Loading...
11-04-09 CC Complete Agenda Packet AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber VVednesday, November 4, 2009 6:30 p.m. The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. 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 or citizen 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 - City Council Meeting - October 6, 2009 B. Approval of Check Register C. Licenses: 1. Solicitor's License - Solicitor's License - Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals - September 22, 2009 2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - September 30, 2009 3. Bassett Creek VVatershed Management Commission - September 17, 2009 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Vertical Benchmark System - Quotes 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEVV BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #424 - Adoption of Amended State Building Code - 2006 International Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code B. Council Chambers Audio, Video, and Control Systems Upgrade - Bids C. Announcements of Meetings D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT ~. alley Mora Finance 763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 4, 2009 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments Loose in agenda packet. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Hey m n m City Administration/Council 763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 4, 2009 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Solicitor's License - Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. Prepared By Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to do so. Attachments Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply: Name of Organization G.c. ~ ("Olt>-\S c:. ~"'" f~~.s \ kC . \~\b 4~,.-se '5T8 oR '2.c>\ Mtt'\'^~~) MJJ S'S4-\f+. (Include City, State and Zip Code) Address of Organization Telef)hone Number (Including Area Code) G;, Z. '3i~ 7olro Define Business $+c..'h!:. of=' (V\C.o.,.~d:~o'" (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation) List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City: Onlntl_7+ L.'SI-d (6(2..) '3,~ ?olro I~/~ t(~ K: arB ft'Z~/. ,4/PL.S ..tUU SSlf('f . ~"~_~Ll~/5"'~" ::~t J-:::~dr..._:;:rs~~ N.~ c;.~:6;ef J1,J,. k:~ 'r ~~ ~.,..~d.t;"J' ~~-.MIt!? .11../ --- ~&,s,L V'~cu ,u:,,?Z .1 / rb~!C~b;,:S. (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets) STATE OF M,f\d&::>~ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF t~~~) I ~Me, .fl.. Co'b -k I , (Officerllndividual) of GrQSS rocfs Co.n.,L)U.~ ",:5 IVle. (Name of Organization)' being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and ber and as to such matters, he/she believes them to be true. 20 O~ , NADINE G. YANG NOTARY PUBUC.MINNESOTA My CommissIon ExpiIes Jan. 31, 2011 Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month. TO: Golden Valley City Council 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 r-t',()(J d Enclose the sum of $ ~v ::;-- for () (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary for obtaining this license. Gro..8&~ Co.mt>oJ~~ ll.'\c. (Business or Individual Name to be C1censed) \ ~ '6 't'"5"" SF' '6'f"a'" off 20' MCt\ rnc.o.OQl~Sl AA)J "5S..... 14 (Address, including City, State and Zip Code) \ [6(2.) '31~ lo~o (Telephone Number, including Area Code) NOW, THEREFORE, EmMl,. fI. Cc,sk I hereby makes application for the . ~ I (Applicant Name) period of I r; S lor through 6/30/10, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code. PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION oCJ Fee Paid: $ <;0 r Number. of Persons: Type of License Requested: Sc:. tc:c.~+o'" S. REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION Applicant (iidifferent from above): Name E fV\MoL tt Go~~e. r Address '~\6 4~T "be w-r-c off zo \ Mlt\"~\":'" MJJ -S~'E-l"t (Include City, State and Zip Code) Telephone Number (including area code) (612..) '6'7 J 10'8'0 Date of Birth (if an individual) "if I z. i ('8' 7 Business Name of Applicant G ra,as t'o-r\-~ (GIV\ ro..to~ lll\c. . Address \~'b 4-tts-r ~ "i't'.t. t(\; Wl J Ml"~ffgU:sJ JJ..o -S'S\&..\'t (Include City, State and ip Code) Define Business ~ e,p. I""CJDrfD~ClV'\. (Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation) Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more space is needed, attach additional sheets (be speCific): ~L<~-kll\~ cleM Q.;~'C:cV\ S a.;...J... m~b~lM.f QI'\ ~ bc.~o.t ~ c:P A..v\ II\~ ~ lvct (. usA. ? ~e- s..., ec:tt- c::L.c..k~ {e*e..r . NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete information regarding such change or modification. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 22, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - August 25, 2009 Segelbaum asked that the language in the motion for the variance request at 316 Meadow Lane North be clarified. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 25, 2009 minutes with the above noted clarification. II. The Petitions are: Continued Item - 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14) Marvin Frieman, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11(6)(a) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17.1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building Hogeboom stated that this applicant was at last month's Board of Zoning Appeals meeting with a slightly different request. He explained that the applicant's previous request was for two variances, one along the Mendelssohn Ave. property line and one along the TH169 property line. He reminded that Board that at their last meeting they asked the applicant to reconsider his proposal in order to make the proposed addition line up with the south end of the existing building which could possibly include a slightly larger variance request along the TH169 side of the property but would require no variance along the Mendelssohn side of the property. He noted that the applicant has shifted the proposed addition to the north and no longer requires a variance from the Mendelssohn Ave. property line therefore, staff is supporting this variance request and feels it is reasonable and is in keeping with what that the Board discussed at their meeting last month. Segelbaum noted that the benefit to this revised proposal is that the addition is further away from Mendelssohn Ave. and that it "squares off" the building on the south end. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 22,2009 Page 2 McCarty questioned if the newly submitted survey is accurate. Kisch referred to the surveys and plans and stated that the net leasable area seems to have grown from the previous proposal. Sell referred to the current survey and stated that the size of the proposed addition is actually smaller than the previous proposal. Kisch stated that there is a discrepancy between what the plans show and what the surveys show. Hogeboom explained that the Board should really be considering the survey more than the plans because an applicant can end up modifying their plans within the confines of a granted variance. Sell added that plans aren't always drawn by a licensed architect, but surveys are signed by licensed, registered land surveyors so it makes sense to consider a survey, not floor plans when discussing variance requests. Segelbaum said he agrees, but noted that it is important to call out inconsistencies between plans and surveys as part of the decision making process. Kisch asked the applicant to explain the inconsistency between the plans from last month and this month. He asked why the first proposal shows the addition to be 16 feet in width and the current proposal shows the addition to be 18 feet in depth. Marvin Frieman, Applicant, stated that is just the way the architect drew the plans and the way he thought the addition would look better. He said he just wants to fix up the property and make it look nice. James Smith, Representing the Applicant, noted that no matter how wide the proposed addition is they would still have to stay 17.9 feet away from the west property line if the variance is granted. Kisch questioned if adding leasable square footage to a building really constitutes a hardship. He asked the applicant if he would be opposed to building a 16-foot wide addition instead of the currently requested 18-foot wide addition. Nelson referred to the previous survey and the new survey and stated that the addition is smaller on the new survey than it was on the previous survey. Kisch said he was looking at the inconsistency in the plans when trying to figure out the dimensions of the proposed addition. Nelson noted that at last month's meeting they discussed the taking of property along the TH169 exit ramp and that it constituted a hardship in this case. She stated that she thinks the applicant has done what the Board suggested he do by aligning the south side of the addition with the existing building so a variance isn't needed along Mendelssohn Ave. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is concerned about the discrepancy in the size of the addition shown on the plans and surveys. He said he was looking for the applicant to shorten the size of the addition and for it to be further away from Mendelssohn Ave. but the same distance away from TH169, not closer. He stated that the building might look too large from the TH169 exit ramp. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 22,2009 Page 3 Nelson noted that the difference in the variance requests from last month to this month is approximately 5 feet. Segelbaum asked Nelson if she favors this proposal over last month's proposal. Nelson said yes and added that having the addition line up with the south side of the existing building looks much better. Sell said he drove by the property and he thinks it will be difficult to even notice the proposed addition from the TH169 exit ramp. He said he thinks the addition will look much better "squared off' with the south side of the existing building. He added that this is a very difficult property to work with and if Golden Valley can get a decent looking office building it will be an improvement over what is currently there. He said he supports this revised request. Segelbaum asked about the amount of space between the exit ramp and this property. Sell said there seems to be quite a bit of green space between the exit ramp and the property line. Kisch said he does prefer the "squared off' front of the building but questioned if a 16 foot side addition worked on the previous proposal why it won't work for this proposal. He stated that if the width were shrunk the variance request along the west property line would be closer to the original proposal and the City would have a larger setback area. Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reasonable request and this new proposal has less of an impact that the previous proposal. He added that he also likes that the building will be "squared off' on the south end and he is in favor of this proposal as revised. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 17.1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169 to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building. III. Other Business Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if the property owner at 316 Meadow Lane North has appealed the Board's recent decision to deny her variance request. Hogeboom stated that the property owner has not appealed the Board's decision but she has until October 1, 2009 to remove the deck or appeal the decision. McCarty asked Hogeboom if the City could require surveys to show curb cuts, existing conditions, surrounding conditions, etc. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. Chuck Segelbaum, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison alley OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Brookview Community Center Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Roger Bergman, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Emily Piper, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Dan Steinberg, Jim Vaughan; Pete Birkeland, President of Golden Valley Little League; Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor; and Sheila Van Sloun, Parks and Recreation Administrative Assistant. Absent: Ken Graves and Bob Mattison. III. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS None made. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 27, 2009 MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Piper to approve the July 2ih meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. V. RECREATION REPORT - Brian Erickson Erickson distributed an overview listing participation numbers for the summer programs. He added that three field trips were offered and all were well attended. He discussed the fall soccer program stating there are 8 junior teams and 9 youth teams this season. Their last game is on Sat, October 31st. He also said there are 15 adult soccer teams playing on Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons. Their last game is Sunday, November 1 st. Erickson said he has two fall youth events approaching, which he does in cooperation with Crystal, Robbinsdale and New Hope. Monster Mash Teen Dance will be held on October 23rd at Crystal Community Center. Spooktacular will be held on October 24th at Crystal Community Center. Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission September 30,2009 Page 2 Erickson is currently taking applications for warming house attendants. Interviews will begin the first part of November. VI. ATHLETIC FIELD GRANT PROGRAM A proposed plan and cost estimate for the Honeywell Little League site was distributed. Kuebelbeck and Birkeland explained the plan and estimate. Jacobson added that the site was also being considered for a water treatment plant. He said the city is looking into other sites as well. He also said that parking at Sandburg could be an issue in the future. Sandler requested Piper to prepare suggested language for the grant. Piper suggested adding a second project to the grant. The Athletic Field Grant sub-committee will be meeting with city staff to decide on a project for the proposal, which will then be presented at the Council/Manager meeting on Tuesday, October 13th. VII. FEES & CHARGES Jacobson distributed and explained the 2010 proposed fees. He explained that the non-resident fee will be increased to $4 from $3 in 2009. Sandler asked if scholarships have increased. Jacobson said they have not increased substantially. MOTION: Moved by Piper and seconded by Kuebelbeck to accept the proposed 2010 fees. Motion carried unanimously. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Piper and seconded by Steinberg to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Bass Min ed Management Commission g of September 17, 2009 1. Call t The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, September 17,2009, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call. Roll Call Crystal Golden Valley Medicine Lake Minneapolis Minnetonka New Hope Plymouth Robbinsdale St. Louis Park Also present: Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Commissioner Linda Loomis, Treasurer Commissioner Cheri Templeman Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair Not represented Commissioner Daniel Stauner Alternate Commissioner Liz Thornton Not represented Commissioner Jim deLambert Counsel Engineer Recorder Charlie LeFevere Len Kremer Amy Herbert Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Jeff Lee, Barr Engineering Company Randy Lehr, Three Rivers Park District Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley Justin Riss, Alternate Commissioner, City of St. Louis Park Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka I of Agenda and Consent Agenda Chair Welch announced that item 7A - Tax Levy Request to Hennepin County does not require a resolution as indicated on the agenda and requested that agenda be amended to instead include the certification of the levy request. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the agenda as amended. Ms. Thornton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. Chair Welch requested the removal of the August 20,2009, BCWMC meeting minutes from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Stauner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. t on Non-Agenda Items Mr. Asche, City of Plymouth, announced that the City of Plymouth will be holding a pre-construction meeting for West Medicine Lake Park Pond at 10:00 a.m. on September 30, 2009, in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall. A. Presentation of the August 20, 2009, BCWMC meeting minutes. Chair Welch asked Mr. Hanson to clarify his statement from last month, on page 4 of the minutes, regarding algae. Mr. Hanson clarified that the word "weeds" could be added to his statement reflected in the minutes. Chair Welch clarified his statement on page 6 of the minutes regarding distribution of links to the Commission via e-mall and stated that the Commission should e-malllinks to the BCWMC recording administrator for distribution to the Commission. Ms. Loomis requested that item B on page 3 be corrected to read "See 6A - Feasibility Report for Plymouth Creek Restoration Project." Chair Welch moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. The September financial report was received and approved as part of the Consent Agenda. The general and construction account balances reported in the September 2009 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 560,764.78 560,764.78 Construction Account Cash Balance Investment due 10/18/2010 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE -Less: Reserved for CIP projects Construction cash/ investments available for projects 2,623,486.52 533,957.50 3,668,479.60 3,668,479.60 (511,035.58) C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. Invoices: i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through July 31, 2009 - invoice for the amount of $1,624.80. ii. Barr Engineering Company - August Engineering Services - invoice for the amount of $25,911.55. iii. Amy Herbert - August Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the amount of $1,957.15. iv. Finance & Commerce - Public Hearing Notice Publication - invoice for the amount of $166.00. v. Shingle Creek Watershed - BCWMC's portion of the cost of "10Things" brochure printing - invoice for the amount of $666.09. Ms. Loomis moved to approve payment of all invoices. Ms. Thornton seconded the motion. By call of roll, the motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. Chair Welch remarked that he had hoped to see members of the public attend this hearing and asked if there was any interest by the Commission to delay the hearing. Since there were following agenda items being based on the public hearing being conducted, the Commission decided it would not delay the public hearing. Chair Welch suggested the Commission look at additional efforts to publicize its public hearings beyond the legal requirements that the Commission currently follows. 2 #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes Ms. Thornton moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. Chair Welch announced that the purpose of the public hearing was to hear public testimony and comments of the member cities regarding two of the proposed improvements contained in the BCWMC's Resolution 09-04 , adopted July 16, 2009, approving a minor plan amendment to the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan. He stated that the minor plan amendment includes the consideration of construction of the following two projects in the Plan's Table 12-2, Water Quality Management and Flood Controll0-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP): . Plymouth Creek One (PC-I), which is proposed to restore the channel of Plymouth Creek from West Medicine Lake Road to 26th A venue North in the City of Plymouth. . Bassett Creek Main Stem, Reach 2, which is proposed to restore the channel from the City of Crystal-City of Golden Valley boundary to Regent A venue in the City of Golden Valley. Mr. Jeff Lee of Barr Engineering provided a brief PowerPoint presentation describing the projects. Chair Welch reported that Barr Engineering has found out that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet likely will not be required for the Bassett Creek Main Stem project. He added that the Bassett Creek Main Stem project is included in the BCWMC's Resource Management Plan (RMP). He stated that the Plymouth Creek Restoration project will require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and said the project still has some uncertainties since some easements still are not secured due to the project taking place on public and private land and since wetland mitigation will be necessary. Chair Welch asked Mr. Asche when the City of Plymouth will begin the EA W process. Mr. Asche replied that the City plans to begin the process in the end of October. Chair Welch said that because the project is included in the RMP, the EA W process will be easier since some of the groundwork has been completed through the RMP. Chair Welch said he encourages the Commission staff to work with the cities regarding the language in the contracts regarding the terms of the guarantees of the plants used in the restoration projects. Chair Welch said he has no problem considering as a project cost the cost of the follow-up work with the plantings because ensuring the success of the plantings is part of the implementation of the project. Mr. Mathisen asked if the City of Plymouth would need to continually respond to public calls regarding maintenance of the project on private property. Chair Welch said it is up to the City whether it decides to enter into agreements with the property owners. Mr. Lee asked if the BCWMC would want to involve the property owners in the design process because that could be accommodated. Mr. Stauner said the BCWMC should look at the type of easements that would be needed in order to ensure the success of the project. Chair Welch said the BCWMC would be overstepping its bounds if it specified what kind of agreements the cities could enter into with its residents but that the BCWMC could offer encouragement to the cities regarding the agreements the cities enter into. Mr. Stauner disagreed with the comment that the BCWMC would be overstepping its bounds and said the issue is worth looking into by the Commission. Chair Welch asked if the Commission wanted a more structured discussion regarding maintenance of CIP projects. Mr. Mathisen suggested it would be a good issue for the BCWMC's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to discuss. Chair Welch said he would work with staff to develop some type of discussion item on the issue and that the Commission should define the issue better before sending it to the TAC. Chair Welch said the Administrative Services Committee should look at the task of sending letters to property owners affected by the project. Mr. LeFevere recommended that the BCWMC 3 #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes check with their member cities regarding their public engagement processes. Ms. Loomis commented that she didn't think it is fair to target one population over another especially since the property owners aren't the ones paying the bulk of the cost of the projects. She stated that it is the citizens who don't live on the creek who are paying for the majority of cost the projects. Ms. Loomis added that the citizens who are directly impacted by the project have been notified by the cities. Chair Welch asked if the Commission should consider including a function and values assessment of wetlands as part of feasibility studies in order to get a better sense of what the mitigation issues might be. Chair Welch also recommended that the feasibility studies' Executive Summary should include highlights of important issues in a half-paragraph of bullet points. Chair Welch called for additional comments and testimony. Upon hearing none, Chair Welch ordered the public hearing closed. 6. A. Hennepin County Stream Bank Stabilization Grants. Chair Welch announced that Hennepin County has been granted $500,000 from the state for streambank stabilization projects and that the deadline for applications is October 16th. He announced that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources also has money available through a grant program. Mr. Kremer recommended that the Commission should not only ask for assistance from Hennepin County on the Bassett Creek Main Stem project but should also make the County aware of a need for assistance on the future projects including: the Main Stem restoration project slated for 2012, the North Branch project slated for 2013, and the Plymouth Creek project slated for 2015. He stated that he thought that Hennepin County is very effective in getting the attention of the legislature and that there is interest in by the County in getting Clean Water Legacy funds directed toward the many projects that are needed in the metro area. Mr. Asche and Mr. Oliver stated that their cities plan to apply for the Hennepin County grant funds. Chair Welch stated that it seems to make sense to make the applications come jointly from the BCWMC and the cities instead of submitting competing applications. Chair Welch asked how the Commission would handle the costs offset by the grant funds. Mr. LeFevere said the BCWMC agrees with the cities to reimburse the cities up to a certain amount. He said that if the costs to the city are less than the amount the Commission agreed it would reimburse to the cities, then the Commission would have money left over in its CIP closed projects account fund. Mr. Kremer said if the cities of Plymouth and Golden Valley are preparing applications, then the Commission could draft a letter indicating the projects are part of the CIP of the Commission and the cities could include the letter as part of their applications. Chair Welch directed staff to draft the letter for his signature. Mr. Kremer reported that the applications for the Clean Water Fund grants are due by December 1,2009. Chair Welch directed Barr to prepare a discussion of aU the potential projects the BCWMC should consider for its application of the grant funds and that the Commission will include the discussion at its October meeting. Ms. Lansgdorf stated that education money is supposed to be available as part of the grant funds and asked if there is any information on it yet. Mr. Kremer said not yet but maybe by the Commission's October meeting. B. Resolution 09-05 Ordering Projects and Executing Cooperative Agreements for Main Stem and Plymouth Creek Projects. Mr. LeFevere summarized the resolution and stated that the Cooperative Agreement for the Bassett Creek Main Stem would need to be revised and would be 4 #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes brought back in front of the Commission at the October BCWMC meeting. Ms. Loomis asked why the cost of the Bassett Creek Main Stem project is being divided into two levy years whereas the full cost of the PJymouth Creek project is included in this year's tax levy request. Mr. Kremer responded that the Bassett Creek Main Stem project was scheduled on the CIP for completion one year after the completion of the Plymouth Creek project. Chair Welch asked if the Commission is precluded from paying for a CIP project that has been ordered and completed from its CIP funds even if it hasn't specifically levied that project to the county. Mr. LeFevere said the Commission couJd use the funds that it has in its closed project fund or it could pay in advance of the project as long as the Commission has enough funds to honor its obligations for reimbursement to the cities. Mr. LeFevere said that after the Commission certifies its levy request to the County by October 1st, the BCWMC could let the County know its request is lower than the original request. Mr. Stauner moved to approve Resolution 09-05 "A Resolution Ordering 2010 Improvements, Designating Members Responsible for Construction, and Making Findings, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251" with the deletion of the last sentence per Mr. LeFevere. Ms. Thornton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimousJy [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. Chair Welch asked Mr. LeFevere to spend no more than five hours to make sure he is comfortable with how the Commission has proceeded on this issue and if he is not comfortable then to contact him in the next four or five days. A. Tax Levy Request to Hennepin County and Certification of Levy Request. Under New Business item B, the Commission approved Resolution 09-05, which included the Commission's requested 2010 tax Jevy request that it will certify to Hennepin County by October 1st. B. Resolution 09-06 Approving the Local Water Management Plan Prepared by St. Louis Park. Ms. Loomis moved to approve Resolution 09-06. Mr. Stauner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and RobbinsdaJe absent from the vote.] C. Individual vs. Categorical Approach to TMDL Waste Load Allocations and TAC Recommendation. Chair Welch gave an overview of Total Maximum Daily Load studies and gave the background on how the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) asked the BCWMC if it wants to serve as a manager of the process whereby the implementation plan takes pJace. He said it would be a significant responsibility for the Commission and would show significant trust by the member cities. Chair Welch reported that the MPCA responded via letter to the Commission's questions of the MPCA regarding the categorical wasteload allocation and the manager role of the categorical wasteJoad allocation. Mr. Kremer said the TAC reviewed the MPCA's Jetter and discussed the categorical vs. individual wasteload allocation approach. He said the TAC decided that the categorical approach provides flexibility to the cities to negotiate amongst themselves how to achieve the load reductions. Mr. Kremer said the TAC decided that the cities should be included in the categorical wasteload allocation and that in the absence of an agreement with Hennepin County that Hennepin County should get an individuaJ wasteload allocation and that per MnlDOT's request, it should get an individual wasteload allocation. He said the TAC recommends that the wasteload allocation be made based on impervious surface within the watershed. He said the TAC also had a considerable discussion regarding the annual reporting of reductions to the MPCA and the TAC recommends #249423 vI 5 BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes that the cities and the Commission jointly prepare a single annual report containing the load reductions for all TMDLs. Chair Welch commented that if the Commission thinks the categorical approach is a good idea and if Hennepin County wants to be a part of it, the Commission should consider letting the County be a part of it if the Commission thinks it can work collaboratively with the County. Mr. Stauner said his interpretation of the TAC's discussion and recommendation is that Hennepin County wouldn't be included in the categorical wasteload allocation because the County wasn't clear on what it would be contributing. He said there is no agreement in place with the County at this time and until that is resolved, the best approach by the Commission is to give the County an individual allocation. Chair Welch said the reasoning makes sense but there isn't an agreement in place with the member cities either. He said that the action of not including Hennepin County defers the difficult decision of how the parties should share the wasteload reduction burden. Ms. Loomis said the member cities do have the Joint Powers Agreement, which Hennepin County isn't a part of and perhaps when the Commission looks at revising its JPA it should look at it in light of the TMDL load allocations. Mr. Kremer recommended that the Commission approve the preparation of a draft letter to the MPCA informing them that the BCWMC is willing to serve as a the categorical wasteload implementer for the Wirth Lake, Medicine Lake, and Sweeney Lake TMDLs. Ms. Loomis moved the recommendation from Mr. Kremer. Mr. Stauner seconded the motion. The motion carried with five votes in favor [Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, New Hope, and Plymouth] and one vote against [City of Minneapolis]. One commissioner abstained from the vote [City of St. Louis Park]. Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale were absent from the vote. Chair Welch directed staff to prepare that letter to the MPCA. D. Sweeney Lake TMDL Report. Chair Welch announced that a meeting that was scheduled between Alternate Commissioner Dave Hanson and Ron Leaf of SEH would be rescheduled so that it will be open to the public. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the draft Sweeney Lake TMDL report and to submit it to the MPCA. Ms. Thornton seconded the motion. Chair Welch said he sent to Ms. Herbert for distribution to the Commission comments that he had on the report that he wanted to put on the table for the Commission's consideration of possible inclusion in the report. Ms. Langsdorf asked if he had a recommendation that the Commission hadn't considered since the Commission has not discussed his comments. Chair Welch responded that he had some points that he wanted the Commission to consider asking Ron Leaf to include in the report. Chair Welch said he would not vote in favor of the motion on the table. The motion carried with five votes in favor [Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, New Hope, and Plymouth] and one vote against [City of Minneapolis]. One commissioner abstained from the vote [City of St. Louis Park]. Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale were absent from the vote. Chair Welch directed staff to prepare that letter to the MPCA. E. Medicine Lake TMDL Update and TAC Recommendation. Chair Welch passed around LimnoTech's PowerPoint presentation that was shared at the last Medicine Lake steering committee meeting. He said that the parties worked together to rectify a lot of the concerns of the Commission regarding the model. Mr. Kremer said that significant modifications were made to the model and that the focus of the presentation was on the modifications made and how it affected the predictions of the loading. He said the newly calibrated model shows that there needs to be a 1,250 pound reduction in phosphorus from the watershed tributary to Medicine Lake and that the load reduction from West Medicine Lake Park pond would be around 400 pounds, which is close to the amount the Commission had estimated. Chair Welch said that no Commission action is needed. #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes 6 F. Administrative Services Committee Update. Chair Welch announced that the Administrative Services Committee met a couple of weeks ago and would meet again to develop specific tasks that will meet the priorities identified by the Commission. Ms. Loomis said the Commission ranked as an important priority the revision of the Joint Powers Agreement. She said the Committee would like to know what revisions the commissioners want to see. She said commissioners should e-mail their comments to Ms. Herbert for distribution to the Administrative Services Committee. Mr. LeFevere reminded the Commission that the Joint Powers Agreement can only be amended by approval of all of the member city councils. Chair Welch moved that counsel spend a couple of hours reviewing the JPA for housecleaning revisions and to prepare a memo for the Commission's review at the October meeting. Chair Welch said the Administrative Services Committee recommends that the Commission contract with Springsted, Inc., to draft a position description for a position to provide administrative services to the Commission beyond the services of the Recorder and the staff. Mr. Stauner asked what it would cost. Ms. Loomis recommended putting a cap on the expense. Chair Welch recommended a motion that would authorize the Administrative Services Committee to contract with Springsted, Inc. to draft an administrative services request for proposals at a cost of no more than $1,500. Ms. Loomis moved Chair Welch's recommendation. Ms. Thornton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Robbinsdale and Minnetonka absent from the vote]. G. Discuss Revisions to the BCWMC's Joint Powers Agreement. Deferred to October BCWMC meeting. 8. A. Chair: i. Chair Welch reported that he couldn't get the BCWMC a fall tour of the Minnesota Twins Stadium. ii. Chair Welch announced that the BCWMC anticipates receiving the City of Crystal's Local Surface Water Management Plan prior to the October meeting and that the Commission Engineer would like authorization to review the plan. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the authorization of the Commission Engineer to review the plan upon receipt. Ms. Langsdorf seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. iii. Chair Welch stated that the Resource Management Plan was noticed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as of September 3rd and the public comment process continues through October 3rd. B. Commissioners: i. Ms. Loomis reminded the Commission that the November meeting is on Wednesday, November 18th instead of Thursday, November 19th. ii. Mr. Stauner announced that at 7:00 p.m. on October 7th he will be facilitating a Town Hall meeting for the residents around Northwood Lake. C. Committees: Education Committee 7 #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes i. Ms. Langsdorf announced that the BCMWC received an invitation from Meadowbrook School to be at its fall festival on October 24th and that Liz Thornton and Mary Karius plan to attend on behalf of the BCWMC. ii. Ms. Langsdorf announced that the Education and Public Outreach Committee is interested in conducting a teacher focus group on the teachers' water resource needs and what resources they would use. She said the Committee would like to reimburse the teachers for taking part in the focus group and recommends the total cost of up to $1,000 come out of the Survey and Studies budget item. Ms. Langsdorf said the Education and Public Outreach Committee will bring this item in front of the Commission at its October meeting. iii. Ms. Langsdorf announced that the newspaper article on shoreline planting is ready but the Committee decided it wants to hold the article to be run in the spring. She said there will be an article completed soon on keeping leaves out of storm drains and hopefully it will be in the newspapers in the next few weeks. iv. Ms. Langsdorf reported that Clean Waters Minnesota, a subgroup of Watershed Partners, which the Commission has funded through its watershed education partnerships budget, has hired a photographer to obtain the types of pictures the Committee has not been able to find when it has looked for photos for educational materials. She said that one of the Committee members has worked with the photographer to obtain photographs of the subjects the Committee needs and the photos will eventually be posted on the Clean Water Minnesota Web site and available for the Commission and all the cities to use. v. Ms. Langsdorf said the Committee's next meeting will be on October 8th at 9:00 a.m. in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall. She said the Committee will continue its review of the Web site and will discuss the Meadowbrook fall festival. She announced that the Joint Education and Public Outreach Committee will meet on October 13th at 8:30 a.m. in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall. D. Counsel: No Communications. E. Engineer: Mr. Kremer followed up with the Commission regarding whether the MPCA would consider chemical treatment of lakes for grant funding and the MPCA has stated that it would only be considered as a last option. Ms. Thornton moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Michael Welch, Chair Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date 8 #249423 vI BCWMC September 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes m ndum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 4, 2009 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Authorize Contract with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for Benchmark Re-establishment (Vertical Leveling) Project No. 09-20 Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary The 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program includes $75,000 in 2009 for re-establishment of the City's vertical benchmark system (S-020, page 79). The City has a vertical benchmark system consisting of hydrants, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) survey monuments, Hennepin County section corner monuments, and other permanent structures. Citizens, contractors, engineers, surveyors, consultants, and staff utilize the benchmark information, which includes the location and elevation of each permanent structure for the planning, design, and construction of new buildings, additions, private developments, and public infrastructure projects. The benchmark information is critical to the design and the review of projects impacting floodplain and wetland areas found throughout the City. In the mid-1970s, City survey crews completed leveling surveys throughout the City leading to the development of the current benchmark system. The benchmark system is based on the 1929 vertical datum, or mean sea level elevation, established by the federal government. During the past 15 years, however, the benchmark system has become somewhat obsolete and untrustworthy due to extensive private redevelopment, public highway and street improvement projects, new watermain and hydrant construction, and ongoing repair and replacement of hydrants. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geodetic Survey (NGS) established a new vertical datum in 1988, and plans to make another adjustment in the next 10 years. The Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment employed by the City and its consultants is based on the 1988 datum, making the synthesis of old records and new information extremely difficult. The 2009 Benchmark Re-establishment Project will modernize the City's vertical benchmark system and minimize the need to program future expenditures for similar efforts. Partnering with MnDOT, NGS, and a private surveying company, the City will be able to leverage the resources and technologies of its partners to lower its overall cost. MnDOT will maintain the City's data, providing adjustments and making it available in any datum, and NGS will publish the elevations, giving the City's benchmark system the credibility, accuracy and reliability needed. Through partnership and the incorporation of the latest technologies, the City will gain an adjustable, modernized benchmark system that works seamlessly within its Geographic Information System (GIS). Public Works staff solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) to four surveying companies pre- qualified by MnDOT to perform vertical leveling to NGS specifications. The RFP requested prices for two distinct tiers of leveling. "Precise leveling" to NGS specifications provides the backbone of the benchmark system, connecting MnDOT monuments with known elevations, with the results published by NGS in its Bluebook. "Supplemental leveling" is the secondary benchmark system, connecting hydrants and other permanent points within the City to the precise leveling network. The RFP provided a basic description of the project expectations, as well as technical specifications for both precise and supplemental vertical leveling. In an effort to encourage better pricing, the RFP allowed for completion of work in March 2010. A selection panel consisting of City staff with assistance from MnDOT and NGS staff reviewed proposals. The selection panel reviewed the proposals using the following criteria: 1. Must be on MnDOT's pre-qualified list of leveling contractors and have a Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor on staff. 2. Project understanding including experience with precise NGS leveling, equipment sufficient to perform the required work, and familiarity with MnDOT's permanent geodetic control monuments and online geodetic database. 3. Project plan including work plan, deliverables, and schedule. 4. Experience including qualifications of personnel assigned to the project, references, and experience with similar projects. 5. Proposal content. 6. Competitive fee. Proposals for the Benchmark Re-establishment (Vertical Leveling) Project No. 09-20 were received and reviewed on October 9,2009. The results of these proposals are outlined as follows: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Coleman Engineering Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. Precise Supplemental Leveling Leveling $966/mile $483/mile $1,345/mile $850/mile $1,410/mile $1,020/mile No proposal submitted The Capital Improvement Program has budgeted $75,000 for this project. Based on the criteria set forth above, staff recommends that the City enter into a contract with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for professional services for the Benchmark Re-establishment Project. Bolton & Menk, Inc developed a proposal that responded well to the City's scope of work and schedule, received positive references from MnDOT and NGS, and presented a competitive fee. Attachments Professional Services Agreementfrom Bolton & Menk, Inc. (18 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into an agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for re-establishment of the City's vertical benchmark system in an amount not to exceed $75,000. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA and BOLTON & MENK, INC. (Vertical Leveling - Benchmark - Project) This Agreement, made this day of ,20 _' by and between CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and BOLTON & MENK, INC., 1960 Premier Drive, Mankato Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR. WHEREAS, the CITY in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation is in need of professional and technical services for precise leveling conforming to National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Second Order, Class I specifications, as well as supplemental leveling to a less stringent standard. The purpose of the leveling is to develop a city-wide vertical benchmark system, while providing information to MnDOT that meets NGS standards. The leveling will help to establish precise North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88) heights and National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) heights in Golden Valley. WHEREAS, the total distance of precise double-run leveling is estimated at 21.4 miles, but will be determined in the field by completing the double-run leveling between monuments, and any additional double-run leveling as specified by the CITY. A map showing the geodetic monuments and proposed precise leveling runs is attached to the attached Request For Proposal. WHEREAS, the total distance of supplemental single-run leveling will be dependent on remaining budget, and will be determined in the field by completing the leveling between benchmarks established during the precise leveling. The CITY'S highest priority supplemental runs are shown on the maps included in the attached Request For Proposal and additional leveling runs may be specified by the CITY. The total distance of highest priority supplemental runs is estimated at 34.2 miles. WHEREAS, digital bar code rods and levels are required for the project and GPS survey equipment is not permitted in the establishment of vertical control for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises between the parties hereto, it is agreed: SECTION I - CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES A. The CONTRACTOR shall undertake the precise leveling and supplemental leveling work described in the attached Request For Proposals, which is incorporated herein by reference, and in Exhibit I and complete the precise leveling by no later than January 1, 2010 and complete the supplemental leveling by no later than April 1 , 2010. B. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, Additional Services may be authorized as described in Exhibit I or Paragraph IV.B. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk-Agmt.doc Page 1 of 17 SECTION II - THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY shall promptly compensate the CONTRACTOR in accordance with Section III of this Agreement. B. The CITY will give prompt notice to the CONTRACTOR whenever the CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the project. C. The CITY shall designate a liaison person to act as the CITY'S representative with respect to services to be rendered under this Agreement. Said representative shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions, receive information, interpret and define the CITY'S policies with respect to the project and CONTRACTOR'S services. D. The CITY will obtain any and all regulatory permits required for the proper and legal execution of the project. SECTION III - COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES A. FEES. 1. The CITY will compensate the CONTRACTOR on a per mile basis at the following rates: a. The National Geodetic Survey (NGS), second order, class one, precise leveling work shall be compensated at $966 per double run mile. To compute the double run mile, the total miles leveled will be divided by 2 to provide an equitable number. b. The supplemental leveling work shall be computed at $483.00 per mile. 2. The CITY'S obligation hereunder for precise and supplemental leveling work shall not exceed $75,000.00. 3. Additional services as outlined in Section I.B will be billed on an hourly basis at the rate described in Section 1I1.A.1. B. The payment to the CONTRACTOR will be made by the CITY upon billing at intervals not more often than monthly at the herein rates. SECTION IV - GENERAL A. STANDARD OF CARE Professional services provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the CONTRACTOR'S profession currently practicing under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. B. CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE In the event the CITY changes or is required to change the scope of the project from that described in Section I and/or the applicable addendum, and such changes require Additional Services by the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to additional compensation at the applicable hourly rates. The CONTRACTOR shall give notice to the CITY of any Additional Services, prior to furnishing such additional services. The CITY may request an estimate of additional cost from the CONTRACTOR, and upon G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk~gmt.doc Page 2 of 17 receipt of the request, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish such, prior to authorization of the changed scope of work. C. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and its officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation) arising from, or based in the whole, or in any part, on any negligent act or omission by CONTRACTOR'S employees, agents, or subcontractors. In no event shall CITY be liable to CONTRACTOR for consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages. CITY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CONTRACTOR and its employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation) arising from, or based in the whole, or in any part, on any negligent act or omission by CITY'S employees, agents, or consultants. In no event shall CONTRACTOR be liable to CITY for consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the CITY or the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR'S services under this Agreement are being performed solely for the CITY'S benefit, and no other entity shall have any claim against the CONTRACTOR because of this Agreement or the performance or nonperformance of services provided hereunder. The CITY agrees to include a provision in all contracts with contractors and other entities involved in this project to carry out the intent of the paragraph. D. INSURANCE The CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain, at the CONTRACTOR'S expense, statutory worker's compensation coverage. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to maintain, at CONTRACTOR'S expense, general liability insurance coverage insuring CONTRACTOR against claims for bodily injury, death or property damage arising out of CONTRACTOR'S general business activities (including automobile use). The liability insurance policy shall provide coverage for each occurrence in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 General Aggregate. During the period of project execution, the CONTRACTOR also agrees to maintain, at CONTRACTOR'S expense, Professional Liability Insurance coverage insuring CONTRACTOR against damages for legal liability arising from an error, omission or negligent act in the performance of professional services required by this agreement. The professional liability insurance policy shall provide coverage for each occurrence in the amount of $2,000,000 and annual aggregate of $2,000,000 on a claims-made basis. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with certificates of insurance, showing evidence of required coverages. E. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will remain in effect for the longer of a period of two years or such other explicitly identified completion period, after which time the Agreement may be extended upon mutual agreement of both parties. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk-^gmt.doc Page 3 of 17 F. PAYMENTS If CITY fails to make any payment due CONTRACTOR for services and expenses within thirty days after receipt of the CONTRACTOR'S invoice after giving seven days' written notice to CITY, CONTRACTOR may, without waiving any claim or right against the CITY and without incurring liability whatsoever to the CITY, suspend services and withhold project deliverables due under this Agreement until CONTRACTOR has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. G. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason or for convenience by either party upon seven (7) days written notice. In the event of termination, the CITY shall be obligated to the CONTRACTOR for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination, computed in accordance with Section III of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall be obligated to provide all deliverables for work that has been completed and paid for by the CITY up to the time of termination. H. CONTINGENT FEE The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONTRACTOR to solicit or secure this Contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from award or making of this Agreement. I. NON-DISCRIMINATION The provisions of any applicable law or ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. The CONTRACTOR is an Equal Opportunity Employer and it is the policy of the CONTRACTOR that all employees, persons seeking employment, subcontractors, subconsultants, and vendors are treated without regard to their race, religion, sex, color, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, public assistance status or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local law. J. CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the State of Minnesota. K. SURVIVAL All obligations, representations and provisions made in or given in Section IV of this Agreement will survive the completion of all services of the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement for any reason. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 4 of 17 L. SEVERABILITY Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon CITY and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the Agreement shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. SECTION V - SIGNATURES THIS INSTRUMENT embodies the whole agreement of the parties, there being no promises, terms, conditions or obligation referring to the subject matter other than contained herein. This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented, modified or canceled by a duly executed written instrument signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in their behalf. CITY: City of Golden Vallev CONTRACTOR: Bolton & Menk, Inc. SiQnature: SiQnature: Title: Title: Date: Date: SiQnature: Title: Date: G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 5 of 17 EXHIBIT I AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Vertical Leveling - Benchmark - Project) A. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. The CONTRACTOR shall conduct field surveys that provide the CITY with two types of leveling results. a. The primary project will conform to NGS Second Order, Class One specifications. Briefly this requires each double run loop between Benchmarks or Temporary Bench marks to equal or exceed a defined closure. For this type of survey the closure requirement is a maximum of 6 millimeters (0.006) times the square root of the kilometers run. b. A supplemental project is single run leveling of varying priorities which will determine the order of completion. These runs will be made between benchmarks established during the primary project and include turns through hydrants or other suitable stable benchmarks when hydrants are not available. The techniques used will be the same as the primary project with the exception that they will be single run. The closure requirement of these runs shall be a maximum of 5 hundredths (0.05) of a foot times the square root of the miles run. 2. For precise leveling, CONTRACTOR shall: a. Provide calibration certifications for the level rods prior to commencing field observations. Only after the CITY, MnDOT and NGS have accepted the calibration certifications as complete will field observations be permitted to begin. b. Ensure that the equipment used for the project will be well maintained. Major equipment, such as the level instrument and the level rods, must be exchanged if it is damaged, dropped or exposed to an excessive negative physical environment. No major equipment will be exchanged for other similar equipment without the prior approval of the CITY. Calibration certification will be required for all exchanged equipment. c. Ensure that all field personnel assigned to this project shall remain unchanged during the extent of the Contract because changes affect efficiency, the quality of the data and the data processing techniques available. Exceptions will be made with the following examples: (1) Illness of a member of the leveling crew may result in the emergency replacement of one of the crew members at any time provided the CITY is notified at the beginning of the workday of the change. The CITY does retain the option of suspending work if the absent person is not replaced with a properly qualified and trained person. (2) Except for emergency replacement, only one member of a crew shall be changed from the previous workday's crew and normally only one person/change per week will be permitted. (3) Assignment of personnel within the crew of the level unit may vary during the course of the week and even an occasional change within a given day. It is the G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 6 of 17 duty of the crew chief to ensure that all new members are adequately trained for the task they are assigned. d. Ensure that all personnel are properly equipped and trained on the necessary safety procedures for this type of work. e. Read and verify the information provided in a description of each benchmark or station prior to benchmark being leveled to, and for returning a field annotated copy of the description to the CITY and MnDOT with the leveling observation data indicating: (1) The date and initials of the individual verifying the information. (2) That the description accurately and completely reflects the conditions of the benchmark, or the description needs revision. If revision is recommended, the recommended changes shall be annotated on the description in red ink. f. Locate and remove ground (if applicable) in order to recover benchmark(s) or station(s). g. Notify and coordinate accessibility to benchmark(s) with railroad companies prior to entering railroad corridors. h. Perform the data acquisition of geodetic leveling to Second Order, Class I standards and specifications as described in the following: (1) "Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks." September 1984, Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC) reprinted 1993. (2) "Geodetic Leveling" NOAA Manual NOS NGS3, NOAA, National Geodetic Survey, August 1981. (3) "Interim FGCS Specifications and Procedures to Incorporate Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems" (FGCC) Version 4.1, May 27,2004. (4) Vertical Control Field data Processing System (VFPROC), NOAA, C&GS, National Geodetic Survey, Version 3.00, December 1992. (5) "Input Formats and Specifications for the National Geodetic Survey Data Base," Vertical Control Data, Federal Geodetic data Committee, September 1994, reprinted November 1998, Volume I & II. i. Perform double run leveling between all benchmarks, including existing control, to NGS Second Order, Class I standards and specifications as follows: (1) Whenever the CONTRACTOR shall determine that the observed elevation difference between benchmarks fails to agree with the difference in the NGS published elevations of those benchmarks, the CONTRACTOR will notify the CITY within two (2) working days. A determination will be made by the CITY, with consultation from NGS Advisor, within five (5) working days after receiving such notification whether any additional leveling needs to be performed in the area of the affected benchmarks. (2) If a project is not completed in one day, successive day's leveling must overlap prior leveling by at least one section. All double runs of a section must be completed within one (1) week. (3) All runs should be performed such that an even number of setups is observed between benchmarks (one rod is designated as the benchmark rod). G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 7 of 17 3. For supplemental leveling, CONTRACTOR shall: a. Perform single-run leveling between the benchmarks established during the precise leveling. b. Incorporate all hydrants (top nut of hydrant) in public right-of-way along the run, and where no hydrant is available, incorporate proper monuments and permanent structures for use as benchmarks, including: MnDOT control monument, section corner monument, anchor bolt in sign footing, corner of concrete step, railroad spike in power pole, and others as approved by the CITY. c. Perform the data acquisition of geodetic leveling with a similar methodology to that of NGS Second Order, Class I standards and specifications described above, except that the observed elevation difference may approach, but not exceed, five- hundredths (0.05) of one foot times the square root of miles leveled between benchmarks on any single run (0.05. d. Based on the naming convention set by the CITY, create an identification number and brief description, and take one photo, for each non-hydrant benchmark included during leveling. B. DELlVERABLES 1. The CONTRACTOR shall deliver data in digital form and produced by approved software. 2. The CONTRACTOR shall provide written weekly progress reports. 3. The CONTRACTOR shall provide a written final report for each completed line that includes the following information: a. Editorial on general project description, location, and final leveling route. b. Listing of all the benchmark(s) and/or station(s) observed on the line. c. Listing of all of the personnel utilized on the line, including the observer numbers for each observer. d. Leveling sequence diagram showing actual leveling sequence and summarizing elevation differences and distances. e. Listing of all software utilized on the line. f. Checks performed between other lines when applicable. g. Description of any problems encountered. h. All field annotated marks descriptions specified by the CITY. i. Digital images of all stations observed as specified by the CITY. J. CONTRACTOR will provide appropriate daily data files using the CITY, MnDOT and NGS provided programs to process the raw field observation. The software used will be TransLev and WinDesc, or other as approved by the CITY. k. CONTRACTOR will provide appropriate final data files at the end of the project, using the CITY, MnDOT and NGS data file provided programs to process the field end observation. The software used will be TransLev and WinDesc, or other as approved by the CITY. I. Precise leveling shall be completed and all deliverables provided to the CITY on or before January 1, 2010. G:\PROJECTSIBenchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 8 of 17 m. Supplemental leveling shall be completed and all deliverables provided to the CITY on or before April 1, 2010. C. T/MELlNE 1. The CONTRACTOR shall begin work within 7 days after issuance of a notice to proceed by the CITY and the leveling line order have been received. 2. Supplemental leveling will begin after precise leveling has been accepted and adjusted elevations have been received. The CITY shall inspect and review all data submitted for adjustment within 30 days. 3. If additional rounds of supplemental leveling are specified by the CITY, the additional leveling will begin after each round of supplemental leveling has been accepted and adjusted elevations have been provided. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 9 of 17 EXHIBIT II alley Request for Proposal for Professional Services City of Golden Valley Vertical Leveling (Benchmark) Project Golden Valley, Minnesota SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION The City of Golden Valley (City), in cooperation with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), is in need of professional and technical services for precise leveling conforming to National Geodetic Survey (NGS) second order, class one specifications, as well as supplemental leveling to a less stringent standard. The purpose of the leveling is to develop a citywide vertical benchmark system, while providing information to MnDOT that meets NGS standards. The leveling will help to establish precise North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NA VD 88) heights and National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) heights in Golden Valley. The total distance of precise double-run leveling is estimated at 21.4 miles, but will be determined in the field by completing the double-run leveling between monuments, and any additional double-run leveling as specified by the City. A map showing the geodetic monuments and proposed precise leveling runs is included in this Request for Proposal. The total distance of supplemental single-run leveling will be dependent on remaining budget, and will be determined in the field by completing the leveling between benchmarks established during the precise leveling. The City's highest priority supplemental runs are shown on the map included in this Request for Proposal, and additional leveling runs may be specified by the City. The total distance of highest priority supplemental runs is estimated at 34.2 miles. Proposals must include both a per mile cost to complete precise leveling, and a per mile cost to complete supplemental leveling . Payment for supplemental leveling will be based on total miles. For payment of precise leveling, the total double-run miles will be divided by two to provide for an equitable average distance. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 10 of 17 Hey Other than the standards guiding precise leveling, there is no rigid project schedule. Precise leveling must be completed by January 1,2010 and supplemental leveling must be completed by March 1, 2010. For reference, Golden Valley is 10.5 square miles, and is comprised of 45 quarter sections and has approximately 120 miles of local streets, 137 miles of watermain, and 1,320 hydrants. Digital bar-code rods and levels are required for this project. Global Positioning System (GPS) survey equipment is not permitted in the establishment of vertical control for this project. Achieving survey grade horizontal control is not a requirement of this project. A project milestone schedule is as follows: Selection of Contractor Start Field Work Overall Project Completion October 2009 November 2009 March 2010 Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, will be the City's Project Manager, with technical assistance from Dave Zenk, NGS State Geodetic Advisor. SECTION TWO: SELECTION CRITERIA Selection of the contractor will be based on the following criteria: 1. Must be on MnDOT's pre-qualified list of leveling contractors and have a Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor on staff. 2. Project understanding including experience with precise NGS leveling, equipment sufficient to perform the required work, and familiarity with MnDOT's permanent geodetic control monuments and online geodetic database (25%). 3. Project plan including work plan, deliverables, schedule (25%). 4. Experience including qualifications of personnel assigned to the project, references and experience with similar projects (25%). 5. Proposal content and participation in oral interview, if required by City (15%). 6. Competitive fee (10%). G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk~gmt.doc Page 11 of 17 Hey SECTION THREE: PROPOSED SELECTION SCHEDULE Request for Proposals Mailed *Questions Accepted via Email until Proposal Due Date Oral Interviews (if required by City) Award Contract September 23, 2009 October 2, 2009 at 4:00 pm October 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm October 12, 2009 October 20, 2009 *Please Note: In lieu of a pre-proposal meeting, the City will accept questions sent via email toEricEckmaneeckman@ci.golden-vallev.mn.us. Responses to all questions received will be sent via email to all contractors solicited so that all contractors receive the same information about the project and have an equitable opportunity to develop a response to this Request for Proposal. As such, contractors must provide the City with a valid email address so that responses to all questions may be sent. Please, out of respect for the current workload of City staff, do not call or request individual meetings with staff. Thank you in advance for your cooperation! SECTION FOUR: ABBREVIATED SCOPE OF WORK The City, with assistance from MnDOT and the NGS State Geodetic Advisor, shall provide to the contractor: For precise leveling, 1. Completed reconnaissance of the monuments and writing of the station descriptions. Recommended leveling line order will be provided prior to commencement of the work. 2. The benchmark descriptions in printed format and a large scale map with the benchmarks plotted on it. 3. Project Title, Project Number, line numbers (if available), and job code. 4. A *.dsc data file. 5. NGS Advisor will inspect and review all collected data within 30 days of submittal. The City will consult with NGS Advisor and approve all collected data prior to payment of the contract. For supplemental leveling, 6. Maps showing the locations of hydrants, box culverts, section corner monuments, and city benchmarks used in past surveys. 7. The naming conventions for identification numbers and descriptive text for each type of benchmark. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 12 of 17 Hey The contractor shall: 1. Meet with the City's Project Manager on a weekly basis, or as needed, to discuss progress and resolve potential issues. NGS State Geodetic Advisor may be consulted by the City for technical assistance on an as needed basis. For precise leveling, 2. Provide calibration certifications for the level rods prior to commencing field observations. Only after the City, MnDOT and NGS have accepted the calibration certifications as complete will field observations be permitted to begin. 3. Ensure that the equipment used for the project will be well maintained. Major equipment, such as the level instrument and the level rods, must be exchanged if it is damaged, dropped or exposed to an excessive negative physical environment. No major equipment will be exchanged for other similar equipment without the prior approval of the City. Calibration certification will be required for all exchanged equipment. 4. Ensure that all field personnel assigned to this project shall remain unchanged during the extent of the Contract because changes affect efficiency, the quality of the data and the data processing techniques available. Exceptions will be made with the following examples: a. Illness of a member of the leveling crew may result in the emergency replacement of one of the crew members at any time provided the City is notified at the beginning of the workday of the change. The City does retain the option of suspending work if the absent person is not replaced with a properly qualified and trained person. b. Except for emergency replacement, only one member of a crew shall be changed from the previous workday's crew and normally only one person/change per week will be permitted. c. Assignment of personnel within the crew of the level unit may vary during the course of the week and even an occasional change within a given day. It is the duty of the crew chief to ensure that all new members are adequately trained for the task they are assigned. 5. Ensure that all personnel are properly equipped and trained on the necessary safety procedures for this type of work. 6. Read and verify the information provided in a description of each benchmark or station prior to benchmark being leveled to, and for returning a field annotated copy of the description to the City and MnDOT with the leveling observation data indicating: a. The date and initials of the individual verifying the information. b. That the description accurately and completely reflects the conditions of the benchmark, or the description needs revision. If revision is recommended, the recommended changes shall be annotated on the description in red ink. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 13 of 17 Hey 7. Locate and remove ground (if applicable) in order to recover benchmark(s) or station(s). 8. Notify and coordinate accessibility to benchmark(s) with railroad companies prior to entering railroad corridors. 9. Perform the data acquisition of geodetic leveling to Second Order, Class I standards and specifications as described in the following: a. "Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks." September 1984, Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC) reprinted 1993. b. "Geodetic Leveling" NOAA Manual NOS NGS3, NOAA, National Geodetic Survey, August 1981. c. "Interim FGCS Specifications and Procedures to Incorporate Electronic Digital/Bar-Code Leveling Systems" (FGCC) Version 4.1, May 27, 2004. d. Vertical Control Field data Processing System (VFPROC), NOAA, C&GS, National Geodetic Survey, Version 3.00, December 1992. e. "Input Formats and Specifications for the National Geodetic Survey Data Base," Vertical Control Data, Federal Geodetic data Committee, September 1994, reprinted November 1998, Volume I & II. 10. Perform double run leveling between all benchmarks, including existing control, to NGS Second Order, Class I standards and specifications as follows: a. Whenever the Contractor shall determine that the observed elevation difference between benchmarks fails to agree with the difference in the NGS published elevations of those benchmarks, the Contractor will notify the City within two (2) working days. A determination will be made by the City, with consultation from NGS Advisor, within five (5) working days after receiving such notification whether any additional leveling needs to be performed in the area of the affected benchmarks. b. If a project is not completed in one day, successive day's leveling must overlap prior leveling by at least one section. All double runs of a section must be completed within one (1) week. c. All runs should be performed such that an even number of setups is observed between benchmarks (one rod is designated as the benchmark rod). For supplemental leveling, 11. Perform single-run leveling between the benchmarks established during the precise leveling. 12. Incorporate all hydrants (top nut of hydrant) in public right-of-way along the run, and where no hydrant is available, incorporate proper monuments and permanent structures for use as City benchmarks, including: MnDOT control monument, section corner monument, anchor bolt in sign footing, corner of concrete step, railroad spike in power pole, and others as approved by the City. 13. Perform the data acquisition of geodetic leveling with a similar methodology to that of NGS Second Order, Class I standards and specifications described G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 14 of 17 Hey above, except that the observed elevation difference may approach, but not exceed, five-hundredths (0.05) of one foot times the square root of miles leveled between benchmarks on any single run (0.05iMiles). 14. Based on the naming convention set by the City, create an identification number and brief description for each benchmark. The Contractor shall provide to the City: 15. The geodetic leveling observational data according to the following: a. Contractor will utilize software to collect and process the raw field observations as approved by the City and NGS prior to the commencement of the work. b. Contractor will submit digital data to the City on compact disks or other medium as approved by the City. c. Progress reports containing data collected and a summary of events of each week will be submitted to the City on a weekly basis, arriving at the City no later than Tuesday for the previous week. d. Contractor will submit a final report within five (5) days of the completion of each line. The report will include the following: i. Editorial on general project description, location, and final leveling route. II. Listing of all the benchmark(s) and/or station(s) observed on the line. III. Listing of all of the personnel utilized on the line, including the observer numbers for each observer. IV. Leveling sequence diagram showing actual leveling sequence and summarizing elevation differences and distances. v. Listing of all software utilized on the line. vi. Checks performed between other lines when applicable. VII. Description of any problems encountered. VIII. All field annotated marks descriptions specified by the City. IX. Digital images of all stations observed as specified by the City. x. Contractor will provide daily (*.raw or *.dat) and daily processed (*.Ivl, *.err, *.hgz, *.bok, *.stt and *.abs) data files using the City, MnDOT and NGS provided programs to process the raw field observation. XI. Contractor will provide a final *.raw, *.dat, *.Ivl, *.err, *.hgz, *.bok, *.stt, and *.abs at the end of the project, using the City, MnDOT and NGS data file provided programs to process the field end observation. XII. For precise leveling, Contractor will complete all work and provide to the City all deliverables on or before January 1, 2010. XIII. For supplemental leveling, Contractor will complete all work and provide to the City all deliverables on or before March 1, 2010. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 15 of 17 Bey SECTION FIVE: PROPOSAL CONTENT Prepare a proposal containing the information requested in the order and format set forth below. Additional information about the firm may be included in Item 5. 1. Firm Orqanization a. Describe the firm including location, number of employees, special services provided, etc. b. Describe key personnel who would be assigned to the project. c. Prepare an organizational chart of the team. Include resumes of key team members. d. Describe current workload and how this project will fit in to the workload. 2. Proiect Understandinq a. Prepare a statement of the objectives, goals and tasks to show or demonstrate the Contractor's view of the contract. b. Expand on the abbreviated scope of work prepared by the City to demonstrate the responder's understanding of the project. Provide a list of deliverables that the City can expect to receive as part of the project. c. Prepare a proposed timeline to accomplish the work. 3. Describe any assistance that you feel will be needed from the City to fulfill the requirements of the contract. 4. Provide a per mile cost to complete NGS leveling, and a per mile cost to complete supplemental leveling. 5. Provide a list of references for three projects of similar size or similar methodology. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 16 of 17 Hey SECTION SIX: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL Submit proposals to: Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley MN 55427-4588 Submit proposal by October 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM Central Standard Time. Limit proposals to 10 pages in length. Four copies should be submitted to the City. G:\PROJECTS\Benchmark Update (09-20)\Bolton&Menk_Agmt.doc Page 17 of 17 r- I · - , -. -t.... . . . i I . '.-- . I : ) ~ ~ ! ! f' ..i . CbdG_V.n., 7ll:loGolrJloIIV...-,R<:.<:! ~......"MNSSG1...568 ",...- _1I~,.rm.. o ~lley VERTICAL LEVELING (BENCHMARK) PROJECT EXHIBIT II Vertical Leveling Runs __ Precise Leveling, NGS 2nd Order Class I - Suppfemental single-run leveling (in order to maximize the number of benchmar1<s per run, some variation of these runs may be approved by the City) - 2nd tier supplemental single-run leveling Areas of additional 5upplementalleveting, ~ approved by City MnDOT Monuments (Downbaded M.,2009) Onty 'Vertical", "30", or "Horizontal" monuments, with a condition of "Good" are shO'NJ1 herein. Vertical . 2nd Order . 3rd Order 3D . 151 Order . 2nd Order . 3rd Order Horizontal .. 3rd Order ... Order C o Other Non-Vertical Control + Ne'W stem disk monuments . Temporary Bench Mar1<s (TBMs) Potential City Benchmarks Golden Vaney Hydrant + 51 Louis Park Hydrant . New Hope Hydrant Plus other benchmarks as approved by City Streets - Future Street Reconstrudion Areas (These areas may be avoided during leveling) --- local Streets - County State Aid Highways = State Highways & Interstate 0.,.: OctobM 27. 2009 Sources: . MnDOT OLM. for monument locaOOM. - Cly of Golden Valley frx.' other layws. t NOT TO SCAJE alley M ndu Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 4, 2009 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance #424 - Adoption of Amended State Building Code - Incorporation of 2006 International Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code Prepared By Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Summary The State of Minnesota has adopted the 2006 International Mechanical Code and 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, replacing the previously adopted 2000 codes. The State of Minnesota adoption of the 2006 Code with Minnesota amendments was effective October 26, 2009. The 2006 Codes and amendments will be effective locally upon City Council adoption. Attachment Underlined/Overscored version Section 4.01 (1 page) Ordinance No. 424, Adoption of Amended State Building Code, Incorporation of 2006 International Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code with Minnesota Amendments (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve on First Consideration, Ordinance No. 424, Adoption of Amended State Building Code, Incorporation of 2006 International Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code with Minnesota Amendments. 94.01 Chapter 4: BUILDINGS AND SIGNS Section 4.01: Building Code Adopted The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 to 16B.75, one copy of which is on file in the office of the Golden Valley City Clerk, is hereby adopted as the Building Code for the City of Golden Valley. Such code is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth verbatim herein, including the following Chapters: A. 1300 B. 1301 C. 1302 D. 1303 E. 1305 F. 1306 G. 1307 H. 1309 1. 1311 J. 1315 K. 1325 L. 1330 M. 1335 N. 1341 O. 1346 P. 1350 Q. 1360 R. 1361 S. 1370 T. 4715 U. 1322 Administration of the Minnesota State Building Code Building Official Certification State Building Construction Approvals Minnesota Provisions Adoption of the 2006 International Building Code; Special Fire Protection Systems 1. Chapter 1306.0020 Subd. 2 Elevators and Related Devices Adoption of the 2006 International Residential Code Adoption of the 2000 Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings Adoption of 2008 National Electrical Code Solar Energy Systems Fallout Shelters Floodproofing Regulations 1. Parts 1335.0600 through 1335.1100 inclusive Minnesota Accessibility Code Adoption of the Minnesota State Mechanical Code composed of the -2BOO 2006 International Mechanical Code and the -2BOO 2006 International Fuel Gas Code with Minnesota Amendments. Manufactured Homes Prefabricated Structures Industrialized/Modular Buildings Storm Shelters (Manufactured Home Parks) Minnesota Plumbing Code Residential Energy Code and 1323Commercial Energy Code Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 424, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adopting the Amended State Building Code Incorporation of 2006 International Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code with Minnesota Amendments The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Section 4.01, entitled "Building Code Adopted", is amended by deleting item 0, "1346 - Adoption of Minnesota State Mechanical Code composed of the 2000 International Mechanical Code and the 2000 International Fuel Gas Code with State Amendments" and replacing it with ha new item 0, which reads "0. 1346 - Adoption of Minnesota State Mechanical Code composed of the 2006 International Mechanical Code and the 2006 International Fuel Gas Code with State Amendments." Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation A Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this day of November, 2009. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk Hey erno urn City Administration/Council 763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 4, 2009 Agenda Item 6. B. Council Chambers Audio, Video, and Control Systems Upgrade - Bids Prepared By Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator Summary The 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program includes $130,000 for Council Chambers audio, video, and control system upgrade (B-029 and B-030, page 51). City staff is accepting bids Monday, November 2,2009 for replacement equipment for the Council Chambers/Cable Control Room audio, video, and control systems. The current equipment ranges between 9 and 20 years of age, and repair parts are no longer available for most of the pieces. The audio system project includes updating the microphones at the Council dais and podium and adding ceiling speakers throughout the Council Chambers to improve sound for the audience. It also includes all necessary amplifiers and Control Room equipment. The video system project includes replacing the 20-year-old switcher and related controls in the Control Room and updating the Council Chambers cameras and camera operating system to work with it. The control system project includes upgrading the equipment that coordinates operation of all the Council Chambers and Control Room equipment. A summary of submitted bids, along with the recommended bid for each portion of the project, will be provided to the City Council at the meeting November 4. Recommended Action Motion to approve recommended bid for each portion of the Golden Valley 2009 City Council Chambers Audio, Video, and Control Systems Upgrade Material Project.