Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7B, Accept B2 District Implementation Plan and Order B2 District Feasibility Study
-- IPEN HILLS Request for Council Action 7B Prepared By: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director Council Meeting Date: December 17,2012 Accept B-2 District Implementation Plan & Order B-2 District Feasibility Study Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $980,000 (5 year CIP) $56,760 PIR, MSA, Ramsey County, Assessments Recommendation: The City Council is requested to take two actions. First, a motion to accept the County Road E (B-2 District)Implementation Plan and secondly to adopt Resolution 2012-054 Ordering the Feasibility Report for the B-2 District and authorizing staff to enter into a contract with Bolton and Menk for completion of the Feasibility Report. Supporting Documents: 1. Memorandum dated December 17,2012,from Terry Maurer,Public Works Director. 2. Final Copy of the County Road E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan. 3. Proposal from Bolton & Menk for Consulting Services for the Feasibility Report and Topographic Survey. 4. Resolution No. 2012-054, Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Feasibility Report for the County Road E(B-2 District). 'It �-A DEN HILLS :MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Accept B-2 District Implementation Plan Order B-2 District Feasibility Report Background In late 2011 the City hired Bolton and Menk to prepare the B-2 Implementation Plan. Over the last year Bolton and Menk (Marcus Thomas and Chris Chromy) have worked through a detailed process that included meetings with a corridor advisory group, numerous individual property owner meetings, development of three different roadway options, review with the City Council and finally development of a Phase 1 option which incorporates much of the input they received throughout the process. A draft of the final report and the details of the recommended improvements were reviewed by the City Council at a Work Session on December 10, 2012. At tonight's meeting Marcus Thomas of Bolton and Menk will provide a brief presentation of the final report and recommended improvements and answer any questions. Attached is a final copy of the County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan. The first action for the Council to consider after the presentation would be to accept the final B-2 Implementation Plan. In order to continue progress on the proposed Phase 1 improvements, the next step would be to order a Feasibility Report. This study would take the Phase 1 improvement concept from the B-2 Implementation Plan and prepare a preliminary design, meetings with affected property owners, more detailed cost estimate and a financing plan. There would also be significant coordination with Ramsey County staff. The financing plan would likely be a combination of City funding (PIR and/or MSA), Ramsey County funding and assessments to benefitted properties. City Council Meeting P:\Admin\Council\Agendas&Packet Information\2012\12-17-12-Special\Packet\12-17-12 B-2PIan&Feasibilty.doc Page 1 of 2 II Staff has asked Bolton and Menk to prepare a scope of services and an estimated cost to complete the Feasibility Report. We have also asked Bolton and Menk to include two items that would not normally get much attention in the feasibility phase of a project. These two items are: detailed survey work (normally completed in the final design phase) so all property owners' questions can be answered about how specific improvements will affect their properties, and preliminary design of items that would normally be considered County improvements such as the double left turn lane from eastbound County Road E to northbound Lexington Avenue. Attached is the proposal from Bolton and Menk for completion of the Feasibility Report and the full topographic survey. The proposal includes an estimated 13 meetings with individual property owners who will be directly affected by some of the proposed improvements such as driveway interconnections. The total cost estimate for this work is $56,700 and the time frame for its completion is approximately 6 months. Council Action Requested The City Council is requested to take two actions. First, a motion to accept the County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan and secondly to adopt Resolution 2012-054 Ordering the Feasibility Report for the B-2 District and authorizing staff to enter into a contract with Bolton and Menk for completion of the Feasibility Report. City Council Meeting P:\Admin\Council\Agendas&Packet Information\2012\12-17-12-Special\Packet\12-17-12 B-2Pl&Feasibilty.doc Page 2 of 2 I I I i i County Road E ( B-2 District) Implementation Plan Prepared for: City of Arden Hills AVEN HILLS December 2012 BMI Project No. T16.104335 o i m x .ii�erti Lt'�. COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................1 3.0 CONCEPT DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT........................................................................2 3.1. FIRST CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(APRIL 11,2012)................2 3.2. SECOND CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(JUNE 18,2012)............2 3.3. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER MEETINGS...............................................................4 3.4. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION(JULY 25,2012).........................................................5 3.5. THIRD CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(OCTOBER 8, 2012) .........6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................7 FIGURES (Please note that figures are assembled at the end of the text.) FIGURE 1 —PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 2—TRAFFIC INFORMATION MAP FIGURE 3—FIVE LANE OPTION FIGURE 4—MEDIAN OPTION FIGURE 5—ROUNDABOUT OPTION FIGURE 6—PHASE I CONCEPT TABLES TABLE I —PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES............................................................................................4 TABLE 2—ESTIMATED PHASE I CONCEPT COSTS............................................................................7 APPENDIX APPENDIX A—CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROSTER APPENDIX B—LANDSCAPE ARCHICTECTURE PRESENTATION APPENDIX C—DETAILED PHASE I CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE INFORMATION Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan COUNTY RD E (13-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION In October of 2008,the City of Arden Hills accepted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District("Guiding Plan"). The B-2 District is generally bounded by Hamline Avenue(Trunk Highway 51)to the west, Canadian Pacific railroad tracks to the north,Lexington Avenue(County State Aid Highway 51)to the east,and the east-west Harriet Avenue alignment to the south(see Figure 1). County Road E(County State Aid Highway 15)is the primary roadway providing access to and through this district. The Guiding Plan process examined existing conditions,created a long-range redevelopment vision and guiding principles,addressed transportation questions,evaluated market potential,reviewed land uses,and prepared design guidelines. I The purpose of this County Road E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan("Implementation Plan")is to revisit the goals and recommendations of the 2008 Guiding Plan and better illustrate the recommendations of that document through more defined roadway concepts. The work performed for this project was directed by the Project Management Team(PMT)which included staff representatives from the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County. A central focus of this planning effort has been a robust public engagement program,discussing specific improvement strategies. The public engagement included two primary elements as summarized below: Corridor Advisory Committee(CAC)—This body was made up of local stakeholders,including property owners,business residents,and City Council members. A roster of the CAC is included as Appendix A. Bolton and Menk met with this group on three occasions to present and discuss design alternatives,and get feedback and direction. Individual business meetings—The project team solicited 25 local business owners to schedule one- on-one meetings. Fourteen of these responded and participated. In addition,a City Council Work Session was held after the first two CAC meetings to update the Council on work progress and to get its input and guidance to complete the project. Individual meetings,issues discussed,and outcomes are summarized in Section 3.0. 2.0 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Based on Mn/DOT data,County Road E currently carries over 14,000 vehicles per day. While it is classified as a`B"Minor Arterial roadway in the metro area network,it has numerous access points in the project area. Traffic counts(vehicle and pedestrian)for PM peak conditions were taken on January 5, 2012.' This was prior to the closure of northbound Snelling Avenue,which occurred later in the spring. The resulting data is summarized on Figure 2. Level of Service(LOS)analysis for existing conditions was performed. All of the intersections in the project corridor currently operate at LOS C or better,which is acceptable. However,two specific movements are problematic: • Westbound movements at County Road E and northbound Hwy 51 ramp/Connelly Street—The total westbound movements(left,thru,and right)result in a cumulative LOS D for westbound 'It may be noted that the Walgreens Pharmacy at the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue was under construction while the traffic counts were taken. To account for this,trip generation estimates based on Institute of Traffic Engineers guidance were made and added to the observed traffic counts. Prepared by: Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 1 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN traffic entering this intersection,indicating excessive delays to these motorists. The analysis shows a maximum westbound queue length during the PM peak time period of 770 feet. • Eastbound left turns on County Road E to Lexington Avenue—This movement is LOS D,but is very close to the LOS E threshold,and nearing capacity. In addition to these two problems identified at specific intersections,there also exists a common problem throughout the corridor,that being the difficulty for traffic to make left turns onto County Road E from adjacent driveways. Traffic volumes along County Road E,particularly during the peak hours,reduce the frequency of acceptable gaps for vehicles to make these left turns. Furthermore,the problem is made worse by the unrestricted left turns allowed along County Road E into these adjacent properties. When reviewing the existing traffic information,it is important to recognize the significant vacancies within the corridor. As parcels become redeveloped and occupied,existing traffic problems will become exacerbated,and new problem locations may emerge. 3.0 CONCEPT DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT Since a primary focus of the project was to engage local stakeholders to discuss relatively detailed design concepts,this portion of the report will be organized according to public engagement meetings that were held. 3.1. FIRST CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(APRIL 11,2012) The purpose of this meeting was to express the purpose of the Implementation Plan process, begin the discussions,and get general input from the CAC members regarding improvement elements or strategies they favored or did not favor. The areas of concern expressed in the 2008 Guiding Plan were summarized and discussed,as were that document's principal goals. The CAC members were asked by the project team to describe their vision for preferred ultimate corridor conditions. To set a base for the analyses and discussions to take place through the rest of the project, information was provided by the project team on the following topics: • Traffic concepts including the importance and principles of access management • Streetscape considerations • Utilities Regarding streetscape considerations,a presentation was provided by the project team to provide background on possible streetscape improvement strategies. A range of intensity and cost options was presented(please see PowerPoint presentation in Appendix B). In response to this information,CAC members generally felt that it would be best to focus primarily on transportation issues,along with some lower intensity aesthetic improvements. 3.2. SECOND CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(JUNE 18,2012) At this meeting,three differing concepts were presented to the CAC. The intent behind these concepts was to provide a better balance between the access and mobility functions of the roadway and to improve accommodations for non-motorized travelers consistent with the Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 2 COUNTY RD E (13•2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2008 Guiding Plan principles. These concepts were quite different from each other in terms of the extent and cost of improvements. This was intentionally done to provide a broad range of alternatives to evaluate and discuss. The three alternatives,illustrated in Figures 3,4,and 5,respectively,included: Imyroved Five-Lane Ootion—This option was the most similar to current conditions,but included a significant number of access closures to allow for better traffic movement (mobility)along the corridor. Center Median Option—Through the use of a raised center median,this option restricted left turn movements to and from County Road E,but fewer access points needed to be closed. Roundabout Option—This option had similar access restrictions to the Center Median Option,but provided for easier U turns along the corridor with the roundabouts. The roundabouts would offer operational and aesthetic benefits as well. Along with these three access management alternatives,various backage road alternatives were identified to support access to parcels along County Road E and to help mitigate access closures directly along County Road E. All of the alternatives included comparable improvements to better accommodate non- motorized travelers. These improvements included closing gaps in the existing sidewalk system along to County Road E,as well as providing narrowed vehicular lanes to allow for five foot shoulders which bicyclists could use more safely than under current conditions. These options generated a robust and valuable discussion at the second CAC meeting. Differing opinions were revealed in terms of the perceived degree of traffic problems,the desired level of investment for improvements in the corridor,and other issues. Another topic of discussion was the presence of private utility boxes along the project corridor. Concern had been expressed previously that these boxes are not attractive elements in the streetscape,and Bolton&Menk had therefore been tasked with investigating the possibility of burying,consolidating,or otherwise reducing the visual presence of these boxes. At the second CAC meeting,Bolton&Menk staff summarized their investigation and conclusions: • Based on information from the utility companies involved,utility boxes are required to provide access to switches and other controls to allow operation and maintenance of the respective systems. • Burying the utility boxes would not be viable because utility workers must have reasonable access to the relevant wiring and controls. • It may be possible to consolidate utility boxes,but this would require the installation of additional buried cable at substantial cost. • The frequency of utility boxes along County Road E is typical for this type of corridor with buried cable. Prepared by: Bolton& Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(8-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 3 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • The most viable and cost effective approach for addressing this issue is through strategic landscaping. 3.3. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER MEETINGS The project team solicited 25 business owners in the project area to schedule one-on-one meetings to discuss the issues being addressed in this study. Fourteen of the business owners (56 percent)chose to participate in the project in this manner. These meetings were held from July through September of 2012. The businesses which participated are identified in Table 1. Table 1—PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES McDonalds Pugleasa Company, Inc. Flaherty's Arden Bowl Arden Shoreview Animal Staples Holiday Inn/McGuires's Hospital (closed) Brausen Automotive Group WJ Anderson(dentist) Anchor Bank Wells Fargo Bank Northpark Corporate Center Arden Square,LLC (vacant) Focal Point Flooring State Farm Insurance The discussions with these business representatives were intended to understand opinions and perspectives regarding the following factors: • Current access conditions for their business,including what works and what does not work • Degree of reliance on high visibility • Perception of general efficiency of traffic operations in the project corridor • Degree of importance for pedestrian access to their business • Perception of current corridor aesthetics and vitality • Willingness to invest in corridor improvements In addition,the three corridor concepts identified in Section 3.2 and depicted in Figures 3,4, and 5 were provided at each of the meetings to help generate discussion relevant to the goals of this study. The project team did not anticipate a consensus among the business representatives,nor was there any sort of structured balloting system used to try to quantify perspectives or preferences. The intent,rather,was to identify trends and common themes. The findings included the following highlights: • There was broadly held concern with the current vacancies within the B-2 district. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 4 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • There was recognition of the Holiday Inn site as a prominent parcel regarding the overall development/redevelopment of the district. • There was a common desire for and expectation of some level of City investment in the corridor. • There was relatively wide variation regarding the perception of current traffic conditions in the corridor. Some feel traffic operates acceptably,while others see significant deficiencies. Not surprisingly,those that perceive deficiencies are more interested in seeing traffic-related improvements. • There was concern with ambiguous traffic control at Pot O' Gold Bingo entrance off of Connelly Street. • There was wide acknowledgement of the benefits associated with an additional eastbound left turn lane on County Road E to Lexington Avenue. • Regarding aesthetics,two types of preferences were expressed;proper maintenance of what is already in place,and upgrading with additional streetscape improvements. • While there was no sweeping consensus,the five-lane option was generally the best received alternative. • Most participants expressed concern with the perceived risk associated with a large up-front investment for an extensive corridor improvement approach. 3.4. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION(JULY 25, 2012) The primary purpose of this meeting was to advise Council regarding the findings of the public engagement efforts to that point,including the two CAC meetings and initial one-on- one meetings with local business representatives. The three improvement concepts described previously were also presented and used in the discussion. In addition to a review and discussion of the public engagement efforts to date,the Council was asked to consider the following broader questions which had emerged from that process: • What is the Council's current vision for the B-2 District relative to the vision reflected in the 2008 Guiding Plan? • Should changes or improvements along County Road E be more oriented towards existing land use conditions or towards a long term vision for the corridor? • Does the Council prefer a more controlled planning approach to the corridor or a more market-driven approach? • How involved should the City be in implementing infrastructure improvements within private property(such as coordinated access improvements)? Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 5 COUNTY RD E (13-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3.5. THIRD CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(OCTOBER 8,2012) 3.5.1. GENERAL After recapping the previous CAC meetings and the findings from the individual business owner meetings,Bolton&Menk presented a new improvement concept to the CAC. This concept was intended to address the general goals identified in the 2008 Guidance Plan,but also reflect the sentiments expressed by stakeholders during the Implementation Plan outreach process. This concept,referred to as the Phase I Concept,is based on an incremental approach to improvements to the corridor. Rather than making a large front-end investment with uncertain future outcomes in terms of the broader economy and development within the project area itself,the strategy is to make improvements that will support the baseline project goals,be reduced in scale, and be flexible to meet future conditions. The baseline project goals were proposed to: • Better balance the mobility and access functions of the roadway • Better accommodate non-motorized travelers • Improve corridor aesthetics 3.5.2. PHASE I CONCEPT The Phase I Concept is depicted on Figure 6. Of the three preliminary concepts it most resembles the Improved Five Lane Concept. It includes the following primary elements: • Close certain access points along the corridor to improve the flow and safety of traffic • Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane on County Road E to Lexington Avenue. • Provide improved access to the redevelopment area north of County Road E including the old Holiday Inn site and the adjacent parcels to the west. • Narrow roadway lanes to allow for five foot shoulders on both sides which bicyclists can use. • Close sidewalk gaps to allow a full length of sidewalk throughout the project corridor on both sides of the roadway. • Create aesthetic improvements by repair or replacement of failing infrastructure such as cracked curbs and broken walks and sidewalks. • Introduce lower intensity streetscape improvements such as boulevard trees (every 40 feet assumed)and lighting upgrades. A potential future improvement would be to provide backage access for the businesses south of County Road E and west of Pine Tree Drive as depicted in Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 6 COUNTY RD E (13-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Figure 6. This would be provided in conjunction with a median extension on County Road E at Connelly Street as depicted. The joint modifications are colored in blue in the figure. Costs associated with these improvements are included in the overall project costs(see below). It may be noted that the operational difficulties at the County Road E and northbound Hwy 51 ramp/Connelly Street intersection noted previously are influenced by the current design of the County Road E bridge over Hwy 51/Hamline Avenue,and therefore beyond the scope of this study to address. MnDOT currently has plans to replace the bridge with geometric(lane and operational)improvements in 2015. The costs associated with the Phase I Concept are presented on Table 2,below. More detailed information is provided in Appendix C. Table 2—ESTIMATED PHASE I CONCEPT COSTS Project Construction Component Cost 1 CR E Medians(Connelly St&Pine Tree Dr) $49,900 2 CR E Seal Coat and Striping $79,600 3 CR E Corridor Decorative Lighting $370,900 4 CR E Trees(40'Spacing) $44,400 5 CR E Sidewalk $104,200 6 Pine Tree Dr. Sidewalk $61,400 7 Pine Tree Dr. Signal Revision $71,900 8 Connelly Street Signal Revision $71,900 9 Lexin ton Signal Revision And Widening $559,400 Property Access Modifications 10 Holiday Inn and Adjacent Properties $160,300 11 TCF/North Park Access Connection $28,800 12 Staples/Baskets B Design Connection $28,800 Anchor Bank/WJ Anderson Backage Road and 13 1 CR E Median Extension $95,900 141 Connell Street/Bingo Hall Access $64,900 15 1 TCF CR E Access And Parking Improvements $21,900 Total Cost $1,814 200 Note:All estimates indicated include total project costs(contingencies, engineering, construction administration, etc.). ROW acquisition costs are not included. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the technical analysis performed for this project as well as the discussions that have taken place with the Project Management Team,the Corridor Advisory Committee,individual business owners, and the City Council,Bolton&Menk recommends that Council consider the implementation of the Phase I Concept. This concept is generally consistent with the vision identified in the 2008 Guiding Plan,but reflects a pragmatic approach that is favored by local stakeholders. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 7 COUNTY RD E (6-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN If Council decides to advance the Phase I Concept,the following general tasks will need to be initiated: • Complete preliminary design • Garner more detailed input from property owners directly affected by the proposed improvements • Refine cost estimates • Initiate cost participation approach The following is a possible schedule for the implementation of the Phase I Concept improvements: • January 2013—June 2013: complete feasibility study • June 2013—December 2013: complete final design • January 2014—March 2014: complete project bidding and assessment proceedings • May 2014—September 2014: construction Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(8-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 8 Figures Appendix A County Rd E (6-2 District) Implementation Plan Corridor Advisory Committee Members Wally Anderson—Wallace J.Anderson,DDS Harald Borrmann—Senior Vice President,Catholic United Financial Theodore Brausen—Owner,Brausen's Shell and Repair Jon Commers—Advisor,Arden Square,LLC Daniel Flaherty—President/General Manager,Flaherty's Arden Bowl Kara Frank—Property Manager,Arden Plaza,LLC Randy Hagerty—Property Manager,Country Financial Ja Hi ns—Owner,Fourth Dimension Architectural Si na e Councilmember Fran Holmes Councilmember Ed Werner City Planner Meagan Beekman Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher Public Works Director Terry Maurer Appendix B f . ...... a. t 0. 4 } U Y • . 1 h M 1 FAtp�y' * l y41 iq lot tow SOS .I w . Zl -L 4-1 C O ._ +� 1.1 _ o Co 4-a ti .� :3 � N ill WJJ � t!) U � � UUO Y U N M i p CL jJ114 Z t) - :, F w ill ' A 8 L r � sir ! • R! . { *Aft • 4 SIRE Ci Lz 1 u, N CO Z� 7,) tL, > k: vnm l l� 0 co 1,co Z Q) Q) (3) cL44 - ? CL `� .� N co Q) CL U N M 0 V J U Q� CL i vli 2 rr p } e -1 l r. S1� L X : 0 i L ©c PIS T m S � i x W co cn ZL-, •- N Cl) .p m ca a- 1 U .W p U v � L =O -L� l /� a a o o c � LO .� M i Ef3 Q 0 LO t!) o co .�. o aD o �� CO O 1� Q0 O (D ° - ba o 0 � Cg L ( w o -0 LO M N 1 LO co O �� V 6 0 4 K Y 1 a cz a� (D p Q CU > N p �' C p � � C3) N O C N J tf) to C N N ;Z 1 L- c sue. 0)_ Q N C �.+ E } p }, M ,� .4-, N _ —� U ° �iU c+nUUZ ? a® NV 70 06 a Z O l V O CO (A U O CCS -O -u -F v> IRE E CD c 0 O o O _0 , U O U >>-n .Q > > O E C '-' C • ON N N N Z trl 00 E Co � k O _ � R7 I..: m � �' sr C LO o° l ° QD 4 1 •�q �... xa� _ -+ S99 � �•_J � • • • • • Z • • • •6 Co s w co • • CD CQ • • • • • cz • • • • • • • � 1 • 1 1 m � ccQ, vU0 3Y 0, > � � � ° s- C: ate' Qt19 LL.. mom ¢ Ei- c c o -0 � � c� in 0 V C m v i cc mob- C) QCq u- a- cy Q c _ co � v a CD N avf > v v Im C7 4- CY) tU � C: > C CD -i EL N C: � � K � -a CO l t '' .. i�sy J n ' 1 z� tt� �, 1 �: N r t L r� L 1 i � o" Ov ill L L �- - � ®® '���� a �� �� d.. i � �' 'i3 ¢c ., �� • �; ��' ,„� 4 k t . � �� R fi .�j + �� � �,�� " '+"� ,r.�r'�v'+�r, 4 • f �� �..., a ,M } �' �$$ 5l) .. (� 1 9/� � �+ I � �. t, �L1 _. ,, .. .., �. �� '� ��w ` -, � ,,. . ..,..r �� �) ., L � ?�-, i � /� --, �� � -, � � - �-, �� `° _,, �,� �1 ,� 1 _� ��,. ` ��1 �/� '� %°F a S w 1 _ r s Z l) T) ill _L l tt� ILI A& AOL Inc { }a •L fs. r. � 1111 ) 0) N V to c� � � to •� N 4 ++ t ti16) Q N O 0 , Q Appendix C CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN CR E MEDIANS CONNELLY ST i PINE TREE DR BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNITCOST TOTALCOST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 105 $2,83 $297 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 263 $412 $1,296 REMOVE CURB 6 GUTTER LF 135 $3.60 $486 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 26 $10.00 $257 BITUMINOUS PATCH SPECIAL SY 124 $26.68 $3,320 CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 205 $27.05 $5,551 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 942 $14.00 $13,168 B"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 26 $50.00 $1,283 TURFWORK LSUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING LSUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $34,678 +15%CONTIN6ENCY $5,202 .25%ENGINEERING $9,970 TOTALl $49,851 CR E SEALCOAT AND STRIPING BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNFTCOST TOTALCOST REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 311 $10.00 $3,108.89 SEALCOAT SY 12,105 $1.75 $21,184 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 311 $50.00 $15,544 PAVT MSSG(LT/RT ARROW)EPDXY EACH 14 $125600 $1,750 PAVE MSSG(ONLY)EPDXY EACH 1 $300600 $300 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 3,225 $0.25 $906 4"BROKEN LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 562 $0.25 $141 24"SOLID YELLOW-EPDXY LF 483 $5.75 $2,777 4"SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 1,443 $0.25 $361 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YEU PW-EPDXY LF 991 $0.50 $496 4"BROKEN LINE YELLOW-EPDXY Lf 254 $0625 $64 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 666 $5.81 $3,869 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING I LSUM 1 $5,DDO.00 $S,OD0 SUBTOTAL $55,400 .15%CONTINGENCY $6,311 125%ENGINEERING $15,928 TOTAL $79,640 CR E CORRIDOR DECORATIVE LIGHTING BID ITEM UNIT 1 Q7V UNITCOST TOTALCOST UGH TING SYSTEM LSUM 0.44 $540,000.00 $237,045 LIGHTING REMOVAL LSUM 0.44 $47,850.00 $21,005 SUBTOTAL $258,050 .15%CONTINGENCY $38,708 +25%ENGINEERING $74,189 TOTAL $370,948 CR E TREES(40'SPACING) BID ITEM UNIT qTY UNIT COST TOTALCOST INSTALL TREE EACH 103 $300.00 $30,900 SUBTOTAL $30,900 +1S%CONTINGENCY 54,635 +25%ENGINEERING $8,884 TOTAL $44,419 CR E SIDEWALK BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SF 3417 $1.46 $4,989 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS S CY 157 $19.64 $3,115 4"CONCRETE WALK SF 12,665 $3.50 $441398 TURF WORK LSUM I $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $72,501 .15%CONTINGENCY $10,876 +2S%ENGINEERING $20,844 TOTAL $104,222 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN PINE TREE DRIVE SIDEWALK BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5 CY 89 $19.84 $1,766 4"CONCRETE WALK SF 7,148 $3.50 525,018 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 162 $5.81 $941 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 SUB TOTAL $42,725 +15%CONTINGENCY $6,409 +25%ENGINEERING $12,283 TOTALI $61,418 PINE TREE DRIVE SIGNAL REVISION BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SIGNAL REVISIONS AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS L SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $50,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $7,500 +25%ENGINEERING $14,375 TOTAL $71,875 CONNELLY STREET SIGNAL REVISION BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SIGNAL REVISIONS AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS L SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUB TOTAL $50,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $7,500 +25%ENGINEERING $14,375 TOTAL $71,875 LEXINGTON AVE SIGNAL REVISION AND WIDENING BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 3,711 $2.83 $10,502 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 186 $4.92 $917 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 938 $3.60 $3,377 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT LF 1,150 $5.00 $5,750 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5-12" CY 387 $19.84 $7,671 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 387 $10.62 $4,106 COMMON EXCAVATION-30" CY 967 $4.05 $3,915 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-4" TON 281 $70.00 $19,649 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 140 $60.00 $8,421 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 116 $2.00 $232 SEAL COAT SY 7,095 $1.75 $12,416 CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 285 $27.05 $7,709 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 2,364 $14.00 $33,096 PAVT MSSG(LT/RT ARROW)EPDXY EACH 11 $117.00 $1,287 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 1,741 $0.25 $435 4"BROKEN LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 278 $0.25 $70 4"SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 648 $0.25 $162 24"SOLID YELLOW-EPDXY LF 195 $5.75 $1,121 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 886 $0.50 $443 4"BROKEN LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 130 $0.25 $33 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 486 $5.81 $2,824 TRAFFIC SIGNAL L SUM 1 $250,000.00 $250,000 TURF WORK LSUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING L SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $389,134 +15%CONTINGENCY $58,371 +25%ENGINEERING $111,876 TOTALI $559,382 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CA E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN HOLIDAY INN AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTALCOST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1,766 $2.83 $4,998 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 282 $3.60 $1,015 AGGREGATE BASE JCV)CLASS S-8" CY 304 $0.70 $213 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 457 $19.84 $9,060 COMMON EXCAVATION-24" CY 913 $10.62 $9,700 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2' TON 166 $70.00 $11,604 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2' TON 166 $60.00 $91946 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 137 $2.00 $274 CONCRETECU RB AND GUTTER LF 1,913 $14.00 $27,622 8"CONCRETE DBIVEWAY PAVEMENT $Y 41 $50.00 $2,067 MOVE PRIVATE UTILITIES LSUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 TURF WORK I LSUM 1 $50,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING LSUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $113,499 +15%CONTINGENCY $16,725 +25%ENGINEERING $32,056 TOTAL 5160,261 TCF/NORTH PARK ACCESS CONNECTION BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNITCOST TOTALCOST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LSUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL 520,000 +IS%CONTINGENCY $3,000 +25%ENGINEERING $5,750 TOTAL $28,750 STAPLES/BASKETS BY DESIGN CONNECTION BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LSUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $20,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $3,000 ,25%ENGINEERING $5,750 TOTAL $28,750 ANCHOR BANK/WJ ANDERSON BACKAGE ROAD AND CA E MEDIAN EXTENSION BID ITEM UNIT I CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 301 $2.83 $852 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 225 $3.60 $810 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5-8" CY 231 $030 $161 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 346 $19.84 $6,860 COMMON EXCAVATION-24" CY 692 $10.62 $7,344 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" TON 126 $70.00 $8,786 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 126 $60.00 $7,531 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 104 $2.00 $207 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 25 $50.00 $1,272 CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 285 $27.05 $7,709 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1,299 $14.00 $18,186 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 305 $0.50 $153 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 486 $5.81 $2,824 TURF WORK LSUM 1 $4,000100 54,000 SUBTOTAL $66,6945 +IS%CONTINGENCY $10,005 +25%ENGINEERING $19,175 TOTAL $95$76 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CA E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN CONNELLY STREET/BINGO HALL ACCESS BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNITCOST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 854 $2,83 52A16 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 62 54,92 $303 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 245 $3.60 $982 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 33 1000 333 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" SY 140 7000 9,788 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 140 $60,00 $8,389 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 58 $2.00 $116 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 33 $50,00 $1,667 CONCRETE CURB ..UTTER LF !i9 $14.00 $6,286 TURF WORK LSUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING LSUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $45,179 ♦IS%CONTINGENCY $6,777 +25%ENGINEERING $12,989 TOTAL $641946 TCF OR E ACCESS AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS BID REM UNIT CITY UNITCOST TOTALCOST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SV 159 $2.83 $449 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 73 $30.00 $733 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 43 $4.92 $212 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 176 $3.60 $634 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" SY 37 $70.00 $2,590 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 37 $60.00 $2,220 BITUMINOUSTACKCOAT GAL 31 $2.00 $61 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER lF 306 $34600 $4,277 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 234 $0.25 $59 TURF WORK LSUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 SUBTOTAL $15,234 ♦15%CONTINGENCY $2,296 +25%ENGINEERING $4,380 TOTAL $21,901 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 Consulting Engineers & Surveyors " 12224 Nicollet Avenue-Burnsville,MN 55337 Phone(952)890-0509-Fax(952)890-8065 www.bolton-menk.com December 13,2012 Mr.Terry Maurer,P.E. Public Works Director City of Arden Hills Arden Hills,MN 55112 RE: Proposal for Professional Surveying and Engineering Services Topographic Survey and Feasibility Study County Road E Improvements Dear Mr.Maurer, The City of Arden Hills has completed a B-2 district Implementation Planning Study that concluded with recommendations and concepts for initial(Phase I)improvements along the County Road E corridor between T.H. 51 and Lexington Avenue. To continue the development of the proposed corridor improvements,a feasibility study is proposed to complete preliminary engineering and design,refined cost estimating,develop a cost sharing scenario between applicable stakeholders,and to prepare preliminary assessments for the improvements. The feasibility study would also satisfy M.S.Chapter 429 requirements for special assessments. The study will not include further evaluation of the backage road between Pine Tree Drive and the Shell Station,as shown in the Phase I concept. This proposal details our scope of work and fees to complete this feasibility study. To facilitate the completion of the feasibility study,we are also recommending that a topographic survey be completed along relevant segments of the County Road E corridor and adjacent properties. The survey will allow us to carry the Phase I concept into preliminary design,reflecting the actual site grades and dimensions that are required to evaluate the various improvements and modifications along the corridor, such as turning movements within modified parking lots,or grades along new sidewalk corridors. This proposal also details our scope of work and fees to complete the topographic survey. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Bolton&Menk will complete a topographic survey that includes the following elements of the County Road E corridor and adjacent properties. These elements correspond to those improvements illustrated in the Phase I concept. A. Curb&gutter and roadway crown every 100 feet along C.R.E,to verify the roadway dimensions and cross section drainage. j B. All existing driveway entrances along C.R. E. C. All existing boulevard lights and trees along C.R.E. D. All three signalized intersections(Connelly Street,Pine Tree Drive,and Lexington Avenue). E. Connelly Street radius at the Pot-O-Gold entrance. F. Proposed sidewalk corridor along north side of C.R. E,between west and east Connelly Street intersections. G. Easterly Connelly Street intersection. H. Front parking lot and fueling area at Shell Station. 1. Proposed driveway connection between Shell station and W.J. Anderson Dentist. J. Proposed sidewalk corridor along the north side of C.R.E,from Staples to Lexington Avenue. DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer BOLTON & MENK, INC. K. Proposed driveway connection between Baskets By Design and Staples. L. Parking lot in front of the old Carol's Furniture store. M. 50' wide corridor along west property line of old Holiday Inn site. N. Proposed sidewalk corridor along east property line of old Holiday Inn site. O. Parking lot in front of Red Cross Center P. Proposed sidewalk corridor along the west side of Pine Tree Drive from C.R.E to the Hunters Park Condominiums driveway Any relevant property or right of way lines within the survey areas will be illustrated via available GIS parcel line work. Based on existing snow cover conditions,our proposal includes provisions for shoveling and clearing as necessary to complete this work. FEASIBILITY STUDY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Using the topographic survey obtained,Bolton&Menk will complete preliminary engineering and design of the Phase I concepts. The concepts will be refined to reflect standard roadway design geometrics. More exact dimensioning of the improvements will be completed in order to verify lane widths along the corridor,turning radii at intersections and driveway entrances,and maneuverability within modified parking lots. New sidewalk extensions will be dimensioned,as will adjacent boulevard areas between the roadway and new walks. Boulevard grades adjacent to the new walks will also be evaluated for any special grading needs such as retaining walls. Proposed modifications to the three existing signalized intersections along the corridor(Connelly,Pine Tree Drive,and Lexington)will be detailed to illustrate new lane configurations,pedestrian crossings and signal system modifications. Communication and design development will be shared with Ramsey County throughout the preliminary engineering process. More formal meetings with the County are reflected in the City Meetings task,below. PROPERTY OWNER MEETINGS In conjunction with the preliminary design of the Phase I improvements,we will meet with property owners that are directly affected by the proposed improvements(i.e.,those with proposed driveway access changes,or those from which additional easement or ROW is anticipated to be required). These properties are anticipated to include: Shell Station,W.J.Anderson Dentist,Flaherty's Arden Bowl,Pot- O-Gold Bingo,Baskets By Design, Staples,old Carol's Furniture,Allegra Printing,Fourth Dimension, old Holiday Inn,Northpark,Red Cross Center,and Arden Plaza(Wellington). The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss the proposed improvements as they affect each property,and to receive additional input from the property owners for consideration during design. Up to thirteen(13)meetings are included in this proposal. COST ESTIMATING AND FINANCING Upon completion of the preliminary design work,new cost estimates for the proposed improvements will be prepared. This information will be shared and discussed with the City and County staff for the purpose of applying cost share criteria for the improvements. Finally,special assessment amounts will be determined for the project,using the City's current assessment policies as the initial basis. County Road E Feasibility Study City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Page 2 BOLTON & MENK, INC. CITY MEETINGS To facilitate the completion of this feasibility study,this proposal includes three(3)meetings with City and/or County staff,one(1)City Council work session and one(1)regular City Council meeting. FINAL REPORT The final deliverable for the feasibility study will be a formal feasibility report meeting the requirements of M.S.Chapter 429. ESTIMATED FEES Bolton&Menk proposes to complete the scope of work as described above for the following fees: Topographic Survey Topographic Survey(Incl. Snow Clearing) $14,60 0 Total Survey Fee $14,600 Feasibility Study Preliminary Engineering $20,150 Property Owner Meetings $ 5,580 Cost Estimating and Financing $ 4,650 City Meetings $ 4,650 Final Report 7,130 Total Feasibility Study Fee $42,160 The itemized costs for tasks are estimates. Bolton&Menk proposes to complete all tasks for a not to exceed fixed fee of$56,760. Attached are the Terms of Proposal. If you find this proposal satisfactory, your signature of this proposal will constitute acceptance of the terms outlined and your authority for us to proceed. Please call if you wish to discuss this proposal. We look forward to providing these professional engineering services to you on this project and appreciate your continued consideration of Bolton&Menk,Inc. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC., Marcus A.Thomas,P.E. Senior Project Manager Attachment Signed Date • Printed Name • County Road E Feasibility Study City of Arden Hills,Minnesota Page 3 Version 11-30-98 Terms of Proposal Bolton & Menk, Inc. The accompanying Proposal (hereinafter referred to as "Proposal") is subject to the following terms and conditions. These Terms of Proposal(hereinafter referred to as"Terms")are an integral part of the Proposal as if stated directly therein. No change or deviation from these Terms will be binding without the written approval of Bolton&Menk,Inc.(BMI). Such changes may require an adjustment in the proposed fee,schedule or scope of the Proposal. A. Services: BMI proposes to perform the services outlined in the Proposal for the stated fee arrangement. Changes required by the Client or other controlling entities(regulatory agencies,contractors,courts,etc.)from the scope or schedule of services described in the Proposal shall be considered"Additional Services"and will be invoiced on an hourly basis in addition to the stated fee arrangement. B. Information from Client: Unless otherwise stated,Client agrees to provide BMI with all site information necessary to complete the proposed services. This information should include current site property descriptions (from abstract,title opinion or title commitment);other legal documents affecting the site;copies of previous surveys,maps, engineering studies and plans;existing or required soils and geotechnical reports;governmental,regulatory and utility reviews and determinations;and all other pertinent information. Client shall promptly inform BMI of any alleged defects in services provided or the project. C. Access to Site: Unless otherwise stated,Client agrees to provide BMI with access to the site,including adjoining properties,for activities necessary for the performance of services. It is understood that in the normal course of work, property damage may occur due to excavations,tree and brush trimming,marking lines,etc. The cost to correct resulting damages has not been included in the fee. BMI will take precautions to minimize damage due to these activities and the Client agrees to reimburse BMI for any costs associated with required restoration work. D. Standard of Care: Professional services provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of BMI's profession currently practicing under similar conditions. BMI makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to its undertakings described herein. E. Certifications: Any certification provided by BMI is a professional opinion based upon knowledge,information and beliefs available to BMI at the time of certification. Such certifications are not intended as and shall not be construed as a guarantee or warranty. BMI shall not be required to certify the existence of conditions whose existence BMI cannot reasonably ascertain. F. Project Approvals:Due to site limitations,code interpretations,regulatory reviews,political considerations and Client directed design and improvements,BMI makes no representations as to acceptability or approvability of the project;or,zoning requests,permit applications,site and development plans,plats and similar documents. Payment of fees to BMI is not contingent upon project approval. G. Opinions or Estimates of Project Costs:Where included as part of project scope or otherwise,opinions or estimates of project cost will generally be based upon public construction cost information. Since BMI has no control over the cost of labor,materials,competitive bidding process,weather conditions and other factors affecting the cost of construction,all cost estimates are opinions for general information of the Client and BMI does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of construction cost opinions or estimates. Project financing should be based upon actual, contracted construction costs with appropriate contingencies. TERMPROP.doc/Rev 7-6-11 Page 1 of 2-Terms of Proposal Version 11-30-98 Terms of Proposal Bolton & Menk, Inc. (Continued) H. Construction Phase Services:If construction phase engineering or staking services are included in this Proposal or subsequently authorized,Client is notified that BMI is not be responsible for means,methods,techniques or procedures of construction selected by any contractor employed on the project nor for the safety precautions or programs incident to the work of any contractor. I. Ownership and Alteration of Documents: All documents,including reports,specifications,drawings,field data, notes and documents or electronic media prepared or furnished by BMI under this agreement shall remain the property of BMI. The Client may make and retain copies for its use in connection with this project. However,such documents are not intended for reuse by the Client on any other project or alteration of the project by others without the written consent of BMI. Electronic media may be furnished for convenience of Client;however,only signed and certified hard copies of submittals may be relied upon as documentation of professional services provided. J. Billings and Payments: Invoices for BMI's services shall be submitted,at BMI's option,either monthly or upon completion of services. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days after the invoice date. If the invoice is not paid within 30 days,BMI may,without waiving any claim or right against the Client,and without liability whatsoever to the Client,terminate the performance of its services. K. Late Payments: Accounts unpaid 30 days after the invoice date will be subject to a monthly service charge of 1_5%on the unpaid balance. If any portion or all of an account remains unpaid 90 days after billing,the Client shall pay all costs of collection,including reasonable attorney's fees. L. Termination of Services: This agreement may be terminated,upon written notice,by the Client or BMI should the other fail to perform its obligations hereunder. In the event of termination,the Client shall pay BMI for services rendered to the date of termination,all reimbursable expenses,and reimbursable termination expenses. M. Limitation of Liability: In recognition of the relative risks,rewards and benefits of the project to both the Client and BMI,the risks have been allocated such that the Client agrees that,to the fullest extent permitted by law,BMI's total liability to the Client for any and all injuries,claims,losses,expenses,damages or claimed expenses arising out of the performance of this agreement from any cause or causes,shall not exceed$56,760. Such claims include,but are not limited to,BMI's negligence,errors,omissions,strict liability,breach of contract,or breach of warranty,if any. N. Dispute Resolution: Any claims or disputes made during or after the performance of services between BMI and the Client,with the exception of claims by BMI for non-payment of services rendered,shall be submitted to mediation and/or arbitration. This Proposal anticipates that BMI and the Client will include a similar requirement in all agreements with contractors,sub-contractors,suppliers,consultants and fabricators concerned with this project. O. Withdrawal of Proposal:This Proposal constitutes a non-binding offer to perform services and BMI reserves the right to withdraw or modify this Proposal,without liability to the Client,at any time prior to receipt of written acceptance from the Client and execution of a signed agreement in accordance with Paragraph P. P. Agreement: If the Proposal is accepted,the Client and BMI may enter into and execute an Agreement incorporating the Proposal,these Terms and such additional terms and conditions as may be mutually acceptable to BMI and Client. Upon request by the Client,BMI may,at its sole discretion and for the benefit of the Client,proceed with any proposed services prior to execution of a written agreement. In the absence of an executed written agreement, the accompanying Proposal and these Terms of Proposal shall constitute the whole and complete agreement between BMI and the Client. TERMPROP.doc/Rev 7-6-11 Page 2 of 2-Terms of Proposal lt ,AFQEN HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2012-054 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE COUNTY ROAD E (B-2 DISTRICT) WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the County Road E (13-2 District) corridor from Lexington Avenue to TH 51 and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement, called the County Road E (13-2 District), be referred to the City Engineer for study and that the City Engineer is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 17th DAY OF DECEMBER,2012. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator