Loading...
CR 94-77 Professional Service Mainstreat Feasibility , i \ 1 y 0 c, '" ~ .APril 14, 1994 + 0 Council Report: 94-77 o P K \ ~ AUTHORIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PREPARING MAINSTREET FEASIBILITY STUDY, 5TH AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE Proposed Action. staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 94-40 authorizinq the Mayor and city Manaqer to enter into contract with RLK Associates for preparation of a Feasibility Report for Mainstreet from 5th to Washinqton Avenues as outlined in RLK's scope of services dated March 10. 1994." Adoption of this motion will allow RLK to begin the feasibility study at a cost estimated at $9,800.00. No other work is authorized under this motion. Overview. The 1994 CIP includes the reconstruction of Mainstreet from 5th Avenue to Washington Avenue. This potential project was included in the CIP due to the poor condition of the sidewalk, and curbing, and also that it was ~determined the timing was right since the other portion of Mainstreet had ~ecently been upgraded. Council reviewed this project at their January 18th meeting and did not take action to order a feasibility report. Council did however, direct staff at that meeting to formally contact MnDOT to determined if they would allow a slip ramp off the T.H. 169 onto Mainstreet. MnDOT has responded to the City's request and indicated they would not allow a slip ramp to be built. Staff is consequently returning this item to Council to seek authorization to begin a feasibility study for the street improvement. Primary Issues to Consider o Why order a feasibility report? o Why wouldn't MnDOT allow a slip ramp to be built? o Should the feasibility project proceed without the slip ramp? o Can the project still be completed this year? o Is the cost of this feasibility study comparable to other feasibility studies previously performed for Hopkins? o How could the feasibility study be funded? o Why use RLK Associates as the consultant on this project? supportinq Information o Analysis of Issues o MnDOT Letter ~ N.A.B. memo to Council ~~ Scope of services from RLK Associates o Resolution 94-40 g~/~ Lee Gus~afson, Public Works Director Council Report: 94-77 Page 2 ~AnalYSiS of Issues 0 Why order a feasibility report? As Council is aware, preparing a feasibility report is a mandatory procedure that a city must comply with in the assessment process. In this case, the feasibility report would serve to meet this requirement, and it would also provide Council with detailed information that they would be able to use in determining whether this project should proceed past the feasibility report stage. The information contained in the report will give council the total project cost, a per parcel project cost, and the city's share of the project cost. 0 Why wouldn't MnDOT allow a slip ramp to be built? MnDOT officials indicated that after reviewing all the information the city sent over to them and the information they had on hand, they would not approve a slip ramp off of T.H. 169 onto Mainstreet. Their disapproval of our request is mainly due to their technical review of the situation. Their complete analysis and reasoning is contained in the attached letter. 0 Should the feasibility project proceed without the slip ramp? . Staff feels MnDOT's response to our request was the deciding factor on whether to continue pursuing the slip ramp concept. When you combine MnDOT's response with the Neighborhood Advisory Board's non-supportive position (see attached letter) and the concerns from adjacent residents, staff feels that this is definitely enough input to determine that it is not worth the effort for the city to continue studying a slip ramp concept. Staff therefore strongly feels that the city proceed with the project without the slip ramp concept due to the poor condition of the sidewalk, curbing and street. 0 Can the project still be completed this year? The project can still be completed this year if everything goes fairly smooth and the city does not assess the proj ect up front. Staff recommends that the city try to get the project completed this year, and if the project hits a snag, we can always schedule it for completion in the Spring of 1995. Delaying the project until 1995 should have very little impact on the cost estimate listed in RLK's proposal. 0 Is the cost of this feasibility study comparable to other feasibility studies previously performed by Hopkins? RLK Associates have established a cost of $46,300.00 to take this project from start to finish. This cost equates to a 18.5% charge for an estimated $250,000.00 project. The feasibility study cost with . surveying, is approximately 5.5% of the total engineering cost. Both the 18.5% total fee and the 5.5% study fee are very reasonable, and comparable to other projects that the city has undertaken. _. ___.u _.___ ,__ Council Report: 94-77 Page 3 ~o How could the feasibility study be funded? The study would initially be funded from the city PIR fund with the intent it should be included as a project cost if the project proceeds forward. If it was included as a project cost, the feasibility study would be funded from assessments as well as from the city's PIR fund. If the project does not proceed forward, the entire cost would be paid from the city's PIR fund which receives money for the city's share on projects from general obligation bonds. 0 Why use RLK Associates as the consultant on this project? Staff felt it was fairly obvious to use RLK as the consultant on this project for a number of reasons. As we all know, RLK was the city's consultant on the earlier Mainstreet project. They are therefore very familiar with the city's expectations and how we operate. They also are familiar with most every property owner on Mainstreet which should be a benefit in the communication effort. RLK's familiarity with the suppliers should also be a significant benefit when putting the finishing touches on the street. staff is also hoping that RLK's familiarity in all these areas should save the city money during the construction phase. ~ . --- Mn/DOT Metro W.E. TEL:612-582-1368 Rpr 14 94 1~:2S No.uO( P.02 . tijl MInnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Duilding 1500 WeSl County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 April ]4, 1994 Mr. Lee Gustafson, P.E. City Engineer City of Hopkins 10 10 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Gustafson: SUBJECT: Proposed Mainstreet Ramp Connection to Trunk Highway 169 and Excelsior Boulevard Hopkins, Hennepin County C.S. 2745 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOI') has reviewed the City of Hopkins proposal . to provide a ramp connection from Mainstrcct to the Trunk Highway (T.H.) 169/Excelsior Boulevard exit ramp. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your proposal. Though we understand the needs of metropolitan communities to provide access for motorists, we must also maintain the safety of our roadways. Constructing a connection from the T.H. 169 exit ramp is not a condition which Mn/DOT would allow to occur. The proposed slip ramp is in a location where vehicles are decelerating from a high speed roadway, approaching a traffic signal, and making decisions about where and when to go. To introduce a ramp which would require Mainstrcet-bound traffic to decelerate faster, introduces a hazard to all ramp traffic. In addition, the distance and time saved by motorists atlempting to access Mainstrcct, via the proposed connection, does not appear to justify the total expense of this project from our standpoint. Balancing the concerns of a business community wilh the safety of the motoring public is not an easy task. V\'e are available to answer any other queslions or comments you may have. Please feel free to contact Ruth Ann Spbnosky of our Planning Section at 582-1386 or Sue Scharcnbroich, Division Traffic Engineer, at 779-5185 with any questions or comments. Sincerely, -.. C:;;c~};;:'7f~J . Scott L. McBride, P. E. Planning and Programming Engineer An Equal OpporruTlity Employer -- -.