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
.