Loading...
CR 01-92 Proposed Increase to Pavilion Hourly Ice Rental Prime Rate July 17, 2001 \ ,. y 0 - OPK\~ Council Report: 01-92 PROPOSED INCREASE TO PAVILION HOURLY ICE RENTAL PRIME RATE Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion "Adopt Resolution No. 01..:44 increasina the Pavilion Prime Hourlv Ice Rental Rate effective September 1. 2001". Overview. The Pavilion prime hourly rental rate has been increased every 2 years based upon projected operational expenses and projected hours to be sold. The last ice rental rate increase was September 1, 1999. After reviewing ice rental rates, prime time hours and the demand for prime ice hours of surrounding facilities, Staff recommends an increase to the Prime Hour Ice Rate to help budget revenues to meet or exceed expenses. Primary Issue to Consider. . Should the prime ice rental rate increase? Supportina Information. . Detailed background Rate comparison with other arenas . Analysis of issue Resolution No. 01-44 ~O~ Don Ols n, Pavilion Manager Detailed Backaround. In the past, ice rental increases have been in increments of $10.00, increasing every two years. The last increase was on September 1, 1999. The rate increase will bring the rate up to the average prime rate of surrounding arenas. This rate increase will help meet or exceed expenses in the Pavilion budget; expenses which increase each year as the facility gets older and energy costs increase. Non-prime ice, turf, and dry floor hourly rental rates have no proposed rate increase to keep rates low in order to attract users and stay competitive with other facilities offering the same types of rentals. The proposed rate increase is as follows: Prime Time Hours Non-Prime Hours Turf Rental Dry Floor Rental Current Rate $130.00 $105.00 $ 65.00 $ 55.00 Proposed Rate $140.00 no increase no increase no increase All rental rates must meet the approval of the Park Board and City Council as stated in section 2.10 of Legislative Policy #5-E Pavilion (Ice Arena) operation. The Hopkins Park Board approved the rate increase on July 16,2001. PRIME RATE COMPARISON OF SURROUNDING ARENAS Plymouth Eden Prairie Edina (Braemar) Brooklyn Park New Hope Minnetonka Bloomington 5t. Louis Park Champlin Blake Average 00-01 $140.00 $135.00 $130.00 $150.00 $150.00 $130.00 $135.00 $125.00 $145.00 $140.00 $138.00 01-02 $140.00 $140.00 $135.00 $150.00 $150.00 $135.00 $140.00 $130.00 $150.00 $140.00 $141.00 The City will be able to increase the prime ice rental rate and still be comparable to other arenas. The Pavilion prime ice rate will be at the average. Analvsis of Issue. . Should the prime ice rental rate increase? The Hopkins Park Board has reviewed this information and recommended the rate increase at the July 16, 2001 Park Board meeting. The purpose of the rate increase is to help revenues meet or exceed expenses in the Pavilion budget. The proposed rate ($140.00/hr) is at the metro average. Staff feels thatthe market will bear the rate increase. -~ City of Hopkins Hennepin County, Minnesota Resolution No. 01-44 Hourly Ice Rates and Prime Time Hours WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins has established Legislative Policy #5-E, Pavilion (Ice Arena) Operation, Section 3.05; Rates for hourly ice rentals, and WHEREAS, the rate for prime time ice rental hours will be determined by recommendation from Pavilion staff and Park Board and approved by the City Council, and, WHEREAS, an adjustment of the hourly ice rental rates must be made to offset operational expenses, and, WHEREAS, surrounding facilities have indicated comparable rate increases, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby repeals the existing hourly prime ice rental rate effective September 1, 2001, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the hourly prime ice rental rate in the Hopkins Pavilion are set as follows: Prime Time Ice Rental Rate: $140.00/hr BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the effective date of this new rate be in force in connection with all billing rendered hereunder from and after September 1, 2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 8th day of August, 2001. By Gene Maxwell, Mayor Attest: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk C\TY Of: m July 31, 2001 HOPKINS Council Report 2001-94 Award of Bid - 2001 Seal Coat Project, City Project 01-01 Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council. adopt Resolution 2001-47, Resolution for Award of Bid, Proiect 01-01. Awarding the 2001 Seal Coat Proiect Contr~ct to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Overview As a part of the City's Pavement Management Program, annual seal coating is planned for local City streets in order to preserve and extend the life of those streets. The 2001 Seal Coat Project bid opening was held on June 19, 2001. An acceptable low bid by Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $44,077.40 was received and staff requests award of this contract. Primary Issues to Consider . Bid Tabulation, Engineer's Estimate, and Recommendations Bidder Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Allied Blacktop Company Caldwell Asphalt Company, Inc.. ASTECH Corporation Engineer's Estimate Total Bid $44,077.40 $44,791.63 $48,715.81 $58,233.40 $45,062.29 All bids were submitted with required bid security made by qualified contractors. Bituminous Roadways has contracted for Hopkins seal coat projects in the past. Staff recommends award of bid for the 2001 Seal Coat Project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $44,077.40. . Project Budget Staff has budgeted $64,900 in materials, supplies, and services for the 2001 Seal Coat Project that includes this contract. Supporting Information . Bid Tabulation . Location Map . Resolution 2001-47 Jt;;;::G-,;y- Steven G. Bot, Assistant City Engineer Financial Impact: $ 44.077.40 Budgeted: Y/N::L Source: General Fund Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): 2001 Budaet Notes: 0 0 I.{) ('i)1.{) ('i) N N "'"I'-- ~ W cO c-i 0""': 0; >. I-- I-- 0) 0 0) C <( (J) ....... "'" ....... I'-- CO 2 0 ..,j "'"- a. ~ () "'" "'" E 0 en () W ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- - - a. 0 ~ I'-- I.{) 1'--1.{) U ~ N ('i) N co !:: W ....... 0 "-:0 in () Z ~ "tJ ::> ~ a. <( ER- ER- ER- ER- 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 "'" 0 00 "'" 0 "'" 00 -.;t U W 0 cri Lri ~ ~ W 0 t.O crio c-i c I-- I-- I.{) I'-- 0) I.{) I'-- I-- I-- <0 co I'-- ....... ('i) <( (J) I.{) <0 <0 ....... 0 <( (J) N '<;f" NN C'\l en :2: 0 ri cri ~ :2: 0 N ..0 00 >. ~ () ('i) "'" ~ () ('i) N I.{) co ?; en en "tJ W W co ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- W- - - 0 e:::: "'" 0 0 0 0 0 00 en 0 0 0 0 ~ CO 0 0 ::l !:: W ....... <ri Lri N I I-- W ....... Lri N 0 0 () N Z () ....... ('i) c Z ~ () ~ "E ::> W ::> .a a. I-- a. en Oi ER- ER- ER- ER- <( ER- w- ER- ER- 0 0 0 0) 0 0) 0 0 0 00 ....... W N ~ N 0) N W 0 <0 I.{) 0 co I-- I-- cri CD c-i ex:) N I-- I-- ....... N NN Lri <( en U; 0) co <0 U <( en N <ri "-:<ri ....... 2 0 ....... N 0 c 2 0 0 ('i) C'\ll.{) I'-- ..,j ci ..0 0 0) I.{) N 00 ~ ~ () ('i) ....... "'" 0 ~ () u) N "'" en () en ('i) ....... (J)W ER- w- ER- ER- ER- :!:W ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- - I--w co (J) 0 0 .c I.{) I.{) 0 I'-- ....... a. C'\l ii:: ~ ('i) ....... I'-- en co 0 1'--<0 W I-- W ....... cO N N <( !:: W ~ ex:) c-icO W () ....... () ....... ('i) Z Z ~ (i) Z ~ ::> ?; ::> (5 a. "tJ a. Z ER- ER- w- ER- ro ER- ER- ER- w- W () 0 >- 0 ('i) 0) I'-- 0 >- 0 ('i) 0)1'-- W <0 CD ('i) W <0 ....... ('i) I-- I-- N ....... I-- I-- N <0 ....... ~ N ....... ~ C'\l ....... <( ('i) <( ('i) 2 Z :2 Z ~ <( ~ <( ::> ::> en 0 en 0 W W !:: ..J Z ..J Z !:: ..J Z ..JZ Z <( 0 <( 0 Z <( 0 <( 0 ::> e.!) I-- e.!) I-- ::> e.!) I-- e.!) I-- en en I-- I-- 0 (J) 0 (J) ...J I-- ...J I-- (J) e.!) 0 en e.!) 0 I-- Z ...J I-- Z ...J W en S2 e.!) W en S2 e.!) W I-- Z W I-- Z e:::: W e:::: e:::: W e:::: I-- W <( S2 I-- W <( S2 en e:::: a. e:::: en e:::: a. e:::: I I-- I <( I I-- I <( I-- en I-- a. I-- en I-- a. <( I <( I <( I <( I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () W () W () W () W ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J 2 <( <( <( j:: :2: <( <( <( <( W W I-- W W W I-- W I-- t) I-- (J) en (J) en I-- en en (J) en Q) - e:::: Z e:::: Z - e:::: Z e:::: Z "0' 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0:: W W W W IJ.. I-- IJ.. I-- IJ.. I-- IJ.. ~ 10 W <( W <( W <( W 0 e:::: e.!) e:::: e.!) e:::: (9 e:::: (9 () ::> W ::> W ::> W ::> W Wro I-- e:::: I-- e:::: I-- e:::: I-- e:::: ...J Q) ~ e.!) ~ (9 ~ (9 ~ (9 ::>en :2 e.!) 2 e.!) 2 (9 2 (9 0....... (J) <( (J) <( en <( (J) <( wo ::> I-- ::> I-- ::> I-- ::> I-- I 0 0 <( 0 <( 0 <( 0 <( () N 0 0 0 0 en I Z () Z () en Z () Z () (J) ....... ~ ~ ...J ~ ~ ...J W 0 ...J ...J <( ...J .....J <( ~ I ::> <( ::> <( I-- ::> <( ::> <( I-- ....... !:: !:: !:: !:: e:::: 0 W W 0 W W 0 a. 0 co (J) co (J) I- co (J) co en I-- I-- Z 2 0 :2 0 Z a. W ....... N ('i) "'" W ....... N ('i) "'" ::> () !:: Z !:: Z ~ w Z ~ Z Z iIifId :c 1" C:"'I 01 HOPKINS. MINNESOTA ........ COUll" ~ ~ SCALE 2001 Coot Seal < z ! 'r:J --- FA-3 MOdified Prlnt.en 6-14i-Q1 AVH CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001-47 RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BID 2001 SEAL COAT PROJECT CITY PROJECT 01-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that the lowest bid of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $44,077.40 is the lowest responsible bid for the 2001 Seal Coat Project, City Project 01-01 and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 8th day of August, 2001. By . Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor. ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk C\TY OF - July 31, 2001 HOPKINS Council Report 2001-95 Second Reading Replacement of Existing City Code Section 805 Street Excavations. Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council adopt for second readina Ordinance 2001-854 repealina section 805 of the Hopkins City Code in its entirety and enactina a new section 805. Overview. The existing Section 805 of the Hopkins City Code sets forth regulations for excavating within the city's streets. The proposed new ordinance follows a new model ordinance developed by the City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the League of Minnesota Cities. The new ordinance provides more detailed regulations on permitting, administration, restoration and financial responsibility for right of way users. Most metro area cities have either adopted or are in the process of adopting this new ordinance. Primary Issues to Consider. Detailed background Summary of regulations Supportina information. Current City Code Section 805 Ordinance 2001-854 ~& -U- Steven G~ Bot, Assistant City Engineer Financial Impact: $ 0 Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Council Report 2001-95 Page 2 Analvsis of Issues Detailed Background The demand for the city's right of ways has increased in the past few years. This has been primarily due to the improved telecommunications technologies and the attendant consumer demand for more service. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted to help ensure competition within the industry. The law requires municipalities to allow telecommunications providers equal access to the right of ways. Shortly after the law was enacted, work began on developing a right of way management ordinance that would continue to allow cities to properly manage their right of ways while conforming to the new telecommunications law. A task force comprised of representatives from telecommunications companies and other utility providers, city engineers, League of Minnesota Cities, and the MN Public Utilities Commission developed a set of right-of-way management rules. These rules are now embodied in State law. The proposed new ordinance follows the model right-of-way ordinance developed as a cooperative effort between the City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the League of Minnesota Cities. Most cities within the metro area either have or are in the process of adopting this new ordinance. Summary of New Ordinance o Right-of-way users must register with the city (exception for property owners maintaining/repairing utility service lines) o Registrants must submit a plan of projected construction or major maintenance for underground facilities o Requires excavation or obstruction permit and conditions of issuance o Allows city rE3covery of management costs o Establishes level of street repair based on type of exc~vation and age of road .