CR 93-83 CTY RD 3 Corridor Study
,
1 ,
:ca:
May 25, 1993
Council Report 93-83
OPKI"
. COUNTY ROAD 3 CORRIDOR STUDY
Propos d Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion:
Move to approve
the Scope of Services for the County
Road 3 Corridor Redevelopment
Study and authorize the Mayor and City
Manaqer to enter into an
aqreement with the Hoisington Koeqler Group.
ov rview
Over the last several years significant discussion and actions have
taken place regarding undertaking an improvement project for County
Road 3. These actions included traffic and conceptual studies,
recommendations in the Strategic Plan for Economic Development, and
the insertion of the County Road 3 Improvement Project in the City and
County's Capital Improvement Plans.
In January of 1993 the City Council authorized staff to solicit
proposals for a study which would evaluate the impact of implementing
a project for the upgrading and widening of the entire County Road 3
corridor in Hopkins. It is expected the results of the proposed study
will provide the foundation for designing and undertaking a County
Road 3 improvement project. Since January staff has reviewed the
proposals submitted and interviewed four consultants. Based upon
these interviews and reference checks staff came to the conclusion
that the Hoisington Koegler team (HKG) was the most appropriate
consultant to undertake the study.
During the May 11 work session the City Council, Planning Commission,
city staff and the Hoisington Koegler team met to review the
objectives of the study, proposed scope of work, and the
qualifications of the HKG team. After lengthy discussion it became
clear that the proposed scope of work suggested by the HKG team, and
their qualifications, were acceptable. Furthermore, the Council
acknowledged that staff should proceed to negotiate a final scope of
work and contract and return on June 1 for City Council approval.
Primary Issues to Consider
0 What activities has the City undertaken in the past regarding
this matter?
0 What are the primary objectives of the study?
0 What is the background of the Hoisington Koegler team?
0 What are the specifics of the Hoisington Koegler study approach?
0 What modifications were made to the Scope of Services in
consideration of Council comments?
0 How is the study proposed to be funded?
Supporting Documents
0 Proposed Scope of Services and Contract
o Request for Proposal
o Summary of Hoisington Koegler team
o ~~~~:from Hennepin County
~ )-
~._--._- --------~
Thomas armening
Community Development Director
; ,
CR93-83
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider
0 What activities has the City undertaken in the past regarding
this matter?
Significant discussion regarding undertaking an improvement
project for County Road 3 has occurred over the last several
years. Specific examples of the City's interest in undertaking a
County Road 3 Improvement Project include:
- The City hired Benshoof and Associates to undertake various
traffic studies regarding necessary improvements which
should be made to County Road 3. This study area dealt
primarily with the roadway between Trunk Highway 169 and
Blake Road as it was felt this area was most in need of
improvement. As a result of these studies, recommendations
were made regarding roadway section widths and right-of-way
needs to accommodate potential improvements. Furthermore,
the study recommended the City undertake a land
use/redevelopment analysis to determine the appropriate
direction in which to widen the right-of-way.
- In September of 1990 the City of Hopkins, in conjunction
with Hennepin County, completed a report entitled "A Study
for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor". This study addressed
a variety of issues relating to the future redevelopment of
this corridor. Included in this study were elements of land
use and economic development, traffic safety and
circulation, image, utilities and recommendations for
implementation.
- The City'S Strategic Plan for Economic Development has
placed County Road 3 as a strategic economic issue and has
recommended the City undertake the necessary steps to
improve vehicular and pedestrian movement along County Road
3. The plan does specifically recommend the City undertake
a land use study for County Road 3 between Fifth Avenue and
Blake Road.
- The city has requested that Hennepin County include in its
Capital Improvements Plan a project involving an improvement
project for County Road 3.
- The City has placed County Road 3 in its own Capital
Improvement Plan as a project to be undertaken during the
period of 1995-1997.
,
CR93-83
Page 3
0 What are the primary objectives of the study?
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact of
implementing a project for the upgrading and widening of the
entire County Road 3 corridor in Hopkins. It is expected the
results of the proposed study will provide the foundation for
designing and undertaking a County Road 3 Improvement Project.
The primary objectives of this study include:
- Evaluate land use, economic development and redevelopment
issues involved with implementing such a project due to
potential right-of-way widening requirements based on
various roadway design alternatives.
- Evaluate property tax, traffic and cost implications related
to various roadway design alternatives.
- Evaluate development and redevelopment opportunities
available based on the implementation of various roadway
design alternatives.
- Evaluate right-of-way acquisition/cost implications as
related to various roadway design alternatives.
- Evaluate conceptual design alternatives as related to street
lighting, pedestrian improvements, landscaping, etc. based
on various right-of-way width alternatives. An emphasis
will be given to assuring a consistent design and appearance
along the entire County Road 3 corridor.
- Evaluate financing alternatives for implementing County Road
3 Improvement Project.
- Evaluate impact of various roadway design alternatives on
adjoining residential properties.
- Undertake an active public participation process to assist
in evaluating the aforementioned objectives.
- Based on the analysis undertaken, provide recommendations to
the City on the most appropriate alignment and roadway
design.
Attached is a copy of the Request for Proposal.
CR93-83
Page 4
0 What is the background of the Hoisington Koegler team?
Enclosed is background information on the Hoisington Koegler
team. A brief summary of the team is as follows:
- Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. - This firm will be the lead
consultant and serve as project manager for the study.
- Benshoof and Associates - Benshoof and Associates has worked
with the City numerous times in the past on other projects
and completed the traffic study for County Road 3.
- RLK Associates - The City has had a relationship with this
firm on such projects as the Mainstreet and Knollwood street
improvements.
- Macro Media Technologies Inc. - Macro Media is a firm which
can provide tools to allow people to visualize the impact of
the design alternatives and recommendations.
The three primary persons who will be involved in this project
from a public participation perspective are Fred Hoisington and
Mark Koegler from the Hoisington Koegler Group and Richard Koppy
from RLK Associates.
Reasons for which the Hoisington Koegler Group (HKG) was selected
to undertake the County Road 3 study include:
- The HKG proposal came closest to meeting the study
objectives as outlined by the City.
- Based upon communications with other individuals and
communities, City staff was impressed with HKG's team from
the perspective of pUblic participation and the related
skills of the three people who will be involved with public
participation. This was important to staff due to the fact
one critical component of undertaking the County Road 3
study is to hopefully build consensus and an understanding
about the project and encourage public participation as
related to various aspects of improving County Road 3.
- HKG has included in their proposal an attractive financial
analysis package which was superior to other consultants.
This financial analysis included the ability to analyze
implications of various right-of-way concepts from the
perspective of acquisition costs, property tax loss,
property tax generation due to redevelopment possibilities,
project funding, etc.
CR93-83
Page 5
- The HKG team included in their approach the use of the Macro
Media firm which, if desired by the City, will be very
useful in allowing the City Council and study group to
visualize potential changes to the corridor.
- HKG had a very competitive fee schedule.
0 What are the specifics of the Hoisington Koegler study approach?
Although a full description of HKG's approach is outlined in the
attached Scope of Services, a brief outline of their proposal is
as follows:
- Timeline
HKG has estimated it will take approximately 9 months to
fully complete the study and the public participation
process. This would involve a fully completed study by
March of 1994. A detailed time schedule will be developed
early on in the study process.
- Public Participation
HKG's proposal involves the use of a steering committee
consisting of business and resident interests representing
the entire corridor to ensure consistency in decision making
throughout. In addition, five subcommittees consisting of
business and resident interests representing five distinct
areas of the corridor will be formed. Furthermore, each
subcommittee will have a representative on the steering
committee which will play an oversight role. Interviews and
focus group type sessions are proposed along with public
meetings for the general public.
- Work Program
The attached Scope of Services outlines the study's work
activities.
The proposed approach by HKG involves a relatively standard
study process involving data collection, identification of
issues and objectives, development of alternatives,
selection of alternatives, development of a design
framework, development of implementation strategies,
preparation of the final report, and then approvals. As the
City moves through the study process, modifications can and
probably will be made to the work program.
CR93-83
Page 6
- Cost
After the City Council work session staff met with the
Hoisington Koegler Group to discuss the work program on a
detailed basis. As the Council may recall, HKG originally
proposed basic services which amounted to approximately
$74,000, plus optional services which provided for a total
study cost of approximately $117,000.
Based upon our discussions with HKG, staff has modified the
Scope of Services to include some of the optional services
within the base level of services to be provided. In
addition, the contract still outlines optional services and
their related costs, if the City desires to use these
services. Based upon these negotiations, the proposal
enclosed involves a basic level of services amounting to
$79,500. In addition, the total cost of all of the optional
services amounts to $14,865. This amount includes up to
four photographic images by Macro Media but does not include
any kind of computer animation, which is quite expensive.
In addition to the base level of services and optional
costs, the City is expected to provide services which will
generate expense. These services relate primarily to
copying and mailing costs. Staff estimates the city's cost
related to these items is from $3,000 to $4,000.
Based on the assumption the City used all the optional
services (except computer animation) plus experienced its
own estimated expenses, the study cost could amount to
$97,900.
Please note that the aforementioned fees do not include any
cost related to HKG's assistance with preparing the ISTEA
application for Federal funding for the project. Hoisington
Koegler Group has agreed to do this at no cost to the city.
It is estimated that these services would equate to
approximately $ 2,500.
0 What modifications were made to the Scope of Services in
consideration of Council comments?
During the City Council work session several comments were made
which staff kept in mind as part of working on the final Scope of
Services. Examples include:
- Make sure we are not spending a lot of time and money
analyzing cross section concepts that are not feasible.
- Make sure to communicate with the County regarding the cross
section concepts we propose to examine and determine their
feelings/reactions regarding these concepts.
- We need to include the entire community - residential and
business community - into the study process.
CR93-83
Page 7
with regard to the first two points staff and the consultant have
and continue to plan on staying in close contact with Hennepin
County. However, we have added a work element to the study
process which, before any other step has been taken, involves a
meeting with city staff, Hennepin County staff and staff persons
from Minnetonka and st. Louis Park. The purpose of this meeting
is to present the project objectives, work plan and possible
roadway alternatives to be considered. From this discussion we
should learn more about the various governmental agencies'
position on the project which will allow us to determine if the
study should be altered.
with regard to the last point the consultant's scope of work
allows for:
- Up to six Focus Group Sessions with Committees.
- Up to four meetings with Planning Commission, City Council
and HRA.
- Up to four meetings with community groups and organizations.
- SOlicit/attend up to four meetings with Hennepin County
Department of Transportation.
- Meet with City staff as necessary throughout process.
- Develop a brief newsletter/status report to report project
progress and conclusions (five estimated).
As related to the above meetings, two meetings will be held with
the general public to solicit input and comments.
0 How is the study proposed to be funded?
At this time staff is proposing to use funds from either the 2-1
TIF District or the Economic Development fund. Funds are
available to pay for the cost of this study.
City staff did formally send a request to the Hennepin county
Public Works Director asking that Hennepin County assist in
paying for a portion of the study cost. Attached is a letter
from the Hennepin County Public Works Director which indicates
that Hennepin County will not participate in the study cost.
Reasons for this include:
- They have no funds available in their budget.
- The County has participated in past traffic studies which
dealt with issues of primary concern to the County.
- The proposed study analyzes issues which go beyond the
responsibility of the County.
CR93-83
Page 8
Alternatives
city council has the following alternatives regarding this matter:
0 Approve the action as recommended by staff.
0 Approve the action as recommended by staff but modify the
scope of services.
0 Do not approve the actions recommended by staff and
determine that the City does not desire to undertake this
study.
0 continue the matter for further information.
Hoisington Koegler Group lnc.
mID
flD May 25, 1993
Mayor and City Council
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street
Hopkins, MN 55343-7573
Re: Contract Proposal for County Road 3 Redevelopment Study
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
This letter proposal outlines a Scope of Services, Fee Schedule and other elements
which together constitute an agreement between the CITY OF HOPKINS,
hereinafter referred to as the CITY, and HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC.,
hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT, for professional planning services
authorized to complete the County Road 3 Corridor Redevelopment Study,
hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT.
The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below:
A. BASIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAM
The Work Program to achieve the project objectives and create a strategic plan
for the County Road 3 Corridor includes the following tasks:
Task 1- Data Collection, Review, Mapping
A. Objective: To establish a thorough understanding of the corridor and the
framework for planning, build a data base and identify development/
redevelopment opportunities and constraints within the corridor.
B. Work Elements:
1. Prepare for/conduct a meeting with the Hennepin County, MnDOT, St.
Louis Park, Minnetonka and Hopkins Staffs to present PROJECT
objectives, the work plan and the possible roadway alternatives to be
considered. The purpose of this meeting will be to take input in case the
direction of the study should need to be altered.
2. Prepare a base map for the corridor utilizing CAD and delineate the study
area.
3. Conduct an on-site corridor analysis to map and photograph existing
conditions.
Land Use / Environmental 8 Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
4. Collect, review and map background information from the City and
cooperating agencies.
5. Create a computer based economic model for the corridor. The model will
include information about each parcel in the study area. The model will
be used to evaluate and analyze the fiscal impacts of alternatives. The
model will be presented to the City as a product of the study for use in
implementation.
6. Interview key business and residential leaders to understand issues, needs
and expansion plans.
7. Create visual image graphic representing the conclusions of Task 1.
C. Products: . Data Base and Conclusions
. Graphic Visual Image Analysis
. Economic Model
Task 2 - Information Dissemination/Communications
A. Objective: To make the public at-large aware of the project, solicit support,
create Study identity and create a communications vehicle.
B. Work Elements:
1. Conduct a public information meeting for general public attendance.
2. Prepare news release.
3. Design ongoing communications medium.
4. Design letterhead.
C. Products: . Letterhead Design
. Newsletter Design
. News Release
. Minutes of Public Information Meeting
Task 3 - Identify Issues and Objectives
A. Objective: To establish a vehicle for public participation, identify issues,
establish corridor objectives and identify alternatives to be tested.
B. Work Elements:
1. Appoint a Steering Committee and Subcommittees for each of five issue
areas (City).
2. Design and structure Focus Group Process and Session 1 to allow
committees to reach agreement on overall corridor and issue area
objectives.
3. Conduct Focus Group Session 1 - Identify Issues.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 2
.
4. Summarize Focus Group Session 1 and circulate summary for comments.
5. Conduct Focus Group Session 2 to agree on planning objectives.
6. Creation of corridor issues graphic.
7. Write/circulate newsletter.
C. Products: . Establishment of corridor planning objectives
. Issues graphic
. Listing of alternatives to be tested
. Minutes of Meetings
. Newsletter
D. Available Additional Services:
. Preliminary Survey Instrument (B.l.)
Task 4 - Development/Evaluation of Preliminary Roadway Alternatives
A. Objective: To develop the range of alternatives to be tested and assess their
relative impacts.
. B. Work Elements:
1. Establish general street improvement concepts by segment delineating
approximate right-of-way needs.
2. Develop an impact matrix with criteria to be used in screening
alternatives.
3. Selection of developers to assess land use potential within corridor.
4. Conduct of developer evaluation and reports.
5. Generally assess broad impacts of each on:
a. Land use
b. Redevelopment/ economic development potential
c. Appearance
d. Probable acquisition costs
e. Business impacts
f. Relocation
g. Barrier Impacts (dividing north and south Hopkins)
h. Residential areas
1. Transportation functions
6. Conduct a Tier 1 evaluation of alternatives utilizing impact matrix. This
is a general evaluation of alternatives designed to eliminate unwanted
options.
7. Structure and conduct Focus Group Session 3 to discuss/narrow the range
. of alternatives to be studied in detail.
8. Summarize Focus Group Session 3 and circulate to participants for
comment.
9. Write/circulate newsletter.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 3
C. Products: . A summary of land use potential within
corridor
. A summary of the matrix evaluation of
preliminary roadway alternatives.
. Selection of preferred alternatives
. Minutes of Meetings
. Newsletter
D. A valiable Additional Services:
. Photographic Images (B.2.)
. Computer Animation (B.3.)
Progress Review Meeting
Meeting with City Council to review project progress and results to date. Adjust
work program if necessary.
Task 5 - Preferred Alternatives Development/Evaluation/Selection
A. Objective: To develop schematic plans for remaining alternatives, test them
and select one alternative.
B. Work Elements:
1. Develop schematic plans and budgets for remaining alternatives (2
assumed).
2. Develop a selection matrix and criteria to be used to screen alternatives.
3. Assess specific impacts of each alternative considering:
a. Land Use
b. Redevelopment/ economic development potential
c. Tax base
d. Traffic/circulation/pedestrian convenience and safety
e. Public improvement costs
f. Acquisition costs
(Y Buffering capabilities / impacts on neighborhoods
tJ.
h. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan
1- Design/ aesthetic continuity /visualization/ community image
J. Funding availability
k. Relocation impacts/ costs
1. Phasing
m. Ability to accommodate public transit
n. Construction . disruption
4. Evaluate the financial feasibility of preferred alternatives. The evaluation
would include, at a minimum, ability to incur debt, amount of debt
required, revenue needed to suppport debt service and alternative sources
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 4
of revenue. If applicable, the evaluation would calculate estimated
property tax and special assessment impacts.
5. Conduct Tier 2 evaluation of alternatives utilizing selection matrix. This
is a detailed evaluation of remaining alternatives.
6. Conduct Focus Group Session 4 to select alternative.
7. Summarize Focus Group Session 4 and circulate for review.
8. Write/circulate newsletter.
C. Products: . Schematic plans for two alternatives
. Summary of evaluation
. Selection of one alternative
. Minutes of Meetings
. Newsletter
D. Available Additional Services:
. Relocation Assessment (B.4.)
Task 6 - Prepare Design Framework
A. Objective: To develop plans which will aid the City in attracting development
to the County Road 3 corridor, preserve residential areas along the corridor
and provide plans and guidance for making public improvements.
B. Work Elements:
1. Develop a land use plan for the corridor which establishes desired land
uses, local street improvements, the location of potential future LRT
stations and their interface with/ relationship to land use. This will
include a plan which addresses circulation needs and minimizes
neighborhood traffic impacts.
2. Develop concept plans and preliminary cost estimates for public
improvements including screening and landscaping, streetscape, lighting,
entry features and depot restoration (if appropriate).
3. Conduct of Focus Group Session 5.
4. Summarize Focus Group Session 5.
5. Write/circulate newsletter.
C. Products: . Land Use Plans
. Plans/Concepts for Public Improvements
. Minutes of Meetings
. Newsletter
. D. Available Additional Services:
. Design Guidelines (B.s.)
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 5
Progress Review Meeting
Meeting with City Council to review project progress and results to date. Adjust
work program if necessary.
Task 7 - Implementation Strategies
A. Objective: To develop a strategy to implement the plan.
B. Work Elements:
1. Identify funding sources and strategies for public improvements and right-
of-way acquisition (ISTEA, etc.) and/or solicit support for other funding.
This task will include the identification of tools available to finance local
project costs. Applicable tools will include debt instruments and revenue
sources.
2. Write/circulate newsletter.
C. Products: . Strategic Implementation Plan
. Newsletter
D. Available Additional Services:
. Phasing Strategy (B.6.)
. Business Relocation Strategy (B.7.)
. Developer RFP (B.8.)
. Redevelopment Strategy (B.9.)
Task 8 - Report Preparation
A. Objective: To document the results of the study.
B. Work Elements:
1. Prepare a draft report which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Documentation of the study process
b. Background information/mapping
c. Issues statement
d. Objectives statement
e. Alternatives evaluation/selection
f. Documentation of preferred alternative
g. Design Framework
h. Implementation strategy
2. Distribute draft to Committees (City).
3. Conduct expanded Focus Group Session 6 to include the general public.
4. Review draft report with Planning Commission and City Council.
5. Prepare final plan/ report.
6. Document reproduction (30 copies).
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 6
,
7. Write/circulate newsletter.
C. Products: . Draft Report
. Final Document desktop published and
reproduced in black and white
. Minutes of Meetings
. Newsletter
Task 9 - Meetings/ Approvals/Coordination/Communications
A. Objective: To seek input, communicate results and facilitate City and County
approvals.
B. Work Elements:
1. Attend up to six Focus Group Sessions with Committees.
2. Attend up to four meetings with Planning Commission, City Council and
HRA, one meeting of which shall be the official City Council Public
Hearing.
, 3. Attend up to four meetings with community groups and organizations.
4. Solicit/ attend up to four meetings with Hennepin County Department of
Transportation.
5. Meet with City Staff as necessary throughout process.
6. Develop a brief newsletter/status report to report project progress and
conclusions (five estimated).
7. Prepare and maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout process.
C. Available Additional Services:
. Neighborhood Meetings (B.IO.)
~
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 7
B. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The following services have not been authorized by the CITY but are available,
upon request, from the CONSULTANT.
1. Preparation of a preliminary survey instrument to be mailed to Steering and
Subcommittee members soliciting input regarding overall corridor objectives
and issues. (C.2.a.)
2. The generation of computer altered photographic images. (C.2.b.)
3. Computer animation of major redevelopment alternatives. (C.2.c.)
4. The conduct of a preliminary relocation assessment to establish relocation
costs. (C.2.d.)
5. The formulation of design guidelines for structures and site improvements
for private land as a means to establish continuity and encourage transit and
pedestrian compatibility. This service could include a "design-for-transit"
element. (C.2.e.)
6. Creation of a phasing strategy which coordinates redevelopment, highway
construction and local street construction activities. (C.2.f.)
7. Establishment of a business relocation strategy within the corridor and the
CITY. (C.2.g.)
8. Definition/preparation of a developer RFP. (C.2.h.)
9. Preparation of a redevelopment strategy. (C.2.j.)
10. The conduct of neighborhood meetings as authorized by the CITY. (C.2.i.)
11. Any other work not specifically described under the Basic Services Work
Program in Paragraph A.
These services can be obtained from the CONSULTANT by
wri tten
authorization by the CITY.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal
Page 8
C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT for services rendered as follows:
1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services described in Paragraph A, a lump
sum fee to be paid as work is completed in the amount of SEVENTY NINE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($79,500).
2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services described in Paragraph B 1-10, a
fee based on the CONSULTANT'S current hourly rate schedule plus
incidental expenses not to exceed the following amounts:
a. Preliminary Survey Instrument $ 820
b. Photographic Images 1,000/ image
c. Computer Animation (up to 3 alternatives) 12,880 1) to 18,7002)
d. Relocation Assessment 1,660
e. Design Guidelines 1,290
f. Phasing Strategy 720
g. Business Relocation Strategy 1,640
h. Developer RFP 570
l. Neighborhood Meetings (2 estimated) 2,705
) . Redevelopment Strategy 1,460
1) Level I Detail
2) Level II Detail
3. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services described in Paragraph B 11, a
fee based on the CONSULTANT'S current hourly rate schedule plus
incidental expenses (Attachment A).
4. Statements will be submitted to the CITY on a monthly basis as work is
completed and shall be payable within 30 days of receipt by the CITY.
D. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The CITY shall be responsible for the following:
1. The compilation of all mailing lists for Focus Group participants.
2. All mailings including postage costs.
3. Copying of interim or draft reports.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 9
4. Assembly/compilation of corridor area property information including but
not limited to ownership, PIN, net tax capacity, available tennant names and
estimated market value.
5. Assembly of infrastructure information along the corridor such as utility "as
builts" and street plans.
6. Provide copies of tax increment financing plans, improvement policies and
other planning and redevelopment documents that apply to the corridor area.
7. Meeting facilities and arrangements.
E. COMPLETION SCHEDULE
The services of the CONSULTANT will begin upon delivery to the
CONSULTANT of an executed copy of this Agreement and will, absent causes
beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, be completed by March 31, 1994.
F. SUB CONSULTANTS
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. will serve as the Prime Contractor for the
completion of the County Road 3 Corridor Study as described in this Agreement.
Subconsultants will include RLK Associates, Benshoof & Associates, Inc., and
Macromedia Technologies Incorporated. Subconsultants will not be added or
deleted from the project team without authorization from the City of Hopkins.
G. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS
1. The Term of this agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized
and shall be in accordance with the schedule to be established between the
CITY and the CONSULTANT.
2. Termination may be accomplished at specified Progress Review points or at
any time by written notice ten (10) days prior to termination. This shall not
relieve the CITY of its obligation to pay for the reasonable value of the
services performed to the date of the notice of termination.
3. Neither the CITY nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer its
interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 10
H. NONDISCRIMINATION
The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate by reason of age, race, religion,
color, sex, national origin, or handicap unrelated to the duties of a position, of
applicants for employment or employees as to terms of employment, promotion,
demotion or transfer, recruitment, layoff or termination, compensation,
selection for training, or participation in recreational and educational activities.
I. EOUAL OPPORTUNITY
During the performance of this Contract, the CONSULTANT, in compliance
with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and
Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60, shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that
applicants for employment are employed, and that employees are treated during
employment, without regard to their race, color, religion sex or national origin.
Such action shall include but not be limited to, the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff
or termination, rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for
training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall post
In
conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment
notices to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this
nondiscrimination clause. The CONSULTANT shall state that all qualified
applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate the
foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program
work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such
requirements in all subcontracts for program work.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 11
J. AUTHORIZATION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the CONSULTANT have made and
executed this Agreement for Professional Services,
This day of ,1993.
CITY OF HOPKINS, MN
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor Steve Mielke, City Manager
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC.
. ~~vey2
-
R. Mark Koegler, Vice President
.
City of Hopkins/Contract Proposal Page 12
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
COUNTY ROAD 3 REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTRODUCTION
The city of Hopkins is a first ring suburb hf the st.
Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area. The City is located in
western Hennepin County. The 1990 population was 16,529.
The City occupies approximately 4 square miles and is for
the most part entirely developed. The community is diverse
with a variety of housing choices and a significant
commercial/industrial base.
BACKGROUND
County Road 3 is a major east-west arterial road through
Hopkins. The corridor serves a variety of land uses with a
mixture of different needs, traffic characteristics and
vehicle types. The maj or employer wi thin the ci ty of
Hopkins, Super Valu, utilizes this roadway for access to
their facility.
The roadway cross section varies but for most of the road
the width is 44 feet. The right-of-way width also varies
but for a majority of the corridor the right-of-way is 66
feet. Traffic volumes vary from 16,000 to 26,200.
In recent years traffic counts have significantly increased
on this roadway as a result of both development in the area
and the construction of State Highway 169 with access ramps
being built onto County Road 3.
In 1989 the City contracted with a local transportation land
use consultant, Benshoof and Associates, Inc. to undertake a
preliminary study of the County Road 3 corridor from Blake
Road to the exit to Highway 169. This area was determined
to be in most need of immediate improvement and upgrading.
The purpose of the preliminary study was to analyze existing
traffic conditions in the corridor, identify existing and
future transportation deficiencies and issues, and to
identify alternative solutions to these issues and
deficiencies.
Four principal needs were identified for this area:
o the need to upgrade the existing 44 foot roadway;
o the need to resolve the geometric safety and
access difficulties caused by skewed intersections
located on County Road 3;
Request For Proposal
Page 2
o the need to improve north-south access/roadway
continuity east of Highway 169.
o account for future LRT access requirements.
As a result of these needs a variety of alternatives were
detailed in the Benshoof study.
Following completion of the preliminary study the City and
Hennepin County contracted again with Benshoof and
Associates to complete a second phase, which was a more
detailed analysis of the corridor. This study was expanded
to include the area from Blake Road to Fifth Avenue South.
The purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth
analysis of the following:
o evaluation of a new railroad crossing at or near
T.H. 169 east ramp;
o evaluation of the roadway section and preparation
of concept plan from the railroad tracks eastward
to Blake Road;
o evaluation of area street intersections with
County Road 3 in the vicinity of T.H. 169;
o preparation of a concept layout for the entire
corridor;
Along with the above, in September 1990 the City of Hopkins
in conjunction with Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority completed a report entitled "A
Study for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor." This study
addresses a variety of issues relating to the future
redevelopment of this corridor. Included in this study are
the elements of land use and economic development, traffic
safety and circulation, image, utilities, and
recommendations for implementation.
Copies of the aforementioned studies are available for.
review at the Hopkins City Hall.
In 1992, in response to a request from the City of Hopkins,
Hennepin County agreed to place the upgrading of the entire
County Road 3 corridor through Hopkins on their five year
Capital Improvements Plan. In 1992 the City of Hopkins also
placed the upgrading of County Road 3 in the City's five
year Capital Improvement Plan. At the present time it is
anticipated that the required acquisition and construction
would be undertaken in phases beginning with planning
efforts in 1993. It is anticipated that construction would
commence in 1995 and conclude in 1997
-
, .
Request For Proposal
Page 3
PROPOSAL
The City of Hopkins is presently
seeking proposals to
evaluate the impact of implementing
a project for the
upgrading and widening of the entire County Road 3 corridor
through the City of Hopkins. The specific
emphasis of the
study is to evaluate the land
use/economic development
issues involved with implementing such a project.
The study will be used to guide the City in making decisions
in the upgrading and widening of County Road 3.
The firm selected to undertake this study would be asked to
evaluate the land use and economic implications for various
cross section widths. These would include the following:
0 a 72 foot roadway with
2 through lanes in each
direction plus a center stripe left turn lane with
a 100 foot right of way, minimum;
0 a parkway concept with a right-of-way
width of
approximately 120 feet
(2 through lanes in each
direction plus a center strip turn
lane and a 30
foot landscaped center median);
0 a variation of the above two alternatives;
0 minimum or no expansion of roadway.
The firm selected by the City would be asked to evaluate the
above alternatives as relates to the following:
. 0 based on a land
use, economic development,
property tax, traffic, and
cost implications,
evaluate the most appropriate
alignment to
facilitate the various alternatives;
.0 development or redevelopment
opportunities
available with the
implementation of each
alternative;
0 traffic implications;
0 opportunities for consolidation
of curb
cuts/access points and street vacations;
0 required utility (City & private) improvements and
impacts;
0 traffic control considerations;
0 acquisition/cost implications;
0 pedestrian and street-lighting improvements;
0 buffering techniques to mitigate
the impact of
redevelopment on adjoining residential uses;
0 Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan changes
for the corridor;
~. " ; . .
Request For Proposal
Page 4
o types and density of development recommended that
are compatible with traffic capacity limitations
o financing alternatives for implementation
o consistent design and appearance along the entire
corridor
A firm/individual wishing to respond to this request would
be asked to specifically outline how their study would
address the following items. The City is especially
interested in proposals which suggest an innovative and
unique approach to address the issues identified.
o the specific approach or steps that would be
utilized to address various issues identified
above or other issues that were felt by the
firm/individual to be relevant to this issue;
o proposed public input, review, . approval process,
public presentations, including involvement of
affected property owners and adjacent
neighborhood, business groups, public officials
and working with the County Road 3 Task Force;
o a timetable detailing completion of the major
study steps;
o coordination with Hennepin County and MNDOT;
o detailed description of the proposed study and
methodology to be used;
o . summary of experience;
o staff or firms that would work on the study;
FEES AND EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT
The staff is unable to define a specific cost for the study.
The staff encourages the consultant to provide a cost range
based on various levels of service provided. The proposal
should also include various activities the City staff can do
to reduce the cost of the study. The proposal should
include a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category
of professional, technical and clerical employees. Also
include rates of miscellaneous charges such as copies and
mileage. List all other additional reimbursable expenses.
Indicate how requests for additional services would be
billed.
Invoice period intervals are a minimum of 30 days with a
payment date of 30 days, maximum from date of invoice.
Council meetings are generally the first and third Tuesdays
of the month with invoice deadline the previous Monday.
r
. .
.
Request For Proposal
Page 5
WORK PRODUCTS
The study will be presented in a bound report and include an
Executive Summary section. Thirty copies of the report will
be required to be provided.
SCHEDULE
Completed RFP's are due no later than 4:30 p.m. on March 26,
1993. Ten copies of the proposal should be delivered to Mr.
Jim Kerrigan, Director of Planning and Economic Development,
City of Hopkins, 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343.
SELECTION PROCESS
The City of Hopkins Community Development
Department and
Department of Public Works will undertake
an interview of
the top two to three candidates. Based
on the results of
these interviews a recommendation and award of contract will
be made to the City Council. The
interview selection and
contract award will be based on the following:
0 Background and experience of the company
0 Study cost
0 Innovative and unique approach in undertaking the
study
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There will be an informational meeting on February 11, 1993
at 9:00 a.m. at the Hopkins City
Hall to answer any
questions regarding the RFP. . Staff
strongly encourage
interested parties to attend this meeting. The City Hall is
located at 1010 First Street South. If further information
is needed contact Nancy Anderson. The phone number for the
City of Hopkins is 935-8474.
PRESENTATION SUMMARY
. A Strategic Plan
. for the
County Road 3 Corridor
, .
April ,14, '1993
Hoisington Koegler ,Group Inc.
RLK Associates I..td.
. Benshoof Associates Inc.
,'Macromedia Technologies .Inc.
COUNTY ROAD 3 STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
CITY OF HOPKINS
P ARTICIP ANTS PROJECT MANAGER STEERING COMMITTEE
I Neighborhoods II I SUBCOMMITTEES
Businesses R. Mark Koegler
I II I 0 11th
5th Jackson East
HCRRA HCDOT 11th to to
to Blake
5th Jackson
Blake
I I I
I
Land Use! Financial! Engineering! Traffic Urban Design!
Public Visualization
Redevelopment Economic Costs Landscape Participation
Development · James Benshoof Architecture
· Frank Blundetto
· Fred Hoisington · Richard Koppy .Jon Werljes ·
Fred Hoisington · Bruce Chamberlain
· Mark Koegler · Russell Fifield · John Dietrich
· Mark Koegler
· Bruce Chamberlain Hennepin County · Mark Koegler
· Richard Koppy
Liaison · Diane Klausner · James Brimeyer
· Dennis Hansen · Charles Habiger
(Advisor)
.
MAJOR ISSUE AREAS
€iW ~,,,"',", ,~_ '"
'"
a:
~
"~7J~
Pll
Blake Road to East
h d'mpacts
o Neighbor 00 1
' ,
o
. .
Pork
YL.. '" · 'U
t~D \ >.
~~' · ' "" U llJ., ;; ·
t.... ; 61n. ~CillCO. ,..........-fJ~D'h "DODD: ~
,. ST. S. Q. ,. ,. " "
r ~.r \ " ." " ".
! · .,' ~ .. I ": ;]n~n-n '" w
I 50 I \ =...
~ I. (PVTlN LANDMARK ,_
"
Only the Hoisington Koegler Group provides the capacity to link
planning with finance.
The HKG Difference
Enhance I ~ Direct experience in public finance.
Corridor Construct
Improvements [lJ Extensive experience with tax increment
Acquire ROW financing.
Relocate Businesses
. Costs to Finance .. [lJ Extensive experience with developing
and implementing finance plans for a
wide range of public improvement and
Finance Plan economic development projects.
[lJ Financial analysis integrated with planning,
Sources of Fiscal not as an add on.
Revenue Impacts
Ability to Flow of flj Computer modeling capabilities.
Incur Debt Funds
~ Economic model of corridor to enhance
implementation.
Implementation
.
SUMMARY
The HKG Team provides
expertise in all areas critical
to a successful planning
project.
The HKG Team possesses a
clear and thorough
Comprehensive Team understanding of the issues.
We are ready to move ahead.
Understanding HKG's experience and
approach makes "the public"
an important part of the
Participation planning process.
From ISTEA to TIF, the
Finance HKG Team brings unique
capabilities for financial
analysis and strategies.
Technology
The HKG Team uses
technology to enhance our
ability to serve the City and
your ability to evaluate key
decisions.
.~ .
li
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
320 Washington Avenue South
HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: (612) 930-2500
FAX (612) 930-2513
TDD: (612) 930-2696
April 23, 1993
Mr. Thomas K. Harmening
Community Development Director
City of Hopki ns
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Harmening:
RE: COUNTY ROAD 3 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Your Letter dated April 13, 1993
Your letter described the proposed City of Hopkins study to analyze land
use and redevelopment impacts relative to future right-of-way needs for
improvements to the County Road 3 Corridor in Hopkins. The letter also
requested the County to provide some funding participation in this $50,000
to $100,000 study.
As you know, we did participate in the previous County Road 3 study between
Blake Road and Fifth Avenue South, which was performed by Benshoof and
Associates. We believe that study was valuable in identifying the appro-
priate concept for County Road 3 in that area because of the existing
geometric problems with the skewed intersections, the lack of north-south
continuity and the severe right-of-way constraints east of the railroad
crossings. The Benshoof study can provide a basis for proceeding with
improvements to County Road 3 in the area included in the study. Even if
land use changes are proposed, they should only serve to improve the
current situation, and revisions to the concept plan could be made without
extensive additional study.
In regard to the area between Fifth Avenue South and Shady Oak Road, we
believe the appropriate roadway concept is clear, that being a 74-foot
roadway with median and protected turn lanes at appropriate locations. The
current land use seems to make this an appropriate design, and any changes
in land use should be able to improve on this concept. For example, the
wide parkway concept you include as one of the study concepts would be an
acceptable variation of this if Hopkins decided they wanted to redevelop
properties to make this possible. Conversely, a 72-foot roadway with
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
" .
-
Page 2 - Mr. Thomas K. Harmening April 23, 1993
Community Development Director
City of Hopkins
center stripe two-way left turn lanes would seem to be an inappropriate
concept even with existing land use.
Based upon my review of the proposed study, I believe it is primarily of
value as a development/redevelopment plan and that the appropriate roadway
design concepts related to movement of traffic are apparent without this
type of study.
We have no funds available for this study in our current budget, and I do
not believe it is appropriate for the County to participate financially in
this study. We are certainly willing to attend meetings and provide staff
review and comment at appropriate points in the study. I'm sorry that I
cannot respond favorably to your request.
Ver~.t~lY yours,
ij<Y-- Q. 15 }lvf"..~JL~
1,.' ~,/ It'-'.4-e' ~ ',_
./
Patrick B. Murphy, P.E.
Director
PBM:lh
cc: V. T. Genzlinger
B. M. Pol aczyk
T. D. Johnson