The URL can be used to link to this page

052708 CC WS AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 AGENDA 1. 2. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens B. Review Agenda REVIEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR RESUMES (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) 3. COLLABORATIVE DESIGN GROUP -REVIEW CITY HALL BUILDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum, Plans and Specs) 4. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF CITY HALL (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) 5. BOULDER BRIDGE ROAD REHABILITATION (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) 6. OTHER 7. ADJOURN sxoxEwooD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ®SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Tim Keane, City Attorney FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Works DATE: May 23, 2008 RE: Review of City Administrator Credentials Enclosed in the Work Session materials are the credentials for the City Administrator position, as compiled by Sharon Klumpp and Springsted and Associates. We will be meeting in work session format. Sharon makes mention in the cover letter to Council that the credentials for each candidate have been place behind a numbered tab. I thought that I would reemphasize how important it is in the discussion and consideration of each candidate that any reference to an individual be made by the tab number assigned, and refrain from utilizing any names. This protects the confidentiality of each applicant. Sharon will be here Monday evening for the work session to discuss the candidates presented." ,1®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ,~ I SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY C[_UB ROAD ®SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown,' Acting Administrator DATE: May 22, 2008 RE: City Hall Renovation -Building Plans Collaborative Design Group, CDG, has submitted building plans* for the City Hall renovation (see Exhibits A-E, attached). Staff had initially intended to have the Council approve plans and specifications for the project at is May 27 meeting. However, some delays have been experienced with the final design and the construction phasing plan. The items remaining are"very critical elements of the project and can not be separated from the building plan approval. Consequently, approval of plans and specs will be scheduled for the June 9th Council meeting. A complete schedule of the procedural steps for the project is included in the advertisement for bids (see Exhibit F). Please note that the architects have indicated a substantial completion date of March 1, 2009. Staff did want to point this out, as this is different from what has been indicated previously. Brian Lubben will be present at Monday night's work session to answer questions relative to the plans and to elaborate on the actual construction schedule. *The attached exhibits include floor plans and building elevations. If anyone is interested in seeing the entire plan set (25 pages), a link will be constructed on the City of Shorewood's web site to the entire plan-set, to date. Since the updated plans have just been received, staff is attempting to get the link and plans published to the web site by end of the day (late) Friday or Saturday morning. Cc: Tim Keane Brad Nielsen James Landini Bonnie Burton Jean Panchyshyn .: ,-®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 73'i' iJ '-0' iL I I I .' ~ ~ j 10 -0~ ...o . . 0'g 15'b^ 0'-Y. 7'-~. 7'.2~' n W _ _ ~ s q - _ - - 4d0 STORAGE ~ I 2-p 06 __. -- i i i, _ ~- 2 400 TA' Tg E0. EQ. RAMP UP ~v 9 61 T-0' 12'd" BEAVER CONFERENCE ROOM ROOM ~O6 m CONSTRUCTION PLAN GENERAL NOTES: C O f. PROVIDE OLOCKING fOA VlALL MOUNTED EOUWMENi, DOOR STOPS, CABINETRY, ACCESSORIES, ETC, 2. VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS 6HOWN ON DRAWINGS. 30'-0' OMLRSIONG, DISCREPANCIES, DR COtJFIICTS 61UST BE REPORTED TO ARCHITECT PRIOiI TD BEGINNING CON6TRUC110k. I I 3. ORPWiNGS 5HM@0 NOT eE SCALED-OLMENSIDNS GOVERN. LARGESCALEORAWINGS TAKE PRECECENCE OVER SMAL DRAWINGS. 4, VERIFYTHE FOLLOWING WITH MECHANICAUELECTRIGAL: d.1 SI2E5 ANO LOCATIONS OF PENETRATIONS d,2 LOCATIONS FOP BACKWGIELOCKING REQUIRED FDR MOUNlNO MIE EQUIPMENT. 4.3 CUTTING AND PATCHING REOUIREMENt 5. LEVEL ANDfOR REPAIR E%ISTNG CONCRETE FLOOR AS REOVIRED FOR NEW F100R FINISHES ANONEW CONBTRUCTION. VERIFY LEVEL TOLERANCESAEQUIflEO BY MATERIEL SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS. ~ B THE fOLLOWOVG OIAGRAI.i61NDICATE HOW TO h<W DIMENSIONALLY LOCATE DOOR FRAAfES: su s 2 ~ _ ... dt _ 1'-( ~ I OFFCE OFFICE OFFICE CONF~~NCE OFFICE ~ 4 o p) O ~ 3 6'.Th. lay%. LO66Y lal d 115 O ' O i tit O ~ ,,.... ._ fit ALIGN 160R AU N _ _ COftg RELOCATED 71 fWE 132 to 21 Sa ~' _ - ALIGN ~ O EkI6TWG FLUE IN O 1 ( ll f ' I ON _ EXISTING PARTITION I I (OPEN _______ _- __ ( FFICE iv 6 _______ ____5 ____ M - _ ' ---_- I 19 i O STEEL COWMN, VE RIFY ~ d 84 H®ALT.NO 1 I d l FILE I 6~ X 8~•6~ 6, X B~-6~ A~ K LOCATION WIO 6iRUC7URAL ~ 01p m 1 5( IOJ 5'"0' ~~ 10 I fit ROOM if ]6 I 61 6TOOE ` fi RECEPTIO N I 1n'-2. I 3 ~ ~ 484H _ QALT. NO I _____ I L45L 2 O~ATYf 1 E%IENDE%ISTINGWA TOB4'ABOVE FLOOR ALIGN ~ ALIGN 4 Ile y ~ ALIGN CORRI00A~_Sr ylIGHT 60FFIi ~ y :- d V v 6t0 4610 Q ABOVE-pLTM7 I I 1 _...._. __.. q 4 ~ 7 114 1n O tie O 3 O OFFICE 3 5' 4 ~6" S-3~ O CORR R 4 STORAGE SDRAGE I 1 1 ~ i CLOSET m Im9 IorC OFFICE '17 OFFICE IU OFFICE II6 OFFICE 11) I DF- 4 1 ,~ ~ - - ~ ,,, ,me z Imc 3 n'-T/~• Ir-Th' n'.Th~ 1r~sy,• Ipa ~ npe _4 ~_____ _ __~ _ 4 - _ I ~/SQ MI ® ®~ ESO I Id ROOM _._.: _ ... .. ..., ....::, .: _.::. Ie6 tae BREAK floe \ i up 8 7 61 2 QO fit ~ DECK 3 I 461 O ~ O ,,II ~ - ----- 401 _ I ,~ 6'-0'CLR Y~11 5'-0'CLR 4,-0 B,A• 600 33'd' iB-0 4 2 401 STAIR I I fi PLAN KEY NOTES: ~ " ~ to PROVIDE COAT RDD AND SH'cLF U l~ /1 O PROVIDE I6'DEEP FULL HEIGHT AOJU3TA0LE` ON HEAVY DUTY EPACNETi AND STANDARDS. O PROVIDE CARD READER t FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AZQt SCALE: 3116"=7'-0" I I / I5 14 1 100 440 ~ 74 610 11 d I ~ R2""'p' TO fgONTEOGE OFip ~ COUNCIL uTFDRMRISE ~ VE6TIBULE J~ ~ CHOPS _~ I ® tOdA , rHK;H ~ LATFORM I ~ m COLLA80RATIVE DesignCroup,m~. 100 PdOand Avenue So01h, Suite 100 ',, Minneappfs, Minnesota 55401 I, p612332.3654 16129327526 wxw.mEaW2tiYMa9g63ro'A tAm ' O J °Q W~ ~ ~ TO ' ` r~in~ U V, NU. GATE DESLRIPiION Q -CLOUDED CHANGE REUISIOwLOG 61600 OWNER REVIEW N0. GATE DESCRIFNON ISSUE LOG SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 5755 COUNTRYCLI$ RD 6HOREWOOD,MN FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN 6C lE AS NOTED D6AWNBr JxL CHECKED BY PRDJ.AflcR ea PA0J, 61GR. BAS !DBNO. 01191.00 ~CC.UBDAAiNECE5IGN GRDIIP, INC. NCeGRWP, Ih~. N]A II II I Exhibit A 734' rv 4 4 4 ua b _ _ Y-0' ROOF PLAP SCALE: '1116'-1'-0" ,5 C D I 3V-0' I I STANDING SEAM METAL ft00F, iP,12 GlOPE 7 A° 1 I ~ ~ 20 I ( - --~----T --- --- I a ----~ rr s I i 9 19 aeB 44B - - - - - - - --- -- PRE FINISHED METAL GUTTER, SEE ELEVATION FOR DOWN svour LacarloN ELOPE 0''4 PRE FINISHED METAL GU'i"IER. SEE ELEVA710N FOR GOWN SPOUT LOCATION - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - -' SLOPE 10 ALTERNATERI 940 REFtAGE EXIST. ROOFSTRULTURE i 1 FIBERGLASS ( t SHINGLES RNATE.1 HEP LACE E%IST. FIEERGlA55 SHINGLES ON - - - - - - - - - - - - ROOF EiRULTURE I EXIST.ROOF STRUCTURE STANDING SEAM ~ w ( METALROOF ~ ( SLOPE 1 u ( 0 ry ~:1s E~ y 440 ~P ( ALTERNAiESt~ FI S FISERGlA55 SHINGLES ON~ ROOF EKYLIGM, (2)50'310°X50314' SHINGLES ~ E%IST. ROOF STRUCTURE ALTERNATE%1~ I ft00F SITYLIGHT, (2150314'X50314' I RIDGE RIDGE - - - - - - ALTERNATEFt- RODE ENYLIOHT, I ALTERNATER 1~ I (2150.7!4'%503!4' 1 ROOF 41(YLIGHi, G~ < ) (4150.711"%503!4' p ^, F} ~ FIBERGLASS SHINGLES ON EXIST.ROOF STRUCTURE SLOPE SLOPE ~ ( I I II F- 3:12 t? 3:12 rc FIBERGASS SHINGLES ~ PRE FINISHED tfE7AL GUTTER, SEE ELEVATION FOA ODWN BPOIR LOCATION --- ------ -- ----- I ( ,e. ~. COLLABORATNE DesignGroup,m4 1 W Podland pvenuB South, Suile 100 Minneapoks, MlnnesWa 55401 p 812.33L7654 f672.732352fi uww,wpabpalivedes'ryroploup.som O a -~ Q ..1... W~ oU ~/~ v/ N0. OR7E DESCRIPTION Q •LLOUOEO CHANGE REVISIONLOG Si6-0e OWNER REVIEW N0. OA7E OESLRIPRON ISSUE LOG SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RO SIIOREWOOO, MN ROOF PLAN SCALE AG NOTED DFAWN BV SPM OHECNE00Y PROJ. AALIL BA PROJ. MGR, BAS JOB NO. 0714200 eCCl1ABORAiIVE0E51GN GROUP, ING20p9 II Exhibit B D FIEERGlAS6 SHINGLESTO REPLACE E%IST. E%IST 2x 1Z CEDAR FASCIA, PAINT. REPLACE EXISTING GUTT'cRAND DOWN SPOUT, SEE ROGFPLAN FOR GU~ER LOCATION ALUM WWDOW. NP,~ E%IST. iGP PLATE EL=118a CONT, t x 4 COMPOSITE TRIM -~ 1 x 8 COMPOSITETRIM CORNER BD. lY'FIBER CEMENT LAP GIDING ~ i ALTERNATEtl1~ - ALUMAIXEOSNYLIGHi6 0 ALTERNATE pi~ - ALUM.FIkEO SKYLIGHTS J~' x tOh' GLUE LAM RAREfl fi%'z 13 ip' GLUE lAM EM.- 6%'zi'~'GLUE LAM COLS 6.5 i 0 . _ - .. _ ]~ L,~I'r~l 1 x3 COMPOSITE TRUA ~ 16'O.C. OVER 4 x 9' VERTKAL SIDING 0 12 1.5 CULTURED STGNE CAP - _- 4 ,Ttr - "~._ '_--'"` I i ~ ~ I _ NEW CULNREO670NE VENEE0. - . f' c I E%ISi. FIMSHEDGRAOE ~ _ ~= NEW fINISHED GRADE ( ( ~ ~ _ I _ _ _ J E%IST. LOWER LEVEl~7,O.CONC SLAB ~ - -----T ~ ~ E%ISTING RENOVATION NEW ADDRIDV ~ 7-0'OVERHANG3, MICAL 1 v BCOMPOSFE TRIM CORNER BD. 7%`FIEER CEMENT LAP 9101NG 5 tld"FIEER CEMENT LAP SIDING x 3COMPOSRETRIM SILL, ttP. 1ST F.OOR SUBfL00fl EL=t10'~]' }T FIRER CEMENT LAP 61D1NG r EL:100'-0 .... . .. . . ... . . . ~ - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . ~ _ - . L _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ - _ J NORTH ELEVATION Ar~O~ 6CALE: 311A'=1'-0' COLLABORATIVE DesignGroup,m<. IDO PDNanD Avenue Soulh, Suite 100 MinneepD-s, Mlnnesola 55401 p 6127317654 Ifi12.73Z7626 wxw.wlla60alNedesiBngm~.ccm D OJ O -~ w= ~~ OU N0. DATE DESCAIPTICN Q =CLOUDED CHANGE REVISION LOG 51408 DWNER REV&VJ N0. DA7E DESCRIPTION usuE LoG SHOREW000 CITY HALL 8758 COUNTRY CLUB RO EHOAEWOOD, MN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS scALE AsNGTED DRAWN BY JPrEIA CHECKED BY PfiOJ. PALM. BJL PROAIdGR. BPS JW NO. 01152CA II'IoC IOLLAaDRATNEBE~6~IGN GROUP, INC.200B I II II 1 WEST ELEVATION 6CALE: L16'=1'-0' Exhibit C 0.3 0.6 2 3 4 O i ( 1 1 ~ ~ A g ~ p I I I J SIM I 1 2 1.5 L~ I r 1 COL!POSRE TRIM Ca 1d' D.C. ALTERNATE q i. ALTERNATE k 1. T PLATE I ~ OVER 4'x B'VEATICAL SIDING CUO WOCO CLAD WOOD EL.=1356' I ' FIXED SKYLIGHTS ~,~ FIXED SKYLIGHTS TOP PLATE IJ I ~ I~ ) ®t~® ®ll II:I II® I Fl9ERGlA555HINGLES TO EL=1]T~f• It -ELI ~ L"L}J REFUGE EXIST. - - i EXIST.1x 12 CEDAR fASCIA, PAINT. 5114"FIBER CEMENT UP SIDING - - -----_ ___ ' - -------------------- IXIST.TOP PLATE EL =110'ti Ir BCOMPOSRE TAIM CORNEA BO. _ - - ~ CONT.ix4COMPO5ITE TRIM )%'FIBER CEMENTL4PGIOING _ __ - -_ _- __ __ 1xB COMPOSITE TRIM CORNER BO. -- ---- WI -~ WI -- - Wt _ W1 - Wt -' TY' FIBER CEMENT UPSIOING %x JCOMPOBITETRIM SILL, NP, -- -- __-- ____ _ - - _ _ _ 7T FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING = i ~ ~ - %x 3CDMPOBITE TAIM SILL NP. _ EXIST.WINOOW 9ILL P.O. ISTFLOOA SVBFl00R _ I I 11 I EL'-111'7 EL.=I10'~J' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1ET FLOOR BUBROOR I I I ( _ _ I _ ~. L L_f ~ -Z - ~ i, ~ ~ ~ 1 I~~ OJT-_II _ EL=110'-J' I' ~ I i I~ ~ 'T I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I -L^ ~ - - 1E'FIBEfl GEMENi LAP SIDING k ~I I `(' L17.1~._ J I i I I EXIST. EXPOSED CMU ~~ 7 r -~I ~ ~- f ~- ~' 70 REMAIN, PAINTED 1~~- I o __ e l 1 W9 W4 ~ ~ ... I ' L J r ~ 1 I 11~ FXIGT. HM.000R TO REMAIN 1= f~ ~' I " r f Z- III. 1_I.. I I i - _ T_~ ~- I IXIST.IOWER LEVEL•T.O. CON65NB . . _ - . .. - - _ _ - ~ _ - - _ ll _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _~ ~ I i - - t I I ~ _IT I _ -~ I _ . _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ .- _ _ ~ EL=100'-0' NEW ADDITION ~ EXISTING RENOVATION SOUTH ELEVATION laam BGALE 3NB ,-0 5 4 2 1 0.3 ~ I I I I EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 7110 e 1'4]' CQLLABORATNE DesignGroup,mG 10G PoNland Avenue Sauth, Suile t0U MinneapDGS, MinnesWa 55901 P61233276H 1612.3727616 w~w.m11a~21ived=slgn9lvuP.cCm o~ O W= t~.l~ O {/// J^~ v N0. DATE OE6CgIPRON 0 =CLOUOEOCHMIGE RENSIONLOG S160B OWNER ftEVkIY NQ DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE LOG SHOREW000 CITY HALL 5755 COVNTRY CLUBRO SNOREWOOD, MN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE AS NOTED DRAWN BV IDR CHECIfED BY PROJ.ARCH. BIL PROD. MGfl. Eh5 JDB N0. 01141 W ~COLL4EORATPIE OESIGA GR01.'P, INC. SIL'6 Exhibit D 0,3 0.6 4 4 O I I ~ ~ I I I i I I 3 ~- - 1 kD I , 1 <_, I I ~ I I I I COUNCIL CHAMeE9,4 ~! I / CO4FERENLE ROOM Z __ _ BREAK OOM I ( Z1 SIM. I --~--_~ -T-T= ~ ~ ~ fIN. FLOOA -1=~--,-~-- J -t --- ~~d' ~ \\ I I FIN. FLOOA EL =f1D~3" TOP OF CMU - EL =110'3' EL=iD9'~0" I -OP Of CMU I ( EL =109'-6' I I I I BTOflACE `NEW 3'd%Td' STOgAGE / STORAGE I ACCESS CUT NEW 3'd%i'-4'J -r ACCESS CUL LOWER IEVEL~T,O. CONC. I ~ EL =100'-D' I LOWER LEVEL~i,O.CONC. ~~i~ EL=iW'~0' GROSS SECTION A410 sce~.916 1a 5 4 2 1 0.3 4 2 I I I 1 441 _~ I I .. ~ I I g00F SKYLIGHT-ALTERNATE Y7 -~ I I /"' - ~ ~ ~ /\ ~ ~ AEPIACE EXISTING G ~ I I 1 AOOF STAVCTURAL E%IST.TOP PLATE I IXIST.IOPPLATE / EL=1f6'~7%" I I EXITING I EL=Ife'~3%' - ROOFBTRUCTURAL - - - - - _ - 4 I TO REMAIN _ 4 z OFFICE OPEN Or"FICE OPEN OFFICE OFFICE dP0 SIM. OFFCE I I ~ Of FILE 1n4JP0 SPA, 1ST FLOOR FlN. FLOOq I 1ST FLOOR FIK FLOOR EL=11VJ' I ( EL =I1P~3' y I ( I ---- STORAGEfMECHANICAL I I EXIST. LOWER LEI~EL - EL= iD0'-0' ~_J ~--~ l ~ 1 CR05S SECTION THRU EXISTING BUILDING ~ PARTIAL SECTION THRU EXISTING BUILDING -ALTERNATE NO i A410 scALE, ins =ro• A410 scALE: v1s=r-0' COLLABORATNE DesignGroup,mG IIXI PDRlentl Av~De SDUN, Suile ;00 MlRneapDlis, h4lnnesDla 55401 p fit2.?72.3654 1612.332361fi ww,v.mlm6amlrvedsianglwa.bvm o~ 0 -~ W= O ~= U v/ N0, DATE DESCRIPTION =CLOllWD CHANGE AEVISIONLOG 116dB OWNER AEVIEW N0. DATE OESLAIPMIN ISSUE LOG SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 5766 COUN7RYCLUO RO SNOREW000. MN BUILDING SECTIONS SCALE AS NOTED DFANM BY EM CHECKED BY PROJ, AACH, 8JL PflOJ. fdGR. 8A0 JOB NO. Oitd1~ e COI~LL~AOGRATI~I~EO~ESIGH GA-WP,I~N~C. ~]OOB II II Exhibit E 2nd DRAFT -LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF SHOREWOOD Advertisement for Bids Shorewood City Hall Project Shorewood City Hall Owner City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Bid Documents Contact Jean Panchyshyn City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 jpanchyshyn@ci.shorewood.mn.us 952 474-3236 Cost $100.00 non-refundable payment, Checks made payable to City of Shorewood, Mailing or other distribution is not available Pre-Bid Conference Time 2;00 PM, Thursday, 19 June 2008 Location City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Questions Due 2:00 PM, Monday, 23 June 2008 Architect Brian Lubben Collaborative Design Group, Inc. Suite 100 100 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 blubben@collaborativedesigngroup.com Bid Submittals Due 10:00 AM, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 Location City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Shorewood City Hall Exhibit F CDG Number 07142.00 00100-1 The City of Shorewood will receive single prime sealed bids for construction of the Shorewood City Hall as described above. Bids will be publicly opened immediately thereafter and the bidders' names and base bids only will be read aloud as described above. The Project consists of all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to accomplish construction of the Shorewood City Hall Project, cone-story building with additions and interior renovations, located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331. The Bidders will comply with The Davis-Bacon Act and current Federal Prevailing Rates of Wages. Work will be done under a single Prime Contract which will be assigned to the Owner, Bidding Documents including the Bid Form, Drawings, and Specifications, will be available for inspection as described above. Refer to the complete Bidding Documents for detailed procedures and requirements. Bids must be submitted on the forms supplied in the Bidding Documents. No oral, telegraphic, facsimile or telephone bids or modifications will be considered. A certified check or acceptable bidder's bond in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the total bid and payable to the City of Shorewood must be submitted with the bid form, The successful bidder will be required to post a performance bond in the total amount of the contract. The Owner requires Substantial Completion of the Project on or before 1 March 2009 (CDG to confirm) For publication on Thursday, June 12, 2008 in the Sun Sailor Legals For publication on Monday, June 16, 2008 in the Construction Bulletin End of Advertisement for Bids Proposed Schedule (Not part of Advertisement for Bids) All dates contingent upon completion of Bid Documents 30 May 2008 - Completion of Bid Documents (CDG to confirm) 6 June 2008 - Completion of City Attorney review of Bid Documents (CDG to confirm) Desired Schedule (Not part of Advertisement for Bids) 2 pm, 5 June 2008 -Sun Sailor for publication on 12 June 2008 11 am,10 June 2008 -Construction Bulletin for publication on 16 June 2008 9 June 2008 -City Council approval of Advertisement for Bids 10 am, 9 July 2008 -Bid Open 14 July 2008 -City Council approval of successful Bidder Shorewood City Hall Advertisement for Bids CDG Number 07142.00 00100-2 12 June 2008 SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Works DATE: May 23, 2008 RE: Construction Management for City Hall The question as to whether there should be an independent construction manager involved with the City Hall Rehabilitation project is one that has yet to be addressed. Staff has solicited input from other cities with regard to similar projects, has contacted several construction management firms, and went back to review the contract items that were in place during the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility. Staff first reviewed the question as to whether this project could be completed "in house" by staff. Since the majority of the modifications directly relate to building code issues and or modifications, staff discussed whether Joe Pazandak would have time to perform the project management for this project? Staff reviewed the time. Mr. Pazandak has available, versus other building code inspection duties, and the issue of conflict of interest, as it relates to resolving building code issues. Staff believes that Mr. Pazandak has a full schedule of responsibilities currently. In addition, the conflict of interest in settling building code issues is of concern. Staff also solicited input from other municipalities doing similar projects. Staff received only one response form the City of Northome that is currently building a new municipal building. Construction management for this project is part of the architect's contract and is budgeted at $12,500, with an estimated project cost is $650,000. This equates to 1.92 percent of the project cost. Staff also researched the rate that was used for the SLM Public Safety Facility. As a general parameter of the contract, Kraus -Anderson was compensated at a rate of 2.0 percent of the project cost. Staff is continuing to seek input from other construction management firms and architects. If any other information becomes available before Monday's meeting, staff will present the latest information at the Work Session. .f ~!®r! PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~y Mayor and City Council City Hall Construction Management May 23, 2008 Page 2 of 2 A rough estimate has been utilized during the design phases of Shorewood's project of $850,000 to $1,000,000 total project cost. If the assumption of the 2.0 percent is accurate, this would equate to a range of costs of $17,000 to $20,000 for the construction management portion of the project. sxox~wooD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Works DATE: May 23, 2008 RE: Boulder Bridge Proposal for Roadways Attachment 1 is the staff memorandum presented to the .City Council in January, regarding a proposal put forth by the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association (HOA) for the milling and overlaying of roadways within the Boulder Bridge subdivision. As outlined in the attachment, the HOA is requesting that the City Council allow the HOA to contract for the milling and overlay of the roadways in Boulder Bridge, outside of the scheduled Capital Improvement Program (CIP) improvements, and receive financial consideration for dollars that would be expended by the City in the programmed 2008 CIP for sealcoating. At the time of the discussion in January, the City Council had indicated that costs of seal coating, as scheduled in the CIP, may be of consideration of costs. However, this has yet to be resolved.' Mr. Blair Bury, (spokesperson for the homeowners association (HOA)), was to return to the HOA board to seek further direction. Since that time, Mr. Bury has requested to appear before the City Council to provide an update of the HOA board discussion and to seek additional feedback by the City Council. Mr. Bury is anticipated to be at the work session on Monday evening. It is also noted that the City of Shorewood opened bids for the 2008 sealcoating operations. Attachment 2 is a spreadsheet of costs for the Boulder Bridge roadways, if seal coating of these specific roadways were to occur under this contract. j os j®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER °T SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ®SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: January 24, 2008 SUBJECT: Proposal from Boulder Bridge Farm regarding Sealcoat/Overlay of Roadways Streets in the Boulder Bridge subdivisions are scheduled for a seal coat application in 2008. Staff has been approached by representatives of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association about the possibility of placing a bituminous (aka asphalt) overlay on these streets instead of a seal coat, and the Association would be willing to pay the additional cost for the overlay. Seal Coat: A seal coat is an application of trap rock on top of tack oil. When finished, it provides new wearing surfaces that typically will last three to five years. Overlay: A bituminous (or asphalt) overlay is usually 1.5 to 2 inches thick and has a lifespan of 10 years. Compared to a seal coat, an overlay is the preferred life-extending when the surface has deteriorated and cracked beyond just a simple top or seal coat. Residents typically prefer the aesthetic of an overlay and prefer to avoid the nuisance of oil and gravel during the three week period that it takes for the gravel to become the new wearing surface. Both methods are cost-effective and appropriate, and the method selected should be which one is the most cost-effective when the surface life needs to be renewed. Discussions with Boulder Brid ems: Our discussions have been exploratory, and there are policy implications as the proposal goes forward. To what extent should the City's standard approach for all public streets be altered for neighborhood preferences? Who should pay, and what portion, of the added cost? Are there fairness implications across the City for neighborhoods that are unable to afford (or agree to) more expensive alternatives? How does the City receive revenue from residents for additional cost? .s r®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • Should residents be given some credit for the additional life to be expected from an overlay compared to a seal coat? o If so, the City would need to cut back on the number of streets in the planned sealcoat/overlay program for that year, in order to absorb the cost of the "credit" • Must the City be the contracting entity for the overlay? If the Council were favorable to the upgrade in the resurfacing of the roadways in the Boulder Bridge subdivisions, the following conditions should be considered: 1) The City would contract for the overlay. The City is the owner of the roadways and must maintain it over time. If the homeowners association contracted for the work, the overlays would need to be inspected by the City before accepting the work done on its streets, and future City action on any subsequent damage or liability would need to be made against the association for the work done by its contractor. 2) The City would determine a per square yard unit price for sealcoating, from the bids it receives this year. This price would be multiplied by the number of square yards of roadways in the Boulder Bridge subdivision. 3) The Association would be responsible for the difference in cost between the overlay and the sealcoat. a. The cost can be recovered through special assessment of the affected properties or by a lump-sum payment from the Association. The lump-sum payment prior to the overlay is preferred. Under a special assessment, the City would need to float the cost of the improvement (and tie up other Local Roadway funds) until it is paid off, and the City would want to have waivers to appeal special assessments from owners of all affected properties. 4) The Council will need to decide whether there should be further evaluation of the concept of acknowledging a credit being given for the extended life of the roadway. On one hand, it is additional value and future savings (by not having to do another sealcoat cycle) on these roadways. On the other hand, the proposed overlay is a notable departure from the City's standard practice that will have a financial impact on being able to address other roadways, and the overlay could be viewed as a premium service that the affected and willing property owners should be prepared to pay. In the discussions with Association representatives, they are in agreement with #1-3 above, and would like for the Council to consider the concept of developing an amount for a credit in #4. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 6 of 8 4. DRAFT POLICY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Administrator Dawson stated Council had received a draft of policies regarding expenditures for employee recognition and other public purposes. The policies had been adapted from Minnetonka's policy; the City's practices had been very consistent with Minnetonka's written policy. Mayor Lizee requested the following be added to Item I .A Permitted Expenditures -coffee and purified water for employees and visitors to City Hail. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point the policy could be too restrictive; he suggested the policy be adapted to be more flexible. Mayor Lizee noted the policy addressed. the requests of some Councilmembers. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the following be added to Item 2.A Other Permitted Expenditures - those promoting wellness and safety of the public or staff while using City facilities (e.g., filtered or bottled water, centralized coffee/tea/hot water service, etc.). He thought it was a public as well as employee benefit. He stated individual coffee pots were a safety hazard. Mayor Lizee stated it was not important where coffee and water were added in the policy; she just wanted it to be included. Councilmember Wellens stated the auditor's letter stated coffee and water went outside of basic supplies and it generally recommended employees cover the costs for those items. Mayor Lizee noted the Auditor's letter was a recommendation only. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point the draft policy should be much shorter. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the donation to the Excelsior July 4t'' Fireworks display would be prohibited by the policy. Mayor Lizee clarified the City made a donation to the event and not specifically for the fireworks. Administrator Dawson stated that would still be a permitted expense for public funds. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City could not donate funds to the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, but it could donate funds to the Chamber for an event. Councilmember Wellens stated Item 1.A, bullet 2 could be interpreted to mean a meal could be provided at every Council meeting because it could be decided it was adjacent to a meal hour. Administrator Dawson clarified it stated you may, not you shall. Wellens stated he did not want to authorize that. Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Dawson -the Council could decide what to do. Woodruff stated he dial not want to specifically state the City could not do something. Councilmember Turgeon stated the Council could specify what time the meetings would have to start for meals to be provided. 5. REQUEST RE: BOULDER BRIDGE SEALCOATING This item was discussed before Item 3 on the agenda. Director Brown stated the City had planed to sealcoat the streets in the Boulder Bridge subdivision in 2008; and, representatives of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association had approached the City about the possibility of placing a bituminous (aka asphalt) overlay on the street instead of sealcoat, and the Association would pay the difference in cost between the overlay and the sealcoat. He then. stated the Association could take a position that the City would benefit from the overlay approach (which Staff CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 7 of 8 thought it would). Administrator Dawson stated if the City were to fund part of the overlay process it would utilize funds that would impact other roadway projects. Dawson recommended if the overlay process were to be done the Association should pay the additional cost. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Brown explained the Infrastructure Improvement Matrix rated the structure of various roadways; in the past the City had attempted to keep all the roadways at a structural rating of three or higher but that was not possible because of asphalt costs and oil costs. He then explained sealcoating did not address structural issues; a sealcoat should last five years (that had not been the City's experience as of late). An overlay did improve the structure of a roadway somewhat; it could add up to ten years to the life of the roadway. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not support this if it impacted the existing priorities for roadway improvements. Director Brown clarified the City would only pay the amount it would have cost to sealcoat the streets in Boulder Bridge; those costs were planned for in the budget. He explained the City had implemented a block program for sealcoating roadways as it was more efficient (i.e., roadways that were located in the salve geographical area were sealcoated in the same year). If a roadway was scheduled to be reconstructed in 1 - 2 years, that roadway would not be sealcoated. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City were to pay the amount of the cost of sealcoating and the Association paid the remaining amount of the cost to overlay the streets, the City would, in effect have received more for its money. Director Brown clarified if the Association (as a group) agreed to waive its right to appeal the City would not have to be concerned with assessments. Woodruff stated he could support the request provided the Association pay the entire cost for the overlay (minus what the cost would have been to sealcoat) up-front; the City would place those funds in an escrow account and it would serve as the contracting agency. Director Burton stated the City could assess the individual properly owners. Administrator Dawson stated it would be better to have the Association pay the incremental difference up-front. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, recessing the meeting to a City Council regular meeting at 7:02 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 8:15 P.M. There was continued ensuing discussion about the request. Administrator Dawson stated the next step in the process would be to convey the City's conditions to the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown stated the company owned by a member of the Association performed overlay work; it did not perform sealcoat work. In response to another question, Brown explained if the City were the letting agency the project would go out for bids. The discussion returned to Item 3 on the agenda. 6. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 8 of 8 7. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of January 28, 2008, at 8:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder u ATTEST: r ,fir Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor '. ol OH ~ ~+ O ol O oa a~ MI W c~ N V' o, ~; N ~', ~, . ~I L ~ CO Cfl I M V N I, O ~i ~ L Cfl C O O N O COI I : Q~ ~ > N ~ ~ ~ I ' CC ® ' ~ l i I ~~, G ~ EhT EA ER ER : i EA' . i EA i, I .Fi I ~ O o O ~n __ d' o ~ ~t _......__ N v __ ~ r.+ ~,-~ U i O ~ ~ c'i, ~ rn~ h i M; l~ ~ M N M N N ~ .- M ~;; CO C, o0 O V j i M ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ o Ni {„~ ~ ~ h W M ~; i.[7 N CO O CO ~ ~ N U U +~ M ~ M.: m 00 ', O' CO O M v 'C ~'I, Q OI O ! N ~ M ~' M "~_ c4 U '', ~ .Q N ~ N ° I ~ e»~ i t»~ tA ~ ~ o fA N - I ~'~^1 : ~n co M O rn', '~, v• ' CO ~ N : N ',~ . .__ ___ ' j O O O ~ N t1') N 07 r ~, ~ , LL j ('• t!) W W ~ N N V N 01 N ';. ~ , -_ ___ ~ //'' i v! ~ N N I ( I I I I ~ ~~ O OH O V ~ ~, ~ O ~ ?~ ~~y~11 _ ~ ~n m ~n O~ ~n i O u~ m O v• iJ `- , r- ~ N L O I ~ 'a I i CI ~I N ~ i ~ O I MM i W i ' ~ O 0 O OM O ~ O ~ O O ~i ~ I i u. ' .M U~ ~ _ ( I ~i '~ m O ~O J C1 Q ~ ~' 'D ` N ~ c~ ~ :',. N ~ o m f ~ U m m ._ ~ ' 'O L ~ 'O ~ i 'D ' O L 7 i 7 ~ I(q O [O , Z U ~, U_ ~ N '~ i 0 ~ C N ~ ~ i NI ~'~ i I C G ~ i ~ ~ J ~ 0 ~ ~ j ~ O O O I Ol i p1 : p1 ~ p>i I j y. C 1m` j'G ;m 'm` m` j 3 'O ~ I~ ~~ ~ I L_ 'O ~'O 'O 'D ' ~ E O O > O > O > j O i I~_ m ~m {m m ~ ~~ O ! ' p " +r U I I j ~' Mi ~ Rf I I cj o Z i ~! d d d .d ~ F O m a~ J m m J ~ m m J m ' m i d 1 C: ' . :C v 'C jv i'O ~'C '~ ~ ~~ O C C0 CO ;m I00 ~ ;U:' ~ I `m ~ `m ~ ~ m j d ~ ) `m~ ', ~ ~ , NI ' o o ~v !- I ~ a , oi ' c ` O iC0 O m O ~m ' O m i O ', {m; I 7 L~-