Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet
ROSE,SOT i� T'T` AGENDA 1�/1 Ul V 1 City Council Work Session Wednesday, September 12, 2007 CITY COUNCIL 6:30p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION 6:30 — 7:00 p.m. A. FTTH/Rudder Cable Transfer 7:00 — 7:30 p.m. B. Highway 3 Pedestrian Crossings 8:00 — 8:30 p.m. C. Brazil Avenue Improvements 8:30 — 9:00 p.m. D. Akron Avenue Trunk Sanitary Sewer 9:00 — 9:30 p.m. E. Liquor Ordinance Update 9:30 — 10:00 p.m. F. Welcome to Rosemount Signs 3. UPDATES 10:00 —10:15 p.m. A. Right -of -Way Ordinance 10:15 — 10:30 p.m. B. 2007-2008 Employee Wellness Program 4. ADJOURNMENT City Council work sessions are held for Council and staff to discuss items for future Council agendas. Comments from the public during work sessions are not generally solicited. �� 1 C . , ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: FTTH/Rudder Cable Transfer AGENDA SECTION:Discussion PREPARED BY: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator AGENDA NO. AA ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Give staff direction BACKGROUND F M and Rudder Capital Corporation informed the City last year that a sale of the company was being negotiated. Per the terms of the cable franchise with FTTH, the City had the right of first refusal to acquire the company when a transfer of ownership was being considered. The City formally waived the right of first refusal in December 2006, allowing F'Y I and Rudder to continue negotiating the sale and to prepare the necessary applications for state PUC, FCC and City actions relative to transfer of the franchise and ownership. ISSUE Rudder has made application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. That process is nearing conclusion. The next steps for Rudder include the FCC process and the City's transfer request. Rudder representatives met with Mayor Droste and City Administrator Verbrugge on August 15 to describe the company's intentions regarding system build -out. The purpose of this agenda item is to share that plan with the entire city council prior to making formal application for transfer. Additionally, FTTH and Rudder have asked for consideration regarding the City's imposition of penalties related to notice of violations that was issued on May 15, 2007. Staff has proposed a resolution to Rudder representatives and is awaiting a response. SUMMARY Rudder representatives will be in attendance at the meeting to share its proposed build -out of the system in the event the City permits the transfer of franchise as part of the sale of FTTI I to Rudder. 4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM: Highway 3 Pedestrian Crossings Discussion PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation AGENDA NO. p Director 4l; Q ATTACHMENTS: Trunk Highway 3 Feasibility Report and Minutes from the June 25, 2007 Parks APPROVED BY: and Recreation Commission meeting RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, discussion only. ISSUE WSB Engineering has completed a majority of the work on the Trunk Highway 3 Pedestrian Crossing Feasibility Study. The feasibility study identifies two alternatives to the existing at grade crossing at Connemara Trail and Trunk Highway 3. The alternatives include an overpass and an underpass. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the report and felt neither of the alternatives provided an easily accessible route to cross Trunk Highway 3. The Commission also felt that the proposed options for crossing Trunk Highway 3 could create additional access issues in crossing Connemara Trail once pedestrians had crossed Trunk Highway 3. BACKGROUND In October of 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that WSB conduct a feasibility report for an above grade or below grade Pedestrian Crossing at Trunk Highway 3 near the Community Center. As part of the G1enRose Addition Development, the City required easements on the east side of Highway 3 to allow for the construction of an underpass if the City were to choose that location as the best possible spot for the underpass. The City does not have easements on the west side of Highway 3 on property owned by ISD 196. The City Council approved the contract with WSB in November of 2006. SUMMARY Staff would like for the City Council to review the feasibility report and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with the review of the project. I i May 15, 2007 I Trunl Highway No. � 3 (S60h",J? 0-: h; mt Frail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing' Improvements Prepared for ROSEMO NT City Project No 1NG 124 i W$p ProjectNo, 166847 i i ; P,r"epared by: WVA 701 XemaMenue soutb, Suite 300_ . Mmneaptilis,MN,5S416 763-341=480D ` Asso"azeS,17. FEASIBILITY REPORT TRUNK HIGHWAY 3 (SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL) GRADE -SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. ENG 124 FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA May 15, 2007 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763)541-4800 (763)541-1700 (Fax) City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk highway 3 (South Robert TraiO Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 May 15, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount 2875 — 145h Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 Re: Feasibility Report Trunk Highway No. 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Transmitted herewith for your review is a feasibility report that addresses two potential location alternates for grade -separated pedestrian crossing improvements across Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) and the associated construction alternates. We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please contact me at (763) 541-4800 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Morgan Dawley, PE Project Manager Attachment CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Morgan Dawley, PE Date: May 15, 2007 Lie. No. 44178 Quality Control Review Completed By: Charles T. Rickart, PE Date: May 15, 2007 Lie. No. 26082 City ofRosemount—Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSE Project No. 1668-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION ........................... 2.1 Authorization................................................................................................................6 2.2 Scope ............... .................................................................................... ..........................6 2.3 Data Available..............................................................................................................6 3. GENERAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................7 3.1 Project Location............................................................................................................7 3.2 Project Zoning...............................................................................................................7 3.3 Project History ............................................................................................7 3.4 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................7 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................................................10 4.1 Overpass Option..........................................................................................................10 4.1.1 Pedestrian Bridge Improvements...................................................................10 4.1.2 Associated Improvements..............................................................................13 4.1.3 Wetlands.........................................................................................................13 4.1.4 Right-of-Way/Easements...............................................................................13 4.1.5 Private Utilities.........................................................................I.....................13 4.1.6 Permits/Approvals..........................................................................................14 4.2 Underpass Option........................................................................................................ 4.2.1 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements.............................................................15 4.2.2 Associated Improvements..............................................................................16 4.2.3 Wetlands.........................................................................................................16 4.2.4 Right-of-Way/Easements...............................................................................16 4.2.5 Private Utilities...............................................................................................16 4.2.6 Permits/Approvals..........................................................................................17 5.1 Opinion of Cost...........................................................................................................18 is 5.2 Funding...................................................................................................................... 5.2.1 Federal SAFETEA-LU Funds........................................................................18 5.2.2 State Funds..............................................................................I......................19 5.2.3 Local Funds................................................................. ...................................19 5.3 Funding Summary.......................................................................................................19 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE.......................................................................................................21 7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION....................................................................22 City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk IBghway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk 1Pghway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendix A Figure 1— Site Location Figure 2 — Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities Figure 3 — Overpass Option Figure 4 — Underpass Option Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost — Overpass Option Opinion of Probable Cost — Underpass Option City of Rosemount —Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trait) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 121 WSB Project No. 1668-07 1. EXECUTTVE SUMMARY City Project No. ENG 124 is a determination of feasibility for construction of a new grade - separated pedestrian crossing of Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) in the City of Rosemount to be used by pedestrians and other non -motorized travelers in close proximity to the Rosemount High School. Trunk Highway 3 (TH 3) is a minor arterial roadway bisecting the city's downtown area, and high volumes of vehicular traffic provide a barrier to the natural progression of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling from east -west with trips having origins and destinations on either side of the road. With rapid residential development occurring on either side of TH 3, grade -separated crossings of TH 3 for non -motorized travelers can provide an increased level of safety by removing conflicts between vehicular traffic on TH 3 and the non -vehicular users attempting to cross. As part of this feasibility report two different grade -separated crossing options were evaluated, a pedestrian bridge over TH 3, and a box -culvert pedestrian underpass under TH 3. These options are labeled Overpass Option and Underpass Option. ■ The Overpass Option is proposed to be located just north of the intersection of TH 3 with Connemara Trail. This option includes the proposed construction of a single span prestressed concrete beam bridge over TH 3. Access to the bridge is proposed to be facilitated by a concrete ramp on the west side of TH 3 and a helical concrete ramp on the east side of TH 3. The Underpass Option is proposed to be located between the intersections of 1401' Street West and 142ad Street West with TH 3. This option includes the proposed construction of a precast concrete box culvert pedestrian underpass underneath TH 3. The Overpass Option is the recommended option given better integration with existing and proposed non -motorized transportation facilities, fewer conflicts with existing utilities that may cause construction -related problems and create the potential for project cost increases, smaller footprint of impact to surrounding land areas, as well as a reduced disruption of traffic and other miscellaneous construction -related inconveniences (noise, dust, etc.) to Rosemount residents and the traveling public. The total estimated project cost associated with the Overpass Option is $1,213,500. The project would be eligible for funding from a variety of sources, including federal and state funds, potentially covering 80 percent or more of the total project costs. The City of Rosemount is proposed to fund the balance not funded or not eligible for federal and state funding, through the Parks Improvement funds and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Amounts of City contributions to project costs cannot be estimated until all funding alternatives are identified, applied for, and awarded. For this reason, it is recommended that application for all applicable funding sources for the proposed project be authorized as soon as possible. City of Rosemount - Feasibility Report Trunk IZighway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing -Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 The project is proposed to be constructed no sooner than the 2008 construction season with substantial completion by fall of 2008, although timing of the availability of federal or other available funds may dictate the ultimate construction schedule. The project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and should be constructed as proposed herein. City of Rosmount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 2. IlVTRODUCTION 2.1 Authorization Following a recommendation on October 23, 2006 by the Rosemount Parks Commission, the Rosemount City Council authorized the preparation of this report at its regular City Council meeting on November 7, 2006. This project has been designated as City Project No. ENG 124. A project location map is shown in Figure I ofAppendixA. 2.2 Scope The City of Rosemount authorized WSB & Associates, Inc. to complete a feasibility report for grade -separated crossings of TH 3 at two locations. The project area and proposed locations are identified in Figure I of Appendix A. This report shall consist of the analysis of up to four options of grade -separated pedestrian crossing of TH 3 at either of two location alternates. The first location involves construction of a pedestrian overpass across TH 3 on the north side of the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail. The second location is construction of a box culvert underpass under TH 3 to connect the existing G1enRose Addition multi -family residential development with the Rosemount High School campus. The analysis of these options include horizontal and vertical alignments, easement and/or right -of way requirements, preliminary construction cost estimates of each feasible option, a discussion of potential funding sources, as well as identification of advantages and disadvantages of each option. The report contained herein presents the results of that analysis along with conclusions, recommendations, and costs associated with the work. 2.3 Data Available Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following: • City of Rosemount Utility Plans • City of Rosemount Record Plans • City of Rosemount Topography Maps • City of Rosemount 2006 Draft Transportation Plan • City of Rosemount Parks and Recreation Department Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Plan • Independent School District 196 Guidelines for Classifications and Services for Hazardous Crossings • Field Observations of the Area • Field Surveys of the area from previous projects • Private Utility Maps City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 3. GENERALBACKGROUND 3.1 Project Location Two project location alternates are included as part of this analysis, both providing for grade - separated crossing of TH 3 (South Robert Trail). Both locations are in close proximity to Connemara Trail, an east -west major collector with local jurisdiction, as well as with the Rosemount Elementary, Middle, and High Schools, all located between 142nd Street and 140 Streets, west of TH 3. The first location alternate, a potential site for a pedestrian bridge over TH 3, is situated just north of the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail. The second location option lies on TH 3 approximately 1;700 feet south of Connemara Trail and approximately 360 feet north of 142°d Street West, providing a prospective site for a box culvert underpass under TH 3. See Figure I inAppendix A for an illustration of the project location alternates. 3.2 Project Zoning The project area is zoned predominately as Public/Institutional, with some adjacent areas zoned as Low Density Residential and Moderate Density Residential. 3.3 Project History This project has been initiated by recommendation of the Rosemount Parks Commission in response to increased development and associated increases in vehicular and pedestrian traffic along the TH 3 and Connemara Trail corridors. As a minor north -south arterial, TH 3 serves as a barrier to pedestrians and other non -motorized traffic. Connemara Trail has been completed east from the City's western limit to Aubum Avenue, and future expansion to the east has been identified and is planned to occur along with future development, eventually providing a continuous connection with the eastern areas of Rosemount by way of 140d' Street. Auburn Avenue, as a minor collector, provides a connection from Connemara Trail south to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42, an east -west principal arterial for Dakota County. Vehicular traffic on Connemara Trail continues to increase as drivers are now choosing this route to bypass downtown Rosemount, and as it begins to act. Residential development has progressed at a rapid pace on both north and south of Connemara Trail, both east and west of TH 3 bringing both more vehicular traffic and more pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the area. 3.4 Existing Conditions Figure 2 inAppendix A illustrates the current existing and proposed pedestrian facilities in Rosemount, also serving bicyclists and other non -motorized travelers throughout -the City. Pedestrians and bicyclists traveling and commuting in the City of Rosemount are served by a system of 5 to 8-foot wide concrete sidewalks and 8 to 10-foot wide bituminous paths, serving a recreational as well as a mobility function. It is the general practice of Rosemount to include off - City ofRosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 road paved bike/pedestrian ways (dual facilities, one on either side of the roadway) on all new construction of collectors and arterials. As new areas develop and supporting roadways constructed, the network of pedestrian facilities will expand. Sites of significance in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area generating non - motorized traffic include Rosemount Elementary, Middle, and High Schools, all centrally located west of TH 3 between 142nd Street West and 145' Street West. Shannon Park Elementary is approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the project area, and generally serves neighborhoods west of the project area. Red Pine Elementary in Inver Grove Heights is approximately 2.3 miles northeast of the project area, although it does serve neighborhoods as far south as 145a' Street, both east and west of TH 3. Several athletic fields owned by the school district, the Rosemount Community Center, Ice Arena, and Irish Sports Dome lie to the north of the schools between 145"' Street and Connemara Trail. Additionally, several City parks are within a one -mile radius of the project area, including Brockway Park, Schwarz Pond Park, Erickson Park, and Central Park. As a major collector, Connemara Trail provides pedestrian facilities for east -west travelers from the western limits of the City to the roadways termini at the eastern edge of the Bloomfield Additions. Dual existing pedestrian facilities comprised of a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the north side and an 8-foot wide bituminous path on the south side exists along Connemara Trail for the majority of its length. TH 3 is a minor arterial roadway with high volumes of vehicular traffic that provides a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists traveling on Connemara Trail. An existing traffic signal at the intersection of Connemara Trail with TH 3 does allow pedestrian crossings of TH 3, but does not eliminate conflicts between vehicular traffic and non -motorized traffic. TH 3 is deficient in existing pedestrian facilities for north -south non -motorized travelers. There are no pedestrian facilities adjacent to TH 3 other than sidewalk in the downtown areas and an off -road path on the west side only that connects Rosemount High School with the Community Center and downtown. A path connection on the west side of TH 3 from the Community Center to Connemara Trail currently does not exist, but is proposed as a future improvement in the Park and Recreation Department's Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Plan. However, existing grades and available land do not provide an obvious alignment for this connection. More study will be necessary in the future to determine the feasibility and alternatives for potential alignments. Pedestrian facilities of regional significance identified by the City and Dakota County include the Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor. This is proposed to consist of a trail connection from downtown Rosemount to the Spring Lake Park Preserve, planned for construction within the next 10 years as development occurs. Trail corridor planning for the Interpretive Trail Corridor is preliminary and subject to change, however currently identified trail corridor opportunities in the project area examined for this feasibility report include Erickson Park and segments of Connemara Trail east of TH 3. Adjacent residential neighborhoods with public streets generally have sidewalks providing varying levels of interconnection with existing pedestrian facilities throughout the City. The GlenRose Addition, a multi -family development directly east of TH 3 across from City ofRosemount—Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB ProjectNo. 1668-07 recreational/athletic land utilized by the Rosemount High School, has internal private streets and limited adjacent 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks. A trail connection from the GlenRose sidewalks exists east to the Koch Trail located within Erickson and Central Parks; however, no direct sidewalk access to TH 3 was included as a part of the development plan. Other than at the traffic signals at Connemara Trail and downtown at 145th Street West, no additional marked pedestrian crossings of TH 3 exist in the project area. City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 119 WSB Project No. 1668-07 4. PROPOSED UYIPROVEMENTS Two different options for pedestrian crossings of TH 3 were evaluated, a pedestrian bridge (Overpass Option) and a box -culvert underpass (Underpass Option). Both provide for a grade - separated crossing of TH 3 to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non -motorized travelers. A detailed description of each option follows. 4.1 Overpass Option 4.1.1 Pedestrian Bridge Improvements Sited at the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail, the overpass option involves the construction of a single span, prestressed concrete beam pedestrian bridge over TH 3, north of Connemara Trail. Figure 3 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge. A single span length of approximately 115 feet with a clear deck width of 12 feet is necessary to convey pedestrians and non -motorized traffic across TH 3 at a separated grade. Minimum vertical clearance under the bridge is 17.3 feet. Line of sight for southbound vehicular traffic approaching the intersection was compared with a preliminary proposed location for the bridge to examine visibility of the traffic signal. As proposed, the preliminary location for the bridge does not obstruct the traffic signal for southbound traffic and appears to provide adequate stopping sight distance for traffic on TH 3 (stopping sight distance is the length required for a driver traveling the speed limit to react to a condition requiring a stop and bring the vehicle to a complete stop). The exact location and height of the structure will be determined during final design and, if necessary, could be raised to increase sight distance of the traffic signal for approaching motorists. Access to the bridge span from the west is proposed as a cast -in -place concrete ramp structure approximately 205 feet in length and alternating between 30-foot sections of 8.3% grade and 5-foot level landing sections to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Standards for Accessible Design. Because the natural profile grade of Connemara Trail slopes away from the intersection to the east, a straight ramp structure would need to be very long to meet ADA standards and would therefore be cost prohibitive. As a cost-efficient alternative, a cast -in -place concrete helical ramp on the east side of the bridge is proposed for this option to convey pedestrians between the bridge span and existing grade. Photographs of examples of similar applications of helical ramps are included in this report on the following pages. The south side of Connemara Trail was considered as an alternate location for the pedestrian bridge. Existing topography and grades, land acquisition impacts, and proximity to the Rosemount Lutheran Cemetery all preclude the south side of Connemara Trail as a feasible location for a pedestrian overpass. City of Rosemunt — Feasibility Report Trunk IRghway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 City of Rosemount —Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project Na ENG 124 WSR Project No. 1668-07 Overpass Overpass P City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 Blaine, MN apids, MN 4.1.2 Associated Improvements An additional construction item associated with this option includes improvements to pedestrian facilities on the ground adjacent to the proposed overpass. To meet system continuity requirements for federal funding on this option, bituminous pathway would be constructed extending to logical termini (Dodd Boulevard to west, Brockway Avenue to east), replacing existing concrete sidewalk and providing additional width for two-way shared pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 4.1.3 Wetlands There are no noted wetlands per the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan within the proposed project area for the Overpass Option. 4.1.4 Right-of-Way/Easements The Overpass Option is anticipated to require permanent trail/sidewalk easements and temporary construction easements over two parcels: Rosemount Family Housing, west of TH 3 and owned by Dakota County Community Development Agency, and a portion of Brockway Park east of TH 3, owned by the City of Rosemount. A preliminary estimation of easement acquisition needs for the Overpass Option indicates approximately 18,100 square feet (0.42 acres) of permanent easement is required, 12,500 square feet (0.29 acres) of which is in Brockway Park and already owned by the City of Rosemount. Land values vary greatly and are dependent on several factors such as use, zoning, market prices, and previously recorded encumbrances. For this reason, the areas, rather than estimated values, of anticipated easements are presented for comparison of the two options. A more accurate figure for construction easement areas required will be determined during the final design phase of the project. 4.1.5 Private Utilities According to the Gopher State One Call, private utilities with local service lines in the area include: • City of Rosemount • Minnesota Energy Resources (MERC) • Fiber to the Home (FTTH) • Koch Pipeline • Magellan Midstream Partners (pipeline) • Dakota Electric Association • Frontier Communications • Xcel Energy • Charter Communications • Sprint Long Distance All utilities in the project area for the Overpass Option that could potentially be in conflict with the proposed improvements are anticipated to exist by permit within either City of Rosemount — FeasibilityReport Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 Mn/DOT or City of Rosemount right-of-way, and therefore no relocation costs are anticipated should relocations be necessary. Because excavation for the Overpass Option is limited to bridge pier footings and ramp supports, conflicts with underground utilities are anticipated to be minimal. An overhead power feed across TH 3 to the traffic signal cabinet does exist, but relocation to accommodate the proposed pedestrian bridge appears feasible with minimal difficulty or impacts. 4.1.6 Permits/Approvals The anticipated permits and approvals are required for the Overpass Option and the respective regulatory agencies are listed below: • Minnesota Department of Transportation ........ Utility Permit on Trunk Highway ROW • Minnesota Department of Transportation .............. Work Within Trunk Highway ROW • MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) ........ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN R100001) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ...Project Memorandum — dependent upon funding approval City ojRosemount— Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 4.2 Underpass Option 4.2.1 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements Approximately 1,700 feet south of the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail, a box culvert pedestrian underpass was evaluated as a second option for a grade -separated crossing of TH 3. Figure 4 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed underpass improvements for this option. The box culvert underpass is proposed to be constructed of precast concrete sections with inside dimensions of 14-feet wide by 10-feet high. The location as proposed would connect the Rosemount High School with the GlenRose of Rosemount multi -family neighborhood, and was chosen based on existing grades and availability of connecting pedestrian facilities within G1enRose. A secondary site approximately 250 feet to the north was also examined. Grades at the secondary site were acceptable; however, construction of new sidewalk to connect with this location conflicted with long areas of retaining wall, maintained lawn drainage ways, and crossed several short driveways. The topography and grades of the land on either side of TH 3 necessitates a relatively shallow configuration of the underpass in relation to the TH 3 roadway. For this option, and for all underpasses constructed underneath roadways with less than 2 feet of cover over the box section, a concrete slab to distribute loading from traffic on the roadway above is required. The topography on the west of TH 3 is not low enough and would require a large area of excavation to blend the elevations of the surrounding areas gradually with the elevation at the entrance of the underpass. To minimize this excavation area, headwalls at the underpass entrance and retaining walls to the north and south are proposed as a part of this alternative. However, despite retaining wall installation, it is still anticipated that at least one large sentinel oak tree (approximately 50" trunk diameter) would need to be removed and some of the eastern -most areas of the Rosemount High School track and field facilities (shot put/discus cages) would require relocation or reconfiguration to accommodate realignment of the trail and grading necessary to connect the trail with the underpass entrance. A modular block retaining wall within the G1enRose neighborhood exists adjacent to TH 3 that would be penetrated by the underpass construction and reconstructed to the north and south following installation of the box culvert. To construct a box culvert underpass as proposed with minimal cover, open -cut installation will be necessary. In order to maintain traffic on TH 3, a temporary bypass road will need to be constructed on the west side of TH 3. This temporary road will provide a route for traffic around the trench excavation required to install the box culvert sections and allow construction to occur with minimal disruption to traffic on TH 3. Following installation of the underpass and replacement of the road section over the box culvert, the temporary road would be removed and the area west of TH 3 would be finish graded. City ofRosemount—Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 4.2.2 Associated Improvements On the east side of TH 3, no sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities within the GlenRose development extend to a point accessing the proposed underpass location. Construction of approximately 100 linear feet of 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is necessary to facilitate this access to the underpass east of TH 3. Adjacent to the west side of TH 3, an existing 12-inch watermain is in conflict with the proposed underpass location. Relocation of this watermain is proposed and included as a part of this alternative to remove the physical conflict, as well as to provide access for future maintenance. 4.2.3 Wetlands A wetland with Manage 2 classification (Wetland 581) exists within the GlenRose Addition multi -family residential development east of TH 3, as identified in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Although the identified wetland lies within the general project area, no proposed improvements as a part of the Underpass Option are anticipated to adversely affect Wetland 581 and therefore no wetland impacts are expected. 4.2.4 Right-of-Way/Easements The Underpass Option is anticipated to require permanent trail/sidewalk easements and temporary construction easements over two parcels: Rosemount High School, west of TH 3 and owned by Independent School District 196, and portions of GlenRose Addition east of TH 3, owned by GlenRose Investments, LLC. A preliminary estimation of easement acquisition needs for the Underpass Option indicates approximately 37,200 square feet (0.85 acres) of permanent easement is required, 36,500 square feet (0.84 acres) of which is part of the Rosemount High School. Within the GlenRose Addition existing permanent drainage and utility easements exist, however the street system is privately maintained by the homeowner's association and there are no permanent trail or sidewalk easements within the development. A lack of permanent easement over an area necessary to connect the proposed Underpass Option to the Koch Trail to the east may require acquisition of easements over the other existing sidewalks and paths within GlenRose. Additional permanent utility easement will be required for watermain relocation on the Rosemount Independent High School property. A more accurate determination of construction easement areas required will be conducted during the final design phase of the project. 4.2.5 Private Utilities Private utilities in the vicinity that would require relocation or design consideration include fiber optic lines, telephone communication lines, and gas lines. For the Underpass Option, the very nature of the type of installation of the box culvert creates a need for major coordination with private utilities to determine relocation requirements City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Kghway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSE Project No.1668-07 and to manage necessary relocations for minimal disruption of service and for timing with underpass construction. Private utility companies who are not within their own easement are responsible for the costs to relocate utilities serving local residents, however, transmission lines or utilities within their own easement have a cost associated with them for relocation. According to the Gopher State One Call, private utilities with local service lines in the area include: • City of Rosemount • Minnesota Energy Resources (MERC) • Frontier Communications • Xcel Energy • Charter Communications • Sprint Long Distance • Independent School Fiber Optic Placement Overhead transmission lines are located along the west side of Trunk Highway No. 3, but span the proposed underpass location and so are not anticipated to be in conflict. 4.2.6 Permits/Approvals The anticipated permits and approvals are required for the Underpass Option and the respective regulatory agencies are listed below: • Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).................................... Water Main Lowering • Minnesota Department of Transportation ........ Utility Permit on Trunk Highway ROW • Minnesota Department of Transportation..............Work Within Trunk Highway ROW • MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) ........ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN R100001) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ...Project Memorandum — dependent upon funding approval City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 5. FINANCING 5.1 Opinion of Cost Detailed opinions of cost can be found in Appendix B of this report. The opinions incorporate estimated 2007 construction costs and include a 15% contingency and 25% for all related indirect costs (legal, administrative, engineering, and financing items). Table 1: OVERPASS OPTION Surnmag of Costs Schedule A — Ove ass Option $869,767.50 15%Contingencies $130,465.00 SUBTOTAL $1,000,232.50 25% Indirect Costs $250,060.00 TOTAL $1,250,290.00 Table 2: UNDERPASS OPTION Surnmag of Costs Schedule B — Underpass Option $677,155.00 15%Contingencies $101,573.00 SUBTOTAL $778,728.00 25% Indirect Costs $194,680.00 TOTAL $973,410.00 As previously mentioned, it is anticipated that land acquisition will need to occur in order to construct either option as proposed. The cost of permanent easement varies based on location, existing property use, and the amount of land area being obtained per property. As such, the cost of easements has not been included in these cost estimates. However, based on the fact that the estimated area of easements necessary for the Overpass Option are approximately half of the area estimated required for construction of the Underpass Option, it is reasonable to anticipate that land acquisition costs will be higher to construct the Underpass Option. 5.2 Funding Financing for this project is proposed to come from a combination of potential sources including Federal SAFETEA-LU Transportation Project Funding (Surface Transportation Program Funds, Transportation Enhancement Funds, and/or Safe Routes to School Funds), Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement Funds, City Parks Improvements Funds, and City Street CIP funds. 5.2.1 Federal SAFETEA-LUFunds The recommended Overpass Option is anticipated to be eligible to receive federal project funding as a bikeway/walkway under either the Surface Transportation Program (STP) or Transportation Enhancements Program (TE) of Title I of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Through a City of Rosemount— Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 competitive selection process, funds are available up to 80% of the project cost, with a 20% cost local funding match requirement. Applications for STP and TE funding are to be completed by July 20, 2007, for a determination on authorization for funding in the years 2011 and 2012. If the project is approved in the selection process, federal funding would potentially contribute up to $1,000,232.00 (80%) with a local match of $250,058.00 (20%). The selection process is somewhat less stringent for Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding, however funding is capped at $1,000,000.00 per project. An additional requirement of the use of federal funds is the preparation of a Project Memorandum that documents the proposed improvements the impacts, if any, anticipated to be a part of the project. Another potential funding source, and a separate category of federal funding also a part of SAFETEA-LU, is the Safe Routes to School Program. Up to $175,000.00 per project is available, again selected using a competitive application process. Selection and administration of the funding is conducted by Mn/DOT. Safe Routes to School funding does not require matching local funds; however, one federal funding source, such as Safe Routes to School funds, cannot be used as the 20% match required for other federal funding. 5.2.2 State Funds Alternatives to federal funding for the proposed project include Mn/DOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement funds or Municipal State Aid funds. Cooperative Agreement project funding is by competitive selection process. Municipal State Aid funds can be used for projects on or adjacent to the defined Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) of streets. Connemara Trail is part of Rosemount's MSAS street system, and therefore it is anticipated that State Aid funding would be available for the recommended Overpass Option. Furthermore, State Aid funding is eligible to be used toward the 20% local match required if federal funding is secured for the proposed project. 5.2.3 Local Funds Local funding is proposed to be from one or both of two sources: Parks Improvement funds and Street Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds. Parks Improvement funds availability would be determined by the Parks Commission. The City's Street CIP fund is responsible for funding portions of the costs associated with upgrading and maintaining City streets and surface infrastructure. 5.3 Funding Summary Financing for this project is greatly dependent on availability and award of federal funding that could contribute up to 80 percent of the project cost. The type and scope of proposed project and recommended option as a bikeway/walkway safety improvement lends itself to federal funding and it is the recommendation of this report that these funding sources be pursued. More detailed City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Kghway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No.1668-07 cost distributions and calculations can be prepared once determinations on funding sources and availability have been made. Additional cost calculations are located in Appendix B. City of Rosenzount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE It is proposed that construction of one of these two options could take place in 2008 with substantial completion by the fall of 2008; however, the project may be delayed if funds are not available. As previously stated, if federal funds are awarded during the 2007 solicitation, these funds would be available for the years 2011 and 2012. Assuming federal funding is authorized, the proposed project schedule for these improvements is as follows: City Council Receives Feasibility Report .................................................................. May 15, 2007 City Council Authorizes Start of Search for Funding Sources ................................... May 15, 2007 City Council Authorizes Start of Construction Plans and Preparation of Project Memorandum ................................. August 2010 (funding dependent) City Council Receives Plans and Authorizes Placement of Ad for Bid....... OpenBids ......................................................... City Council Awards Bids .................. Construction ........................................ City of Rosemount —Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 ...February 2011 (funding dependent) April 2011 (funding dependent) ........... April 2011 (funding dependent) .......April 2011 —November 2011 (funding dependent) 7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION City Project No. ENG 124 consists of the construction of a grade -separated pedestrian crossing of TH 3 (South Robert Trail) and appurtenant work. While two main options are examined in this report for feasibility, only one is necessary to provide a safety improvement for non - motorized users. The Overpass Option is recommended given better integration with the City's existing and planned pedestrian facilities network, better access based on location, less disruption of existing traffic along TH 3, fewer conflicts with existing public and private utilities, lower land acquisition impacts including no impact to land owned by the school district, and lower anticipated construction -related impacts and inconveniences (construction noise, dust, etc.) to Rosemount residents and the traveling public. The total estimated cost, in 2007 dollars, of the TH 3 pedestrian overpass improvements is $1,250,290, of which up to 80 percent is proposed to be funded by federal transportation grant funds. It is the additional recommendation of this report that authorization of a search for funding sources for the proposed improvements be made in May 2007. Remaining project costs are to be provided by a combination of Mn/DOT State Aid funds, City Parks Improvement funds, and City Street CIP funds. This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering viewpoint. We recommend completion of the grade -separated crossing of TH 3, using the preferred option of a pedestrian bridge, as outlined in this report. City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert TraiO Grade -Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. I668-07 APPENDIX A Figure 1— Site Location Figure 2 — Pedestrian Facilities Figure 3 — Overpass Option —Proposed Improvements Figure 4 — Proposed Underpass Improvements City of Rosemount —Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) GradeSeparatedPedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 OVERPASS OPTION UNDERPASS OPTION - TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 3 701Xw a Avenue South, Suite 300 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WSB 16 Mlnnea Mbeng.com SITE LOCATION & �= ROSEMOUNT 76 W48W-Fu7Gs511.1100 ... NFRABTRUCNFE r ENGNEENG i-PLANNING.. CCNSTRIICTIDN MINN ESOTA t. Figure Number r:T1668-071Cad\ExhlbltsTIG_01.dwg, Layoutt, 4/17/2007 10:58:43 AM F 0 z z W M� Z z �o mU wz s 0 w ow w Ma 0 z� a S20 =w YO z Sa F z J a LU CO z O H a O U) Q W O Y 0 IL 19 Ei ' ' ►I I M., Opinion of Probable Cost City of Rosemount —Feasibility Report Trunk Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) Grad,Separated Pedestrian Crossing Improvements City Project No. ENG 124 WSB Project No. 1668-07 OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 3 (SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL) PROJECT NO. 1722-00 ROSEMOUNT, MN 4/17/2007 City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Estimated Estimated No. Mat. No. Item Units City I I Unit Price Total Price SCHEDULE A - OVERPASS OPTION 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $17,050.00 $17,050.00 2 2100.601 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, PRESTRESSED BEAM MAIN SPAN LUMP SUM 1 $255,500.00 $255,5b0.00 3 2100.601 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, WEST RAMP LUMP SUM 1 $41,500.00 $41,500.00 4 2100.601 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, EAST RAMP- HELICAL LUMP SUM 1 $473,550.00 $473,550.00 5 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 8 $250.00 $2,000.00 6 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 8 $250.00 $2,000.00 7 2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL -PERMANENT SO FT 360 $3.00 $1,080.00 8 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SO FT 9700 $3.00 $29,100.00 9 2104.523 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 2 $150.00 $300.00 10 2521.511 2" BITUMINOUS WALK SO FT 16850 $1.25 $21,062.50 11 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $20,D00.00 $20,000.00 12 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY (ORANGE) LIN FT 500 $5.00 $2,500.00 13 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 0.5 $1,000.00 $500.00 14 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN (INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT.) SQYD 700 $3.75 $2,625.00 15 2104.601 CLEAN UP LUMP SUM 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A - OVERPASS AT CONNEMARA TRAIL $869,767.50 + 16% CONTINGENCIES $130,465.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A - OVERPASS AT CONNEMARA TRAIL $1,000,232.50 + 25% ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL, ETC. $250,060.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A - OVERPASS AT CONNEMARA TRAIL $1,250,290.00 K:\01668-07Wdmin\Feasibility\Feas_QtyJdhOver 1 of OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF TRUNK HIGHWAY NO.3 (SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL) PROJECT NO. 1722-00 ROSEMOUNT, MN 4/17/2007 City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West ♦ �f�.l SCI�i:9 No. Mat. No. Item Units qty Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price SCHEDULE B - UNDERPASS OPTION 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $13,28U.00 $13,28u.uu 2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 2 $400.00 $800.00 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 2 $400.00 $800.00 4 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 80 $5.00 $400.00 5 21 D4.503 REMOVE RETAINING WALL SO FT 210 $11.50 $2,415.00 6 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SO FT 2910 $1.00 $2,910.00 7 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SO YD 580 $5.00 $2,900.00 B 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 150 $5.00 $750.00 9 2104.521 SALVAGE GUARD RAIL LIN FT .50 $20.00 $1,000.00 10 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 2200 $12.50 $27,500,00 11 2105.601 TEMPORARY ROAD LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 12 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 OR CLASS 7 TON 370 $15.00 $5,550.00 13 2350.501 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 10 $80.00 $800.D0 14 2350.501 TYPE HV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 75 $90.00 $6,750.00 15 2350.502 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (13) TON 10 $75.00 $750.00 16 2350,502 TYPE MV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 225 - $80.D0 $18,000.00 17 2411.604 CONCRETE DISTRIBUTION SLAB BY 270 $75.00 $20,250.00 18 2411.618 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SO FT 1200 $60.D0 $72,000.00 19 2412.511 14 X 10 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT LF 200 $1,D00.00 $200,D00.00 20 2412,512 14 X 10 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT END SECTION EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 21 2415.601 CONCRETE BOX CULVERT HEADWALL LUMP SUM 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 22 2451.507 GRANULAR BEDDING CU YD 300 $30.00 $9,000.00 23 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT 310 $40.00 $12,400.00 24 25D4.601 LOWER WATERNIAIN LUMP SUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 25 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT 15 $200.00 $3,000.00 26 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G EACH 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 27 2506,516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 28 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 1 $300.00 $300.00 29 2506.6D2 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 2 $1,250.00 $2,500,00 30 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SO FT 1125 $4.00 $4,500.00 31 2521.511 2" BITUMINOUS WALK SO FT 4400 $1.25 $5,500.00 32 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 9618 LIN FT 80 $20.00 $1,600.00 33 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SO FT 40 $50.00 $2,000.00 KA01668-071Admin\Feasibility\Feas_Qtyjdh 2 of 3 No. Mat. No. Item Units Qty Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price SCHEDULE B - UNDERPASS OPTION 34 2540.618 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SQ FT 100 $50.00 $5,uu0.uu 35 2545.501 ELECTRIC LIGHT SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 $6,500.b0 $6,500.00 36 2545.5D9 CONDUIT SYSTEM (LIGHTING) LUMP SUM 1 $1,250.00 $1,25D.00 37 2554.603 INSTALL GUARD RAIL LIN FT 50 $20.00 $1,000.00 38 2557.603 FENCE DESIGN SPECIAL LIN FT 160 $50.00 $8,000.00 39 2563.6D1 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 40 2564.6D3 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY LIN FT 100 $0.50 $50.00 41 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LIN FT 100 $0.50 $50.00 42 2564.603 4" BROKEN LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LIN FT 100 $0.50 $50.00 43 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY (ORANGE) LIN FT 100 $4.00 $400.00 44 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 45 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN (INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT.) SQ YD 1500 $4.00 $6,000.00 46 2104.601 CLEAN UP LUMP SUM 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B - UNDERPASS AT HIGH SCHOOL $677,155.00 + 15% CONTINGENCIES $101,573.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B - UNDERPASS AT HIGH SCHOOL $778,728.00 + 25% ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL, ETC. $194,680.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE B - UNDERPASS AT HIGH SCHOOL $973,410.00 K:\01668-07\Admin\Feasibility\Feas_Qtyjdh 3 of 3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 25, 2007 APPROVED Members Present: Maureen Bartz, Jason Eisold, Sandy Knight, Kevin Strayton Members Absent: Mike Eliason Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary Student Volunteer: JonathanNutzman Others Present: Morgan Dawley, City Engineer 1. CALL TO ORDER: MOTION by Bartz to call the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. SECOND by Eisold. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion passed. APPOINT NEW VICE CHAIR: Commissioner Mark Jacobs was the Vice Chair until his resignation in March of 2007, and anew Vice Chair is needed to replace Jacobs. MOTION by Bartz to appoint Eisold as the Vice Chair. SECOND by Knight. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Schultz will review concept plans for the athletic complex during the Director's Report. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 21, 2007 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Bartz to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2007 meeting. SECOND by Strayton. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None. 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Hwy 3 Pedestrian Crossing — Schultz was bringing this item back for further discussion and Morgan Dawley, City Engineer, was in attendance to answer questions and provide more information to the Commission. At last month's meeting, the Commission questioned the safety of crossing Connemara Trail if an overpass was built across Hwy. 3, and asked for safe options for crossing Connemara Trail. An aerial photo of this area was reviewed. Various options for getting people from the north end of Rosemount to downtown Rosemount and across Hwy. 3 were discussed. Current and proposed trails, the overpass and the underpass (from the Glen Rose development to ISD 196 property) were reviewed on the map. The Commission felt that pedestrians might cross Hwy. 3 without using the overpass, or if they use it, they would jaywalk at the end of the ramp to cross Connemara Trail for convenience. Bartz informed the Commission that only one side of the Connemara Trail/Hwy 3 intersection is controlled for crossing by pedestrians and there is no crosswalk to go north on the east side of the road. After further discussion, the Commission concluded that spending $1,000,000 for the overpass was not the best use of funds. They also thought that people would probably continue to cross Hwy 3 without using the overpass. The Commission thought that adding pedestrian controls to all sides of the Connemara Trail/Hwy. 3 intersection to make it a fully functional, four-way crossing like Co. Rd. 42 and Shannon Pky. would make this intersection much safer and would be a more economical use of funds than an overpass. Painted pedestrian crosswalks with pedestrian crossing signs would make drivers aware that they should look for pedestrians. The Commission was concerned that the intersection at Hwy. 3/142-d St. W. (used by high school students) is more dangerous than the Connemara Trail/Hwy 3 intersection. They felt that a trail connection from the north to 142-d St. W. and the installation of a light at the intersection of 142^d St. W./Hwy. 3 should be looked into. They thought this would be more useful than an underpass. Schultz will take the minutes from tonight's meeting with the issues that were discussed to the City Administrator. These issues will be brought to the City Council for consideration during their work session. This discussion will also be considered when we update the parks master plan. - 1 - PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 25, 2007 b. Brockway Park - Planning — Schultz reviewed the Brockway park plan and pointed out that some of the amenities appear to be crowded. Making the basketball court a half court and moving it next to the tennis courts, or possibly relocating the tennis courts to another park were suggestions to alleviate the crowding. Schultz felt that we could keep the tennis courts and shelter if we changed the basketball court to a half court and he asked if the Commission would support this change. There was discussion about various amenities at the park including tennis courts, ball fields (Strayton suggested moving them back from the road), and also parking. Schultz will have the designer review the plan and will bring this item back to a future meeting. 7. NEW BUSINESS: St. Joseph's Task Force Representative - Kelly Sampo, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, was the St. Joseph's task force representative until her term on the Commission ended in March. Schultz asked the current Commissioners if one of them would volunteer to take Sampo's place on the task force. Bartz volunteered to represent the Commission. MOTION by Knight to appoint Bartz to the St. Joseph's task force. SECOND by Strayton. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. b. 2008 Cl P Budget — Schultz has been working on the 2008 CIP budget over the last month and reviewed the items to be included: Master Planning for New Neighborhood Parks - $8,000 (if there are no new developments, this money will not be used); Construction of the Outdoor Recreation Complex - $5,000,000 (this amount may change as the project develops); Improvements to Erickson Park - $100,000; Trail Improvements - $50,000; Painting the Ceiling in the Arena - $90,000; Construction of Brockway Park - $500,000; Construction of Parking Lot for Disc Golf Course - $30,000; Miscellaneous Park Projects - $15,000. Schultz noted that amounts listed for these projects are only estimates. The Public Works Department will be coordinating the replacement of the parking lot at Schwarz Pond Park, the siding on the shelter at Jaycee Park and the hockey rink boards at Jaycee Park. Other possible projects include expansion of the skate park, paving of the Jaycee Park hockey rink, a new sun shelter and permanent restrooms at Schwarz Pond Park, purchase of the triangle piece of property, and participation in the Dakota County Technical College outdoor soccer complex project and the ISD 917 ball field project. Schultz asked the Commission if they had anything to add. Strayton asked that a shelter at Bloomfield Park be added to the budget. Knight asked about the alternatives to the triangle piece of property that the Commission had discussed, such as looking for a larger piece of property further to the east. Per Schultz, this will be discussed as part of the parks master plan. The first budget meeting will be held on June 26 and this item will be brought back to the Commission. c. Director's Report —The park improvement fund balance as of May 31, 2007 was $2,128,275.78. No parks dedication fees, grants or donations were received. Interest for May was $5,242.09. There were expenditures of $19,692.20 for players' benches at Meadows Park, planning for Brockway Park, the parks master plan update, and survey and closing costs for the Outdoor Recreation Complex. ISD 917 Site Plan Review — Schultz reviewed a location map of the site. It is not a subdivision so no parks dedication will be collected. They will be tearing down a building on this site and building a new school. There may be opportunities to partner with ISD 917 for gym use and possibly use of a baseball field. We will look into the possibility of partnering with them as the project progresses. Ryan Companies Preliminary Plat — Ryan Companies has submitted a preliminary plat for a business park development. Schultz reviewed a map of the site. Cash dedication in the amount of $357,000 will be collected in lieu of land. This project will be going to the Planning Commission on June 26. Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Update — I IKgi has asked the Commission to fill out a survey as part of the information gathering process for the master plan. A survey was included in each -2- PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 25, 2007 Commissioner's packet. Schultz asked that they be returned as soon as possible. The Commission asked if Schultz could e-mail the survey to them. Schultz will do this. Naturally Rosemount — City staff have been working with Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) landscape and horticultural students to create several `natural planting' areas in Rosemount. They have created designs for an area along Brazil Avenue, for a rainwater garden in Schwarz Pond Park which will slow down erosion, and for a native planting area near the skate park at Schwarz Pond Park. DCTC students provided concept plans for each of these projects. Per Schultz, this item will be brought back to a future meeting. We will be completing the rainwater garden this week, and the other two projects in the fall. The City will be applying for grants for the native planting area project. Preliminary Concept Plans for the Outdoor Recreation Complex — Schultz handed out three concept drawings for the complex and reviewed each of them. Concept #3 provided the most use options and parking. The Commission discussed a number of issues including the following: the best placement of fields, concession buildings, and playground areas (playground areas should be located near parking lots and restrooms and away from the outfields, possibly moving them near the soccer fields); that restrooms should be included on the plans; the need for maintenance buildings; the importance of having adequate, well - designed parking lots with more than one entrance/exit; and the possibility of street parking. Knight noted that Concept #3 included a boulevard in the parking lot that would eliminate a number of much needed parking spaces, and she asked about the possibility of adding parking lots to this plan that curve around the fields to provide as much parking as possible. Eisold asked about access via trails for those biking to the complex. Schultz will be collecting as much information from user groups as possible, including their specific needs, number of participants, demographics, demand for fields, a baseline for the number of fields in the community, three to five year data, expected trends, etc., and will bring this information back to the Commission. Schultz would like to have a Parks and Recreation Commission work session and invite the public and the stake holders/user groups to attend to discuss the concept plans. Strayton suggested that the Commission should have a work session first in order to get a firm idea of the needs for the complex and a more complete design before meeting with the public. The Commission agreed to meet on Monday, July 9 at 6:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. Schultz will e-mail the location information to the Commissioners tomorrow. Veterans' Memorial - Schultz had a visit from a person interested in moving forward with the veterans' memorial project. If time permits, Schultz will invite some of the individuals who are trying to get this project going to attend the July Commission meeting. Schultz has told them that we want this project to be well done and in the best location possible. Muscatine, IA Soccer/Baseball Complex - Knight handed out a brochure from a soccer tournament she recently attended in Muscatine, IA. The fields at the complex were the nicest she had ever seen. While she was there, she talked with engineers, groundskeepers, and the Parks and Recreation Director, and also took many photos. The brochure included a map of the soccer/baseball complex, and Knight explained how the fields are laid out, and pointed out the paved paths between fields which provide great access to all of the fields for those walking and in wheel chairs. People did not cut across the grass, they used the paths. The fields are domed and engineered with excellent drainage systems. The complex was completely privately funded by area industries, with naming rights for those who donated money. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Bartz to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Knight. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary -3- 4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Brazil Avenue Improvements AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director AGENDA NO. �� ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Trail Alignment APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, discussion only. ISSUE In June of 2007, the City Council approved a contract with WSB Engineering to design a trail connection from the north end of the Flint Hills (Koch) Trail in Central Park connecting to Connemara Trail just east of the Rosemount Woods neighborhood. This proposed connection would fill a missing link in the early portion of the Interpretive Trail Corridor. During the process of designing the trail, WSB identified a few areas where the City would need to acquire trail easements to build the trail along the east of the Rosemount Woods neighborhood. The only way to build the trail without getting easements is to reconstruct Brazil Avenue and shift the road to the east. Design standards for pedestrian facilities adjacent to roadways allow for trails to be located closer to roadways with curb and gutter, thus allowing for less overall width of a combined roadway and trail section within existing right-of-way. Before moving forward with the trail project, staff would like to discuss possible improvements to Brazil Avenue. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City received a $50,000 grant from the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) Committee to build an interpretive trail associated with the Mississippi River. The grant monies are held by a third party (MPCA) until the City requests reimbursement for funds spent towards a project. The funds received are to be used toward the design and possibly the construction of the trail. The City contracted with Friends of the Mississippi River and HKgi to work with staff to develop the Interpretive Corridor Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the final draft of the plan on December 23, 2005 and recommended sending the plan on to the City Council for the final review and adoption. In 2006, the City Council approved a corridor that creates a scenic and educational trail connection, known as the Interpretive Trail Corridor, from downtown Rosemount to the Mississippi River/Spring Lake Regional Park. The Corridor concept plan consists of multiple stop -off locations and interpretive sites along the trail corridor. The first goal of this project is to provide a pedestrian connection from the heart of Rosemount to the Nississippi River/Spring Lake Regional Park and a future Regional Trail connection. Second, we would like to provide interpretive and educational opportunities for trail users by creating stop -off areas along the trail. Third, we are identifying opportunities for the preservation and restoration of natural resources along the trail to benefit the environment and make it a more enjoyable area to bike, walk, run or roller blade. The trail will mainly be constructed as development occurs. Staff predicts that we would most likely start developing the trail from west to east. In areas that have already been developed, we will work to build the trail where space allows or through acquiring new trail easements. SUMMARY Staff believes that Brazil Avenue will be some day need to be improved. To address the trail location issues and future improvements at Erickson Park, staff feels we should consider preparing plans for the design of the road and how future improvements would relate. Staff would like to have the City Council discuss if they have an interest in having Brazil Avenue improved. 2 !$ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Akron Avenue Trunk Sanitary Sewer AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, City Engineer 0/1 AGENDA NO. a D ATTACHMENTS: Maps APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion BACKGROUND As part of the North Central Sewer Study, the extension of a trunk sanitary sewer line from the MCES interceptor was identified to be extended north through the Arcon property located west of Akron Avenue to serve these properties and properties located to the north including the McMenomy property. At the time the North Central Sewer Study was completed, there was no residential development identified in the city's Comprehensive Guide Plan east of Akron Avenue. With the recent amendment to the city's Comprehensive Guide Plan for residential development east of Akron Avenue, there is more flexibility for the location of this trunk sanitary sewer line. At this time, staff is proposing to review the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer line near Akron Avenue to Bonaire Path, independent of the proposed Arcon development. The extension of this line will provide sewer service to the Outdoor Recreational Complex site as well as accommodating sewer availability to properties north of the railroad tracks. As this sewer extension would be a trunk improvement, costs associated with the project would be funded by the city's Sewer Core Fund. Should Council support this proposal, staff would request Council authorization to prepare a feasibility report at a future regular council meeting. G:\ENGPRGI\.Akron Ace Trunk fiercer\AkronTk:S rCWS9-12-07.doc Proposed Trunk Sanitary 4ROSEMOUNT Sewer Extension —Existing Trunk Sanitary Sewer SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS McMenemy Development Minea Development Arcon Development r ------ Z---- JFeet 0 5 0 1,000 DRIP Chadwick Development Proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer Location i 4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Liquor Ordinance Update AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Kim Lindquist, Community Development AGENDA NO. Director 4 ATTACHMENTS: Freedom to Breathe Fact Sheet APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only ISSUE The Freedom to Breathe (" FTB') provisions were signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty on May 17, 2007. The provisions were put into place to protect employees and the public from the health hazards of second hand smoke. Effective October 1, 2007, the law is silent regarding outdoor areas, meaning that the law does not prohibit smoking in outdoor areas regardless of the distance from building openings. Property owners may choose to create restrictions concerning smoking areas outside their establishments on their property. Additionally, local governments can provide regulations either for guidance or to be more restrictive than State law relating to the outdoor areas. With the change in the smoking regulations, it is anticipated that liquor license holders will inquire about adding a patio or deck to their premises. Depending upon which zoning district the establishment is located in, an outdoor patio is either an accessory or conditional use. If considered a conditional use, the Planning Commission and City Council will need to formally approve the change. The serving of alcohol or allowing it to be consumed outside the premises is another issue. It is possible under Minnesota law but the license holder must apply for an amendment to their on -sale liquor license and the new area must describe exactly where alcohol will be consumed and/or served. If the city approves an amended liquor license, it must be filed with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Alcohol and Gambling division. The only liquor establishments in the city that have patios are McDivot's and Rudy's Redeye Grill. Should any license holder request an amendment, the fee for the amendment is $175.00. Staff is also considering whether the patio is considered a special use and if a conditional use permit will be required. BACKGROUND Staff is requesting that conditions for the addition of patios incorporated to the Liquor regulations. In 1997, McDivoes amended its liquor license to include a patio area that would be compact and contiguous to the main structure. These conditions are similar to those also required for Rudy's Redeye Grill. The conditions imposed for the approval of the amendment were as follows: 1) The patio area shall be enclosed with a wrought iron railing which meets the City Code and final inspection by the city building official; 2) There shall be no music or dancing on the patio; 3) 4) 5) 6) Th patio area shall be controlled and monitored continuously during hours of operation and unruly patrons shall be removed immediately; The hours and days of sale of alcoholic beverages shall be in accordance with the City Code with the exception that the licensee shall clear the patio area of patrons no later than eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M., Sunday through Thursday, and twelve o'clock (12:00) A.M. Friday and Saturday; The primary activity on the patio shall be dining and social drinking rather than consuming beverages only; 7) This amendment to the licensee's On Sale Intoxicating liquor License and Special Sunday On Sale license applications shall be approved on a provisional basis, and the Council may revoke, suspend or decline to renew the license for the patio portion of the licensed premises on the grounds of failure to comply with the conditions in this Resolution or undue annoyance or burden on nearby residents, in the absolute and sole discretion of the City Council. 8) If the City Council revokes or suspends approval or declines to renew the license for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the patio because of undue annoyance or burden to nearby residents, such action shall not jeopardize or cause suspension or revocation to the licensee's On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special Sunday Liquor License for the premises described in the original application for licenses submitted by Wilkat, Inc. 9) The conditions set forth above shall continue to be in effect during the 1997 license year and any renewal years unless explicitly modified or rescinded by the City Council. intent is to have time of the application the applicant would be fully aware of the conditions and restrictions moving forward. The applicants will need to be mindful of the concerns from adjacent property owners and residents about noise levels which may be caused from having alcohol served outside. CONCLUSION While the city retains the power to adopt more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke it is anticipated that local liquor license holders will want to add patio areas to their buildings. Staff is looking for direction on what regulations should be added to the code for outdoor patios. A i Minnesota Department of Health Fact Sheet (Excerpts) August 2007 Freedom to Breathe A summary of the Freedom to Breathe Provisions in the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Background The Freedom to Breathe (FTB) provisions were signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty on May 16, 2007, to protect employees and the public from the health hazards of secondhand smoke. The FTB provisions are an expansion of the current Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA); the new provisions become effective on October 1, 2007. Smoking -prohibited areas On October 1, 2007, smoking will be prohibited in virtually all indoor public places and indoor places of employment, including: • Bars, restaurants, and private clubs • Office and industrial workplaces • Retail stores • Common areas of rental apartment buildings, hotels and motels • Public transportation, including taxis • Work vehicles, if more than one person is present • Home offices with one or more on -site employees, or used as a place to meet or deal with customers • Public and private educational facilities • Auditoriums, arenas and meeting rooms • Day care premises • Health care facilities and clinics Permitted smoking The law does not prohibit smoking in the following locations or circumstances: • Outdoor smoking, regardless of distance from building openings such as doors and windows • Approved scientific study participants • Traditional Native American ceremonies • Private places, such as private homes, residences or automobiles when they are not being used as places of employment • Sleeping rooms of hotels and motels • Tobacco product shops - when customers are sampling tobacco products • Cabs of commercial motor vehicles that weigh over 26,000 pounds • Farm trucks, implements of husbandry, and special mobile equipment • Family farm buildings, provided certain conditions are met • Disabled Veterans Rest Camp in Washington County • Theatrical productions, that is, actors and actresses who are smoking as part of the theatrical performance Responsibilities of proprietors Employers and facility managers continue to play an important role in controlling smoking in their place of business. In general, they are required to: • Post "No Smoking" signs • Ask persons who smoke in prohibited areas to refrain from smoking and to leave if they refuse to do so • Use lawful methods consistent with handling disorderly persons or trespassers for any person who refuses to comply after being asked to leave the premises • Refrain from providing ashtrays and other smoking equipment • Refuse to serve noncompliant persons M I N N E S D T A RM DEPARTMENTorHEALTH Minnesota Department of Health P.O. Box 64975 St Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-4601 mciaa@health.state.mn.us 2007 Freedom to Breathe — page 2 compliance and Enforcement As part of the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) compliance strategy, emphasis will be placed on educating the public and business owners on the new provisions. MDH has compliance authority over the MCIAA and may delegate compliance activities to local units of government. MDH also has the authority to take enforcement actions that may include monetary penalties up to $10,000. In addition to the compliance authority provided to MDH and local units of government, local law enforcement has the authority to issue petty misdemeanor citations to proprietors or individuals who knowingly fail to comply with the MCIAA. Local government ordinances Local governments retain the authority to adopt and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. For more information Contact the Minnesota Department of Health to receive a copy of the MCIAA, or to receive additional educational materials please visit the MDH website at: ww-w.health.state.mn.us/freedonrtobreathe Minnesota Department of Health P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-4601 1-800-798-9050 (toll -free outside the metro area) 651-201-5797 (TTY) mciaaCcD,health.state mn.us Dakota County Public Health Department Jon Springsted 952-891-7504 ion. snrin Qsted(a>co. dakota.nm.us Revised 8/07/07 Freedom to Breathe Enforcement and Implementation Video Conference You can now register for the freedom to Breathe Enforcement and Implementation Video Conference Training. This videoconference will describe the Minnesota Department of Health plan for implementing the Freedom to Breathe amendment to the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. MDH will explain its plan for enforcement of the Clean Indoor Air Act and how it plans to work with its partners and communities to achieve compliance statewide. MDH will provide information about the recent changes to the law including which facilities are affected and how, which facilities can still allow smoking, and what to do if violations are observed. Local public health departments will have time to ask questions and discuss potential local public health department roles in enforcement. There will be a facilitated discussion at each videoconference location. Dates: This video conference will be held twice. August 21 and September 7; 9:00 am -12:30 pm Audience: The primary audience for this videoconference is local public health department directors, managers and staff who will be working on enforcement and implementation of the law. Local public health staff may also invite local partners such as law enforcement, county commissioners, and others as appropriate. To register for the Freedom to Breathe Enforcement and Implementation Video Conference Training please click on link below: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DhrnY241TFLTlV3sQ4lEkA 3d 3d Registration deadlines: If you would like to registerfor the August 21, 2007 Video Conference - You must be registered by August 14, 2007 If you would like to register for the September 7, 2007 Video Conference - You must be registered by August 24, 2007 Video conference site capacities are limited and registrations will be taken in the orderthey are received. Locations: The locations in which we will hold video conferences are listed below: Sites August 21: Thief River Falls - Pennington County Courthouse Bemidji - Bemidji State University Duluth - University of Minnesota -Duluth Fergus Falls - Minnesota Department of Health District Office Brainerd - Central Lakes Community College St. Cloud -St. Cloud Technical College St. Paul - Minnesota Department of Health Snelling Office Park Marshall - Southwest Minnesota State University North Mankato -South Central Technical College Rochester - Minnesota Department of Health District Office Sites September 7 Thief River Falls - Pennington County Courthouse Bemidji - Minnesota Department of Health District Office Duluth - University of Minnesota -Duluth Fergus Falls - Minnesota Department of Health District Office Brainerd - Crow Wing County Judicial Center St. Cloud -St. Cloud Technical College St. Paul - Minnesota Department of Health Snelling Office Park Marshall - Lyon County Courthouse North Mankato - South Central Technical College Rochester- Minnesota Department of Health District Office Local public health staff may register other staff or local partners. You will receive an e-mail confirmation of your reservation prior to the video conference. If you would like further information in regards to these video conference training sessions please contact lay Jaffee, Chemical Health Coordinator for the Minnesota Department of Health by email iay.iaffee@health.state.mn.us. r ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Welcome to Rosemount Signs AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. and ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, CR 42 and Diamond Path (CR 33) Map, Examples of other APPROVED BY-YZ Welcome to City Signs RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction ISSUE The City of Rosemount is exploring the replacement of the existing Welcome to Rosemount signs. The existing signs were installed by the Rosemount Jaycees in the middle 1980's and the outdated text and logos are faded. Three of the four signs are not located at the City limits. Staff has explored options for replacing the existing signs with four new signs; one at the southeast corner of County Road 42 and Diamond Path, one at the northwest corner of South Robert Trail and 120`h Street West; one at the northeast comer of South Robert Trail and County Road 46, and one at the northeast corner of County Road 42 and 145`h Street West. DISCUSSION County Road 42 and Diamond Path Staff has contacted Dakota County about the possibility of locating a Welcome to Rosemount sign within the County Road 42 (Cry Rd 42) right-of-way (ROW). The County policy allows signs within the ROW provided they are outside the "clear zone", which is 38 feet from the travel lane. Staff has provided a map that illustrates the area that is available to locate a sign. The area is approximately 82 feet long by 19 feet wide. There is a path there also that constrains the location of the sign. When a sign design is chosen, the size needs to be accommodated within the provided space and still prove to be readable for highway travelers. To demonstrate the area where a new sign could be located, staff will be installing stakes in the southeast corner on Friday, September 7 if the Councilmember's chose to drive by and see the site. Please remember that we have only received the sign criteria from the County and not an actual permit. Recent interactions with the County lead staff to believe that they are very conservative on their approach to permitting and therefore additional discussion may need to take place. Minnesota Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) and 120" Street West Staff has contacted the Rosemount VFW to inquire about locating the Welcome to Rosemount sign on their property at the northwest corner of South Robert Trail and 120`" Street. The VFW has indicated that they would be favorable to locating the sign on their property. They indicated more information regarding sign size, location and maintenance, as well as how the existing VFW signs would be addressed, is needed before they would commit to an easement for sign installation. Another possible opportunity would be within the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) ROW of South Robert Trail. Similar to the County, the sign would need to be outside the "clear zone". Staff is determining what that clear zone distance is, but with the limited width of ROW, there may not be sufficient area to locate a sign. Minnesota Highway 3 (South Robert Trail) and County Road 46 Staff has contacted the owners of the property on the northeast comer (the Anderson Brothers) to inquire about locating the Welcome to Rosemount sign on their property at the northwest corner of South Robert Trail and 160"' Street. The Andersons have indicated that they would be favorable to locating the sign on their property, but would need to know more information about the sign size, location and maintenance. Because the site is not developed they are also interested in knowing how this sign would affect future commercial signage for the site. Similar to the above, there may be the opportunity to locate a sign within MnDOT ROW. The clear zone needs to be determined to assess whether there is enough room for a sign. County Road 42 and 1451' Street West The City owns the ROW at the northeast corner where the current sign is installed. Siting of the sign is not an issue; however staff is unclear if the Council wanted a smaller secondary sign in this location. There was some discussion that the sign could direct travelers to Downtown. Further guidance is needed relating to this site. Eastern City Entrance Staff has spent more of the time reviewing sign location options in the developed area of the community. It remains unclear if the Council wanted to add a sign at the east end of the City. If so, additional research is needed. Sign Design Staff has provided a number of examples of welcome signs from other communities. The most common sign configuration is a roughly ten foot wide by four foot tall sign with three foot wide column on each side. This size sign would fit into the limited areas that we have to construct signs, such as the southeast corner of Cry Rd 42 and Diamond Path. Staff has prepared two diagrams of what a Welcome to Rosemount sign with this configuration could look like. Staff would like to hear the Councilmember's impressions of these signs. SUMMARY Staff is looking for direction from the City Council about the locations of the new signs and the sign design and context. W N coo N 1 T \ — O oZ = C m m Z N m I II a m < D Z'3' 4'-4' - z Z � A rOr^ V� yII � 111 O o O� _ O a Tm U N E wnm nmp ° D � lJ r a�D H In B Z y HT m � N • Existing Welcome to Rosemount Sig r© Private ROWPublic ROW Lakes Parks Proposed Welcome to Rosemount Sign Proposed Welcome Sign Locations September 2007 Rosemount, MN Welcome to Rosemount Signs F ---Z--JFeel � 4ROSEMOUNT CR 42 and Diamond Path (CR 33) 0 12.5 25 MINNESOTA MOVF POP. 30.0 CHISAGO A. CITY y c i. RED WING b HUTCHINSON R ARIBAUL JL. w � 5' FRIDLEY WELCOME` TO FRIDLEY MLGOME 10 SHOREVIEW e r t _ SOUDA T • r • r4 =�Lrw. �1w1A/TM ' ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 2007-2008 Employee Wellness Program AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Emmy Foster, Assistant City Administrator AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Program Details APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Council's information only. ISSUE Workplace health promotion is fast being considered an essential feature of employment and is no longer considered just a trend. On August 20, 2007, the Minnesota Department of Health, with the support of Governor Pawlenty, launched the Healthy Minnesota Workplace Initiative with the goal to "improve the health environment of workplaces in the state, raise awareness of and employee participation in workplace wellness programs, and convene public and private employers to explore and expand workplace wellness programs across Minnesota." DISCUSSION City of Rosemount staff feels it is important to have a wellness program for City employees. In the past, flu shots and health screenings offered to employees have been successful. Also, last year's Biggest Loser Competition was a big hit and many employees participated in the event. Staff has developed a wellness program for 2007-2008 beginning this month. The year long program consists of a variety of activities including three separate challenges, flu shots, first aid training and blood drive, four informational seminars and monthly newsletters. Employees will be encouraged to participate with prizes, certificates, and a year end celebration. Our hope is that all participants gain a knowledge of achieving a healthier lifestyle. The cost of implementing the year long program falls well within the $2,000.00 budgeted for health and wellness initiatives. SUMMARY This summary is provided for Council's information. If required, staff would be happy to provide the City Council periodic progress updates throughout the 2007-2008 Wellness Program. t� ROSEMOLINT 2007-2008 Wellness Program MINNESOTA Mission • To promote, develop and maintain healthy lifestyles for City of Rosemount. employees by providing information, educational support and incentives in the hope that employees will become motivated to take responsibility for their health and make changes to become healthier. "Healthcare costs are one of the biggest burdens on the pocketbooks of families, businesses, and all levels of government in Minnesota. We need a major transformation." Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty Invest in Worksite Wellness • Minnesota loses $2.6 billion annually from healthcare expenditures and lost productivity caused by tobacco -related illnesses. • In the year 2000, an estimated $495 million were spent in Minnesota treating diseases and conditions that would be avoided if all Minnesotan adults were physically active. • The percent of Minnesota adults reporting they have been told by their health provider they have hypertension is 22%. • The percent of Minnesota adults reporting they are current smokers is 20%. • The percent of Minnesota adults reporting not meeting the recommendations for sufficient physical activity is 49% and reporting no leisure -time physical activity is 16%. • In the past 10 years, the annual return on investment for worksite wellness programs has been as much as $6 saved for every $1 spent. It only takes about 2-5 years after the initial program investment to realize these savings. • Well -designed wellness programs result in an average 25 percent reduction in health plan costs, sick leave, disability costs, and workers' compensation. - Minnesota Healthy Workplace Initiative, 8120107 Program Highlights • Kick-off Date: September 19, 2007. • Monthly wellness newsletters beginning August 9, 2007. • Year long program consists of monthly activities including: • Three separate 8 week challenges • Four informational seminars • Three clinics: flu shots, CPR/First Aid Training, Blood Drive. • Participation in monthly activities will go towards chances to win prizes. • Participating employees will receive a 2008 Monthly Monitor Calendar to track their progress. • Videotaping of sessions is anticipated to provide employees who cannot attend an opportunity to view the session and participate. • Evaluation forms will be available for employees to complete at the end of each monthly session to provide tracking for future programs. • Awards and prizes will be given at the end of year based on individual and department participation. • Year end review and activity session: August, 2008. 2007-2008 Health & Wellness Activities September, 2007 Walking Works October, 2007 Flu Shots November, 2007 Frosty Challenge December, 2007 Healthy Holiday Recipe Exchange t 4 f 4 January, 2008 Red Cross Training February, 2008 Money Management 0 F WalkingWorks is a Blue Cross Blue Shield sponsored program. Participating employees will be given a pedometer and walking log to track progress for 8 weeks. Certificates of completion will be given in three walking levels. We are able to offer free flu shots to employees through Blue Cross Blue Shield and the BCBS F1uStop program. As part of their program, they provide a list with participating vendors in Dakota County who will come to City Hall, administer the shots, and take care of all insurance paperwork. The Frosty Challenge is a popular wellness program among metro area cities. It is an 8 week program to challenge participating employees to maintain their current weight, and notgain weight over the holidays. Employees will be given a chart to track their progress on an "on your honor" basis. No personal information will be shared with other employees. Certificates will be given to employees who manage to maintain their weight. To assist with the Frosty Challenge that began in November, the Healthy Holiday Recipe Exchange will be fun way for employees to get together to share their progress and give encouragement to co-workers. Participating employees will make a healthy food item and provide copies of the recipe including nutritional information. Staff has researched several options in which to provide first aid and/or CPR training to City employees. The most convenient and economical option would be to have one of the City's volunteer firefighters, Leigh Anderson, provide the training in sessions for employees. He is a certified Red Cross trainer and willing to work with City staff to provide training at 3-4 sessions so all employees have a chance to participate. It is our understanding that he is our only certified employee that is qualified to teach this program at this time. Blue Cross Blue Shield offers informational seminars on a variety of topics. The Money Management seminar in February, 2008, will be the first of four informational seminars offered to employees. Our hope is that useful information and ideas will be shared with participating employees. March. 2008 Water Challenge A_vri1, 2008 Stress Management e � May, 2008 Blood Drive 2 )une.2008 Dental Details My, 2008 Fitness Management x= August. 2008 Year End Celebration! w March will be the month for the Water Challenge and Daffodil Days. Participating employees will be given a water bottle and a water log to track the number of ounces of water they consume daily. Certificates will given to participating employees at the end of 8 weeks and to those who have succeeded in drinking 64 oz. a day for a full week. Daffodil Days is an American Cancer Society program that takes place March 10-le to gain donations towards the fight against cancer through a flower sale. Stress Management is an informational seminar offered through Blue Cross Blue Shield. We hope to present valuable information and tips to our employees to assist in managing and balancing their level of stress at work and home. Fun activities will also be planned. Hosting a blood drive through Memorial Blood Centers is an easy, no -cost way to create positive public relations, demonstrating the City's commitment to community health. Memorial Blood Centers provides all staff, equipment and refreshments for the blood drive. Donating blood helps saves lives which makes people feel happy and good about themselves. This is an informational seminar offered to employees through a representative from Delta Dental. Delta Dental has agreed to provide toothbrushes for all participating employees. Delta Dental also shares, via email, a monthly newsletter to all employees that addresses dental care. Our fourth and final informational seminar will be on fitness management. Fun ideas and physical activities will be planned for participants to help encourage an active lifestyle. August, 2008 will mark the end of the 2007-2008 Wellness Program. Activities will include Wellness Bingo, door prizes, and a salad bar where employees can bring their salad topping of choice to share. There will be a review of things learned and accomplished over the past year. Prizes and awards will be given based on participation and accomplishments. ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: September 12, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Right -of -Way Ordinance AGENDA SECTION: Update PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Enginee#1 AGENDA NO. 3A ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance; ROW Fees & Charges APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion As part of City Code, Title 4, Chapter 2 addresses the installation of underground utilities by private utility companies, this section of the City Code defines the process and requirements for the permitted installation of private underground utilities within public right-of-way and easements. In an effort to further clarify the expectations and requirements for the permitted installation of private utilities within public right-of-way and easements, the attached draft ordinance has been prepared by City staff and the City Attorney. The draft ordinance includes a number of new requirements as follows: • Registration of utility company with the City. • Insurance requirements for private utility companies. • Annual reporting of planned infrastructure improvements. • Permit requirements and payment of permit fees. • Right-of-way patching and restoration standards. • Installation requirements. • Digital mapping and "as -built" drawings. In addition to the draft ordinance, new right-of-way permit fees and charges are proposed to be implemented. These proposed fees have been developed consistent with several metro area communities and are intended to cover the City cost associated with the administration and oversight necessary to permit and observe the installation of private underground utilities. Should these fees be implemented as part of the City's fee resolution, the fees will be reviewed on an annual basis with the City's fee study update. Pending any Council comments on the proposed ordinance, staff will place this ordinance on the October 2, 2007 regular council meeting agenda for adoption. G:\Utilitles\ROW O[dinanceM09-12-07.doc CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO MANAGING AND ADMINISTRATING USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS; REPLACING CITY CODE SECTION 4-2-1 THROUGH 4-2-5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS that the City Code of Ordinances is amended by replacing Chapter 2 to Title 4: SECTION 1: Title 4 of the Rosemount City Code is amended by replacing Chapter 2 to read as follows: CHAPTER 2 SECTION: 4-2-1: Findings, Purpose, and Intent 4-2-2: Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way 4-2-3: Definitions 4-2-4: Administration 4-2-5: Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy 4-2-6. Registration Information 4-2-7: Reporting Obligations 4-2-8: Permit Requirement 4-2-9: Permit Applications 4-2-10: Issuance of Permit; Conditions 4-2-11: Permit Fees 4-2-12: Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration 1 4-2-13: Joint Applications 4-2-14: Supplementary Applications 4-2-15: Other Obligations 4-2-16: Denial of Permit 4-2-17: Installation Requirements 4-2-18: Inspection 4-2-19: Work Done Without a Permit 4-2-20: Supplementary Notification 4-2-21: Revocation of Permits 4-2-22: Mapping Data 4-2-23: Location and Relocation of Facilities 4-2-24: Pre -excavation Facilities Location G:\U6boes\2007 ROW Ordinmce.doc 4-2-25: Damage to Other Facilities 4-2-26: Right -of -Way Vacation 4-2-27: Indemnification and Liability 4-2-28: Abandoned and Unused Facilities 4-2-29: Appeal 4-2-30: Severability Right -of -Way Management 4-2-1: Findings, Purpose, and Intent To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights -of -way, the city strives to keep its rights -of -way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to right-of-way permits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights -of -way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights -of -way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights -of -way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act' and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 — 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 4-2-2: Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects, pursuant Minn. Stat. 237.163 Subd. 2(b), to manage rights -of - way within its jurisdiction. 4-2-3: Definitions The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordv=mdoc "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. "City" means the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. For purposes of section4-6-27, "city" means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. "Commission" means the State Public Utilities Commission. "Congested Right -of -Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right- of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04. Subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: A. Individual project bond; B. Cash deposit; C. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.73, subd. 3; D. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; E. Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; F. A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. G. Insurance certificate needs to be on file at the City each new year for all companies. H. Bond will be due each year covering all projects done by that company. The bond amount for each year will be $10,000. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the city to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. GAUtibdes\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by pertnit. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right- of-way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. "Excavation permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. "Excavation permit fee" means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 4-6-11. "Facility" or "Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide Utility Service. "Five-year project plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right-of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights -of -way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right -of --way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right- of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of- way user for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordimnce.doc interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 4-6-29 of this chapter. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of-way. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 4-2-11. "Patch" or "Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five-year project plan. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. "Permit" has the meaning given "right-of-way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way has been granted by the city under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. "Probation" means the status of a person that has not complied with the conditions of this chapter. "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing that they have been put on probation. "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of-way, or (2) in any way occupy or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of- way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. G:\U6li6es\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the city by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. "Public Right -of -Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights -of -way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right-of-way does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other non -wire telecommunications or broadcast service. "Right -of -Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right -of -Way User" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, Subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Star. 21613.02, Subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Star. Chapter. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Star., Chapter 3O8A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling or heating services. "Service Lateral" means an underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute, or furnish gas, electricity, communications, or water from a common source to an end -use customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal of wastewater from a customer's premises. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication right-of-way user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right-of-way, which is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Star. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or 6 G:\Utili6es\2007 ROW Ordinance.dm electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 21613.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Star. Chap. 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way users for purposes of this chapter. "Two Year project Plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. 4-2-4: Administration The City Engineer is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights -of -way, right-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The City Engineer may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 4-2-5: Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of- way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof, in any right-of-way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Star. Chap. 2161), Gopher One Call Law. 4-2-6: Registration Information Subd. 1. Information Required The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Each registrant's name, Gopher One -Call registration certificate number, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (b) The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self-insurance acceptable to the city; (2) Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; and (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (d) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (e) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minn. Star. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (f) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. Subd. 2. Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change. 4-2-7: Reporting Obligations Subd. 1. Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by March 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights -of -way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: 8 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ocdinance.doc (a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a "next -year projece�; and (b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "five-year project"). The term "project" in this section shall include both next -year projects and five-year projects By March 1 of each year, the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by March 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next -year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next -year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. Subd. 2. Additional Next -Year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. 4-2-8: Permit Requirement Subd. 1. Pennit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the city to do so. (a) Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right- of-way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of- way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subd. 3 and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this Section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right- of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinmce.do Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. 4-2-9: Permit Applications Application for a permit is made to the city. The City requires three copies of the plan for the permit. Right-of-way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: (a) Registration with the city pursuant to this chapter; (b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (c) Payment of money due the city for: (1) permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; (2) prior obstructions or excavations; (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights -of -way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (d) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. (e) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. 4-2-10: Issuance of Permit; Conditions Subd. 1. Pennit Issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. 4-2-11: Permit Fees Subd. 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount 10 G:\Utili6es\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the city management costs; (b) degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 3. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 4. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 4-6-21 are not refundable. Subd. 5. Application to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. Subd. 6. Fee Resolution. Fees will be set from time to time by resolution by City Council 4-2-12: Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 4-6-15. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Pennittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right -of --way or to restore the right-of-way itself. (a) City Restoration. If the city restores the right-of-way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. (c) Degradation Fee in Lieu ofRestoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, aright -of -way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling; patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota 11 G:\Utili6es\2007 ROW Ordiomce.doc Rule 7819.1100 Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The perrnittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) working days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 4-6-15. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. 4-2-13: Joint Applications Subd. 1. joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-of- way at the same place and time. Subd. 2. Shared fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation, which the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. Subd. 3. With cityprojects. Registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by the city, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit would still be required. 4-2-14: Supplementary Applications Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the area of the right-of-way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. 12 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc 4-2-15: Other Obligations Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit does not relieve pernttee of its duty to obtain all other necessary pertnits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560. A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right-of-way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right-of-way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right -of -Way. A pemuttee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Trenchless Excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560, and shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating, as determined by the director. 4-2-16: Denial of Permit The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. 4-2-17: Installation Requirements The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of-way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the city in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 4-6-22 subd. 2 of this ordinance. Utility companies must install dual mains in all new projects. All traffic control will comply with the latest Mn/DOT Field Traffic Control Manual 4-2-18: Inspection 13 G:\Ufihdes\2007 ROW Ordmance.doc Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Pernittee shall make the work -site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd 3. AuthorityofDirector. (a) At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 4-6-21. 4-2-19: Work Done Without a Permit Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators' notification to Gopher State One Call regarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. The permittee requirements shall not apply if the repair is caused by another permittee's work in the right-of-way. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be home by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non -Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right-of-way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. 4-2-20: Supplementary Notification If the obstruction or excavation of the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. 14 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.do 4-2-21: Revocation of Permits Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right-of-way permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by petmittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit; (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of-way permit; (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 4-6-18. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit, the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice ofBreach. Within 5 working days of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, which will cure the breach. Perrnittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, permittee's failure to so contact the city, or petmittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the permittee on probation for one (1) full year. Subd. 4. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable Attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. 4-2-22: Mapping Data Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as -built" location of all equipment installed, owed and maintained by the permittee in both digital and hard copy. The digital copy of "as -built" drawings can be CAD or GIS 15 G:\UdE6es\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc compatible files and the hard copy can be paper or image file formats. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the city's electronic mapping system, when practical or as a condition imposed by the director. Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Subd. 2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee's use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals, and the service lateral vertical locations in those cases where the director reasonably requires it. Permittees or their subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and Minnesota Rules governing service laterals install after December 31, 2005, shall be a condition of any city approval necessary for 1) payments to contractors working on a public improvement project including those under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and 2) city approval of performance under development agreements, or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the city. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or for future permits to the offending permittee or its subcontractors. Subd.3. As-Builts As -bunts will be required in hard copy and electronically if the project permitted deviates two (2') feet or more from the original plans submitted to the City. 4-2-23: Location and Relocation of Facilities Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. Subd. 2. Corridors. The city may assign a specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. Any registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the city shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where the facilities are located, move the facilities to the assigned position within the right-of-way, unless this requirement is waived by the city for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and hardship to the registrant. Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right-of-way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it 16 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right-of-way to a useable condition. Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use, the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the city shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right-of-way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 4-2-24: Pre -excavation Facilities Location In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any right-of-way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 4-2-25: Damage to Other Facilities The provisions of Minn. Stat. 216D shall apply to all situations involving damages to facilities during excavation operations. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right-of-way which it or its facilities damages. This provision includes costs for damages to boulevard amenities, such as irrigation systems and invisible fences, placed by property owners. It is the registrant's responsibility to provide immediate notice of such damages to the affected property owners. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the City's response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities. 4-2-26: Right -of -Way Vacation Reservation of -tight. If the city vacates a right-of-way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. 4-2-27: Indemnification and Liability By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 4-2-28: Abandoned and Unusable Facilities Subd.1. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right-of-way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. 17 G:\Uulides\2007 ROW Ordi=ce.doc Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of-way shall remove it from that right-of-way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. 4-2-29: Appeal A right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Star. § 237.163, Subd. 6; or (5) disputes a determination of the director regarding Section 4-6-22 subd. 2 of this ordinance may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, or decision reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting, provided the right-of- way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a regular agenda item. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 4-2-30: Severability If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective the day of 12007. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, the day of 12007. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published this day of , 2007 in the Rosemount Town Pages. 1 B G:\Udilides\2007 ROW Ocdinance.doc RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES & CHARGES Cost Estimates for Fees 1. Registration Fee Time X $ Per = Cost Involved Hour ($) (Hour) Administration 0.25 X 40 = $ 10.00 Review 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 Recording 0.25 X 40 = 10_00 Total Cost $ 40.00 Proposed Fee = $ 4Q 2Q Registration fee is due annually and is due by January 15'h of the corresponding year. 2. Excavation Permit Fees A) Hole Administration 0.50 X 40 = $ 20.00 Verification 1) Plan Review 0.50 X 50 = 25.00 2) Inspection a) Location before work 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 b) Compliance during work 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 c) Completion after work 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 d) Re -inspection 0.50 X 40 = 20.00 3) Mapping a) Review data 0.50 X 50 = 25.00 b) Transfer to Autocad 0.50 X 50 = 25.00 c) Insert to overlay to de in 0.50 X 50 = 25.00 Total Cost $200.00 Proposed Fee $2" Plus $0.20 per lineal foot for each excavation over1,000 feet 1 B) Emergency Hole Administration Inspection after completion Total Cost Proposed Fee C) Trench 0.50 X 40 = $ 20.00 1.50 X 30 = 45_00 $65.00 $65.00 Administration 0.50 X 40 Verification 1) Plan Review 1.50 Y 50 2) Inspection a) Location before work 0.50 X 40 b) Compliance during work 1.50 X 40 c) Completion after work 1.50 X 40 d) Re -inspection 0.75 X 40 3) Testing Result Review a) Compaction 0.25 X 40 b) Material 0.25 X 40 4) Mapping a) Review data 0.50 X 50 b) Transfer to Autocad 0.50 X 50 c) Insert to overlay to tie in 0.50 X 50 Total Cost The average trench is 330 lin. ft. past the width of a hole. Therefore, the number of 100 lin. ft. (or portion thereof) units is 4. The cost per 100 lin. ft. unit is 360.00 / 4 = $90.00/100' unit. $ 20.00 $ 75.00 20.00 60.00 60.00 30.00 = 10.00 10.00 25.00 = 25.00 25_00 $360.00 Proposed Fees = $ 90.00/1001in, ft Ply u H 1 2 3. Obstruction Permit Fee A) Administration 0.50 X B) Recording 0.25 X C) Review 0.75 Minimum Base Coat Proposed Base Fee Plus additional fee based on length Inspection 1) Compliance during work 1.50 X 2) Completion after 0.25 X Additional fee on assumed 1000 lin. ft. permit Additional cost per lineal foot = $70.00 / 1000 Proposed Fee = $50 00 plus 0.05 lin ft. 4. Delay Penalty 40 40 50 40 40 A) Administration 1.5 X 40 For up to 3 days of non -completion and non -prior notice before specified completion date. After 3 days, an additional charge of $20/day will be levied. Total Penalty Charge (Up to 3 days late) Each day late over 3 days 3 _ $ 20.00 10.00 37.50 $ 57.50 50.00 $ 60.00 10.00 $ 52.50 0.07 $ 60.00 _ $ 60.00 _ $ 60.00 Plus 20.00/Day