inc. (WSB) are pleased to submit the attached proposal for Construction Administration of the Douglas Drive Improvements for the 2017 Construction Season. We are pleased to have the opportunity to continue work alongside City and Hennepin County staff on inspection of the construction project. WSB provided construction inspection for the Douglas Drive Project in 2016, we have a firm understanding of the pace of construction and the goals of the Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley. The total for this work is $239,121. The attached document describes the tasks and fees. Some of the items included are for extra services included during the final design portion of the project. If you have any questions about this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287- 7149. Sincerely, WSB&ASSOCIATES,INC. Andrew Plowman, PE Project Manager Attachments Minneapolis■St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Douglas Drive Construction — 2017 Season Construction Oversight Engineering Services SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 —Project Management 1.1 Proiect Management: This task will include providing updates and invoicing to the City Project Manager. WSB will send out monthly invoices and budget updates,based on construction progress. Task 2—Project Administration 2.1 Preconstruction Conference: WSB will attend and lead the preconstruction conference for the Douglas Drive Landscape Project. WSB will prepare the agenda and distribute meeting minutes. 2.2 Weekly Meeting(Assume 20 Meetings): WSB will have the construction inspector and other individuals (depending on the topics) available to attend the weekly meetings for the roadway projects. WSB will lead the landscape project weekly meetings. They will prepare the weekly agendas and distribute the meeting minutes. 2.3 Documentation Review: WSB will review project documentation(such as shop drawings)related to the water main, sanitary sewer and landscape items. A majority of the task related to the water main and sanitary sewer was completed in 2016,but it is anticipated design modifications may be presented. 2.4 Monthly Pav Estimate Assistance: WSB will keep an itemized record account of the quantities related to the water main, sanitary sewer and force main. WSB will notify Hennepin County staff of change orders and work with them to ensure the Hennepin County paperwork is followed. WSB will meet with Hennepin County staff to ensure the quantities will be included in each month's pay voucher. WSB will keep an itemized record account for the landscape project. They will generate monthly pay vouchers and work with the contractor to ensure quantities have been agreed upon. Task 3—Construction Inspection Services 3.1 Full Time Construction Inspection: WSB will provide a full-time inspector during the course of the project. The inspector will be primarily responsible for the inspection of the City utilities including; sanitary sewer, water main(City and JWC) and force main on the project. The WSB inspector will also assist Hennepin County staff with inspection of the roadway and storm sewer items. Proposal—Douglas Drive Construction Services 2017 Page 1 Construction Oversight Hennepin County/City of Golden Valley 3.2 Landscape Inspection: WSB will provide inspection for the landscape construction. This will include measuring quantities and answering questions. The inspector will communicate with WSB office personnel regarding specific questions. Experienced staff from the landscape architecture group will make site visits and provide recommendations throughout the project. 3.3 Landscape Maintenance Review: Upon completion of the landscape portion of the project, the contractor will enter into the plant establishment stage of the project. This will include monthly or bi-monthly maintenance of the site. WSB will review the contractor's scouting reports,provide monthly site visits (throughout the duration of the three year plant establishment period) and make recommendations to the contractor to ensure the longevity of the plantings. 3.4 Drone Video of Proiect(Optional): WSB has the capability to provide drone video footage of the corridor, during and after the project is complete. If the task is chosen, WSB will fly the corridor up to 3 times and assemble the data for the City to use to showcase the project. Proposal—Douglas Drive Construction Services 2017 Page 2 Construction Oversight Hennepin County/City of Golden Valley ESTIMATED COST The table below shows a summary of WSB's estimate of the cost for the work described above for the 2017 construction season. The estimated cost is $239,121. This includes WSB's labor at our standard hourly billing rate for 2017. WSB will bill the City for the actual hours worked up to the maximum of$239,121. A detailed breakdown of the hours can be found on the following page. Tasks Project Cost Task 1 —Project Management $11,320 Task 2—Project Administration $29,297 Task 3 —Construction Inspection Services $1982504 Total Cost $239121 Accepted: City of Golden Valley, MN By: Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Date: City of Golden Valley, MN By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Date: City of Golden Valley, MN Proposal—Douglas Drive Construction Services 2017 Page 3 Construction Oversight Hennepin County/City of Golden Valley § §§§/� e`@!■ 32&- § 44 v FTI !,!■ § IUk ak - . - 2 � J ■ e - �2 � � $ /� � � -■�� |!�2 ! \ / � � �� ■ m . _ - � �. ■ A K A uJaQ Bq � z` Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. F. Receipt of April 2017 Financial Reports Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds: ∼General Fund Operations ∼Conservation/Recycling Fund (Enterprise Fund) ∼Water and Sewer Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) ∼Brookview Golf Course (Enterprise Fund) ∼Motor Vehicle Licensing (Enterprise Fund) ∼Storm Utility Fund (Enterprise Fund) ∼Equipment Replacement Fund (Capital Projects Fund) ∼Brookview Commons (Special Revenue Fund) General Fund Operations: As of April 2017, the City is using $2,948,191 of fund balance to balance the General Fund Budget. Attachments •April 2017 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) •April 2017 Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page) •April 2017 Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page) •April 2017 Brookview Golf Course (1 page) •April 2017 Motor Vehicle Licensing (1 page) •April 2017 Storm Utility Fund (1 page) •April 2017 Equipment Replacement Fund (1 page) •April 2017 Brookview Commons Fund (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the April 2017 Financial Reports. Over % 2017 April YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $339,710 43,600 109,728 ($229,982) 32.30% 003 City Manager 816,815 78,487 231,370 (585,445) 28.33% 004 Transfers Out 850,000 0 0 (850,000)0.00% (1) 005 Admin. Services 1,869,145 157,950 511,705 (1,357,440) 27.38% 006 Legal 155,000 10,335 22,939 (132,061) 14.80% (2) 007 Risk Management 305,000 118,896 118,896 (186,104) 38.98% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.583,635 42,853 148,134 (435,501) 25.38% 016 Planning 362,450 39,577 109,694 (252,756) 30.26% 018 Inspections 749,310 78,605 216,162 (533,148) 28.85% 022 Police 5,885,265 600,105 1,762,543 (4,122,722) 29.95% 023 Fire 1,336,825 123,595 412,033 (924,792) 30.82% 035 Physical Dev Admin 304,310 33,883 93,792 (210,518) 30.82% 036 Engineering 803,380 77,340 204,695 (598,685) 25.48% 037 Streets 1,609,730 100,358 388,819 (1,220,911) 24.15% 066 Park & Rec. Admin.719,970 80,497 233,923 (486,047) 32.49% 067 Park Maintenance 1,170,340 127,095 347,871 (822,469) 29.72% 068 Recreation Programs 418,845 27,490 86,192 (332,653) 20.58% TOTAL Expenditures $18,279,730 $1,740,666 $4,998,496 ($13,281,234)27.34% (1) This transfer will be made in June, 2017. (2) Legal services are billed thru March. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures April, 2017 (unaudited) Division 33.00% Over % 2017 April YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $14,814,685 8,911 8,911 ($14,805,774)0.06% (1) Licenses 217,365 57,230 113,784 ($103,581)52.35% Permits 840,475 111,770 1,286,017 $445,542 153.01% State Aid 268,380 0 22,730 ($245,650)8.47% (2) Charges For Services: General Government 19,000 3,790 27,642 $8,642 145.48% Public Safety 154,175 5,590 47,584 ($106,591)30.86% Public Works 150,800 13,907 44,258 ($106,542)29.35% Park & Rec 385,350 16,230 75,974 ($309,376)19.72% Other Funds 791,500 55,359 221,175 ($570,325)27.94% Fines & Forfeitures 300,000 58,135 125,736 ($174,264)41.91% (3) Interest On Investments 75,000 0 0 ($75,000)0.00% (4) Miscellaneous Revenue 233,000 18,009 66,494 ($166,506)28.54% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 10,000 ($20,000)33.33% (5) TOTAL Revenue $18,279,730 $351,431 $2,050,305 ($16,229,425)11.22% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January (delinquencies). (2) Police Training will be paid in August. Safe and Sober is billed on time spent. (3) Fines/Forfeitures are thru for March 2017. (4) Investment income is allocated at year end. (5)Transfers are monthly. Percentage Of Year Completed City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues April 2017 (unaudited) Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Hennepin County Recycling Grant 56,770 0 0 (56,770)0.00% Recycling Charges 373,950 33,979 97,410 (276,540)26.05%(2) Miscellaneous Revenues 6,000 0 0 (6,000) Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 440,720 33,979 97,410 (343,310)22.10% Expenses: Recycling 466,795 23,138 74,639 (392,156)15.99%(3) Total Expenses 466,795 23,138 74,639 (392,156)15.99% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Includes utility billings thru April 2017. (3) Republic Services are billed thru March. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Conservation/Recycling Enterprise Fund April 2017 (unaudited) Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Water Charges 4,432,200 348,280 986,658 (3,445,542)22.26% Emergency Water Supply 183,600 16,312 48,578 (135,022)26.46% Sewer Charges 3,410,000 332,181 919,469 (2,490,531)26.96% Meter Sales 8,000 1,021 2,540 (5,460)31.75% Penalties 110,000 1,202 44,818 (65,182)40.74% Charges for Other Services 90,000 4,172 26,427 (63,573)29.36% State Water Testing Fee Pass Through 45,500 4,062 11,578 (33,922)25.45% Sale of Assets 10,000 0 29,858 19,858 298.58% Franchise Fees 400,000 0 0 (400,000)0.00% Certificate of Compliance 75,000 6,800 22,925 (52,075)30.57% Interest Earnings 15,000 0 0 (15,000)0.00% Total Revenue 8,779,300 714,030 2,092,851 (6,686,449)23.84% Expenses: Utility Administration 2,279,610 52,404 334,588 (1,945,022)14.68% Sewer Maintenance 2,809,045 240,409 1,013,776 (1,795,269)36.09% Water Maintenance 4,772,390 254,878 1,143,245 (3,629,145)23.96% Total Expenses 9,861,045 547,691 2,491,609 (7,369,436)25.27% City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Water and Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund April, 2017 (unaudited) Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Green Fees 852,460 74,856 77,745 (774,715)9.12% Driving Range Fees 151,955 19,394 23,482 (128,473)15.45% Par 3 Fees 165,000 10,923 11,233 (153,767)6.81% Lawn Bowling 45,000 0 150 (44,850)0.33% Pro Shop Sales 90,000 9,984 11,312 (78,688)12.57% Pro Shop Rentals 285,000 21,658 23,495 (261,505)8.24% Concession Sales 415,000 25,592 40,814 (374,186)9.83% Other Revenue 80,150 8,101 45,538 (34,612)56.82% Interest Earnings 5,000 0 0 (5,000)0.00%(1) Less: Credit Card Charges/Sales Tax (46,000)(267)(985)45,015 2.14% Total Revenue 2,043,565 170,241 232,784 (1,810,781)11.39% Expenses: Golf Operations 715,020 76,385 207,079 (507,941)28.96%(2) Course Maintenance 1,010,280 181,689 342,630 (667,650)33.91% Pro Shop 125,220 10,168 52,086 (73,134)41.60% Grill 307,840 29,854 52,257 (255,583)16.98% Driving Range 59,695 8,092 10,173 (49,522)17.04% Par 3 Course 24,995 842 915 (24,080)3.66% Lawn Bowling 21,245 76 523 (20,722)2.46% Total Expenses 2,264,295 307,106 665,663 (1,598,632)29.40% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Golf Course Enterprise Fund April, 2017 (unaudited) opened March 31 Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 2,000 0 0 (2,000)0.00%(1) Charges for Services 423,165 39,295 163,032 (260,133)38.53% Total Revenue 425,165 39,295 163,032 (262,133)38.35% Expenses: Motor Vehicle Licensing 424,720 42,355 129,624 (295,096)30.52% Total Expenses 424,720 42,355 129,624 (295,096)30.52% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Motor Vehicle Licensing Enterprise Fund April 2017 (unaudited) Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Interest Earnings 50,000 0 0 (50,000)0.00%(1) Interest Earnings-Other 0 0 1,118 1,118 Storm Sewer Charges 2,375,000 203,269 703,218 (1,671,782)29.61% Bassett Creek Watershed 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Receipts 207,775 0 17,800 (189,975) State Grant - Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 2,632,775 203,269 722,136 (1,910,639)27.43% Expenses: Storm Utility 3,527,930 135,653 625,092 (2,902,838)17.72%(2) Street Cleaning 128,000 17,329 31,102 (96,898)24.30% Environmental Control 317,565 35,513 79,204 (238,361)24.94% Debt Service Payments 0 0 0 0 0.00%(3) Total Expenses 3,973,495 188,495 735,398 (3,238,097)18.51% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Depreciation is allocated at year-end and. (3) Debt service payments will be reimbursed by TIF. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Storm Utility Enterprise Fund April, 2017 (unaudited) 2017 Equipment Replacement Fund (CIP) - Fund 5700 2017 April YTD Budget Total Actual Remaining Revenues: Proceeds - Certificate of Indebtedness 800,000 0 0 (800,000) Sale of Assets 35,000 0 19,000 (16,000) Miscellaneous 0 251 1,934 1,934 Interest Earnings (allocated at year end)28,831 0 0 (28,831) Total Revenues 863,831 251 20,934 (842,897) Expenditures: Program #Project Number Project Name 5700 Bond Expenditures 0 0 0 0 5701 V&E-001 Marked Squad Cars (Police)80,000 7,481 45,638 34,362 (1)5702 V&E-002 Computers and Printers (Finance)105,000 0 15,557 89,443 V&E-021 Vibratory Asphalt Roller (street)45,000 0 0 45,000 V&E-026 Pickup Truck (Park)40,000 0 0 40,000 5760 V&E-037 Aerial Ladder (Fire)400,000 1,580 52,243 347,757 V&E-038 Streetscape Banners (Street)25,000 0 0 25,000 V&E-070 Single Axle Dump Truck (Street)225,000 0 0 225,000 V&E-073 Sidewalk Snowblower (Street)110,000 0 0 110,000 V&E-083 Passenger Vehicle (Fire)40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-099 Asphalt Hot Box (Street)45,000 0 0 45,000 V&E-108 Unmarked Police Vehicle (Police)40,000 0 0 40,000 V&E-120 Field Line Painter 20,000 1,004 14,565 5,435 V&E-121 Tasers (Police)16,000 0 0 16,000 V&E-126 Tack Sprayer (Street)60,000 0 0 60,000 V&E-128 Utility Tractor (Park)105,000 0 0 105,000 V&E-130 Rotary Mower (Park)25,000 0 0 25,000 V&E-135 Body Cameras/Dash Cams/Software (Police)220,000 0 0 220,000 V&E-150 Asset Management Software 60,000 0 0 60,000 Total Expenditures 1,661,000 10,065 128,003 1,252,997 (1) Computers are replaced every 4-5 years and purchased throughout the year based on available time. (2) In 2016, a transfer was made to the equipment replacement fund to purchase video dash cams and body cameras together. Over 2017 April YTD (Under)% Budget Actual Actual Budget Current Revenue Brookview CC Rentals 20,000 1,635 2,100 (17,900)10.50% Backyard Play Area 50,450 0 0 (50,450)0.00% Miscellaneous Revenues 25,500 0 0 (25,500)0.00% Interest on Investments 4,000 0 0 (4,000)0.00%(1) Total Revenue 99,950 1,635 2,100 (97,850)2.10% Expenses: General Area Rooms 167,715 3,091 8,520 (159,195)5.08%(2) Indoor Play Area 54,875 0 325 (54,550)0.59%(3) Banquet Facility 63,360 0 600 (62,760)0.95%(3) Total Expenses 285,950 3,091 9,445 (276,505)3.30% (1) Interest Earnings are allocated at year-end. (2) Staff Time/Supplies for Community Center Rental (3) Advertising costs for CVB brochure City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - Brookview Commons Special Revenue Fund April 2017 (unaudited) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. G. Board/Commission Appointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Each year the City Council conducts interviews with persons who have applied to serve on a board and/or commission. After the interviews are conducted the Council makes their appointments. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointments: Human Rights Commission Maurice Harris 2 year term term expires - May, 2019 Human Services Fund Stephanie Devitt 1 year term term expires - May, 2018 Carrie Yeager 3 year term term expires - May, 2020 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 3. H. Board/Commission Reappointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Each year staff contacts board and/or commission members whose term is expiring to find out if they are interested in being reappointed. Listed below are those who would like to be reappointed. Recommended Action Motion to make the following reappointments: Board of Zoning Appeals David Perich 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2018 George Maxwell 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2018 Nancy Nelson 1 year term term expires - May 1, 2018 Richard Orenstein 1 year term Term expires - May 1 2018 Civil Service Commission Andrew Wold 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Environmental Commission Tracy Anderson 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Lynn Gitelis 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Jim Stremel 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Human Rights Commission Teresa Martin 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Andrew Ramlet (student)1 year term term expires - May 1, 2019 Human Services Fund Scott Charlesworth-Seiler 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Hilmer Erickson 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Elissa Heilicher 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Open Space and Recreation Commission Cindy Carow-Schiebe 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Kelly Kuebelbeck 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Dawn Speltz 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Planning Commission Amy Blenker 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Chuck Segelbaum 3 year term term expires - May 1, 2020 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 6. A. Approve Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Feasibility Study Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Director of Physical Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary Hennepin County established a Bikeway Participation Program to support the development and enhancement of the bikeway network as identified in the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan. The County grant program offers a 50% contribution up to a maximum of $20,000 to help cities complete feasibility studies on planned bikeways. In spring 2015, with the support of St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, the City applied for a grant to study the development of a bikeway along the Wayzata Boulevard corridor (I-394 and Highway 100 frontage roads) from Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park to Wirth Parkway in Minneapolis. This corridor is identified as a planned bikeway on the County’s Bike Plan Map and would serve to connect local and regional trails, and also link the West End development in St. Louis Park to Minneapolis through Golden Valley. The City was awarded the planning grant and a cooperative agreement was executed in December 2015. The project team consists of the cities of Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Hennepin County and MnDOT. The key elements of the study include: •Meetings with stakeholders and community participation •Identification of challenges and opportunities •Evaluation of traffic control, safety issues, and driver behavior •Incorporation of traffic calming and intersection modifications to improve safety •Determination of a preferred route and type that provides a safe, efficient route for all users •Preparation of typical sections and concept layouts Based on the goals of the study and input from the community, the preferred alternative that was selected is an 8 to 10 feet wide off-street trail along the south side of Wayzata Boulevard. Staff will be in attendance to present the report and recommendations in more detail. Attachments •Wayzata Boulevard Feasibility Study Report (62 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Feasibility Study. Feasibility Study Report Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway City Project Number 140-11 SEH No. GOLDV 135059 try of groldval�� Y If/ St. Laois Park MINNESOTA March 1, 2017 Minneapolis City of Lakes —A SEH Building a Better World for All of Us" Engineers I Architects N Planners I, Scientists Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................3 2.0 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................6 Appendix C 3.0 Issues and Opportunities........................................................................................13 — Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design 4.0 Characteristics of Concept Types..........................................................................15 Appendix F — 5.0 Alternatives Considered.........................................................................................18 — Vehicle Speed and Volume Counts 6.0 Public Meeting No. 1................................................................................................23 7.0 Alternative Evaluation.............................................................................................23 8.0 Preferred Alternative...............................................................................................25 9.0 Public Meeting Number 2........................................................................................28 10.0 Implementation........................................................................................................28 List of Appendices Appendix A — Issues and Opportunities Appendix B — Bikeway Routes and Types Appendix C — Preferred Alternative Typical Sections Appendix D — Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design Appendix E — Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix F — Open House Invitations and Summary of Comments Appendix G — Vehicle Speed and Volume Counts Appendix H — Bus Stop ADA Ramps Feasibility Study Report Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Prepared for the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota 1.0 Introduction This study examines opportunities for improved bicycle mobility and connectivity along Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue in the Cities of Saint Louis Park, Golden Valley and Minneapolis. The study area generally lies in the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 100 (TH 100) and Interstate 394 (1-394) interchange. The North Cedar Lake Trail and Grand Rounds (Theodore Wirth Parkway) Regional trails form the south and east boundaries of the study area. The corridor is identified as a planned bikeway in Hennepin County's Bike Plan. It is desired to create a bike loop connecting the two regional bike trails, provide a connection to the mixed-use West End development area in St. Louis Park, and provide improved connections to the City of Minneapolis bicycle network and the future Penn Avenue Transit Station. This study also considers existing safety issues (intersection sight distance) and driver behavior issues (speeding) that exist along portions of Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue. The study identifies alternatives that provide safe bikeway/trail operation with an emphasis on traffic calming and intersection safety improvements. This feasibility study identifies a recommended approach to implementing a bikeway connection from the North Cedar Lake Trail in St. Louis Park through Golden Valley and connecting to the Grand Rounds trail system. The study reviews potential options for the location of and construction of on -street or off-street trail segments in this corridor. This bikeway/trail segment would fill a gap in the network providing a critical link between local and regional bike facilities located in three cities (Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis). This report documents existing conditions, issues and opportunities, the design alternatives considered, public and agency involvement as well as provides a preliminary design and cost Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 3 estimate for the recommended alternative which can be used by each agency for capital programming decisions. Study Area Bikeway Feasibility Golden Valley Study Corridor Minneapolis Regional Trail Saint Louis Park � �Yro1 Tr r S4R�1 Wa I FAPF W iii sit ,rw I Q End A R N 2 - _ Douglas Ave d n w m a` t r la#0ceda mac VG - yV 23rd St �n a9-6 -.1, codanya� a o ti 'Py c Twin I Tyrol Crst m d �Lp S3''9 Q 'c 1par@ 5 Q Do.glas Ave Corporation Brownie 41m Lake Zm U Sabel Jewish CaCenterlty Noon radar 4ak6 y�yi1 % m� A k m �Re"hust� w A Cedar Lake 4a c ��'q'optl Rd 4d 'a WlrrankVh AvP 31d��yC C��e R4 G�. ��lrA Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan Planned Bikeway System -February 2095 Wayzata Blvd Corridor Bikeway Study l /JJ ffffff 4MNXa arc .e e :yak ror 5ree!san ; r,;9nrurs xu6dz.7ss. Study Partners The City of Golden Valley served as the lead agency administering a grant received from Hennepin County with cost participation from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. MnDOT and Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 4 The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board staff participated as part of the project management team due to proximity of and connections to facilities within their jurisdiction. Study Process The study was managed by a Project Management Team (PMT) including representatives from each of the study partners and interested agencies. Monthly PMT meetings were held at the City of Golden Valley over an eight month period. Short Elliot Hendrickson was engaged to facilitate meetings, provide technical support to the PMT and document the study findings. Two community meetings were held providing opportunity for public input. The first was held to gather input on issues that should be considered and to generate reactions to a range of potential on -street and off-street bikeway concept alternatives. The second public meeting was held to gain reaction to the PMT's preferred alternative. Study Goals The PMT adopted study goals to guide the work and serve as a screening tool to compare alternatives. The goals were presented at each of the community meetings to provide a common understanding for purpose and scope of the study. Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Study Goals Identify a preferred bikeway route and type that: A. Improves connectivity to local and regional trails and destinations in: 1. St. Louis Park a. North Cedar Lake Regional Trail b. Cedar Lake Road trail under TH 100 C. West End Development 2. Golden Valley a. Wayzata Boulevard trail under TH 100 b. Trail bridge over 1-394 3. Minneapolis a. Bike lanes on Wayzata Blvd from France Avenue to Penn Avenue b. Connection to Theodore Wirth Parkway / Grand Rounds trail system C. Connection to future Penn Avenue LRT Station B. Provides a safe comfortable experience for riders of all ages and abilities C. Incorporates traffic calming and safety elements to: 1. Reduce high travel speeds on Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard 2. Improve intersection sight distance 3. Acknowledge local concerns related to neighborhood cut -through traffic D. Minimizes impacts outside of the public right of way E. Complies with design and maintenance requirements for each agency F. Is financially feasible Study recommendations need to be approvable by decision makers from each agency including: A. City of Golden Valley B. City of St Louis Park C. City of Minneapolis D. Minneapolis Park and Recreations Board E. Hennepin County F. MnDOT Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 5 Guiding Principals Concept alternatives were developed consistent with design and operational criteria, design principles and standards defined by the Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan for on -street and off-street facilities. The study team examined three primary options consisting of on -street bike lanes, an off- street multi-purpose trail, and bicycle boulevard treatments. Characteristics of each of these bikeway types is provided in Section 4.0 of this report. 2.0 Existing Conditions Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue operate as frontage roads to 1-394 and TH 100. Quentin Avenue lies within the City of St. Louis Park from Cedar Lake Road to Douglas Avenue and within the City of Golden Valley from Douglas Avenue to the Wayzata Boulevard underpass of TH 100. Wayzata Boulevard is in the City of Golden Valley from Quentin Avenue to France Avenue and is in the City of Minneapolis from France Avenue to the east. Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue experience safety issues for motorized and non - motorized users due to inadequate intersection sight distance and high travel speeds along the frontage road. The sight distance issues are prevalent at each of the intersecting local cross streets including Douglas Avenue, Natchez Avenue, Fairlawn Way, June Avenue, and Tyrol Trail intersections. The existing conditions are not very attractive for non -motorized users due to gaps in system, narrow sidewalks where present, motorized traffic volume and speed. These bicyclists were observed riding in the street. Others use the sidewalks where Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 6 The frontage road corridor is constrained by freeway infrastructure to the west and north (left image below) which typically includes wooden noise walls; and by concrete retaining walls with wooden noise walls on the residential side (right image below). A narrow concrete maintenance strip is present between the street and the wooden noise walls over much of the length. The maintenance strip is not designed or intended for use as a public sidewalk. Bus stops are located along westbound Wayzata Boulevard at each local street intersection. The concrete maintenance strip between the street and the freeway noise wall is utilized as a waiting/boarding area for westbound/southbound buses. Quentin Avenue Metro Transit Route 9 serves Wayzata Boulevard bus stops. The westbound bus stops do not currently have a pedestrian ramps for ADA accessibility. Quentin Avenue is a 32 foot wide two lane roadway serving as a major collector from Cedar Lake Road to the Wayzata Boulevard underpass of TH 100 with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3400 vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Quentin Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to Douglas Avenue lies in St. Louis Park while the segment north of Douglas Avenue is in Golden Valley. Connections to and from TH 100 occur at the Old Cedar Lake Road intersection providing access to nearby residential areas in both cities as well as office and retail land uses in the area. Significant traffic generators in the area include the West End Development on the west side of TH 100 and the Target West office campus on Wayzata Boulevard near France Avenue intersection near the east end of Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 7 the study corridor. (Note: the Target West office complex is currently undergoing change of ownership and the name may also change). Quentin Avenue at Old Cedar Lake Road operates under all -way stop control. Access to TH 100 occurs at the Old Cedar Lake Road intersection which serves a high volume of turning traffic to and from Quentin Avenue. The intersection has channelizing islands that form "free right" turn lanes. Traversing, or eliminating these may need to considered as the bike facility types are examined. Looking north along Quentin Avenue between Old Cedar Lake Road and Douglas Avenue. Along this segment of Quentin Avenue in St. Louis Park, there is no sidewalk or trail. The public right of way adjacent to the street has a vegetated embankment with both public and private utilities present. Looking north along Quentin Avenue from Douglas Avenue. Along the segment of Quentin Avenue in Golden Valley, there is a sidewalk on the east side from Douglas Avenue to Wayzata Boulevard with a narrow paved boulevard on the street side of the sidewalk. Noise barriers and retaining walls are present along the back edge of the sidewalk creating a constrained corridor width. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 8 Wayzata Boulevard Looking north along Quentin Avenue approaching Wayzata Boulevard intersection. The west leg goes under TH 100. A crosswalk is marked at the intersection connecting to a sidewalk that extends under the TH 100 bridges to the office and commercial district on the west side of the freeway. Wayzata Boulevard is a 32 foot wide two lane roadway serving as a major collector from Quentin Avenue easterly to Theodore Wirth Parkway and beyond. The roadway has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 4000 vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The west leg of the Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard intersection extends under TH 100 towards the West End development. Intersection improvements are programmed to better serve traffic demands generated by the West End development. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study Page 9 Right turn lanes and an all -way stop intersection control will be constructed in 2017. The sidewalk under the TH 100 bridge (shown in pink) adjacent to the eastbound right turn lane will be reconstructed. March 2017 M:A8inSNDT wil�VEH GEEF3 tlL[�45L1kf. WAYZATA BVU LEVARD/EAb'Y 51DE TH 200 i RIGHT TURN LANES OPTION 2 iwv� 9 60I.OIr2V VALLEY, MN Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study Page 9 Right turn lanes and an all -way stop intersection control will be constructed in 2017. The sidewalk under the TH 100 bridge (shown in pink) adjacent to the eastbound right turn lane will be reconstructed. March 2017 Looking northeasterly on Wayzata Boulevard approaching Natchez Avenue. The narrow paved boulevard ends and the six foot wide sidewalk is aligned adjacent to the curb. Sidewalk width constraints due to retaining walls are common along the corridor. Local Street Intersections on Wayzata Boulevard Local street intersection approaches to Wayzata Boulevard are controlled by stop signs. Natchez Avenue, Fairlawn Avenue, June Avenue, and Tyrol Trail each have intersection sightline deficiencies due to a combination of horizontal curves, vertical grades, trees, and retaining walls along the frontage road. Neighborhood entry features contribute to intersection sight distance issues at Tyrol Trail. A trail bridge extends northerly over 1- 394 to the North Tyrol Hills neighborhood in Golden Valley. The trail bridge creates a mid -block pedestrian crossing of Wayzata Boulevard between the Fairlawn Avenue and June Avenue. The roadway was previously narrowed to 22 feet at the crossing location for pedestrian safety and traffic calming purposes. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 10 Traffic speed measurements on Wayzata Boulevard show that narrowing the roadway to provide a safe pedestrian landing coming from the 1-394 trail bridge have also been effective in lowering vehicle speeds. Between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail, the sidewalk is separated from the street by a grass boulevard. Six residences have direct driveway access to Wayzata Boulevard. These homes also generate on -street parking demand. This existing steep driveway inhibits consideration of widening options between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 11 Potential Bicycle Routes along Local Streets The France Avenue intersection and multiple private driveways to the Target West office campus result in complex intersections with public sidewalk discontinuities. On street bike lanes were installed by the City of Minneapolis from the Target West office campus intersection easterly to Penn Avenue. Several local residential streets connect through St. Louis Park and Golden Valley neighborhoods in the study area between Cedar Lake Road and Wayzata Boulevard. These include segments of Old Cedar Lake Road, Quentin Avenue (cul-de-sac), Princeton Avenue, Douglas Avenue, Ottawa Avenue, and Natchez Avenue. Local streets vary in width from 26- 30 feet. They all provide on street parking opportunities for area residents. Neighborhood residents, especially on Natchez Avenue have expressed concerns for cut - through traffic on local streets with perception of high speeds. Speed and volume studies acknowledge some cut -through traffic but overall speed and volumes similar to many other local streets. Speed and volume data is included in Appendix G. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 12 WAYZATA BLVD TA BLVD .,�'•� w �� '� �-�--d � PRIVATE PROPERTY ' TARGET OFFICE�COMPLEM I ¢ r --_� Potential Bicycle Routes along Local Streets The France Avenue intersection and multiple private driveways to the Target West office campus result in complex intersections with public sidewalk discontinuities. On street bike lanes were installed by the City of Minneapolis from the Target West office campus intersection easterly to Penn Avenue. Several local residential streets connect through St. Louis Park and Golden Valley neighborhoods in the study area between Cedar Lake Road and Wayzata Boulevard. These include segments of Old Cedar Lake Road, Quentin Avenue (cul-de-sac), Princeton Avenue, Douglas Avenue, Ottawa Avenue, and Natchez Avenue. Local streets vary in width from 26- 30 feet. They all provide on street parking opportunities for area residents. Neighborhood residents, especially on Natchez Avenue have expressed concerns for cut - through traffic on local streets with perception of high speeds. Speed and volume studies acknowledge some cut -through traffic but overall speed and volumes similar to many other local streets. Speed and volume data is included in Appendix G. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 12 3.0 Issues and Opportunities Natchez Avenue north of Douglas Avenue is configured similarly to other area residential streets. Natchez Avenue has connectivity that could be attractive to bicyclists with or without a defined bikeway. A study area Issues and Opportunities Map is included in Appendix A. These issues were identified by the study team with input from agency staff and the public at open house meetings. The following list represents the primary issues that were considered in the development of recommendations for this bikeway study. Bikeway Connectivity - The existing sidewalk and bikeway features are not continuous through the corridor. In St. Louis Park, Quentin Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to Douglas Avenue does not have a public sidewalk, trail or bike lanes. In Golden Valley from Douglas Avenue to France Avenue there is a public sidewalk along the southerly side that varies in width from 5-8 feet and there are no bike lanes. In Minneapolis from the Target West office campus driveway to the east there are on - street bike lanes but the sidewalk has discontinuities easterly of France Avenue and across the Target West office campus site. • Accessibility of Origins and Destinations — Existing trail and sidewalk inconsistencies and discontinuities result in a lack of accessibility to and from the North Cedar Lake Trail, Grand Rounds Trail, West End development, 1-394 bridge to North Tyrol Hills, and the future Penn Avenue transit station. • Bikeway Functionality — The corridor lacks a bicycle facility that is safe and comfortable for users of all ages and experience levels. Bicyclists currently ride in the street, on the public sidewalk, or avoid the corridor due to the lack of bicycle accommodations. • Intersection Safety — Several local street intersections along the corridor have inadequate intersection sight distance. Intersection sight distance deficiencies occur at Douglas Avenue, Natchez Avenue, Fairlawn Way, June Avenue and Tyrol Trail. • Complex and High Volume Intersections — Several intersections in the corridor are geometrically complex and/or serve a relatively high volume of turning traffic resulting in safety concerns. These include: o Quentin Avenue at Old Cedar Lake Road — serves traffic demands to and from TH 100. Operates under 3 -way stop control. The northbound to eastbound and southbound to westbound right turn movements operate with channelized "free right" turn lanes. The free right turn lanes tend to detract from safety for non -motorized users desiring to cross. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 13 Quentin Avenue at Wayzata Boulevard (TH 100 underpass) — serves a higher volume of turning traffic to and from the west under TH 100. Redevelopment in the West End area will add user demand through this intersection. The City of Golden Valley plans to construct an eastbound right turn lane and a southbound right turn lane plus add all -way stop control at this intersection in 2017. Traffic Speeds - Driver behavior along the Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard corridor has been previously studied. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. 85th percentile speeds range from 34 to 46 mph depending upon location and direction of travel. Of interest is that Westbound Wayzata Boulevard between Fairlawn Way and June Avenue has an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph. The lower speed at this location is experienced due to the traffic calming effect of the existing street narrowing that is in place for the pedestrian crossing to/from the 1-394 trail bridge. Speed and volume information for streets in the study area are included in Appendix G. Traffic Volume — Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard traffic demands range from 3400 ADT to 4000 ADT depending upon segment. When the West End Development is fully occupied ADT's in the corridor are expected to grow to 3800 ADT to 5300 ADT. This increase is important to consider but is within a range considered normal for a 2 -lane urban collector. Local Street Cut -through Traffic - Area residents have expressed safety concerns related to intersection sight distance and neighborhood cut -through traffic, especially along Natchez Avenue. Previous volume and speed studies acknowledge the presence of some cut -through traffic but also recognize that volumes and speeds remain within normal ranges for local residential streets (See Appendix G). Corridor Constraints — Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard serve as frontage roads along TH 100 and 1-394. One side of each frontage road is freeway infrastructure, typically with a noise wall either ground mounted or elevated on a concrete retaining wall. The residential side of the frontage roads vary based on segment. In St. Louis Park, Quentin Avenue typically has a vegetated berm along the east side with a publicly owned noise/privacy fence within the vegetation. In Golden Valley, the residential side has some significant physical constraints. Cast in place and modular block retaining walls and wooden noise/privacy barriers are prevalent along the corridor. These noise barriers and retaining walls on both sides of the frontage road limit opportunities that can be considered to those that can be constructed within the constrained wall-to-wall width. Multi -jurisdictional Issues — The study corridor lies within three cities that each have unique perspectives on the appropriate non -motorized treatments that best fit with their operational priorities and maintenance practices. Improvement concepts should all be compatible with Hennepin County guidelines but treatments may differ from one city to the next. If different cross section or operational plans are identified, physical and operational transitions will need to be identified, designed and constructed so that users of all modes can safely negotiate the change in facility type. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 14 4.0 Characteristics of Concept Types Hennepin County's 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan provided guidance for this study. Each of the bicycle facility types defined has a unique set of typical characteristics to be applied that are related to the appropriate setting. Further, each facility type considered has a different level of user satisfaction based on varying needs and expectations for riders of different skill levels. Consideration of the characteristics for each concept type in combination with study goals for the corridor will be instructive towards selecting a preferred alternative. Characteristics of each of these bikeway types is provided in the following table, followed by images of examples of each facility type. Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Study Characteristics of Bikeway Types Source: Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan Type • Off -Street Treatment Bicycle Boulevard Bike lane Multi -use trail Land use context Urban/suburban Urban/suburban Urban/suburban/ rural Level of separation from motor vehicle None Low to moderate High traffic Traffic volume Low Moderate N/A (motor vehicles)* Posted speed limit 25-30 mph Varies N/A Independent right -of - Street type Local or collector All** way along minor or principal arterial 8' with 2' clear zone 5' (with parking), 6' each side (one-way); Minimum widths N/A preferred 10' with 2' (curb adjacent) clear zone each side (two-way) Construct new or as part of pavement Both Pavement New maintenance (re- maintenance striping) * Traffic volume (average daily traffic): Low is less than 3,000 ADT; Moderate is 3,000 - 15,000 ADT; High is above 15,000 ADT ** All = Streets where bicycle use is not prohibited Bikeway types will vary based on roadway and land use context A buffer is a delineated space between the bikeway and travel lane; A clear zone is a space free of obstructions These guidelines are based on national guidance Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 15 Examples of bikeway types considered are provided in the following section along with their relevance to decisions to be made in the Wayzata Boulevard corridor. Example of an on -street bike lane — Looking westbound on Wayzata Boulevard between Theodore Wirth Parkway and France Avenue. The City of Minneapolis implemented bike lanes on Wayzata Boulevard adjoining the study segment in 2015. Eastbound and westbound bike lanes are six feet in width adjacent to each curb. Vehicular travel lanes are each ten feet in width. The current study segment has a similar 32 foot width and similar operating conditions. Example of a bicycle boulevard in Minneapolis. Bike boulevards like this one have been implemented on low volume local roadways in Minneapolis on selected streets that have been identified as bike routes. Bikes and vehicular traffic share the roadway. Traffic calming is sometimes incorporated along the same routes to provide a safer environment for the bicyclists. On -street parking is typically not impacted. Bike boulevards could be considered on local streets in the Wayzata Boulevard corridor. Example of a multiuse trail adjacent to the roadway on Country Club Drive in Golden Valley. Three Rivers Park District operates this the Luce Line Trail in Golden Valley. The trail is adjacent to the roadway as may be needed on Wayzata Boulevard. As a regional facility, this ten foot trail is delineated for two-way shared use with two foot clear zones on each side. Pavement markings may not be required along Wayzata Boulevard if this facility type is recommended. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 16 On -street Bike Lanes Bike lanes provide a dedicated space for bicycling alongside motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes can be a low-cost option when adequate roadway width is available, and often can be incorporated into roadway repaving or re -striping projects. Roadway Characteristics • Urban/suburban context • Low to moderate separation from vehicles • Moderate traffic volumes • Speed limit varies • Minimum width 5 feet (parking adjacent) or 6 feet (curb adjacent) • Best for enthusiastic and confident; strong and fearless groups • Also serves interested but concerned group for critical connections, depending on context Bicycle Boulevard A bicycle boulevard is typically suited for a low -speed, low-volume street. A bicycle boulevard prioritizes biking by turning stop signs to prioritize bike movements, giving bicycles the right of way, and using traffic calming (i.e. bump outs or traffic circles), vehicle diverters, enhanced signage for bicycling and other means. They are intended to improve safety and comfort and to provide an alternative to higher speed roadways that may be more intimidating for those with less experience or confidence in biking. Roadway Characteristics • Urban/suburban context • No separation from motor vehicles • Low vehicle traffic volumes • 25-30 MPH (posted speed) • Local or collector street • Best for interested but concerned population • Also serves enthusiastic and confident as well as strong and fearless populations Off-street Multipurpose Trail Paved multi -use trails provide a shared space for bicycling, walking and other non -motorized uses. They offer a high quality bicycling environment preferred by people in the enthusiastic and confident bicycling group and the interested and concerned group. Some multi -use trail facilities provide designated lanes for bicycles and pedestrians, especially where there are higher volumes. Sometimes multi -use trails are outside of the street right-of-way, and often are sited along abandoned or active rail corridors, waterways or through parks. There are many cases in Hennepin County where multi -use trails are situated along roadways to both increase the comfort of the bikeway for all users, especially families and to increase safety along major county roads in suburban and rural settings where motor vehicle speeds and volumes make on -street bikeways less appropriate. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 17 The county system currently has a robust network of off-street multi -use trails that provide complete separation from motor vehicle traffic and minimal intersections with roadways. One example is the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail. Roadway Characteristics • Urban/suburban/rural context • High separation from motor vehicles • Moderate vehicle traffic volumes • Minimum width 8 feet with 2 foot clear zone on each side (two way) • Preferred width 10 feet or greater with 2 foot clear zone on each side (two way) • Best for interested but concerned group and children • Also serve enthusiastic and confident group; and strong and fearless groups • Might not serve the enthusiastic and confident group or the strong and fearless groups riding if the trail has a soft surface, does not take a direct route, or has high pedestrian volumes 5.0 Alternatives Considered On -street Bike Lane Three primary bikeway concept types were considered. These are as represented in the exhibit entitled Bikeway Routes and Types in Appendix B. Two of the primary concepts have bikeways that follow the Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue: • Option 1 - On -street bike lanes on Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue • Option 2 - Off-street multi-purpose trail along Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue The third concept type considers defining a bikeway through the local street system. Bicycle boulevard treatments on local streets such as Natchez, Ottawa or Princeton Avenues. Illustrative cross sections for Options 1 and 2 were developed for comparison to the existing cross section of the frontage road at four locations along the corridor. The cross sections demonstrate differences in street width and off street sidewalk/trail width for each option at each location. The drawings also differentiate how bicyclists, pedestrians and motorized users would be oriented relative to the other user types. Four locations were selected to highlight corridor width constraints and design features that would be needed to achieve the desired operational condition for each option. • Section AA — Quentin Avenue south of Douglas Avenue • Section BB — Wayzata Boulevard north and east of the TH 100 underpass • Section CC — Wayzata Boulevard at the 1-394 trail bridge crossing • Section DD — Wayzata Boulevard between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail The Illustrated cross sections comparison for these four locations is provided in the following pages. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 18 Section AA — Quentin Avenue south of Douglas Avenue Existing — 32 foot wide roadway with no sidewalk or bikeway features. The roadway center line has pavement markings. Parking is not restricted. On Street Bike Lane Option — The existing 32 foot street width is retained. 6 foot bike lanes are delineated adjacent to each curb. The vehicular travel lanes are 10 feet in width. A pedestrian sidewalk is provided along the east side. Off Street Trail Option — The street is narrowed to 26 feet by reconstructing the east curb line. A 10 foot two way shared use trail with 2 foot clear zones is provided on the east side. A retraining wall is required where the trail cross section is constructed into the existing embankment. EXISTING 16' 16, 1 Sound Barrier Green Space Travel Lane Travel Lane Green Spaee Fence ON STREET BIKE LANE OPTION Sound Barrier Green Space Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk Retaining Wall Fence OFF STREET TRAIL OPTION • 1 Sound Barrier Green Space Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study Page 19 nog,„ 13' 13' 2' 10' Tavel Lane Travel Lane Trail 2' i Retaining Wall Fence March 2017 Section BB — Wayzata Boulevard north and east of the TH 100 underpass Existing — 32 foot wide roadway and an 8 foot sidewalk are positioned between the noise walls on each side. The roadway center line has pavement markings. Parking is not restricted. On Street Bike Lane Option — The existing street, sidewalk and noise walls are retained. A 6 foot bike lane delineated along each curb. The vehicular travel lanes are 10 feet in width. Off Street Trail Option — The street is narrowed to 26 feet by reconstructing the southeast curb line. A 10 foot two way shared use trail with 2 foot clear zones is provided. The noise walls are not impacted. NG 16' 16' Sound Travel Lane Travel Lane Barrier Maintenance strip O TRELT BIKE LANE OPTION 137'.++ T ?- :Lnff�A- 10' 6' 1 8' Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk Sound Barrier 6' 10' Sound Concrete • Bike Lane Travel Lane Barrier Maintenance Strip O STREETTRAIL0PTION A B' Sidewalk Sound Barrier 1 23'13' 2' 10' 2' Sound concrete Travel Lane Travel Lane Trail Sound Barrier Maintenance Barrier Strip Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 20 Section CC — Wayzata Boulevard at the 1-394 trail bridge crossing Existing — 22 foot wide roadway, a 6 foot sidewalk on the south side and a 10 foot pedestrian landing on the north side. A mid -block crosswalk is provided to and from the pedestrian bridge. The roadway center line has pavement markings. A steep embankment occurs on the south side of the sidewalk. On Street Bike Lane Option — The street would be widened to 32 feet. A 6 foot bike lane is delineated along each curb. The vehicular travel lanes are 10 feet in width. The sidewalk on the south side is reconstructed to 8 feet in width. The mid -block crosswalk is retained. Street and sidewalk widening to the south require that a significant retaining wall be constructed. Off Street Trail Option — The street is maintained at 22 feet in width. A 10 foot two way shared use trail with 2 foot clear zones is provided along the south side requiring a retaining wall. Pedestrian Sound Pedestrian Travel Lane Travel Lane Sidewalk Green Space Bridge Barrier Landing ON STREET BIKE LANE OPTION Pedestrian Sound Pedestrian ' Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk Retaining Green Space Bridge Barrier Landing Wall OFF STREET TRAIL OPTION 1D' 11' 11' i 2' 70' . 2' . Pedestrian Sound Pedestrian Travel lane Travel Lane Trail Retaining Green Space Bridge Barrier Landing Wall Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 21 Section DD — Wayzata Boulevard between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail Existing — 32 foot wide roadway with a 5 foot sidewalk with a grass boulevard on the south side. The roadway center line has pavement markings. This section occurs adjacent to residential properties on the south side which often utilize the street for parking. On Street Bike Lane Option — The existing 32 foot street width is retained. 6 foot bike lanes are delineated adjacent to each curb. The vehicular travel lanes are 10 feet in width. The existing pedestrian sidewalk is retained along the south side. Off Street Trail Option — The street is narrowed to 26 feet by reconstructing the south curb line. A 10 foot two way shared use trail with 2 foot clear zones is provided on the south side. Driveway grades, retaining walls and easements are design concerns to be considered at locations near the cross section shown. EXISTING i 5' 16' Sound concrete Travel Lane Travel Lane • Sidewalk' KOM Private Residence Barrier "ra'"r ...e and Gardens Strip ON STREET BIKE LANE OPTION aa�Na aa�No 6' � 10' � 10' � 6' � 4' 5' Sound cone=ete Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk KOM Private Residence Barrier Mamtenanw and Gardens step OFF STREET TRAIL OPTION i ® 1 5' 13' 13' 3' 10' i 2' 1 Sound Concrete Travel lane Travel Lane Sidewalk RAW Private Residence Barrier MBi"te"a and Gardens strip Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 22 6.0 Public Meeting No.1 An open house was held on March 31, 2016 at the Sabes Jewish Community Center in St. Louis Park. Meeting notices were sent to several hundred property owners in St. Louis Park and Golden Valley within the area bounded by TH 100, 1-394, the North Cedar Lake Trail and Grand Rounds (Theodore Wirth Parkway) Trail. The meeting was lightly attended with 13 people signing in. However, those in attendance engaged deeply into the subject matter. The project team was on hand to listen and answer questions about the range of potential solutions. A comment card designed to identify preferences for the bike way concepts was utilized. Written comments were received and summarized by issue for consideration by the PMT as part of the alternatives evaluation phase. For the portion of the corridor with Golden Valley, a strong preference for Option 2, the off-street shared use trail was evident from the discussions and written comments received. No preference was evident from the public responses regarding bikeway treatments on the St. Louis Park segment of the corridor. The invitation to the public meeting and a written summary of comments received are included Appendix F of this report. 7.0 Alternative Evaluation The PMT assessed the pros and cons of alternatives and public input against the goals of the study, impacts, costs and system needs. Deliberation over treatments for each segment of the corridor resulted in development of a preliminary design concept that included the following elements and design considerations for each segment. Cedar Lake Road to Douglas/16th Avenue (St. Louis Park) — An 8 foot wide off street trail is preferred based upon the following considerations: • Physical width constraints are not prevalent to the degree that they are in Golden Valley — therefore an 8 foot wide trail can be planned while retaining the existing street width (this differs from the earlier described off-street trail concept which had a 10 foot wide trail in combination with street narrowing). • An off street trail will eliminate an existing gap in the trail network — improving connectivity to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail. • An off-street trail provides a safe comfortable experience for riders of all ages and abilities; Bicyclists choosing to ride in the street will still be able to do so. • Traffic movements to and from TH 100 at the Old Cedar Lake Road intersection are a safety concern for bicyclists on the street. Keeping the existing street width may allow consideration of future on -street bike lanes or bike -able shoulders if safety concerns are overcome. • Establishment of an off-street trail reduces the need to consider bike boulevards on local streets. Opportunity to ride on the local streets without bike boulevard treatments remains an option for bicyclists. • A five foot vegetated boulevard between the trail and the street will help to mitigate storm water impacts. Douglas Avenue to France Avenue (Golden Valley) - A 10 foot wide off-street trail is desirable. Reduction to a minimum of 8 feet may be needed in constrained locations to reduce impacts and costs. This approach is preferred after consideration of the following: • An off street trail achieves connectivity goals providing a bike -able connections to: the West End development, 1-394 pedestrian bridge, North Cedar Lake Trail (via the Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 23 St. Louis Park segment described above), Grand Rounds Trail system (via existing bike lanes and connections in Minneapolis). • Street narrowing associated with the off-street trail addresses speed and safety concerns. The narrower roadway will tend to calm (slow) the vehicular traffic. • Local street intersection sight distance will be improved with the street narrowing. • The off street trail provides a safe comfortable experience for riders of all ages and abilities. Bicyclists choosing to ride in the street will still be able to do so. • Establishment of an off-street trail reduces the need to consider bike boulevards on local streets. Opportunity to ride on the local streets without bike boulevard treatments remains an option for bicyclists. • ADA treatments at the local service bus stops can be addressed through construction of pedestrian ramps in the concrete maintenance strip using MnDOT's "parallel" ramp design approach (See Appendix H). • The off street trail design is compatible with the intersection improvements planned for the Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue intersection. • On street parking should be retained to the extent possible on the block between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail. • Impacts to the steep residential driveway, the need for retaining walls and easements between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail can be minimized or avoided if on street parking is not provided at that location. A parking bay is feasible for several hundred feet after June Avenue and should be included where feasible. France Avenue to the existing on -street bike lanes on Wayzata Boulevard (Minneapolis) - On street bike lanes should be extended westerly to France Avenue. This approach is preferred after consideration of the following: On -street bike lanes achieve connectivity goals providing bike -able connections to the Grand Rounds Trail system and future Penn Avenue Transit Station (via existing bike lanes and connections in Minneapolis). The eastbound bike lane should have a bike box to navigate the left turn at the all - way stop controlled intersection on Wayzata Boulevard at the Target West office campus driveway. For westbound bicyclists, the transition from the on -street bike lane to the off—street trail on the south side near France Avenue should be determined in final design. Three options have been considered: o A jug -handle was considered, but the existing concrete maintenance strip does not have adequate width to serve as a refuge for bicyclists. o A two stage turn queue box and marked bike crossing to the south side could be considered where the westbound bike lane ends. A negative aspect of this is that it would leave bicyclists waiting in an unprotected location. o Ending the westbound bike lane at the office complex intersection and allowing bicyclists to navigate to the south side off-street trail based on basic rules of the road could be considered. The Target West office campus driveway that joins France Avenue should be eliminated to simplify the complex intersections and multiple private driveway access points. Property owner cooperation will be needed to implement this change. Elimination of pedestrian sidewalk gaps east of France Avenue are physically possible, but would cross private property and therefore require the cooperation of Target West office campus ownership representatives. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 24 8.0 Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is comprised of bikeway, street, and sidewalk configurations best suited for segments located in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Minneapolis based upon design constraints and opportunities that are unique to each segment. Evaluation of concept alternatives defined in Section 5.0 of this report and the development of a concept plan yielded the preparation of additional illustrated cross sections that compare the preferred alternative to existing conditions which are included in the following pages. A preliminary design concept plan of the preferred alternative is provided in Appendix D. Five locations were selected to highlight the preferred alternative through a comparison to existing conditions in illustrated cross sections: • Section ZZ — Quentin Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and Old Cedar Lake Road • Section AA — Quentin Avenue south of Douglas Avenue • Section BB — Wayzata Boulevard north and east of the TH 100 underpass • Section CC — Wayzata Boulevard at the 1-394 trail bridge crossing • Section DD — Wayzata Boulevard between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail The Illustrated cross sections comparison for these five locations are provided in the following pages. Full page typical sections are included in Appendix C. Section ZZ — Quentin Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and Old Cedar Lake Road EXISTING IOUTH -UN G W.H 9OIMD —A�L IW-vp 4Q�Ai e 16' 16' aml hau J GPan Spaae 1Une lane Spxe PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION sou*r aourvo rvoarn eauno Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 25 aL s�a.e �,e u�r eiw Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 25 Section AA — Quentin Avenue south of Douglas Avenue ■ EXISTING i�PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND Travel • T.e SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND "' s s }zl o-eil aiNrg nre Section BB — Wayzata Boulevard north and east of the TH 100 underpass EXISTING WET BOUND EAiT ROUND i I i ,a,ad �aa�ro� Na -e Rarrcer MainRnance Lane PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION WEST EOl1N0 Side�rralk Sound R, O.W Ranier I I I I I Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 26 Section CC — Wayzata Boulevard at the 1-394 trail bridge crossing EXISTING Pede.,raian M1nu,xi Waesrim Trxael Tnvei sdemaG 6eas AA,W aruge Bmrier Landrkq Lane mna sp PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION Padrrn sn�nm Pear...L avel .vel qe;l qa.I Bridges Bmrier IandnN Lanc lanr X�allq Section DD — Wayzata Boulevard between June Avenue and Tyrol Trail EXISTING MPBsr Bouwu BwsT aauN© °i'U.i :: 'aTM ''�_ I aunt R.xnl Lana arel Slde•.valk r ItO,W Prlvaln Pull inrn Ba,rvn Ma n'lenancr lane and C.mdrna PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION W/ PARKING ~rt LANE x. WESTBOUND BAST BOUND Sound Tavel Pa,kinr Tull P.OW warm Tell Private lud... Harlin Mainhmnre I.n, lanr Labe P[aranlallL aril tlmHena Preliminary Cost Estimates A preliminary construction cost estimate for the preferred alternative has been prepared and is included in Appendix E. The cost estimate is based on expected construction costs (using 2016 values) and is subtotaled for work that would occur in each City. On the Golden Valley segment, the estimate assumes full pavement section replacement for half of the roadway width in combination with mill and overlay on the other half to achieve street narrowing and re -centering of the roadway crown. Opportunities for savings by reducing the full depth pavement replacement should be explored during the final design phase. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 27 9.0 Public Meeting Number 2 Public Meeting Number 2 was held on June 29, 2016 at Golden Valley City Hall. The study team was on hand review the concept layout and answers questions. Attendance was very light with only four residents signing in. Those in attendance were generally supportive of the plan presented. No written comments were received. The meeting invitation is included in Appendix E. 10.0 Implementation Each City should recognize the preferred alternative in their respective comprehensive plan updates and consider programming for improvements in their Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Golden Valley is currently in the process of preparing a City-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan which will include an implementation plan that provides guidance for capital programming. Cost efficiencies would be maximized if street improvements associated with the preferred alternative are made in conjunction with pavement rehabilitation. Wayzata Boulevard was last overlaid in 2009 and has an expected 20-25 year pavement life -cycle. Therefore, implementation of the preferred alternative would be most cost effective in an approximate 12-17 year time frame. The user benefits of the multi -use trail, traffic calming benefits of the narrower roadway and safety benefits of improved intersection sight lines should also be considered when decisions for capital programming priorities are made. This study was performed utilizing a Hennepin County Grant and the preferred alternative is consistent with design guidelines prescribed in the County's 2040 Bicycle Plan. The project therefore is eligible for a Hennepin County grant for construction. Each city should support their neighboring cities with letters of support for project financing if project segments are implemented independently, or if opportunities for a joint application for funding presents itself, the three cities should consider a joint application. Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Study March 2017 Page 28 List of Appendices Appendix A — Issues and Opportunities Map Appendix B — Bikeway Routes and Types Appendix C — Preferred Alternative Typical Sections Appendix D — Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design Appendix E — Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix F — Open House Invitations and Summary of Comments Appendix G — Vehicle Speed and Volume Counts Appendix H — Bus Stop ADA Ramps Appendix A Issues and Opportunities Appendix B Bikeway Routes and Types a,e�.am LT� m. ,e w;nn pkwv i a U � Q CO L111 PLU �— — co _ all �� $ $ y,r$ r m 0- 02 y 00 Ir I 117/1 00 1 � $ $ �l 11T�-� � e. $ \ ! N Itm $ + � � $ � i Q rlr —�Lm _ f i I Ina / /ri r if eO 3 E Ili fI� $ ^tl nr $ $ ' E U 4 UI If �—•�. �$ II l I $ $ � � in � tet" � � - —cao e�„ed W I -o rn ¢ $ $ $ m 41 O O $$ U o� $ r m / "�� ♦ e m m O 1 W a a a o s vewrery �?+\ a s a mis a s a s is IS a a a a a at Is m a r. °r Masaaa Wr:nia 1, to Is 4 its m a I. LA La Lop 4 �ti> 1�_-�._-_.� +s >RseArAlAaao�a�ie.aaa111�aa1r � � �°e ��` ,v` 3 � � � V f � � � ® � `♦ + fir`{I r �e-- I ffff I ��• j $j� I zss-w r auj Lu sk ” ti,1 Appendix C Preferred Alternative Typical Sections EXISTING CROSS SECTION Z -Z CEDAR LAKE RD. TO OLD CEDAR LAKE RD. SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND 1 16' 16' 1 Green Travel Travel Green Space Lane Lane Space PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND A u � 1 16, 16, 1 5' 1 81 12' Green Travel Travel Grass I Trail Space Lane Lane Blvd ell , J �pC7�Li�'"Va� 1 Minneapolis 1 CRY atLakes —A III St. Louis Park SEHMINN E507A �: ,. 1-0=s WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS EXISTING CROSS SECTION A -A QUENTIN AVE. SOUTH OF DOUGLAS AVE. SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND 1 l 16' 16' Sound Green Travel • Travel Barrier Space Lane Lane PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND T T 16' 16' z' g' Green Travel Travel t t Trail Space Lane Lane J rCr�'j. gciIcfen* 1 Minneapolis Valle,1 c,frarL.k.s SEHI// St.N Louis Park K I N Green Fence Space Retaining Fence Wall WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS EXISTING WEST BOUND 1377 ` 1 j 16' Sound Concrete Travel Barrier Maintenance Lane Strip I ROPOSED RAIL OPTION WEST BOUND Sound Concrete Barrier Maintenance Strip 1377 -r 13' Travel Lane EAST BOUND 13' Travel Lane ell , J �pC7�Li�'"Va� 1 Minneapolis 1 CRY arLakes —A III St. Louis Park SEHMIHfilE5011 7A EAST BOUND 16' Travel Lane 8-9' Trail CROSS SECTION B -B WAYZATA BLVD NE. OF THE 100 UNDERPASS I I I I I I 8' 1 Sidewalk Sound R.O.W Barrier Sound R.O.W Barrier WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS CROSS SECTION C—C WAYZATA BLVD AT 1-394 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EXISTING Pedestrian Sound Pedestrian Travel Travel Sidewalk Green R.O.W Bridge Barrier Landing Lane Lane Space PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION j 10' j 11' 11' j7 2' T 10' j 2' j Pedestrian Sound Pedestrian Travel Travel Trail Retaining Green Bridge Barrier Landing Lane Lane Wall Space Jell gC2��'",J V�1 Minneapolis ., 1 C1ry a/Lakes I/11 StK I N.N Luis Park SEH WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS EXISTING WEST BOUND j S' j 16' Sound Concrete Travel Barrier Maintenance Lane Strip PROPOSED TRAIL OPTION W/ PARKING LANE EAST BOUND 16' Travel Lane &"' J �pC7�Li�Va1 Minneapolis 1 CRY atLakes —A III St. Louis Park SEHMINN E507A I: ,. CROSS SECTION D -D WAYZATA BLVD BTWN JUNE AVE. & TYROL TRAIL 4' 5, I Sidewalk R.O.W Private Residence and Gardens sem- _ by ice. Lru• _ �` . I . R I y 2' 1 8' 11 2' 1 Trail R.O.W Proposed Trail Private Residence Easement and Gardens WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS WEST BOUND EAST BOUND T T 13' 11' 8' Sound Concrete Travel Travel Parking Barrier Maintenance Lane Lane Lane Strip &"' J �pC7�Li�Va1 Minneapolis 1 CRY atLakes —A III St. Louis Park SEHMINN E507A I: ,. CROSS SECTION D -D WAYZATA BLVD BTWN JUNE AVE. & TYROL TRAIL 4' 5, I Sidewalk R.O.W Private Residence and Gardens sem- _ by ice. Lru• _ �` . I . R I y 2' 1 8' 11 2' 1 Trail R.O.W Proposed Trail Private Residence Easement and Gardens WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY STUDY BIKEWAY SECTION OPTIONS Appendix D Preferred Alternative — Preliminary Design 14 ■/ /y 50 n' ecafe feet 205+00 Yf /2()4101, - 6+00 >, 2p3+off/REMOVE / ISLAND 5 8' TRAIL " �1 „ 00 202 32 F P 1- REMOVE TREE \ o O \ RELOCATE SIGNS / oo r� REMOVE / TREE ADJUST MANHOLE Q 200}p0 ��j REMOVE TREE REMOVE TREE TBLVD PROPOSED $ SRP1L REMOVE O PAVEMENT REMOVE TREE REMOVE TREE_ 7 P d REMOVE Y J RELOCATE SIGNS s TREE nl REMOVE CONCRETE B' e<�p -13 RELOCATE POWER POLE r. CURB AND GUTTER 2° MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P - ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP Q U E NTI N AVENUE 905 905 900 900 895 895 EXISTING � PROFILE 890 890 885 ------ -------- -------- — --____-- —__-- 885 880 880 875 875 870 m cV N) m 00 c0 c0 a0 c0 s m n r .0 W G0 00 n n r a0 a0 N o 0 q m m In 00 u0 DJ N o0 a0 870 n n rn au (V cV w U0 u0 0 N 0 m o c, m m n N M n d co c0 co a0 N a0 N co a s 4 N i[) c0 co W co 00 w m 00 n m o m In o w c0 w n 00 W 00 O0 01 OJ A0 N o o a n r W W W '0 o o ro m t0 n Ih w 00 w 00 a0 a0 a 1 W of N a s ro m r 10 w c0 w m U0 X a0 m oo W m n o 0 o m ao b N N M Ih u0 m u0 a0 0 M-0 a0 200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 DRAWN BY: — - I 'DIRECT CERTIFY THAT 'HIS PLAN WAS PREP BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT E & I� SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S {r}._ NESOTA. * 1 outs Park i• FrY Y+J ii � �r�l�('J � WAYZATA BOULEVARD QUENTIN AVENUE FILE NO. GV735G59 DESIGNER: _ B `` A �V` NoLa PHOnIE: ss2.s, 2.2e00 10901 RED CIRCLE MIN MN DRIVE #300 55343-9302 M. a. rr t« € s a 1 n ■■■ ��+ ryl�lfll' eap O�is `7 IODIC ii t t VA , CORRIDOR BIKEWAY X25 DATE:CHECKED DESIGN TEAM Date: No. - C —hi-A, SEH www.sehinc.com ity of Lakes C�11 BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE 6/29/2016 NO. BY DATE REVISIONS /394 RAMP P-ctP-\1 2° MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P - ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP Q U E NTI N AVENUE 30 0 30 ED scale 15 Leet 0 905 1 1 905 n I 900 900 0 s 895 895 T i 890 EXISTING PROFILE N 890 a o i c a 885—-------------------------------------------------------------- 885 _ __--------------- o— o __----_—------- — — — — 880 880 I 0 875 875 I n i rn a 870 870 o m t2 o m m co m a T O O rn m T m N N O m 1< CID a N n N i[) M Nl N cV N cV N (V N cV M M a 7 d' 7 N 5 N Ui c0 t0 c0 c0 c0 <O iA N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m � m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00 213+00 214+00 215+00 216+00 217+00 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 'HIS PLAN WAS PREP BY ME OR UNDER MY WAYZATA BOULEVARD OUENTIN BOULEVARD FILE NO. DRAWN BY: — DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AM A DU SED PROFESSIONAL /1 }. /y Y' c 9 7 i ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S NESOTA. / 4• Louis Park �r�l GI GV135059 4 DESIGNER: - `` A� �� PHonIE: ss2.s12.2e00 Minneapolis golden t t } ° CORRIDOR BIKEWAY _ C 10901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE #300 Mi nY eapolis VAN , DATE: C� CHECKED BY: DESIGN TEAM NO. BY DATE REVISIONS Date: NaLia No. - SEH MIN —hi-hi MN 55343-9302 Cully of LskQ5 ` 7 C�11 BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE 6/29/2016 www.sehinc.com 394 E RAMP PSE < < <<<<`2<<<<<<<<<< < < < < < <<<<<<<<<<<<<< < QVE� ,.a,0o,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< < maw/ 2° MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P - ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP 905 900_ 0 895 0 N -• LOCATION OF PROPOSED D WAYZATA BOULEVARD TURN LANE PROJECT 39 4 E Rq MP QUENTIN AVENUE EXISTING q PROFILE wq YZq Tq g� VD -t- )011 1 30 0 30 ED scale 15 feet 905 1 K 890 m — 890 a 885 ------- m- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ -------- ----- 885 -------------------- ------- -- 0 0 u 880 I 880 3 0 875 0 � 875 870 a T VJ N M n m m m m m m N O O n m m m m m m m m r <p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m m m 870 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - 217+00 218+00 219+00 220+00 221+00 222+00 223+00 224+00 225+00 226+00 DRAWN BY: _ i I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN WAS PREP BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AM A DU SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S NESOTA. /1 / }. /y Y' c 9 4. Louis ark 7 lf�l (J WAYZATA BOULEVARD OUENTIN AVENUE FILE NO. GV135059 V DESIGNER: - _ CHECKED BY: `` A� �V` PHOnIE: s52.s12.2eDD 10901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE /{302 rn,' n t s' , n Minneapolis gIOIldel } VAN CORRIDOR BIKEWAY d.Y , 11C NaL a SEH MIN NETONK A. MN 55343-9302 BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE DATE: 6/29/2016 NO. DATE REVISIONS DESIGN TEAM Date: No. — www.seh;n . om ,.ilV U9 L.AkE� ,PENN 30 0 30 60 y�r a '- scale 15 I feet 394 E RAMP P <G<<G<<G<<G<<<G<GG<<G<<G<<23{+00`GGGGGG<G <�G<<GGG<GG�GG<Z`0+0�` G G 1232+0 < 0<GG G G G <G r G <G 228+ooGG GG GG <G GG P ,,, P x,10' TRAM=' <GG<<G F G G 0 1 -- TRAIL GG G< G< <2 `F<,G< G G - 10� I � � - - `_------� < GG 23\XppG< <G 227+00; - < ``GGGGG<GG0226+o0�G< G G G G 9, TRAIL ` �� r41 ➢ (7 WOULD NEED D RELOCATE CATCH RELOCATE CATCH BASINS BASIN~ RELOCATE CATCH BASIN? s " -+ N HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED 2" MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P - ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP WAYZATA BOULEVARD 920 �I. 920 915 915 910 910 905 --- - 905 EXIS ING � PROFILE __- -- 900 ----- 900 895 -------- -------- ------ --- --- 895 890 890 885 Q O uvmm1i mvmi mm m rl: n N m m m m ao m m .000 10 n m m m m m m ao .0 oo o ma0 o 0 mm 0 "i n 0 0 0 m di, w w I 0 0 Om0 0 m m m rn 0 m 885 N0 w w 0 m m m m Im� m <Om Om N 0 In m m m N O N N a a m m Om m ao m m M Om m Om m a s m m m m 225+00 226+00 227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 DRAWN BY: — - HEREBY P RTISI THAT `HIS PLA" W� � ES ME DR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DU SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LINDER THE LAWS OF THE 5 NESOTA. , �r��1✓G�J WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA BOULEVARD V13 N5 (�`1�3rj0rj9 6 �L l,�c 7� • LOUIS 'a DESIGNER: CHECKED BY: — `` A tV` Name. PE // PHONE: 9s2.ic 912,2600 10901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE /{300 MINNETDNKA. MN 55343-9302' M f N N E S � TA Minneapolis Aden VAN CORRIDOR BIKEWAY n� d.Y DATE: DESIGN TEAM Date: G�. No. — SEH www.sehlnacom ily o1 LakQ5 BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE s 2s / /2016 G N0. DATE REVISIONS 394 E top 4 vp Am -- —� P 8' TRAIL 2° MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P — ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP WAYZATA BOULEVARD 930 0 V N 30 0 30 60 scale 15 Leet 8' TRAIL 2° MILL & OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P — ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP WAYZATA BOULEVARD 930 0 V 930 I 925 925 0 0 920 T 920 0 EXISTING PROFILE X 915 0 --- 915 -------- ---- a 910 ------ --- ------ ------ ------- — -------- 910 o 905 — _ _ --�� 905 0 900 0 I n -- 900 i rn 895 U] M N O n 895 m c0 t0 j O O rn rn r r O O rn rn cdW O O rn rn O rn O M O N N M rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m 17 rn GO O O In rn rn rn a0 M rn u0 Y M M M rn rn m W a0 I� rn a0 N N B rn rn rn rn r O m <O N O Di O O m rn rn r7 O rn M N O O O rn .0 M O rn N M N O O O rn rn rn - 233+00 234+00 235+00 236+00 237+00 238+00 239+00 240+00 241+00 242+00 DRAWN BY: i — HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREP BY ME OR U"DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AM A DU SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S NESOTA. J �� FS c 9 �• ouis art Louis T'� "�l<I WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA BOULEVARD FILE NO. GV135059 7 DESIGNER: CHECKED BY: — _ `` A� �V` PHONE: 952.912.2600 10901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE #300 M, r� k E s �, , n Minneapolis golld it }-` vall? CORRIDOR BIKEWAY L NaL a C SEH MIN NETONK A. MN 55343-9302 BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE DATE: 6/29/2016 C� ��/ DESIGN TEAM N0. BY DATE REVISIONS Date: No. - www—hin c.com ,.ilV U9 Lf ke: N - 30 0 30 60 scale 15 � feet 394 E _ _ P LLI242+00 LLLLL 243+00 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI LLLLLLLLLL----LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL � LL ��LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLE�---LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLII LLLLLLLLLL 246+00.LLLLLL 247+00 LLL LLLLLLLLLLLL244+OOLEEEELELELEEEELLLLLL45+OOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL' 248+00_LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL �LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL L_LLLLLL-� 26' F -F' 34' F -F LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL249+00- L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL250+00- LL L 8' PARKING LANE 8' PARKING LANE 8' TRAIL 8' TRAIL 10' TRAIL - 10' TRAIL P ��L-- I HYDRANT RELOCATION '►. ----�-��_ ADDITIONAL 2' POSSIBLY OUTSIDE -r - • 'e� * PROPOSED ROW CURRENT R.O.W. u RELOCATE CATCH BASIN 2" MILL &OVERLAY FULL DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION P - ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP WAYZ ATA BOULEVARD 920 920 915 915 ----------------- ----- EXISTING � PROFILE _ 910 -�' ��- ---- 910 905 ,-�'�� 905 900 '--_ -'� 900 895 895 890 V 890 885 n !7 N M of 0 o rn m m m a m M m n o; n n m m m m m m rn m m n m r; m m rn m m m m M N rn m m m n n m N o 0 0 m m m o N N n n M �6 ai 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn m to N of a a o 0"-' rn rn rn rn rn n n rn m m n m n n m m rn m rn rn N n n 0 0 0 rn m rn m 885 n in O 0 0 0 m m rn 242+00 243+00 244+00 245+00 246+00 247+00 248+00 249+00 250+00 251+00 DRAWN BY: - - HEREDY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLA" WA PR� HY ME OR D"DER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AM A DU SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE S NESOTA. , �r�l�G�f �. WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA BOULEVARD FILE NO. GV135059 1, c �M�J Park • r7 DESIGNER: CHECKED 6Y: — `� A tV� Name. PE PHONI 912.912.2600 10901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE #300 MINNETONRA. MN 11343-9302 M f X W E S, 7 F Minneapolis 901det t i -' V�I1� �' CORRIDOR BIKEWAY n� DATE: DESIGN TEAM - SEH "'""" sRhina BIKEWAY STUDY PLAN AND PROFILE s 2s / /2016 G N0. BY DATE REVISIONS Date: G�. No. Lily ul Lake5 N o U' DRAWN BY: — DESIGNER: - CHECKED BY: - DESIGN TEAM BIKE BOX /�b mow WAYZATA BOULEVARD HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WASPREP BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ABU THAT I AM A DUI��SEU PROFESSIONAL '�y�5 Park yr C �r'��2� ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE Sj�l�{{rr�'�-- NESOTA. • 11JJ N fl b PHONE: D CIC 11 11 M 1 r� I F S 6 1 h oiC6i�i 10901 RED CIRCLE 5343 /{300 Minneapolis valley Name, PE MINNETONKA, MN 55343-9302 DATE REVISIONS::Ld Date: Lic. No. — EH www.sehinc.com lZily of Ldke5 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR BIKEWAY STUDY WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY - ELIMINATE "Y" DRIVEWAY FILE N0. GV135059 DATE25 6/29/2016 N 30 0 30 so scale 15 feet WAYZATA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR BIKEWAY STUDY WAYZATA BOULEVARD BIKEWAY - ELIMINATE "Y" DRIVEWAY FILE N0. GV135059 DATE25 6/29/2016 Appendix E Preliminary Cost Estimate A SEH City of Golden Valley Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Study Opinion of Probable Cost SEH No. Goldv 135059 Date: 05/02/16 Revised Date: 03/06/17 P:\FJ\G\Goldv\135059\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\43-prelim-dsgn\[PreliminarySEQ Wayzata Blvd Bikeway Study.revl.xlsx]Opinion Cost LINE NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS ST. LOUIS PARK ESTIMATED QUANTITIES ST. LOUIS PARK ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS GOLDEN VALLEY ESTIMATED QUANTITIES GOLDEN VALLEY ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS MINNEAPOLIS ESTIMATED QUANTITIES MINNEAPOLIS ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 IMOBILIZATION LS 1 $85,000.00 1 $85,000.00 0.25 $21,250.00 0.70 $59,500.00 0.05 $4,250.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE $5,000.00 0.25 $1,250.00 0.05 $250.00 0.20 $1,000.00 3 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $5.00 5,400 $27,000.00 1,366 $6,830.00 4,034 $20,170.00 4 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD $5.00 10,010 $50,050.00 2,547 $12,734.44 7,460 $37,298.89 5 RELOCATE HYDRANT EACH $10,000.00 4 $40,000.00 2 $20,000.00 2 $20,000.00 6 REMOVE RETAINING WALL SQ FT $10.00 550 $5,500.00 550 $5,500.00 7 REMOVE & REPLACE FENCE LIN FT $10.00 250 $2,500.00 250 $2,500.00 8 REMOVE & REPLACE DRIVEWAY SQ YD $40.00 70 $2,800.00 64 $2,560.00 9 IMILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 2" SQ YD $3.00 6,900 $20,700.00 1,745 $5,236.33 5,155 $15,463.67 10 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SQ FT $3.00 19,980 $59,940.00 19,975 $59,925.00 11 RELOCATE CATCH BASIN & STORM SEWER PIPE EACH $5,000.00 16 $80,000.00 3 $15,000.00 13 $65,000.00 12 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $25.00 6,000 $150,000.00 1,518 $37,944.44 4,482 $112,055.56 13 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 CU YD $35.00 5,880 $205,800.00 2,403 $121,560.37 3,473 $121,560.37 14 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON $100.00 1,730 $173,000.00 422 $42,239.76 1,298 $129,808.80 15 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON $100.00 670 $67,000.00 158 $15,839.91 506 $50,579.01 16 BITUMINOUS TRAIL MIXTURE (3") TON $150.00 1,110 $166,500.00 275 $41,291.25 829 $124,357.75 17 INSTALL RETAINING WALL SQ FT $45.00 2,150 $96,750.00 690 $31,050.00 1,460 $65,700.00 18 IPEDESTRIAN RAMP EACH 1 $3,000.00 28 $84,000.00 4 $12,000.00 16 $48,000.00 3 $9,000.00 19 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN 8618 LIN FT $10.00 5,400 $54,000.00 1,366 $13,660.00 4,034 $40,340.00 20 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF $5.00 5,000 $25,000.00 5,000 $25,000.00 21 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 0.25 $2,500.00 0.70 $7,000.00 0.05 $500.00 22 ROADWAY STRIPING LF $2.00 5,900 $11,800.00 1,366 $2,732.00 4,034 $8,068.00 500 $1,000.00 23 BIKEWAY STRIPING LF $0.50 5,400 $2,700.00 1,366 $683.00 4,034 $2,017.00 24 24" STOP BAR, THERMO/GRD IN BIKE BOX SF $5.00 60 $300.00 60 $300.00 25 BIKE LANE SYMBOLS THERMOPLASTIC GRD IN EACH $400.00 3 $1,200.00 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 $1,200.00 26 1 CROSSWALK MARKING THERMO/GRD IN I SF $15.00 200 $3,000.00 200 $3,000.00 27 REMOVE & REPLACE SIGNS EACH $300.00 20 ,000.00 5 $1,500.00 15 $4,500.00 28 TURF RESTORATION SQ YD $10.00 3,750 949 $9,486.11 2,801 $28,013.89 29 LANDSCAPING LS $50,000.00 1 5$37,500.00 ,000.00 0.25 $12,500.00 0.75 $37,500.00 30 EROSION CONTROL LS $10,000.00 1 ,000.00 0.25 $2,500.00 0.75 $7,500.00 Subtotal Construction Cost 20% Contingency Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Admin. & Engineering - 20% Opinion of Probable Total Project Cost $1,529,290.00 $305,858.00 $1,835,150.00 $367,030.00 $2,202,180.00 Page 1 of 1 $428,787.62 $1,100,917.93 $19,250.00 $85,757.52 $220,183.59 $3,850.00 $514,545.14 $1,321,101.51 $23,100.00 Appendix F Open House Invitations and Summary of Comments March 6, 2016 <Name> <Add ress> <City, State, Zip> Subject: Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Study — City Project #15-31 Informational Open House Meeting Dear <Name>: The Cities of Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis invite you to attend an informational open house meeting to gather information for a corridor planning study to determine the feasibility of constructing a bikeway along the Wayzata Boulevard corridor. The corridor extends from Theodore Wirth Parkway in Minneapolis to Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park. A map showing the corridor study area is attached to this letter. Meeting details are as follows: Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Study Informational Open Nouse (no presentation) Thursday, March 31, 2016 Anytime between 5 and 7 pm Location. Sobes Jewish Community Center 4330 Cedar take Road, St. Louis Pork Meeting Room M49 Activity Center Parking is free (See attached map showing the parking and meeting room locations) Attendees must bring Photo ID and check in at front desk The Wayzata Boulevard corridor is identified as a planned bikeway on the County's Bike Plan Map and would serve to connect local and regional trails, area destinations, and transit opportunities. htt : www.hennepin.us/residents/transportation/bikini= The planned bikeway is not currently programmed for construction. However, a grant was received from Hennepin County to assist the partner cities in the completion of a feasibility study. Key elements of the study include: • Meetings with stakeholders and community participation • Identification of challenges and opportunities • Evaluation of traffic control, safety issues, and driver behavior • Incorporation of traffic calming and intersection modifications to improve safety GAPROJECTS1Wayzata Blvd Bikeway Study (15-31)\Correspondence\OpenHouselnvite_033116.docx • Preparation of typical sections and concept layouts The three cities and their consultant, SEH Inc., have begun work on the study and are hosting an open house to exchange information and solicit input from stakeholders in the corridor area. We would like to hear from you about the existing issues, the proposed routes and types (on -street and off-street), and bikeway design elements. Staff from the Cities of Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, SEH, Inc., and Hennepin County will be present at the meeting to discuss the project and gather information from you. This as a great opportunity to provide valuable input to help guide the planning and design of a future project. Please feel free to call me at 763.593.8084, if you have any questions or if you are unable to attend and would like more information about the study. Materials will be available on Golden Valley's website following the meeting. A second open house is being planned for late spring to solicit input on the recommended alternative. Sincerely, Eric EckmanE'P'� Project Manager Enclosures GAIRROJECTSMayzate Blvd Bikeway Study(15-31)1CorrespondencelOpenHouselnvite_033116.docx Bikeway Feasibility Golden Valley Study Corridor Minneapolis Regional Trail Saint Louis Park N N - vq -N Corporation "St End YC �Appqlp Sabes Jewish Community awe -pr97%, Center t1ooh cadet 16. U& Ij ske 4e� Hennepin County Bicycle pods Transportation plan r Planned Elikeway System February 2015 W. ODW L_� t Wayzata Blvd Corridor NritNte:."112016 SOUMOS., -A*MR Iff s&mfs arW munWIW bamd&*?a. Bikeway Study -OW of G*V" VaNey f" Mor lamrs. - " Sabes Jewish Community Center' - 4330 Cedar Lake Rd S St Louis Park, MN 55416 !7 I 00 j .. CIO 46 lee -A ,; 1 r _ L cM4S Enter +� r Here ': "' • ! ' r p IM ❑ Lk'2 r "3 , t 9�f 46 4k - e Cedar,fake ` ` ,• ."; �' " A .. • • * :: loft Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Study Public Information Meeting - March 31, 2016 Summary of Written Comments Question from Comment Card Comment I prefer an off-street trail because: Visually appealing and will slow auto traffic Much safer for all Narrows road, slows traffic, feels safer and provides multi -use Much safer Narrower traffic lanes would help calm / slow traffic; Wider path for walking would feel safer along busy Wayzata Blvd (from Quentin to Target building) It would be safer for both bikers and motorists I prefer on -street bike lanes because: Moderate construction cost. No need for special plowing in winter. Safe enough for anyone willing to ride a bicycle over age 14. 1 prefer bike boulevard Option A because: no comments 1 prefer bike boulevard Option B because: I prefer bike boulevard Option C because: 1 prefer bike boulevard Option D because: Most direct 1 prefer bike boulevard Option E because: Makes the most sense for any bike boulevard option and will slow traffic 1st hope of traffic calming measures on our street - But not enough! I have concerns about off-street trail because: Will cut into my property (G.V. green space) in front of my home Residential area parking on Wayzata between June and Tyrol Trail would inevitably end up on Tyrol Trail. Size of path 1 have concerns about on -street bike lanes because: Not safe, traffic would still go too fast Residential area parking on Wayzata between June and Tyrol Trail would inevitably end up on Tyrol Trail. Missed opportunity to slow traffic / narrow road Very dangerous, won't use Based on what I see from Target building east to Penn, the newly painted bike lanes do not slow the traffic Size of path SEH, Inc. Comment Summary- Mar 31 Open HouseAs 4/25/2016 2 oft Question from Comment Card Comment I have concerns about bike boulevard Option A because: no comments 1 have concerns about bike boulevard Option B because: 1 have concerns about bike boulevard Option C because: Highly congested intersection already at Douglas and Princeton I have concerns about bike boulevard Option D Because of theft concerns (past incidents) would create easier in/out access for because: thieves 1 have concerns about bike boulevard Option E because: no comments 1 have concerns about bike boulevards (no Don't like bike boulevards - too confusing for people Residential area parking on Wayzata between June and Tyrol Trail would specific option identified) because: inevitably end up on Tyrol Trail. Wayzata Boulevard frontage road under Hwy 100 should have wider walk and bike lanes connecting to ne West End Park Key to me is look for the safest option in this corridor which has no real good options to "fix" Current concerns about speed Will provide follow up info on Edina bike path where speed limit was also lowered Solution (or addition) of path does nothing to resolve / address volume and speed from West End office towers and residential. Avoid high traffic as much as possible Please fix drainage to sewer system at the "wiggle" by Target building - the street grading needs to be adjusted so rainfall drains properly! The clientele for the proposed bicycle trail will come primarily for apartment dwellers and employees of businesses in the imminent "West End Development", shown on your map. I use the "North Cedar Lake Trail", as a bicyclist, to travel through the study area for recreational purposes. It serves my need well. Other Comments No need at this time because of bike traffic on the frontage road The conversations I've been part of regarding the plan have to do primarily with safety concerns. The Blvd is narrow, hilly and curved. Residents that live on the Blvd park on the street. There are bus stops on both sides of the Blvd. Stopping at the top of Tyrol Trail at the entrance to our neighborhood in order to progress out onto Wayzata Blvd requires easing out almost into the Blvd to see traffic coming in both directions. We want to make sure all of these concerns have been considered and addressed in the plan. The other concern is impact to aesthetics. We want the pillars marking our S. Tyrol Hills entrance to remain. Parking for residents on the Blvd would have to be provided for without imposing on neighbors that live on Tyrol Trial. There should be no confusion as to connecting the GV bike lane to other cities' bike lanes (i.e. the City of Mpls has marked the bike corridor on Wayzata Blvd to flow with both directions of traffic yet it currently abruptly ends on the west side of the Target building). Clear signage that assist bikers, drivers and pedestrians navigate the area safely will be necessary. SEH, Inc. Comment Summary- Mar 31 Open HouseAs 4/25/2016 June 16, 2016 JANE E KARAYUSUF 4530 CEDAR LAKE RD #4 ST. LOUIS PARK MN 55416 Subject: Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Study 2nd Open House Meeting Dear Sir or Madam, The Cities of Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis invite you to attend the second and final open house meeting for the Wayzata Boulevard Corridor Bikeway Study. The corridor extends from Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park to Theodore Wirth Parkway in Minneapolis. A map showing the study area is attached to this letter. The purpose of the second meeting is to share information about the study and the concept design plan that was developed after the first open house. Meeting details are as follows: Wayzata Boulevard Bikeway Study 2"d Informational Open House (no presentation) Wednesday, June 29, 2016 Anytime between 5 and 7 pm Location: Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 The Wayzata Boulevard corridor is identified as a planned bikeway on the County's Bike Plan Map and would serve to connect local and regional trails, area destinations, and transit opportunities. http://www.hennepin.us/residents/transportation/biking The planned bikeway is not currently programmed for construction. However, a grant was received from Hennepin County to assist the partner cities in the completion of a feasibility study. Key elements of the study include: • Meetings with stakeholders and community participation • Identification of challenges and opportunities • Evaluation of traffic control, safety issues, and driver behavior • Incorporation of traffic calming and intersection modifications to improve safety • Determination of a preferred route and type that provides a safe, efficient route for all users • Preparation of typical sections and concept layouts G:\PROJECTS\Wayzata Blvd Bikeway Study (15-31)\Correspondence\OpenHouselnvite_062916.docx The three cities and the consultant, SEH Inc., hosted an open house on March 31, 2016 to exchange information and solicit input from stakeholders in the corridor area. We received a number of comments at the meeting that helped the project team develop a concept plan that reflects the goals of the study. Staff from the City of Golden Valley, the City of St. Louis Park, the City of Minneapolis, SEH, Inc., and Hennepin County will be present at the upcoming meeting to discuss the concept plan and gather information from residents. This is a great opportunity to provide valuable input to help guide the planning and design of a future project. Please feel free to call me at 763-593-8084 if you have any questions or if you are unable to attend and would like more information about the study. Materials will be available on Golden Valley's website following the meeting. Sincerely, a— tq,� Eric Eckman Project Manager Enclosures G:\PROJECTS\Wayzata Blvd Bikeway Study (15-31)\Correspondence\OpenHouselnvite_062916 PAGE 2.docx Appendix G Vehicle Speed and Volume Counts Ln d d) W 4 m 3 Q. n W Q1 E _2 H 13 •V 3 0 w f4 4J m N C g CL N ri n 0- m m � N � w L V7 iQ < w v me 4 v -03 2 LL _:�: A v CD n � a cav 00 E +�. u c fl ocy � u . cc d L z y. ri C W 'C Z Q m It S 4! W m ii et 4L} m I't .-i d N M Rr rn rn C u 0 a N m N d Lir N N s � [i p. 6f' V- ri C m N rS ri N ri N N ri 3 O CO aq H S U S ro U 6 a ra a 11 N N N C w`r+ .N -I 11 N fly L C 4} Ln u'1 t�p W 4 E 517 to co LrI �1'Y I- rrl CL GI N M 5G � d NO r7 �4�p r � C Ml ❑r �C O d rmri m f l > <ca 0 d r�-1 N u i Q M }. Q1 rl es L L m m V M IV 'i. L Z N N m M n' N N H7 N i c7. ap E Lo ri N N 6 d S E m v en 4 M O M m r aL•o. CO ry m Lo +_+ Q, m ad 17 pr Ln 517 W V d Kr sn V1 N tri Ml m 4.0 P 5!1 ri O ar LL dr d� Y ql m 3: N m SC m m N -ty 41 m Z 1- rq M1 N to I as w£r s } a a CL CL rQ Q N 4�LAm } IAF C d4 m N m N E C c E la f0 _ m Z w m m v Go co N ri mai 19 7 QD W .91.9 62 m '13 a m m +, a°�r E r�r5 c'a'n m m m m "' m m N N m 5n ro ti a � o � W G �l Tr p 0 d ny ry N a t ei a�+ Q a, vii >m G Q 00 m o a m N n0 Y N f .te l z. .L rG fu 01 � 01 O L L L 3 7 7 tli W N) Ln tl fu W tl m m C1 �i i.� m �4a m IM co 7 LL E � a E +�. c fl ocy � 7 . U d L z y. ri C W 'C Z Q m It LO ItCO I't .-i N rO M Rr Y1f 6+ s � [i p. 6f' V- ri C m N rS ri N ri N N ri 3 O CO aq H S S ro fe a a rmtf. � .N -I 11 N fly E to co LrI �1'Y I- rrl Gf � r � ❑r �C > <ca Q }. Q1 es L "8 a W 4 N N N H7 N Lo ri N N w m m v en 4 M O M m r 'mm C P 5!1 ri O ar LL dr d� Y w£r s } a C Q N 4�LAm } d4 m N m D C la f0 m Z 4 Q mai 19 7 QD W .91.9 62 a m m in a°�r y�i t4 m m w C N N ro ti a � o � Appendix H Bus Stop ADA Ramps e Q oz OK v z s as s� pug- e W u � �q= If W �N cam # SE668 J e a L c E' Cis 9 e W � F W q�C o ell a to }`atipsa P U W % w N G'e I � � o 3 g� Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 6. B. Approve Master Partnership Contract Between the City and State of Minnesota Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary In 2015, the City entered into a Master Partnership Contract with the State of Minnesota. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2017. The contract is a document that can be utilized for either the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) or the City to perform work cooperatively for the other when both parties deem it beneficial. Projects that can be done under the agreement range from signal construction/modifications to small paving projects. Some of the basic provisions of the agreement are as follows: 1.The agreement ends June 30, 2022. 2.The agreement outlines the responsibilities for both parties. 3.Types of maintenance and construction work that may be included under the agreement are detailed. 4.Under the agreement, work orders for specific projects are developed to implement each project. 5.Identifies City and MnDOT personnel authorized to execute work orders to perform such work on behalf of their respective agencies. The attached resolution identifies the City’s authorized representative. This contract has been used previously to upgrade the pedestrian push buttons and indications at traffic signals (City purchased the equipment and MnDOT provided the labor), replace non- working traffic signal indications (which the City is responsible for) over mainline Highway 55, and implement the flashing yellow arrow operation at Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. The contract is a proven tool for MnDOT and the City to work together to implement projects in a more cost-effective manner. A resolution is required to be adopted by the City to enter into the agreement and to designate the City’s authorized representative for executing work orders. Attachments •Resolution Authorizing the Master Partnership Contract with the State of Minnesota (1 page) •Master Partnership Contract (17 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing the Master Partnership Contract with the State of Minnesota. Resolution 17-23 May 16, 2017 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City of Golden Valley enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the Council. 2. That the following City officer is authorized to execute such contract, and any amendments thereto: Golden Valley City Manager That the City Manager is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the City Manager may execute such work order contracts in accordance with Exhibit A on behalf of the City without further approval by this Council. ________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota,acting through its Commissioner of Transportation in this contract referred to as the"State"and the City of Golden Valley,acting through its City Council in this contract referred to as the "Local Government." Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§15.061,471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20,subd.2,authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing,maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this contract is a"road authority"as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1,authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice,assistance and supervision, surveying,preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways,and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6,authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into contracts with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities,equipment, staff,data,or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services,or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally purchase services from the other party,which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels.This Master Partnership Contract(MPC)provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This MPC contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties.When specific services are requested,the parties will(unless otherwise specified) enter into a"Work Order"contracts. 7. After the execution of this MPC,the parties may(but are not required to)enter into"Work Order"contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion,and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this MPC to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Partnership Contract 1. Term of Master Partnership Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date:This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government,and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05,subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30,2022. Page 1 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed(by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement,except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2.The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that project.A party must not begin work under a work order until the work order is fully executed. The terms of this MPC will apply to all work orders contracts issued,unless specifically varied in the work order.The Local Government understands that this MPC is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments,and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law,Jurisdiction,and Venue;and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this MPC will survive with respect to any work order contract issued prior to the expiration date of the MPC. 1.6. Sample Work Order.A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 1.7. Definition of"Providing Party"and"Requesting Party". For the purpose of assigning certain duties and obligations in the MPC to work order contracts,the following definitions will apply throughout the MPC. "Requesting Party"is defined as the party requesting the other party to perform work under a work order contract. "Providing Party"is defined as the party performing the scope of work under a work order contract. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government.These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order,as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Exhibit A—Table of Technical Services is attached. 2.1.1. Every other service not falling under the services listed in Exhibit A will require a work order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner,such as by the use of email,a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone,but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise,the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State's normal processes and practices,including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services,the State will charge the Local Government the State's then-current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State's normal and customary additives.The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services,or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts:A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. Page 2 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 3.2. Professional and Technical Services A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party.As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08,subd. 1,professional/technical services "means services that are intellectual in character,including consultation,analysis,evaluation,prediction, planning,programming,or recommendation;and result in the production of a report or completion of a task."Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services.Professional and technical services include(by way of example and without limitation)engineering services,surveying,foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation,right-of-way assistance(such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance,but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain),geometric layouts, final construction plans,graphic presentations,public relations,and facilitating open houses.A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel;however,a party's professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance.A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction.This work may include but is not limited to snow removal,ditch spraying,roadside mowing,bituminous mill and overlay(only small projects), seal coat,bridge hits,major retaining wall failures,major drainage failures,and message painting.All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,training,expertise or certification to perform such work,and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party.Roadway construction includes(by way of example and without limitation)the construction,reconstruction,or rehabilitation of mainline,shoulder,median,pedestrian or bicycle pathway,lighting and signal systems,pavement mill and overlays, seal coating,guardrail installation,and channelization.These services may be performed by the Providing Party's own forces,or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work.Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work(including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects).All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,training,expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster,natural disaster or other act of God.Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for,prepare for,deal with,and recover from emergency situations. These services include,without limitation,planning,engineering,construction,maintenance,and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures,traffic control,debris removal,flood protection and mitigation,sign repair,sandbag activities and general cleanup.Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills,training,expertise or certification to perform such work,and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work,the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully-executed work order,the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified,the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work,the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost.The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally,a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement,although"on call" work orders may be prepared for certain types of services,especially for"Technical Services"items as identified section 2.L.The work order will also identify specific deliverables required,and timeframes for completing work.A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. Page 3 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order contract and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Order Contracts The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work order contracts. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party.Each party's authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order,and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work,and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this MPC or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer(Project Engineer),to be in responsible charge of the project(s)and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order contract.For services not requiring an engineer,the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project.The services of the Providing Party under a work order contract may not be otherwise assigned, sublet,or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party's authorized representative.This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party,the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State,pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39.The work order Contract will require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance.The costs and expenses will include the current State additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project.Any and all effort,expenses,or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed are considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued,the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by contract or work order,the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals,policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials,including(by way of example and without limitation),sign posts,sign sheeting,and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work order contracts for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s)must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. Page 4 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 4.3.2. Contractor(s)must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount.The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s)must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way,contractor(s)must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work,and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s)must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s)must comply with all applicable Federal,and State laws,ordinances and regulations,including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts. 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a work order contract,each party will be responsible for providing rights of way,easement,and construction permits for its portion of the improvements.Each party will,upon the other's request,furnish copies of right of way certificates,easements,and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party's portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party's cost obligation under the applicable work order contract. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party's written approval,and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order contract when necessary.The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State's request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State's Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party,and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way,the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe,proper and skillful manner,or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law,regulation,or permit applicable to the work.The State will have no liability to the Local Government, or its contractor,if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including,but not limited to,National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State's right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party Page 5 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work,the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party's request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract(subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete,the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected.The Providing Party will investigate the matter,and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete,it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data.Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction,that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and inspections of its portion of the project work.If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract,the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order.The State's normal and customary additives will apply to work performed by the State,unless otherwise specified in the work order.The State's normal and customary additives will not apply if the parties agree to a"lump sum"or"unit rate"payment. 7.2. State's Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this MPC will not exceed$500,000.00. 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party's services,and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order contract,the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract.In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses,such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current"MnDOT Travel Regulations"a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office.The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order,and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. Page 6 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE"MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER" SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE"INVOICE NUMBER"ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1028138 and Invoice Number###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St.Paul,MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order,but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2.Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services,as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08,subd.2(10),no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State's authorized representative.The balance due will be paid when the State's authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party's satisfaction,as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws,rules,and regulations.The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 9. Local Government's Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government's Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government's Engineer,and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government's performance.The Local Government's Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State's Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer,who has the responsibility to monitor the State's performance. 10.2. The State's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. Page 7 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 11. Assignment,Amendments,Waiver,and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment.Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this MPC or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Contract,executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this MPC,or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract,or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract,that failure does not waive the provision or the party's right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Local Government.No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder,whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law.The Local Government's liability is governed by Minn. Stat.chapter 466 and other applicable law.The State's liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law.This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract.Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party.A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a"Contractor"to the Requesting Party,as the term "Contractor"is defined in Minn. Stat. §11513.03 (subd. 10),and is entitled to the protections afforded to a "Contractor"by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act.The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1 a will apply to any work undertaken under this MPC and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05,subd. 5,the party's books,records,documents,and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor,as appropriate,for a minimum of six years from the end of this MPC. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,Minn. Stat.Ch. 13,as it applies to all data provided by the State under this MPC and any work order contract,and as it applies to all data created,collected,received,stored, used,maintained,or disseminated by the Local Government under this MPC and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights.The Requesting Party will own all rights,title,and interest in all of the intellectual property rights,including copyrights,patents,trade secrets,trademarks,and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions,improvements,discoveries(whether or not patentable),databases, computer programs,reports,notes,studies,photographs,negatives,designs,drawings, specifications,materials,tapes,and disks conceived,reduced to practice,created or originated by the Providing Party,its employees,agents,and subcontractors,either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract.Works includes "Documents."Documents are the originals of any databases,computer programs,reports,notes, Page 8 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 studies,photographs,negatives,designs,drawings,specifications,materials,tapes,disks,or other materials,whether in tangible or electronic forms,prepared by the Providing Party,its employees, agents,or contractors,in the performance of a work order contract.The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract.To the extent possible,those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be"works made for hire."The Providing Party Government assigns all right,title,and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party.The Providing Party must,at the request of the Requesting Party,execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party's ownership interest in the Works and Documents.Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes,including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention,improvement,or discovery(whether or not patentable)is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party,including its employees and subcontractors,in the performance of the work order contract,the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative written notice thereof,and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts,and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party,and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors,pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36.Pursuant to that Statute,the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons,women,and the qualified disabled,and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.In addition,when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this MPC,it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors.If the Contract exceeds$100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business,then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R.Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600.A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance,must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn.Stat§363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons,women,and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights("Commissioner")as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event.A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn.R.Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. Page 9 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 15.3.1. General. Minn.R.Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36.These rules include,but are not limited to,criteria for contents,approval,and implementation of affirmative action plans;procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor's compliance status;procedures for addressing deficiencies,sanctions,and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports;procedures for compliance review;and contract consequences for non-compliance.The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn.R.Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to,parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified.The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ,advance in employment,and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment,upgrading, demotion or transfer,recruitment,advertising,layoff or termination,rates of pay or other forms of compensation,and selection for training,including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36,and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places,available to employees and applicants for employment,notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment,and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding,that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36,of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor's failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include,but are not limited to,suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner,refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans,and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn.R.Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers' Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims.This MPC,and any work order contracts issued hereunder,are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53.To the extent that this MPC,or any work order issued hereunder,is determined to be Page 10 of 13 CM MAster Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53,such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative.For purposes of this provision,publicity includes notices,informational pamphlets,press releases,research,reports,signs,and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others,or any subcontractors,with respect to the program,publications,or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government's responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law,Jurisdiction,and Venue Minnesota law,without regard to its choice-of-law provisions,governs this master contract and all work order contracts.Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts,or the breach of any such contracts,must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County,Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law.As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245,when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order,the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors,less any retainage,within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s)and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s)on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn.Stat.§ 181.59.The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota,or any county,city,town,township,school, school district,or any other district in the state,for materials,supplies,or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1)That,in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract,or any subcontract,no contractor,material supplier,or vendor, shall,by reason of race,creed, or color,discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates;(2)That no contractor,material supplier,or vendor,shall,in any manner,discriminate against,or intimidate,or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause(1)of this section,or on being hired,prevent,or conspire to prevent,the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race,creed,or color;(3)That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and(4)That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county,city,town,school board,or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment,and all money due,or to become due under the contract,may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time,with or without cause,upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government.Upon termination,the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis,for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time,with or without cause,upon 30 days written notice to the State. Page 11 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 Upon termination,the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment,determined on a pro rata basis,for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding.The State may immediately terminate or suspend this MPC and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source;or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here.Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government.The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension.However,the Local Government will be entitled to payment,determined on a pro rata basis,for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available.The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source,not to appropriate funds.The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65,subd. 3,and other applicable law,the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number,and/or Minnesota tax identification number,already provided to the State,to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations.These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities,if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party(including but not limited to the Local Government's contractors and subcontractors),arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this MPC,the Local Government will,at the discretion of and upon the request of the State,tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims.The Local Government will, however,be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim,or any portion thereof,when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work.The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation,settlement,or alternative dispute resolution process.The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government,and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank—signature page follows] Page 12 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028138 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s)have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance,resolution,or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Division Director Date: Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By: As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: Page 13 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract(CM Rev.04/10/2017) ay O00C.d dc v� b Cd o o ao o 10 j b e b o V1 O O bo o a Y 'o b I r. bo 3cd " " - ° �' ° on ° E o on U ° o °: ° A ¢ w, to a o o w ° c O y o O > '" >~ 4 Z O .b CdO "o N U N O lC A U it V Y c wa o U ,� ° o �i A o o � Cd o a o ° bo U O 0 > o ° 'b O N °0 00 t5 cd E- Cd 0 O � o,o v, a w° � o � x � b •o co o TI, U •o c,, ° O L °o ti N O it QX" c's b0 'o ° p o °� y''" cd 0- 0bo 00 awe Q a°i Y 5 oq > v ° o .r 0 ° o ¢ o = d =iC • o •U b Q Cd 0 o ° c c o a> o o 0,- o a f �3 y ° v IN �i � '� > � o � � � � ° y o o � is Y � �e 0 +' b0 t"�' `3 .n dQ •abo U o y o (Ui, 00 c cn 0 N vUi 'cC O O p U vUi U vUi j o cl 15 �� o Cd r- ce Cd un 79 0 a� 0 bw ¢ N U U cis o U • a (i ani o I v z U 0 M O 000 M N c'� V 'b y O U GL CL a p •p 4, E O y U Off+ U C i Oji 4-+ cC cz ob S ^� y acyi Cd _ A to to cd 0 cts Y N cd C O GOq U as w co d p v U C L Q ccs w '�'' U .b •G �1. b w o4 c°i '� y 'cC .a 7mC',. o '� ¢ -a ��++0 `N ' ani 0 0A U d ftI U p !U cd y O . . V yn, U C m b O w a y O '� Y � `{��-I 1�i •� f�� @' � � U VJ ~ 4••1 Y � Y O >l � �y •� � fn ^O ° 'cl, a � � ccs •(� •� b wbb 0 9b cn 00 oD a C O ami 'C v o o v ° •� o �, ❑ c c -moo�+ a s U �❑ a b `�' aUi o oq 3 b b ..�. V z c6 .b0...0,� C r. Op cC id � ��• "(y V > t0 ."• � � .b � � 'y N y M p N U U O, O �• ° ,� .�: 'G C O A 'w U U bA c� N Q y �, O y O pOH p - t •C U i �; U � F .O � � � ��' � cn � cYi 'Ly � bA O � `n -p � w O .O •y � O v7 W .y p O O >, CC UC',0 bo cd on.E a� a a oo.cd o LA 0 0 ❑10. a s: w 3 v U ce o .b �, on' '5 v c ^a W O a s~ b ° >, 9 b '� >, p � U c U oq s: ti ° A _ a o b U v on Cao U U 2 " U V1 ..t~. cd U 0 "" U U � N V p U p C y L •+0.,•*..., •Q •OO�A U� ' obp0 O iE c a ,. ., 14 o•b p v bb X) O MIT C 0-4 LL UOj v c� yU +� 4- rte. �U .O •O O w U 0 V N CO O D U N �O a3i o oCA w° A A. y b a sN. v a sU O. vi P. w L1. vOi m O II1 •+ cd cts ° }U ci v I 4. o y cv _ U tn "O.. M Cl) M M M Ole l— 00 00 00 00 ca N0 b [ CO) . Q 44 U N o 5 0 O wto .� W N -00 �«. o > 0 ou r, S g . S a44 > �? 0 c a � °q O 0 .15 S > H c� C) x c °3 �' b 3 "" H o cd 0 h Vi U F. }. •' U W ca ° I m p❑gyp °, n y °? w al Cd ami IN c' 'AM ° o Y v o oon ° ° o > E 'd p Q V cY V r^, 4i V �t v b b o sem " bA ` Ogo i >C iC b p o- p O A-0 O 4 U O ^C ti ou o o y a, c > ' ° o �` o 3 a " '� > ons cd 0 CL.A 'gypp U - n ° '° 1401 y ,tz b N _f . ' 0 Q c � cce 0 � a U O2O pO 6 NrA ° $ ° dN aA 0 aoN v L. O° ° ci o 0 U fl S p p ce y ° 3 cl 7f�+ ° ti y v v ,U; •�' 3 v, -o tw Vo 9b 0. .fl o .o • � Qrte. •�o:Qd 0eiu.0'b �Q omYa v° + �0 0 U N ti _o o ani v -_ � ° U 8 o cv ° o >, ° 0 03 >r Cd a oo 0 °�:. . y S 0 0 ae a S ° Co a � � >' °o rA oc c 00 U ONNF U o ° O we U Z254 - A � o na! 3 � S . �r �, H �, a b � SSQ � Q � � cn 0 N U N ; v 01 �w O ? Op H ,oeq z a' w a o 3 as o °_ o 96 U U 0 H o y W a = q pUp U 0Uq bUp OU4 H H cu C7 -d o ti b b b o y f € M LV y ! U O b O N NN N N N N A-01 O 00 ,--; N N M �O j 00 100 00 00 00a `r � N.N N N N N{N N -N N N N U iCA 5� O i Rj CA -CA ° Y pCd Y� E I.d vami a°i U U b y E U H " O S ° 0 O mon 0 p 3 E ti A o 0 b A U o old. Aicd Uto >, ° 3z o o z o D o o 'A ° .o A 3 .: ° of.. a . U b v, = m Nom. ' a °= '� ° ' Cd o ° n106 o 'bcd c cis U o c o 'u oon o bo s o a ar U ° o o C o A ° Z o to w ° x a• o A .0 > b o o 'o Nw 'TJ --C O ?? N r. c, �.. �: p, �' O O eq 0 C) H 'o c3o > d a°i U v A o o N C O U O o 00 V U4." U cd ol l �, ani o o a'� a ° a o ° b a, U-` U] C O. .� cC W ° 'cd � C� � ��• cd v . al 4) ° IfO � W W W W N FSI sU, �, O alH i lu U .C1 Np G CJ o o cd °° U +-' Qno bo ° .� oon 6,' 0 o M -o ' N •i. U O y V1 LAG i Q � 41 w 'cz �? a o b v 3 ° U H � m 3 cow v � rz � H w ON 01 r t0 O W OMO OMO ooc ooc Cl O O O O O i O a V] U N N N N N M M Cl) M M M M Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 6. C. Approve Pipeline Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the Proposed Construction of Two Eight Foot by Six Foot Reinforced Concrete Pipes Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary Bassett Creek is conveyed under 10 th Avenue North and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) via three corrugated metal culverts; including two 114-inch span arch pipes and a single 72-inch diameter pipe. The location of the subject culverts are shown on the attached location map. The City of Golden Valley extended the existing culverts north and south of the UPRR right-of-way in 1980, and owns and maintains the portions of the culvert that it installed. Likewise, the UPRR owns and maintains the portions of the culverts within its property. Based upon their size, the existing culverts are classified as a bridge by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and are therefore subject to periodic inspection. In the early 2000’s, the bridge inspections indicated increased degradation in the overall condition of the culverts which resulted in an increase in the frequency of the bridge inspections to becoming an annual requirement. Beginning in 2008, the City began communicating with the UPRR regarding the overall condition of the culverts and the City’s desire to rehabilitate or replace the culverts. In 2015, the annual bridge inspection identified complete loss of culvert wall section and buckling of the culvert walls. In addition, the UPRR approached the City in early 2015 with plans to rehabilitate its portion of the culverts by lining the existing pipes. This rehabilitation method was found to be infeasible due to an increase in flood levels within Bassett Creek between 10 th Avenue and Medicine Lake. Annual inspections in 2015 and 2016 showed accelerating degradation in the culvert condition and the UPRR began seeing evidence of the culvert defects within its right-of-way. Subsequent conversations between the City and UPRR resulted in the determination that a cooperative project to replace the culverts with twin eight foot by six foot (8’ x 6’) reinforced concrete box culverts was the only feasible alternative in addressing the condition of the existing culverts. Based upon this determination, the UPRR agreed to design the portion of the culverts within its right-of-way, and the City agreed to design the portion of the culverts that it is responsible for, and combine the two sets of plans into one construction contract to be bid publicly by the City. The cooperative culvert replacement project requires an agreement between the City and the UPRR, which is attached to this memorandum for reference. This agreement outlines the following: •The cost split between the City and the UPRR. •The City’s requirements for public bidding of the project and construction administration. •The UPRR’s agreement to provide safety flagging during the construction. •The length of work windows where the UPRR may be taken out of service. •Safety requirements for future City maintenance and rehabilitation of the culverts. City staff and the City Attorney have worked closely with the UPRR in the development of the attached agreement, and recommend approval. Attachments •Location Map (1 page) •Pipeline Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and the Union Pacific Railroad (25 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into a Pipeline Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the installation of two reinforced concrete box culverts under 10 th Avenue North and railroad. IF 10th Avenue Culverts i� QW� Culvert 711� ' - - ! Orkla Dr m . _- 1 _ •� !10 EC �`\ Cr Faribault-S-__- -:- 10th Ave N -- 14 950 00 ! Winnetka Ave N J! ` 50 945 .._._. nrretka Ave NI i J + nne>ke Ave N i C N r 7 ! C � 601 5134 i I 7730 .0 i 313 G ,en Valley Rd ' I 213 103 VMI"" e N 1107 y' Golden Valle Rd 829 ( 1003 825 PrintDate: 1 Q@4/2016 l)t Del 1 i Location -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for 7 t f € Property Lines(2016)6 Aerial Photography(2015). a -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. ! 1 0 75 150 3pD Feet Audit# Folder# 02922-20 PIPELINE AGREEMENT Proposed construction of Two(2) Eight Foot by Six Foot(8' X 6') Reinforced Concrete Pipes UPRR Mile Post 5.5,Golden Valley Industrial Lead Golden Valley,Hennepin County,Minnesota THIS PIPELINE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2017 (the "Effective Date"), by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("UPRR"), and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation(the "City"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has an ongoing obligation to maintain its City infrastructure for the health and safety of its citizens; WHEREAS, UPRR is obligated to ensure the safe operation of its track structure ("Trackage"); WHEREAS, Bassett Creek runs through the City and under 10th Avenue North (the "City Property") and under UPRR's property(the "UPRR Property"); WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, there are two (2) one hundred and fourteen (114) inch span pipelines and one (1) seventy-two (72) inch span pipeline carrying stormwater under City and UPRR Property; and WHEREAS, the City and UPRR desire to cooperate in the upgrading of the stormwater pipelines by removing the existing pipelines and replacing them with two (2) eight foot by six foot (8' x 6') reinforced concrete pipes (collectively, the "RCP") in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION ONE APPROVAL; CONTRACTORS 1.1 Approval of RCP. The City and UPRR agree to cooperate in the initial construction of two (2) eight foot by six foot (8' x 6') RCP to carry stormwater only in the location generally shown on the print dated March 30, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, at or near Mile Post 5.5 on UPRR's Golden Valley Industrial Lead in the City (the "Property"). For purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree that "initial construction" shall mean all activities undertaken in the preparation, construction and installation of the RCP until (i) the RCP is fully functional and operating in accordance with the approved engineering designs and specifications, and (ii) the UPRR Property has been fully restored to its original condition as of the Effective Date. 1.2 Plans and Specifications. The City and UPRR have jointly approved the final engineering designs and specifications dated , 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and made a part hereof, for the initial construction and installation of the RCP by open cut (collectively,the"Plans"). 1.3 Public Bidding. The City will be responsible for preparing all bid documents and legal notices necessary to solicit public bids in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 471 and the Golden Valley City Code. Upon the City's selection of the lowest responsible bid ("Bid") and UPRR's written acceptance thereof, City will contract for construction of the RCP. UPRR reserves the right to withhold its written acceptance of the Bid if UPRR determines that the work can be performed at a lower cost than set forth in the Bid. If such determination is made by UPRR, the parties agree that public bids shall be re-solicited. 1.4 Contractors. If a contractor is hired by the City to do any of the work performed on the RCP (including initial construction and subsequent relocation or maintenance and repair work), then the City shall require its contractor to execute UPRR's current form of Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement ("CROE"), attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. After construction of the RCP is complete, any contractor performing maintenance, modification, repair, renewal, relocation, or removal work on the RCP on behalf of the City will be required to execute UPRR's then-current form of CROE. City acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and an understanding of its terms, provisions, and requirements, and will inform its contractor of the need to execute the agreement. Under no circumstances will City's contractor be allowed onto UPRR's property without first executing the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and the contractor providing to the UPRR the insurance binders, certificates and endorsements described in the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement. SECTION TWO ALLOCATION OF COSTS 2.1 Allocation of Costs. UPRR and City agree to split the RCP initial construction costs based upon a percentage of total lineal foot of the RCP. UPRR will promptly, upon demand by the City, reimburse the City for the following: (i) removal of approximately 73.1 feet of 72 inch culvert; (ii) 144.8 feet of removal of 114 inch span pipe for the existing pipe alignment within the UPRR property; (iii) installation of 144.8 feet of new railroad specified 8' x 6" box culverts; and (iv) the difference between the bid price for UPRR-specified box culverts and City-specified box culverts for 71.2 feet (which is the difference between existing alignment and proposed alignment within the UPRR property). In addition, the UPRR will be responsible for a prorated portion of additional shared project costs, including but not limited to those costs associated with mobilization, erosion and sediment control, construction staking and material 2 testing. The amount of such shared project costs will be determined following bid opening and agreed upon in by both UPRR and City. UPRR agrees to incur and bear sole responsibility for all costs of flagging during the initial construction of the RCP. After initial construction, each party will bear the cost of maintenance, repair, and operating of the RCP for only the portion within its own property boundaries. 2.2 Mechanic's Liens. City shall not permit or suffer any mechanic's or materialman's lien of any kind or nature to be enforced against the property for any work done or materials furnished thereon at the instance or request or on behalf of City. If City fails to promptly cause any lien to be released of record, UPRR may, at its election, discharge the lien or claim of lien at Contractor's expense. SECTION THREE CONSTRUCTION 3.1 Work Schedule. City and UPRR agree to cooperate in developing a mutually agreeable "Approved Work Schedule"and"Work Window": (a) Following fifteen (15) days' prior written notice from the City to UPRR, the City and UPRR shall meet for the purpose of establishing a schedule detailing the timing and duration of the work phases and sequences, and detailing the number, timing, duration, and frequency of work window(s). A "Work Window" is a time period during which a track is taken out of service to accommodate the RCP work. No work shall be performed on the property in connection with the project until a schedule has been approved by UPRR in writing. The City cannot perform any RCP work on the Property until such schedule has been approved by UPRR in writing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,UPRR agrees to provide a limited work window subject to the following additional limitations. UPRR will provide for two (2) outages for a period not to exceed four(4) days in length each. Following UPRR's receipt of such request, the parties shall reasonably cooperate to identify the dates and times the work window will be made available to perform the work with preference given to work windows commencing on Thursday and ending on Sunday. The City acknowledges that the work windows include any time required for the UPRR to inspect the applicable structure to ensure that the same has been installed in compliance with the engineering plans and the other requirements contained in this Agreement. (b) Once a schedule setting forth the number, duration and frequency of work windows is agreed to by the parties pursuant to Section 3.1(a) above, such schedule shall be deemed a component of the approved engineering plans. Any work windows requested by City beyond those agreed upon by the parties shall be subject to UPRR's approval, where such approval will not be unreasonably delayed. (c) "Approved Work Schedule" means the mutually agreed upon timing and duration of the various RCP work phases, sequences and work windows, approved in writing by UPRR and agreed to by the parties pursuant to Section 3.1(a), subject to modification, restriction, rescheduling and canceling as permitted herein, as well as any unforeseen delays beyond the City's control, including but not limited to adverse weather conditions, high water flow in Bassett Creek or events of force majeure. Whenever the term Approved Work Schedule is used 3 herein, it includes the work schedule as it has been modified, restricted, or rescheduled by UPRR after initial approval by both parties. Such Approved Work Schedule shall be deemed a component of the Plans. (d) The City agrees that it will comply with all Approved Work Schedules. The City agrees that the RCP work shall be performed only in the sequence and only within the window periods set forth in an Approved Work Schedule, unless otherwise directed or authorized by the UPRR Representative. (e) The City agrees that any Project Work may be restricted and rescheduled as UPRR deems appropriate or necessary to accommodate UPRR's operations or alleviate train or track congestion. The City agrees that UPRR shall have the right to restrict, modify or cancel an Approved Work Schedule on short written notice or oral notice in the field including, without limitation, on the day of a scheduled work window, due to UPRR operations or congestion on UPRR's track at the work site or on other portions of UPRR's track system. However, UPRR will not unreasonably restrict or reschedule the Project Work, or unreasonably restrict, modify or cancel Approved Work Schedules, and UPRR will do so only as appropriate or necessary in connection with UPRR's common carrier obligations. The City hereby waives all claims against UPRR for all damages whatsoever related to UPRR restricting or rescheduling RCP work and/or canceling, restricting or modifying an Approved Work Schedule. In the event that an Approved Work Schedule is cancelled or otherwise modified so as to prevent the City from proceeding with the Project Work, UPRR shall propose an alternative Approved Work Schedule to the City for review and approval to accommodate the RCP work within fifteen(15) days from the date of such cancellation or modification. 3.2 Standards and Regulations. The RCP shall be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, repaired, renewed, modified and/or reconstructed by City in strict conformity with: (i) the Plans attached as Exhibit A-1; (ii) UPRR's current standards and specifications ("UPRR Specifications"), except for variances approved in advance in writing by UPRR's Assistant Vice President Engineering — Design, or his authorized representative; (iii) such other additional safety standards as UPRR, in its sole discretion, elects to require, including, without limitation, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association ("AREMA") standards and guidelines (collectively, "UPRR Additional Requirements"), and (iv) all applicable laws, rules and regulations ("Laws"). If there is any conflict between the requirements of any Law and the UPRR Specifications or the UPRR Additional Requirements, the most restrictive will apply. 3.3 Protection of Track; Support Services. Prior to the commencement of any work in connection with the design, construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, relocation, reconstruction or removal of the RCP, City and/or its contractor shall submit to UPRR plans setting out the method and manner of handling the work, including the shoring and cribbing, if any, required to protect UPRR's operations, and shall not proceed with the work until such plans have been approved by UPRR's Assistant Vice President Engineering Design, or his authorized representative, and then the work shall be done to the satisfaction of UPRR's Assistant Vice President Engineering Design or his authorized representative. UPRR shall have the right, if it so elects, to provide such support as it may deem necessary for the safety of its track or tracks 4 during the time of construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, relocation, reconstruction or removal of the RCP. The parties agree that any elective support work initiated by UPRR during the initial construction of the RCP will be done at UPRR's sole cost and expense. Following the initial construction of the RCP, the City shall reimburse UPRR for any and all expenses incurred by UPRR in connection with any elective support work initiated by UPRR, including any assignable costs. The City shall then reimburse UPRR for any amounts owed under this Section within thirty(30) days after receipt from UPRR of an invoice itemizing such reimbursable costs. 3.4 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In the prosecution of any work covered under the terms and conditions herein, City shall, with UPRR's cooperation when necessary, work to secure any and all necessary permits and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws (as such laws are applicable to City), regulations and enactments affecting the work including, without limitation, all applicable Federal Railroad Administration regulations. 3.5 Commencement of Work. If an emergency should arise requiring immediate attention, City or its Contractor or authorized representative shall provide as much notice as practicable to UPRR before commencing any work by calling the Response Management Communication Center (RMCC) at 888-877-7267. In all other situations, City shall notify UPRR at least ten (10) days (or such other time as UPRR may allow) in advance of the commencement of any work in connection with the construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, reconstruction, relocation or removal of the RCP. All such work shall be prosecuted diligently to completion. City will coordinate its initial and any subsequent work with the following employees of UPRR or his or her duly authorized representative(the "UPRR Representative"): RACHEL N. BECK ZACHERY L.CHANEY MANAGER OF TRACK MAINTENANCE MANAGER OF SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 206 EATON ST 206 EATON ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55107 SAINT PAUL, MN 55107 402 378-2505 651552-3923 rnbeck(i�up.com zlchaney@up.com 3.6 Supervision. City or its authorized representative shall adequately police and supervise all work to be performed. The responsibility of City for safe conduct and adequate policing and supervision of work shall not be lessened or otherwise affected by UPRR's approval of plans and specifications involving the work, or by UPRR's collaboration in performance of any work, or by the presence at the work site of the UPRR Representative, or by compliance by City or its authorized representative with any requests or recommendations made by the UPRR Representative. At the request of UPRR, City or its authorized representative shall remove any employee who fails to conform to the instructions of the UPRR Representative in connection with the work on the RCP. City shall indemnify UPRR against any claims arising from the removal of any such employee from the work on the RCP. 3.7 Flagging. City shall notify the UPRR Representative at least ten (10) working days in advance of proposed performance of any work in which any person or equipment will be within twenty-five (25) feet of any track, or will be near enough to any track that any equipment 5 extension (such as, but not limited to, a crane boom) will reach to within twenty-five (25) feet of any track. No work of any kind shall be performed, and no person, equipment, machinery, tool(s), material(s), vehicle(s), or thing(s) shall be located, operated, placed, or stored within twenty-five (25) feet of any of UPRR's track(s) at any time, for any reason, unless and until a railroad flagman is provided to watch for trains. Upon receipt of such ten (10) day notice, the UPRR Representative will determine whether a flagman need be present and whether any special protective or safety measures need to be implemented and inform City of such determination. To the extent the UPRR Representative determines that flagmen are needed during the initial construction of the RCP, such flagman will be secured at UPRR's sole cost and expense. (a) Flagging Costs. After the initial construction of the RCP, any flagging or special safety measures provided by UPRR for work done on City Property will be billed to the City, including any work done in connection with the design, construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, relocation, reconstruction or removal of the RCP, in which case the following provisions shall apply: (i) Flagging Rates. The rate of pay per hour for each flagman will be the prevailing hourly rate in effect for an eight-hour day for the class of flagmen used during regularly assigned hours and overtime in accordance with Labor Agreements and Schedules in effect at the time the work is performed. In addition to the cost of such labor, a composite charge for vacation, holiday, health and welfare, supplemental sickness, Railroad Retirement and unemployment compensation, supplemental pension, Employees Liability and Property Damage and Administration will be included, computed on actual payroll. The composite charge will be the prevailing composite charge in effect at the time the work is performed. One and one-half times the current hourly rate is paid for overtime, Saturdays and Sundays, and two and one-half times current hourly rate for holidays. Wage rates are subject to change, at any time,by law or by agreement between UPRR and its employees, and may be retroactive as a result of negotiations or a ruling of an authorized governmental agency. Additional charges on labor are also subject to change. If the wage rate or additional charges are changed, City (or the governmental entity, as applicable) shall pay on the basis of the new rates and charges. (ii) Reimbursement. Reimbursement to UPRR will be required covering the full eight-hour day during which any flagman is furnished, unless the flagman can be assigned to other railroad work during a portion of such day, in which event reimbursement will not be required for the portion of the day during which the flagman is engaged in other railroad work. Reimbursement will also be required for any day not actually worked by the flagman following the flagman's assignment to work on the project for which UPRR is required to pay the flagman and which could not reasonably be avoided by UPRR by assignment of such flagman to other work, even though City may not be working during such time. When it becomes necessary for UPRR to bulletin and assign an employee to a flagging position in compliance with union collective bargaining agreements, City must provide UPRR a minimum of five (5) days' notice prior to the cessation of the need for a flagman. If five (5) days' notice of cessation is 6 not given, City will still be required to pay flagging charges for the five (5) day notice period required by union agreement to be given to the employee, even though flagging is not required for that period. An additional ten (10) days' notice must then be given to UPRR if flagging services are needed again after such five day cessation notice has been given to UPRR. 3.8 Safety. Safety of personnel, property, rail operations and the public is of paramount importance in the prosecution of the work performed by City or its Contractor. City and/or its Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety, operations and programs in connection with the work. City and its Contractor shall at a minimum comply with UPRR's then current safety standards located at: httpJ/www.up.corn/csigtvi�ps/publid(a�u r/(a� pplie�/doc�nnent POf nativedocsM up supplier safety Mgpdf to ensure uniformity with the safety standards followed by UPRR's own forces. As a part of City's safety responsibilities, City shall notify UPRR if it determines that any of UPRR's safety standards are contrary to good safety practices. City and its Contractor shall furnish copies of such safety standards to each of its employees before they enter the job site. Without limitation of the foregoing, City and its Contractor shall keep the job site free from safety and health hazards and ensure that their employees are competent and adequately trained in all safety and health aspects of the job. (a) Safety Compliance. City and/or its Contractor shall have proper first aid supplies available on the job site so that prompt first aid services may be provided to any person injured on the job site. Prompt notification shall be given to UPRR of any U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable injuries. City and/or its Contractor (as applicable) shall have a non-delegable duty to control its employees while they are on the job site, and to be certain they do not use, be under the influence of, or have in their possession any alcoholic beverage, drug or other substance that may inhibit the safe performance of any work. (b) Safety Plan. If and when requested by UPRR, City and its Contractor shall deliver to UPRR a copy of their respective safety plans for conducting the work (the "Safety Plan"). UPRR shall have the right, but not the obligation, to require City or its Contractor to correct any deficiencies in the Safety Plan. The terms of this Agreement shall control if there are any inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Safety Plan. 3.9 Reinforcement; Relocation; Removal. The agreement herein granted is subject to the needs and requirements of UPRR in the safe and efficient operation of its railroad. City shall, reinforce or otherwise modify the RCP, or move all or any portion of the RCP located on the City Property to such new location, or remove the RCP, as UPRR may designate, whenever, in the furtherance of its needs and requirements, UPRR, at its sole election, finds such action necessary or desirable. In the event City, in any manner, moves or disturbs any property and/or trackage of UPRR in connection with the construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, reconstruction, relocation or removal of the RCP, then in that event City shall, as soon as possible and City's sole expense, restore such property and/or trackage to the same condition as the same were in before such property was moved or disturbed. 7 3.10 Interference with Trackage. The RCP shall be designed, constructed and, at all times, maintained, repaired, renewed and operated in such manner as to cause no interference with the constant, continuous and uninterrupted use of the Trackage and Property by UPRR, and nothing shall be done or suffered to be done by City at any time that would in any manner impair the safety thereof. 3.11 Explosives. Explosives or other highly flammable substances shall not be stored on the Property without the prior written approval of UPRR. 3.12 Crossings. No additional vehicular crossings (including temporary haul roads) or pedestrian crossings over the Trackage shall be installed or used by City or its contractors without the prior written permission of UPRR. 3.13 Storage of Materials. When not in use, any machinery and materials of City or its contractors shall be kept at least fifty(50) feet from the centerline of the Trackage. 3.14 Delays. Operations of UPRR and work performed by UPRR's personnel may cause delays in the work to be performed by City. City accepts this risk and agrees that UPRR shall have no liability to City or any other person or entity for any such delays. City shall coordinate its activities with those of UPRR and third parties so as to avoid interference with railroad operations. The safe operation of UPRR's train movements and other activities by UPRR take precedence over any work to be performed by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, UPRR will use its commercially reasonable best efforts to minimize and mitigate any delays. 3.15 Fiber Optics. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss of revenue and profits. City shall telephone UPRR during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, except for holidays at (800) 336-9193 to determine whether fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Property to be used by City. If it is, City will telephone the telecommunications company(ies) involved, arrange for a cable locator, make arrangements for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable, all at UPRR's expense, and will commence no work on the Property until all such protection or relocation has been accomplished. 3.16 Restoration. After the initial construction of the RCP, should the City in any manner move or disturb any of the Property or Trackage in connection with the construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, reconstruction, relocation or removal of the RCP, then in that event City shall, as soon as possible and at the City's expense restore such property to the same condition as the same were before such property was moved or disturbed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the removal of any impacted or contaminated soils will required by either party from either UPRR property or the City's right-of-way, each party will be responsible for the cost of removing any such soils from its own property or right- of-way. 3.17 Completion. All work performed with the design, construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification or reconstruction of the RCP shall be done to the mutual satisfaction of 8 both parties. SECTION FOUR INDEMNITY 4.1 Definitions. As used in this Section: (a) "UPRR" includes UPRR and its officers, directors, agents, and employees. (b) "City" includes City and its agents, contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, employees, officers, and directors, or any other person or entity acting on its behalf or under its control. (c) "Loss" includes claims, suits, taxes, loss, damages (including punitive damages, statutory damages, and exemplary damages), costs, charges, assessments, judgments, settlements, liens, demands, actions, causes of action, fines, penalties, interest, and expenses of whatsoever nature, including court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, investigation costs, and appeal expenses. 4.2 Indemnification. Subject to the limitations of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, the City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless UPRR from and against any and all Loss, directly or indirectly arising out of or related to the City's construction, maintenance, operation, relocation, or removal of the RCP, which includes, but is not limited to, any actual or alleged: (a) Bodily harm or personal injury to, or the death of, any person(s). Such person or persons include but are not limited to City, UPRR, any telecommunications company, or the agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees of the foregoing; (b) Damage to or the disturbance, loss, movement, or destruction of property, including loss of use and diminution in value; (c) Removal of person(s) from UPRR Property; (d) Activity(ies) by either party on the other party's property, including without limitation the installation, construction, maintenance, repair, renewal, modification, reconstruction, relocation, or removal of the RCP or any part thereof, any activities, labor, materials, equipment, or machinery in conjunction therewith, and any delays or interference with track caused thereby; (e) Right(s) or interest(s) granted pursuant to this Agreement; (0 Breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with its provisions; and (g) Violation by either party of any law, statute, ordinance, governmental administrative order, rule, or regulation, including without limitation all applicable Federal Railroad Administration regulations. 9 THE FOREGOING OBLIGATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW FOR THE BENEFIT OF UPRR, EXCEPT WHERE THE LOSS IS CAUSED BY THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF UPRR AS DETERMINED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. 4.3 Survival. The provisions in this Section shall survive cancellation, termination, or expiration of the Agreement. SECTION FIVE GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 General Requirements; Insurance. City represents and warrants that any and all of the work to be performed on or near the Property will be performed in accordance with UPRR's (i) insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit B, and (iii) Contractor Right of Entry as set forth in Exhibit C, each of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5.2 Limitation And Subordination Of Rights Granted. The foregoing grant of right is subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right and obligation of the Railroad to use and maintain its entire property including the right and power of Railroad to construct, maintain, repair, renew, use, operate, change, modify or relocate railroad tracks, roadways, signal, communication, fiber optics, or other wirelines, pipelines and other facilities upon, along or across any or all parts of its property, all or any of which may be freely done at any time or times by Railroad without liability to Contractor or to any other party for compensation or damages. 5.3 No Third Party Benefit. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to confer any right or benefit on any person or entity who is not a party to this Agreement. 5.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. This Agreement can be modified only by a written amendment signed by both parties. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with Minnesota law. This Agreement is binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the successors and assigns of the parties. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, and a facsimile or electronic copy shall be considered an original for all purposes. 5.5 Rights of City. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. 5.6 No Assignment. Neither City nor UPRR may assign this Agreement without the written permission of the other party. 10 5.7 Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provisions of this Agreement shall not render any other provision or provisions of this Agreement unenforceable or invalid. 5.8 Waiver. A party does not waive any right under this Agreement by failing to insist on compliance with any of its terms or by failing to exercise any of its rights. A waiver hereunder is effective only when the waiving party so states in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA By: By: Renay J. Robison Director-Real Estate Name: Title: 11 EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN 12 EXHIBIT A-1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 13 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS City shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain during the life of this Agreement (except as otherwise provided herein) the following insurance coverage: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial general liability (CGL) with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence and an aggregate limit of not less than $4,000,000. CGL insurance must be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 12 04 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage). The policy must also contain the following endorsement, WHICH MUST BE STATED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: • "Contractual Liability Railroads" ISO form CG 24 17 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) showing "Union Pacific Railroad Company Property" as the Designated Job Site. B. Business Automobile Coverage Insurance. Business auto coverage written on ISO form CA 00 01 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage) with a limit of not less $2,000,000 for each accident, and coverage must include liability arising out of any auto (including owned,hired, and non-owned autos). The policy must contain the following endorsements, WHICH MUST BE STATED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: • "Coverage For Certain Operations In Connection With Railroads" ISO form CA 20 70 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) showing "Union Pacific Railroad Company Property" as the Designated Job Site. C. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance. Coverage must include but not be limited to: • City's statutory liability under the workers' compensation laws of the state(s) affected by this Letter. • Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 each employee. If City is self-insured, evidence of state approval and excess workers' compensation coverage must be provided. Coverage must include liability arising out of the U. S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, the Jones Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act, if applicable. D. Railroad Protective Liability insurance. City must maintain "Railroad Protective Liability" insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 35 12 04 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) on behalf of UPRR only as named insured, with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and an aggregate of $6,000,000. The definition of "JOB LOCATION" and "WORK" on the declaration page of the policy shall refer to this Letter and shall describe all WORK or OPERATIONS performed hereunder. A binder stating the policy is in place must be submitted to UPRR before the work may be commenced and until the original policy is forwarded to UPRR. E. Umbrella or Excess Insurance. If City utilizes umbrella or excess policies, and these policies must "follow form" and afford no less coverage than the primary policy. Other Requirements F. All policy(ies) required above (except business automobile, workers' compensation and employers' liability) must include UPRR as "Additional Insured" using ISO Additional Insured Endorsement CG 20 26 (or substitute form(s) providing equivalent coverage). The coverage provided to UPRR as additional insured shall not be limited by City's liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. BOTH CONTRACTOR AND UPRR EXPECT THAT UPRR WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE BROADES POSSIBLE COVERAGE AVAILABLE BY OPERATION OF LAW UNDER ISO ADDITIONAL INSURED FORM CG 20 26. G. Punitive damages exclusion, if any, must be deleted (and the deletion indicated on the certificate of insurance), unless (i) insurance coverage may not lawfully be obtained for any punitive damages that may arise under this agreement, or (ii) all punitive damages are prohibited by all states in which this Letter will be performed. H. City waives all rights of recovery, and its insurers also waive all rights of subrogation of damages against UPRR and its agents, officers, directors and employees for damages covered by the workers' compensation and employers' liability or commercial umbrella or excess liability obtained by City required hereunder, where permitted by law. This waiver must be stated on the certificate of insurance. I. All insurance policies must be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to UPRR or with a current Best's Insurance Guide Rating of A- and Class VII or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the work is to be performed. J. The fact that insurance is obtained by City will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of City, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Letter. Damages recoverable by UPRR from City or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. 15 Folder No.02922-20 EXHIBIT C CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, ("Railroad") and "Contractor"), to be addressed at RECITALS The Contractor has been hired by the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY(the "City"), to do work on the pipelines in the location shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof opposite Mile Post 5.5 on the Golden Valley Industrial Lead at or near Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Railroad is willing to permit Contractor to perform the work described below at the location describe above subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement to replace Two (2) One Hundred and Fourteen (114) inch span pipelines and one (1) Seventy-Two (72) inch span pipeline with Two (2) Eight Foot by Six Foot (8' X 6') reinforced concrete pipelines (collectively, the "RCP") as described in the work plan and set out in the specifications of the plan set dated as revised and attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the Railroad and Contractor, as follows: Article I. DEFINITION OF CONTRACTOR. For purposes of this Agreement, all references in this Agreement to the Contractor shall include Contractor's contractors, subcontractors, officers, agents and employees, and others acting under its or their authority. Article II. RIGHT GRANTED; PURPOSE. Railroad hereby grants to Contractor the right, during the term hereinafter stated and upon and subject to each and all of the terms, provisions and conditions herein contained, to enter upon and have ingress to and egress from the property described in the Recitals for the purpose of performing any work described in the Recitals above. The right herein granted to Contractor is limited to those portions of Railroad's property specifically described herein, or as designated by the Railroad Representative named in Article IV, and is strictly limited to the scope of work identified to the Railroad, as determined by the Railroad in its sole discretion, and for no other purpose. Article III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN EXHIBITS B AND C. The terms and conditions contained in Exhibit B and C, attached hereto, are hereby made a part of this Agreement. 16 Article IV. ALL EXPENSES TO BE BORNE BY CONTRACTOR:RAILROAD REPRESENTATIVE. A. Contractor shall bear any and all costs and expenses associated with any work performed by Contractor, or any costs or expenses incurred by Railroad relating to this Agreement in accordance with the Pipeline Agreement by and between the City and the Railroad. B. Contractor shall coordinate all of its work with the following Railroad representative or his or her duly authorized representative(the"Railroad Representative"): RACHEL N.BECK ZACHERY L.CHANEY MANAGER OF TRACK MAINTENANCE MANAGER OF SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 206 EATON ST 206 EATON ST SAINT PAUL,MN 55107 SAINT PAUL,MN 55107 402 378-2505 651552-3923 rnbecWLip.com zlchaney_(a),uy.com C. Contractor, on behalf of City, shall adequately police and supervise all work to be performed by Contractor and shall ensure that such work is performed in a safe manner as set forth in Section 7 of Exhibit B. The responsibility of Contractor for safe conduct and adequate policing and supervision of Contractor's work shall not be lessened or otherwise affected by Railroad's approval of plans and specifications involving the work,or by Railroad's collaboration in performance of any work,or by the presence at the work site of a Railroad Representative, or by compliance by Contractor with any requests or recommendations made by Railroad Representative. Article V. TERM; TERMINATION. A. The grant of right herein made to Contractor shall commence on the date of this Agreement, and continue until , unless sooner terminated as herein provided, or at such time as Contractor has completed its work on Railroad's property,whichever is earlier. Contractor agrees to notify the Railroad Representative in writing when it has completed its work on Railroad's property. B. This Agreement may be terminated by either party on ten (10) days written notice to the other party. Article VI. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. A. Before commencing any work, Contractor will provide Railroad with the insurance binders, policies,certificates and/or endorsements set forth in Exhibit C of this Agreement. B. All insurance correspondence, binders, policies, certificates and/or endorsements shall be sent to: Folder No: 02922-20 Union Pacific Railroad Company 1400 Douglas Street STOP 1690 Omaha,Nebraska 68179-1690 Article VII. CHOICE OF FORUM. Litigation arising out of or connected with this Agreement may be instituted and maintained in the courts of the State of Minnesota only, and the parties consent to jurisdiction over their person and over 17 the subject matter of any such litigation, in those courts, and consent to service of process issued by such courts. Article VIII. DISMISSAL OF CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEE. At the request of Railroad or City, Contractor shall remove from Railroad's property any employee of Contractor who fails to conform to the instructions of the Railroad Representative in connection with the work on Railroad's property, and any right of Contractor shall be suspended until such removal has occurred. Contractor shall indemnify Railroad against any claims arising from the removal of any such employee from Railroad's property. Article IX. [RESERVEDI Article X. CROSSINGS. No additional vehicular crossings (including temporary haul roads) or pedestrian crossings over Railroad's trackage shall be installed or used by Contractor without the prior written permission of Railroad and the City. Article XI. EXPLOSIVES. Explosives or other highly flammable substances shall not be stored on Railroad's property without the prior written approval of Railroad and the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the date first herein written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (Contractor's Company Name) By: By Jason M.Murray Asst Manager—Real Estate Name: Title: Telephone: Email: 000090/480568/26135216 18 EXHIBIT A TO CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT SITE PLAN;LOCATION OF RCP 19 EXHIBIT B TO CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT Section 1. NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK-FLAGGING. A. Contractor, on behalf of the City, agrees to notify the Railroad Representative at least ten (10) working days in advance of Contractor commencing its work and at least ten (10) working days in advance of proposed performance of any work by Contractor in which any person or equipment will be within twenty-five (25) feet of any track, or will be near enough to any track that any equipment extension (such as, but not limited to, a crane boom) will reach to within twenty-five (25) feet of any track. No work of any kind shall be performed, and no person, equipment, machinery, tool(s), material(s),vehicle(s), or thing(s) shall be located, operated,placed,or stored within twenty-five(25) feet of any of Railroad's track(s)at any time, for any reason,unless and until a Railroad flagman is provided to watch for trains. Upon receipt of such ten (10)-day notice, the Railroad Representative will determine and inform Contractor whether a flagman need be present and whether Contractor needs to implement any special protective or safety measures. If flagging or other special protective or safety measures are performed by Railroad, Railroad will be solely responsible for such expenses incurred by Railroad. If Railroad performs any flagging, or other special protective or safety measures are performed by Railroad, Contractor agrees that Contractor is not relieved of any of its responsibilities or liabilities set forth in this Agreement. B. [Reserved.] C. Contractor must provide Railroad a minimum of five (5) days' notice prior to the cessation of the need for a flagman. An additional ten(10)days' notice must then be given to Railroad if flagging services are needed again after such five day cessation notice has been given to Railroad. Section 2. LIMITATION AND SUBORDINATION OF RIGHTS GRANTED A. The foregoing grant of right is subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right and obligation of the Railroad to use and maintain its entire property including the right and power of Railroad to construct, maintain, repair, renew, use, operate, change, modify or relocate railroad tracks, roadways, signal, communication, fiber optics, or other wirelines, pipelines and other facilities upon, along or across any or all parts of its property, all or any of which may be freely done at any time or times by Railroad without liability to Contractor or to any other party for compensation or damages. B. The foregoing grant is also subject to all outstanding superior rights (including those in favor of City and lessees of Railroad's property, and others)and the right of Railroad to renew and extend the same, and is made without covenant of title or for quiet enjoyment. Section 3. NO INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATIONS OF RAILROAD AND ITS TENANTS. A. Subject to the Approved Work Schedule or Work Windows approved by the City and Railroad, Contractor shall conduct its operations so as not to interfere with the continuous and uninterrupted use and operation of the railroad tracks and property of Railroad, including without limitation,the operations of Railroad's lessees, City or others,unless specifically authorized in advance by the Railroad Representative. Nothing shall be done or permitted to be done by Contractor at any time that would in any manner impair the safety of such operations. When not in use, Contractor's machinery and 20 materials shall be kept at least fifty(50)feet from the centerline of Railroad's nearest track, and there shall be no vehicular crossings of Railroads tracks except at existing open public crossings. B. Operations of Railroad and work performed by Railroad personnel and delays in the work to be performed by Contractor caused by such railroad operations and work are expected by Contractor, and Contractor agrees that Railroad shall have no liability to Contractor, or any other person or entity for any such delays. The Contractor shall coordinate its activities with those of Railroad and third parties so as to avoid interference with railroad operations. The safe operation of Railroad train movements and other activities by Railroad takes precedence over any work to be performed by Contractor. Section 4. LIENS. Contractor shall pay in full all persons who perform labor or provide materials for the work to be performed by Contractor. Contractor shall not create, permit or suffer any mechanic's or materialmen's liens of any kind or nature to be created or enforced against any property of Railroad for any such work performed. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless Railroad from and against any and all liens, claims, demands, costs or expenses of whatsoever nature in any way connected with or growing out of such work done, labor performed,or materials furnished. If Contractor fails to promptly cause any lien to be released of record, Railroad may, at its election, discharge the lien or claim of lien at Contractor's expense. Section 5. PROTECTION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE SYSTEMS. A. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on Railroad's property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss of revenue and profits. Contractor shall telephone Railroad during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, except holidays) at 1-800-336-9193 (also a 24-hour, 7-day number for emergency calls) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on Railroad's property to be used by Contractor. If it is, Contractor will telephone the telecommunications company(ies) involved, make arrangements for a cable locator and, if applicable, for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable. Contractor shall not commence any work until all such protection or relocation(if applicable)has been accomplished. B. In addition to other indemnity provisions in this Agreement, Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold Railroad harmless from and against all costs, liability and expense whatsoever (including,without limitation, attorneys'fees, court costs and expenses)arising out of any act or omission of Contractor, its agents and/or employees, that causes or contributes to (1) any damage to or destruction of any telecommunications system on Railroad's property, and/or(2) any injury to or death of any person employed by or on behalf of any telecommunications company, and/or its contractor, agents and/or employees, on Railroad's property. Contractor shall not have or seek recourse against Railroad for any claim or cause of action for alleged loss of profits or revenue or loss of service or other consequential damage to a telecommunication company using Railroad's property or a customer or user of services of the fiber optic cable on Railroad's property. Section 6. PERMITS-COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. In the prosecution of the work covered by this Agreement, Contractor shall secure any and all necessary permits and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and enactments affecting the work including, without limitation, all applicable Federal Railroad Administration regulations. 21 Section 7. SAFETY. A. Safety of personnel, property, rail operations and the public is of paramount importance in the prosecution of the work performed by Contractor. Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety, operations and programs in connection with the work. Contractor shall at a minimum comply with Railroad's then current safety standards located at: 1rttpJ/www.uslier,/docume pdf nativadopdf up supplier safety recll to ensure uniformity with the safety standards followed by Railroad's own forces. As a part of Contractor's safety responsibilities, Contractor shall notify Railroad if it determines that any of Railroad's safety standards are contrary to good safety practices. Contractor shall furnish copies of each of its employees before they enter the job site. B. Without limitation of the provisions of paragraph A above, Contractor shall keep the job site free from safety and health hazards and ensure that its employees are competent and adequately trained in all safety and health aspects of the job. C. Contractor shall have proper first aid supplies available on the job site so that prompt first aid services may be provided to any person injured on the job site. Contractor shall promptly notify Railroad of any U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable injuries. Contractor shall have a nondelegable duty to control its employees while they are on the job site or any other property of Railroad, and to be certain they do not use, be under the influence of, or have in their possession any alcoholic beverage, drug or other substance that may inhibit the safe performance of any work. D. If and when requested by Railroad, Contractor shall deliver to Railroad a copy of Contractor's safety plan for conducting the work(the"Safety Plan"). Railroad shall have the right,but not the obligation, to require Contractor to correct any deficiencies in the Safety Plan. The terms of this Agreement shall control if there are any inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Safety Plan. Section 8. INDEMNITY. A. To the extent not prohibited by applicable statute,Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Railroad, its affiliates, and its and their officers, agents and employees ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all loss, damage, injury, liability, claim, demand, cost or expense (including, without limitation, attorney's, consultant's and expert's fees, and court costs), fine or penalty (collectively, "Loss") incurred by any person (including, without limitation, any Indemnified Party, Contractor, or any employee of Contractor or of any Indemnified Party) arising out of or in any manner connected with (i) any work performed by Contractor, or (ii) any act or omission of Contractor, its officers,agents or employees,or(iii)any breach of this agreement by Contractor. B. The right to indemnity under this Section 8 shall accrue upon occurrence of the event giving rise to the Loss, and shall apply regardless of any negligence or strict liability of any Indemnified Party, except where the Loss is caused by the sole active negligence of an Indemnified Party as established by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The sole active negligence of any Indemnified Party shall not bar the recovery of any other Indemnified Party. C. Contractor expressly and specifically assumes potential liability under this Section 8 for claims or actions brought by Contractor's own employees. Contractor waives any immunity it may have 22 under worker's compensation or industrial insurance acts to indemnify Railroad under this Section 8. Contractor acknowledges that this waiver was mutually negotiated by the parties hereto. D. No court or jury findings in any employee's suit pursuant to any worker's compensation act or the Federal Employers' Liability Act against a party to this Agreement may be relied upon or used by Contractor in any attempt to assert liability against Railroad. E. The provisions of this Section 8 shall survive the completion of any work performed by Contractor or the termination or expiration of this Agreement. In no event shall this Section 8 or any other provision of this Agreement be deemed to limit any liability Contractor may have to any Indemnified Party by statute or under common law. Section 9. RESTORATION OF PROPERTY. In the event Railroad authorizes Contractor to take down any fence of Railroad or in any manner move or disturb any of the other property of Railroad in connection with the work to be performed by Contractor, then in that event Contractor shall, as soon as possible and at Contractor's sole expense, restore such fence and other property to the same condition as the same were in before such fence was taken down or such other property was moved or disturbed. Contractor shall remove all of Contractor's tools, equipment, rubbish and other materials from Railroad's property promptly upon completion of the work,restoring Railroad's property to the same state and condition as when Contractor entered thereon. Section 10. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. Waiver by Railroad of any breach or default of any condition, covenant or agreement herein contained to be kept, observed and performed by Contractor shall in no way impair the right of Railroad to avail itself of any remedy for any subsequent breach or default. Section 11. MODIFICATION-ENTIRE AGREEMENT. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by Contractor and Railroad. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof constitute the entire understanding between Contractor and Railroad and cancel and supersede any prior negotiations, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the work to be performed by Contractor. Section 12. ASSIGNMENT- SUBCONTRACTING. Contractor shall not assign or subcontract this Agreement or any interest therein,without the written consent of the Railroad. Contractor shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of all subcontractors,and shall require all subcontractors to maintain the insurance coverage required to be maintained by Contractor as provided in this Agreement,and to indemnify Contractor and Railroad to the same extent as Railroad is indemnified by Contractor under this Agreement. 23 EXHIBIT C TO CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain during the course of the Project and until all Project work on Railroad's property has been completed and the Contractor has removed all equipment and materials from the Railroad's property and has cleaned and restored Railroad's property to Railroad's satisfaction,the insurance coverage listed below. A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial general liability(CGL) with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence and an aggregate limit of not less than $4,000,000. CGL insurance must be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 12 04 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage). The policy must also contain the following endorsement, WHICH MUST BE STATED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: • "Contractual Liability Railroads" ISO form CG 24 17 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) showing "Union Pacific Railroad Company Property" as the Designated Job Site. B. Business Automobile Coverage Insurance. Business auto coverage written on ISO form CA 00 01 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage) with a limit of not less $2,000,000 for each accident, and coverage must include liability arising out of any auto (including owned, hired, and non-owned autos). The policy must contain the following endorsements, WHICH MUST BE STATED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: • "Coverage For Certain Operations In Connection With Railroads" ISO form CA 20 70 10 01 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) showing "Union Pacific Railroad Company Property" as the Designated Job Site. • Motor Carrier Act Endorsement — Hazardous materials clean up (MCS-90) if required by law. C. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance. Coverage must include but not be limited to: • Contractor's statutory liability under the workers' compensation laws of the state(s) affected by this Letter. • Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 each employee. If Contractor is self-insured, evidence of state approval and excess workers' compensation coverage must be provided. Coverage must include liability arising out of the U. S. 24 Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, the Jones Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act, if applicable. D. Railroad Protective Liability insurance. City must maintain "Railroad Protective Liability" insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 35 12 04 (or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage) on behalf of RAILROAD only as named insured, with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and an aggregate of$6,000,000. The definition of"JOB LOCATION" AND "WORK" ON THE DECLARATION PAGE OF THE POLICY SHALL REFER TO THIS Agreement and shall describe all WORK OR OPERATIONS performed under this agreement. A binder stating the policy is in place must be submitted to Railroad before the work may be commenced and until the original policy is forwarded to Railroad. E. Umbrella or Excess Insurance. If City utilizes umbrella or excess policies, and these policies must "follow form" and afford no less coverage than the primary policy. Other Requirements F. All policy(ies) required above (except business automobile, workers' compensation and employers' liability) must include RAILROAD as "Additional Insured" using ISO Additional Insured Endorsement CG 20 26 (or substitute form(s) providing equivalent coverage). The coverage provided to RAILROAD as additional insured shall not be limited by City's liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. BOTH CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD EXPECT THAT RAILROAD WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE BROADES POSSIBLE COVERAGE AVAILABLE BY OPERATION OF LAW UNDER ISO ADDITIONAL INSURED FORM CG 20 26. G. Punitive damages exclusion, if any, must be deleted (and the deletion indicated on the certificate of insurance), unless (i) insurance coverage may not lawfully be obtained for any punitive damages that may arise under this agreement, or (ii) all punitive damages are prohibited by all states in which this Letter will be performed. H. Contractor waives all rights of recovery, and its insurers also waive all rights of subrogation of damages against RAILROAD and its agents, officers, directors and employees for damages covered by the workers' compensation and employers' liability or commercial umbrella or excess liability obtained by Contractor required hereunder, where permitted by law. This waiver must be stated on the certificate of insurance. I. All insurance policies must be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to RAILROAD or with a current Best's Insurance Guide Rating of A- and Class VII or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the work is to be performed. J. The fact that insurance is obtained by Contractor will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of City, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Letter. Damages recoverable by RAILROAD from Contractor any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. 25 city 0f golden *ey MEMORANDUM V11Gt 4 Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting May 16, 2017 Agenda Item 6. D. METRO Blue Line Extension —Community Advisory Committee Appointment Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The METRO Blue Line Extension Project Office has established two advisory committees to allow for additional community input into the planning of the line and to provide guidance to the Corridor Management Committee (CMC). The current appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) have expired and the Project Office is seeking representatives to serve new two year terms. On May 9, the City Council interviewed interested candidates and selected Stefan Watkins to serve. Upon appointment, he will immediately fill the Golden Valley vacancy on the CAC. Recommended Action Motion to appoint Stefan Watkins to the METRO Blue Line Extension Community Advisory Committee.