Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/01/24 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session f/f St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA JANUARY 24,2011 The meeting convened at 7:56 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Scott), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). Guests: Ryan Coddington and April Crockett(Mn/DOT). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—February 7 and February 14,2011 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for February 7th and the proposed study session agenda for February 14t. He asked if the Council would like to include a discussion regarding the Nestlé plant closure at a future study session. Mayor Jacobs stated that Nestlé is a major employer in the City and the plant closing may give rise to a similar process undertaken with the Elmwood study. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that staff provide a written report to Council that includes a discussion of both the positive and negative impacts, as well as long range plans for the site and opportunities presented by the plant closing. Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt a study session was necessary whenever it fits into Council's schedule regarding what happens with the land. She indicated that the plant closing will have an impact on the City's water rates, as well as significant traffic implications depending on what happens with Highway 100 and Mn/DOT's desire to close exits on Highway 100. Mr. Harmemng indicated that staff has requested information from Nestlé regarding its plans for the property and agreed to provide further information to Council for discussion. Councilmember Mavity asked if the Housing Authority and Planning Commission are preparing work plans for 2011 and whether those plans will be made available to Council in the near future. Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the February 14th freight rail discussion and Mr. McKenzie's analysis of the viability of the three remaining alternative routes under consideration. She questioned the definition of viability and whether this includes engineering viability and/or safety viability. Study Session Minutes -2- January 24, 2011 Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he would like Mr. McKenzie to evaluate all the information from the County and provide an opinion as to whether he feels comfortable with the County's numbers and information. Mr. Harmening stated that staff will be meeting with the County tomorrow regarding cost estimates. He advised that staff is working to provide Council with its own assessment of the work done by the County and Mr. McKenzie will provide an analysis of his reasoning on why some of the options were not deemed viable, e.g., Chaska. He added that the February 14`h study session will include an in-depth discussion regarding the three alternatives under consideration and whether there are viable alternatives to the MNS route for TCW traffic. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that Mr. McKenzie also discuss the railroad's position in this matter as well as the role of the City. Councilmember Sanger stated this goes back to the earlier question of who makes what decisions and it would be helpful to have a decision tree. 2. Vision St. Louis Park Community Check-in Ms. Gothberg and Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and proposed plans for a Vision St. Louis Park Community Check-in. She explained the use of a World Café discussion, a facilitation technique utilizing a note taker and which encourages participants to have a conversation regarding Vision. She stated that staff will then take the information from the discussion, analyze it, and provide it to Council as a viable community report. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about making sure the information from this meeting represents an accurate reflection of the entire community. Ms. Gothberg stated that staff is working with Mr. Zwilling's group regarding publicity and invitations, including the City's website, cable channel, the Perspective and Sun Sailor. She added that the City's website will also include a place for people to comment. Councilmember Sanger that she would like to see other ways for people to participate beyond attending the community meeting to ensure that all residents have an opportunity to comment Councilmember Ross suggested having surveys available at Lenox and/or having a call-in number for residents. Mr. Harmening agreed that staff will work on finding other ways to obtain resident input apart from the two scheduled sessions on May 3`1. Councilmember Santa suggested that staff give consideration to holding a session at Lenox and/or other locations throughout the City. Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding Council's role in this process. Ms. Gothberg stated that this one-time gathering is intended to check-in with residents and come back to Council with the results of the meeting. She suggested that Council attend the meetings and act as table hosts. Study Session Minutes -3- January 24, 2011 Councilmember Sanger indicated the importance of Councilmembers attending the meeting and being part of the agenda. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Santa's suggestion regarding additional meetings throughout the City, as well as Councilmember Sanger's suggestion regarding Council attendance at the meeting, however, he did not feel that the Council should act as table hosts because the Council will be making decisions on the meeting outcomes. Councilmember Mavity stated that it would be helpful to have a written document that outlines some of the activities and results. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the Vision St. Louis Park Community Check-in on May 3, 2011. 3. Bidding and Construction/Project Management Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Councilmember Mavity requested further information with respect to limiting the City's liability and exposure and maintaining control over the process. She also requested further information regarding best value bidding and how that relates to the lowest responsible bidder in terms of what the City can and cannot do. She added that the League is currently working on a legislative initiative that will change the law as it relates to design build, and requested information regarding how design build would impact the City's work. Mr. Scott discussed the standard process for awarding bids which includes preparation of a standard set of specifications to allow the City to make an apples to apples comparison, bids are then accepted and negotiation is not allowed, and the City then selects the lowest bidder; if the lowest bidder is qualified to do the work, staff will make a recommendation to Council regarding selection of the lowest responsible bidder. He advised that the City may have certain projects requiring specialized qualifications and the City can develop some pre-bid qualifications that are built into the specifications for the contract. He added that most City contracts are relatively routine and it is difficult to disqualify someone as not being qualified. He then discussed best value bidding and stated that it is not used by cities, is limited in scope and limited to certain types of projects, and cannot be used for general construction types of projects. He added that the City has reviewed the concept of best value bidding and determined that there is not a lot of benefit to it along with significant drawbacks. Councilmember Sanger stated that the City does not currently have an alternative dispute resolution clause in its contracts and suggested that the City start including a mediation clause in its contracts, perhaps only for projects over a certain dollar amount. She added that this might provide the parties with a better understanding as well as a better result following a contract dispute and is significantly cheaper than litigation or arbitration. Mr. Scott stated that mediation is always the first step in dispute resolution, whether or not a mediation clause is contained in the contract. Council discussed the Highway 7/Wooddale project and the change orders resulting from difficulties encountered with the utility companies on this project. Study Session Minutes -4- January 24, 2011 Councilmember Sanger asked how the City can have better control over the change order process in order to avoid surprises. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that Council receive quarterly reports or some sort of regular reporting on major projects. Councilmember Sanger also suggested that when a dispute arises during the performance of a contract, mediation should be mandatory within a specified time, e.g., thirty days. Mr. Scott advised that legitimate change orders are commonplace due to a number of factors, such as a legitimate unknown condition or in some cases, the City may ask for a change in the scope of the work. He discussed the City's franchise agreements with the utility companies and stated that if it becomes necessary to move utilities during a project, the franchise agreements state that the utilities are to be moved at the utility's cost. He advised that the utility company does not have any liability if it does not move the utility, but the law supports the City such that if the utility company does not move its utility, the City is not responsible to the contractor because the City has no control over the utility company. Councilmember Sanger suggested that standard language be put into the City's contracts stating that the City is making no representations or warranties with regard to the actions of utility companies. She also suggested that contract language be added that states any request for change orders initiated by a contractor must be accompanied by substantiating documentation of the need and why it was unforeseen. Mr. Scott indicated that documentation is already required pursuant to the City's change order process. Councilmember Mavity stated that she would like further information regarding best value bidding to see if it gives the City any more flexibility. She also requested that the City keep the design build option in mind for future projects, and noted that design build projects start with an agreed upon budget with no change orders. Mr. Scott agreed to provide Council with further information regarding best value bidding. Councilmember Ross asked how smaller minority/women-owned businesses compete on City projects vis-à-vis selecting the lowest responsible bidder. She also asked if the City ever uses a system similar to the State's weighting system for bids that awards bids not just based on the lowest bid but that looks at other factors, e.g., Veterans. Mr. Rardin stated that the City does not have projects utilizing set asides or percentages and these are typically projects aimed at Federal or State dollars; the State and Federal governments have Labor Compliance Divisions that analyze their projects and typically they still award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. He added that the City does not bundle its projects to eliminate bidders; the City has a lot of small projects and it works hard to make projects available so any contractors can bid on the work. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding language in the City's contracts that asks contractors, as part of their bid, to identify their plan for subcontracting to smaller, minority or women- owned businesses and have them include that information in their bids. Study Session Minutes -5- January 24, 2011 4. Highway 100 Project Update Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and introduced April Crockett and Ryan Coddington, traffic engineers with Mn/DOT. He stated that Mn/DOT has developed four concepts in response to the recent rescoping efforts for Highway 100. He indicated that Mn/DOT would like to select a preferred alternative soon in order to move the project ahead, and Mn/DOT has identified Concept B as the option having the most merit; Mn/DOT also feels Concept C would be acceptable. He advised that Mn/DOT must obtain the City's approval of the preferred alternative through the municipal consent process. Mr. Coddington provided a brief overview of Concept B and Concept C, noting that the biggest difference between B and C is the two-way frontage road between Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard. He stated that by consolidating access, congestion on Highway 100 will be eased. He noted that Concept B does not provide direct access from Minnetonka Boulevard to Highway 100 southbound. He discussed the lane widths and stated that there will be some 11' lanes in the curves from 28th Street to 26th Street, which will minimize right-of-way impacts. He also discussed the 27th Street exit, notin that Concept B provides for this exit to remain and Concept C provides for the closure of the 27 , Street exit. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the closure of the 27th Street exit represents a considerable problem for the Birchwood neighborhood because traffic will funnel through the Birchwood neighborhood and increase traffic. She added that an overriding goal for the project is to make it easy for people to get onto the freeway and to avoid cutting through the neighborhoods. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed considerable frustration with the length of time it has taken for this project to be completed by Mn/DOT. He stated that the best alternative appears to be Concept D but this concept is not acceptable to Mn/DOT or the County. Ms Crockett noted that all four concepts are still on the table for consideration. Mr. Coddington stated that Mn/DOT is ultimately trying to meet the goals for the project with the budget it has; Concepts B, C, and D call for replacing the bridges and helping traffic flow better in the area. Councilmember Omodt acknowledged the Council's frustration with this project and requested that the Council provide input on its preference for any of the concepts. He stated that he does not have a preference for either Concept B or Concept C. Councilmember Sanger asked if any of the proposed concepts will take any or all of the houses on Toledo Avenue. Mr. Coddington stated that the goal is to not take any of the houses, but Mn/DOT will not know until it has construction limits. He added that Mn/DOT does not anticipate a total take of these properties and stated that the bigger issue is the noise wall. Councilmember Sanger indicated that these homeowners have been held hostage for 12 years because they cannot sell their homes or put money into maintaining their homes because of the uncertainty surrounding this project. She stated that she needs to know whether Mn/DOT will take these homes before she can say whether she likes Concept B or C. She added that she does not want to see Mn/DOT take one house, and then leave the next two houses, and then take the Study Session Minutes -6- January 24, 2011 next house. She added that the overwhelming preference from residents is either a noise wall or a berm and she requested that Mn/DOT factor in this preference when planning for space needs. Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about traffic backing up onto City streets in either Concept B or Concept C. He stated that it will be critical to minimize traffic cutting through the neighborhoods and to eliminate the confusion in Concept B associated with no direct access from Minnetonka Boulevard to Highway 100. He requested that Mn/DOT design the project so that it can be changed to a better design later because this represents a band-aid fix and will not resolve the traffic problems on one of the busiest roads in the metro. He reiterated his concern that drivers will not know how to navigate from Minnetonka Boulevard to southbound Highway 100. Councilmember Mavity agreed that having access to northbound and southbound Highway 100 from Minnetonka Boulevard is a priority. She stated that during rush hour, traffic on Highway 7 gets stacked up past 169 and adding additional traffic from Minnetonka Boulevard is a bad idea. She also requested that the bike path not be forgotten in the project. Ms. McMonigal stated that one of the biggest improvements in both Concept B and Concept C is the free right on westbound Highway 7 heading north. She added that Mn/DOT will be doing modeling of all the preferred concept. Councilmember Santa stated that she did not believe the proposed Concepts will mitigate any of the congestion on Highway 100. Councilmember Ross requested that the east frontage road from Hwy 7 to Minnetonka Blvd on Concept C be a two-way frontage road. Councilmember Sanger asked if Mn/DOT will be taking any of the property on what is now Webster Park. Mr. Coddington replied that Mn/DOT would not be taking any of this property. Councilmember Sanger asked if Mn/DOT would be removing the pedestrian and bike bridge over Highway 100 at 26th Street, regardless of which concept is chosen. Mr. Coddington replied that Mn/DOT would not be removing this bridge. Mr. Harmening advised that staff will bring this item back to Council for further discussion. He summarized Council's feedback, including an interest in two-way frontage roads, minimizing cut-through traffic and back-up traffic on City/County streets, resolving questions regarding noise walls versus berms and making sure there is room for one or the other, maintaining direct access to Highway 100 from Minnetonka Boulevard, addressing ongoing concerns regarding closure of street access points, obtaining a clear understanding regarding the taking of homes, understanding bike trail connectivity, as well as overall safety concerns. Councilmember Sanger stated that it appears Utica Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard will become a frontage road. She indicated that these residents are not happy about Utica Avenue being turned into a frontage road and requested that the design criteria include information about what is going to be done to minimize the impact to those homes from 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard, and particularly south of 27th Street. She requested that Mn/DOT land be used for a berm to shield these homeowners from the frontage road impact. Study Session Minutes -7- January 24, 2011 Mr. Rardin clarified that Mn/DOT is not proposing to do anything with Utica Avenue and it will be up to the City to craft its approach to any closure and/or subsequent frontage road. 5. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal) Mr. Harmening advised that the EPA has contacted the City indicating it is interested in doing another soil vapor intrusion investigation study on the Reilly tar site. He explained that the EPA has done some soil sampling on the property and found elevated levels on the site, and now wants to conduct testing not unlike what it did several years ago. He stated that staff is currently working with the EPA and the Department of Health on a communication plan for the proposed testing. Councilmember Sanger requested that staff make sure the information included in Council materials is legible, noting that the information provided regarding the Highway 100 project was difficult to read. Councilmember Santa stated that her employer offered the Microsoft Home Use Program and she found it was very easy to use. Mr. Harmening stated that the E-Learning Program does not represent a special perk or benefit to public sector employees and Microsoft makes this program available to everybody. He added that the Home Use Program is optional and not required and is between Microsoft and any employee who chooses to download the software. Discussion took place regarding the E-Learning Program that is available to City Staff. The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. 2011 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds Proposed Allocation 7. Wireless Internet Service Update 8. Microsoft Home Use and E-Learning Programs 9. Project Update—W. 44th Street Reconstruction—Project 2005-0500 10. Update on Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Plant Closing 11. December 2010 Monthly Financial Report 12. Fourth Quarter Investment Report(October—December,2010) Nancy Stroth, ty Clerk Jeff Ja • i� ayor