Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
March 18, 2002 Work Session
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E.. Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Ottr Website at: www. ci. coh.nbia-heights, mn. us ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING to be hem in the CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Councilmembers Marlaine Szurek Julienne Wyckoff Bruce Nawrocki Robert A. Williams City Manaoer Walt Fehst Meeting of: Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Location of Meeting: Purpose of Meeting: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MARCH 18, 2002 FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENT HEARING CONFERENCE ROOM 1 WORK SESSION AGENDA Consent Items Replacement of a Trailer for the PW Bobcat Review of a draft City Street Sweeping (LMC model policy) Discussion Items Proposed detour routes for Central Avenue during construction. (Public info. process: i.e. newsletter/cable/local newspaper. -Metro Transit representative Central Avenue Design Guidelines (continued from past meeting) Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for Central Avenue Reconstruction Project, 37th to 43rd (tentative) Draft of City Right-of-Way Ordinance. (League of MN Cities developed model ordinance) Redevelopment of the Southeast quadrant of 40th and University - discussion City View computer program The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS Of DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ci_ty of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Work Session Discussion Item Work Session Date: 2002 rk~~ MarCh 18, Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Wo Lauren McClanahan, Superintendent ofl~blic Works Item: Replacement of Equipment Unit #042: Trailer for Skid Steer Loader Background: Existing equipment unit #042 is a 1 O-foot Towmaster Trailer (model T-6) scheduled for replacement in 2002. It was purchased in 1989 for $2,050 and is used in the Park and Street Departments to haul the skid steer loader. The Shop Foreman has evaluated the trailer's mechanical condition and has determined that Unit # 042 is in satisfactory condition, but determined the load hauling capacity and braking is under sized to haul the existing John Deere skid steer loader. The 2002 Park Capital Equipment budget has $5,500 designated for replacement of Equipment Unit #042. Analysis/Conclusion: In 2001, the City replaced the Melrose Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader, Model 753 with a John Deem Skid Steer Loader, Model 260. The new loader was chosen to facilitate construction and maintenance activities and replace an undersized unit. Unfortunately, the new skid steer loader is too large and heavy to be hauled safely on the existing trailer. Staff recommends the purchase of one new 20-foot Towmaster Model, T-12DD Trailer. This trailer is large enough to transport the skid steer loader and attachments safely to the work site and is equipped with spring assist loading ramps to minimize the possibility of back injury. Staff has the following alternatives for the existing trailer: Option #1: Convert it into a Public Works safety trailer that would carry advanced warning devices, warning signs, barricades, barrels, flashers, cones and sand bags. The safety trailer would be used for traffic control during street maintenance and/or emergency operations. Option #2: Dispose of the trailer by auction. Work Session Date: March 18, 2002 Replacement of Equipment Unit #042: Trailer for Skid Steer Loader Page 2 The recommended unit, a Towmaster Model T-12DD Trailer is available offthe State of Minnesota State Purchasing Contract from RDO Equipment Company. Requested Action: Approve the purchase of one new 20 foot Towmaster Model T- 12DD Trailer, equipped with spring assist ramps and fork holder from RDO Equipment Co. of Bumsville, MN in the amount of $4,680, plus tax and delivery with funding appropriated from the Park Capital Equipment Fund: 431-45200-5180. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting off 3/18/02 No:AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES PUBLIcORIGINATINGwoRKsDEPARTMENT:,. CITYS~R ITEM: RESOLUTION ADOPTING STREET BY: K. Hansen~ BY: SWEEPING POLICY DATE: 3/15/~)t2'-~,.~ DATE: Background: It has recently been recommended by attorneys at the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) that every city have a street sweeping policy that is reviewed annually by the City Council and approved by resolution. The Public Works Department recommends adopting a model policy developed by the LMC that details our city's street sweeping efforts and offers protection for the City of Columbia Heights from possible liability, from pending MPCA regulations and from an environmental perspective. Based upon the League of Minnesota Cities 2002 model street sweeping policy, staff has developed a street sweeping policy that addresses when the city will sweep its streets, what streets will be swept first, and what safety precautions will be taken by city staff when performing street sweeping activities. Staffrecommends the first reading of the Street Sweeping Policy to be scheduled for March 25, 2002. Analysis/Conclusions: Over the last coupe of years, the Rice Creek Watershed District has completed several lake and stream monitoring projects that collected and tested water quality samples from a number of different sources. These studies have concluded that within the watershed district, approximately 20 percent of the annual pollutants enter our water system during the first heavy spring rain. The Rice Creek Watershed considers street sweeping as the "best management practice" for reducing the number of pollutants in our lakes and creeks. Sweeping is very effective in reducing the amount of salt and sand in our water system. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-21, there being ample copies available to the public. Recommended Motion: Move to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2002-21, being a resolution adopting the City of Columbia Heights Street Sweeping Policy. Attachment: Draft Street Sweeping Policy Resolution Maps COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STREET SWEEPING POLICY 2OO2 Adopted by the Columbia Heights City Council Page 1 of 4 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Columbia Heights believes that it is in the best interest of the residents for the City to assume basic responsibility for control of sweeping on city streets. Reasonable sweeping is necessary for vehicle and pedestrian safety, water quality issues and environmental concerns. The City will provide such service in a cost-effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel and environmental concerns. The City will use City employees, equipment and/or private contractors to provide this service. Streets will not be posted no parking prior to sweeping operations. Completion dates are dependent on weather conditions, personnel and equipment availability. The Public Works Superintendent or his/her designee will be responsible for scheduling of personnel and equipment. 2. POLICY When Will the Cid Perform Street Sweeping Operations? A. Spring sweeping of snow and ice control aggregate will begin when streets are significantly clear of snow and ice, usually late March or early April, after the risk of later snow has passed. Spring sweeping is typically completed by May 31st. B. Storm Water Quality areas will be swept on a priority basis throughout the year. C. Environmental/general sweeping will be performed on a routine basis. D. Fall sweeping will commence in early October and is typically completed by November 20~. E. Seal coating is a surface application of an asphalt emulsion followed by a layer of small rock that protects the pavement from the deteriorating effects of sun and water plus it provides increased surface friction. Seal coat sweeping will commence 3 to 5 days after application. F. Bituminous milling recovery sweeping will be performed the day of a grinding, milling or crack sealing operation. G. Erosion/siltation dirt & debris clean up from construction projects is the responsibility of the developer, contractor or property owner. Except in cases of emergency the streets shall be cleaned and swept within 2 to 5 days of notification. If the streets are not swept within the specified time allowed or in the case of an emergency the City may sweep the street and the responsible party will reimburse the city for all associated costs. H. Tree trimming and pruning areas will be swept the day trimming and pruning operations are performed. I. Citizen requests for sweeping will be evaluated and the Street Foreman will determine the priority. 3. How will Streets Be Swept? Sweeping is a slow process with average gutter line speeds for the first sweeping in spring that can be as slow as 2 to 3 miles per hour. The City will sweep with its own equipment and manpower. Normally centerlines are swept after gutter lines are cleaned. Equipment may include mechanical, vacuum or regenerative air sweepers. 4. Priorities The City has classified City streets based on the street function, traffic volume, impact on water quality and the environment, and the importance of the welfare of the Community. Accordingly, Page 2 of 4 sweeping routes will be designed to provide maximum possible benefit to higher volume and water quality sensitive areas. See attached maps or routes. 5. Weather Conditions Sweeping operations will be conducted when weather conditions permit. Factors that may delay sweeping operations include: temperatures below 32 degrees, wind, rain, snow, and frozen gutter lines. 6. Work Schedule Sweeping operations are performed in conjunction with and can be impacted by other maintenance operations. Sweeping operations will normally be conducted Monday-Friday, fi.om 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Extended workdays and shift changes may be utilized for spring cleanup or emergency sweeping to provide maximum efficiency. For safety reasons, no operator shall work more than a twelve-hour shift in any twenty-four hour period. 7. Sidewalks and Trails The City will sweep trails and sidewalks on collector and arterial streets once in the spring after the risk of snow has passed and are clear of snow and ice or on an as-needed basis. 8. Safety Sand, seal coat rock, or other dirt and debris on the street can create a potentially dangerous condition for vehicles, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. It would not be practical or effective to sign all streets for potential dangerous conditions. During seal coat operations, warning signs indicating loose rock will be placed on each end of collector and arterial streets or other appropriate areas where needed. These signs will remain in place until the street has been swept. Employees will follow all work rules, OSHA regulations, and Federal and State laws to ensure a safe sweeping operation. 9. Street Sweeping Procedure Street Sweeping Priorities for the City of Columbia Heights: A. Water Shed Area #1 (SE Quadrant)-Includes Hart Lake, Labelle Pond, Prestemon Pond, Silver Lake Pond, Silver Lake, and 1302 42nd Avenue over flow area. B. Water Shed Area #2 (NE & NW Quadrant)-Includes Highland Lake, Clover Pond, Tertiary Pond, Sullivan Pond, and Sullivan Lake. C. Water Shed Area #3 (SW & SE Quadrants)-Includes Jackson Pond, University Heights Pond, Huset Park overflow area, Gauvitte Park overflow area. D. Water Shed #4 (NW Quadrant)-Includes Hilltop Pond and 4636 Washington Avenue overflow area. Page 3 of 4 Eo *Note: Special Need Areas- These areas are swept in the evening or nighttime to minimize conflict with parked vehicles and traffic. Sweeping operations will begin when nighttime temperatures exceed 32 degrees and will continue on a regular basis until freezing temperatures halt the operation. Standard sweeping schedules will be Thursday night (one time per month). Additional sweepings will be handled on an as needed basis. · Central Avenue (from 37th to 53~ Avenues); · 40th Avenue (from University Avenue to Circle Terrace and Mill Street); · 39"' Avenue (From Jefferson Street to Central Avenues); · 37z Avenue (From Jefferson Street to Central Avenues); · 41st Avenue (From Quincy Street to Central Avenues); · Quincy Street, Jackson Street, Van Buren Street, and 40t~ Avenue to 41st Avenue; Please refer to the Street Sweeping-Water Shed Areas Map and Downtown Business Area Map for more information. The City of Columbia Heights Street Sweeping procedures have been established by following the "Street Sweeping"-Best Management Practices manual created by the Metropolitan Council (February 1994). Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-21 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE STREET SWEEPING POLICY WHEREAS, a Street Sweeping Policy has been developed based upon recommendations by the League of Minnesota Cities and recommended by City staff; and WHEREAS, adoption of said policy has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Columbia Heights; and WHEREAS, said policy defines the Street Sweeping procedures and methods of the City of Columbia Heights, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that said Street Sweeping Policy is hereby approved and adopted. Dated this 25th day of March, 2002. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BY Mayor Patricia Muscovitz Deputy City Clerk Ci_ty of Columbia Heights Public Works Department Work Session Discussion Item Work Session Date: March 18, 2002 rk~ff_.~ Prepared by: Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Wo Item: Central Avenue Temporary Bus Routes With the reconstruction of Central Avenue scheduled to begin in late May or early June, staff has been in contact with representatives of Metro Transit to discuss bus service during construction. Staff has asked representatives from their Operation Department to attend the work session to review the proposed service stops and routes along Central during construction. Staff has also discussed a public informational process with Metro Transit to make sure the ridership is aware of the temporary stop and route changes. Metro Transit indicated that one of the best ways is to inform the public is to advertise or post changes right at the stop locations affected. Staff is also recommending the following resources as a information campaign: The Heights Happenings Newsletter. Review on the local cable channel. Article in the local newspaper. other, such as City Web Site With the Central Avenue construction, the Jamboree Parade route change may also cause a one day interruption in service. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting: 3/18/02 AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORI[S ITEM: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES BY: K. Hanse~ BY: FOR CENTRAL AVENUE DATE: 3/14~1~ DATE: Back~round: The City Council previously awarded the final design services for Central Avenue Street and Utility Improvements to BRW at their Februaxy 28, 2000 regular meeting. The final design work as identified in the Engineering Study, includes utihties: water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer; and street reconstruction which includes center medians, concrete curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks. On October 9, 2000, the Council awarded the final design of streetscaping to BRW. Analysis/Conclusions: Staffmet with the Council at their August 7th work session to discuss preliminary alternatives for urban streetscaping. A public informational meeting was held September 20®, 2000 at Murzyn Hall with all fronting properties along Central Avenue invited. From the direction and input of these two meetings, the final design of streetscaping was developed. The total estimated cost of the streetscaping is $760,000 with a total project cost in excess of 4.6 million dollars. At the pubhc informational meeting, the issue of storefront redevelopment and/or design guidelines was raised by the business community. In further support of revitalization along Central Avenue, the recently completed city-wide survey by Decision Resources reported that two of the major concerns of the community is 'redevelopment along Central Avenue,'~ and 'nmdown/dirty conditions'2 of the downtown area. The Central Avenue Street, Utility and Streetscaping project will provide a large public investment for the redevelopment of the 'core' downtown area along Central Avenue. For this type of redevelopment to be cohesive and successful, the business community along this corridor should also have an oppommity for redevelopment. In support of the comments of the Central Avenue business community, the creation of a 'Design Guidelines' document is proposed by staffto guide private redevelopment. The proposed work scope is detailed on the attached proposal and is generally summarized by the following tasks: Initial Project Scoping, Inventory and Analysis, Community Preference Survey, Design Principles and Guidelines, Draft Ordinance, Review and Public Comment, and Final Ordinance Development. This work would not duplicate the efforts of the Downtown Master Plan, but provide the next step of detailed Architectural/Design controls for existing business owners. Funding sources for this work could be any one or a combination of the following: City Project 1999-12, CDBG fimds, Livable Communities Grant funds, assessments to fronting business properties, or the undesignated fund balance. Recommended Motion: Consider the development of Architectural Design Guidelines for Central Avenue, from 37th to 42aa Avenues, and authorize the consulting fu'm of BRW to conduct the work as defined in their proposal dated March 13, 2002, at a cost not to exceed $28,500 with funding appropriated from 415-59912-3050. 2000 Residential Survey, Decision Resources, PG 23, 24. 2000 Residential Survey, Decision Resources, PG 60, 61 Attachment: BRW proposal letter dated March 12, 2002 COUNCIL ACTION: Consistent with community demographics, twenty-six percent did not have enough information to make a judgment. Ratings increased among city residents for over twenty years, members of households containing seniors, members of under $50,000 annual income households and residents informed about the work of the Mayor and City Council. They decreased among city residents for six to twenty years and residents who have contacted City Hall staff. The four-to-one favorable-to-unfavorable rating was very strong in comparison with other first- ring suburban school districts. Cooperation with Hilltop Respondents were questioned: WouM you favor or oppose the Cities of Cohtmbia Heights att'd Hilltop cooperating more in the provision of services and issues of mutual interest? Do you feel strongly that way? By over nine-to-one, 73%-8%, residents endorsed greater cooperation with the City of Hilltop: STRONGLY FAVOR ............................. 24% FAVOR ........................................ 49% OPPOSE ........................................ 4% STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 21% There were no statistically significant sub-group differences noted. Clearly, a mandate exists for the two cities to cooperate more in the provision of services and on issues of mutual importance. Summary and Conclusions A moderate eighty-four percent rated the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" only fourteen percent rated it as "excellent." Sixteen percent posted "only fair" or "poor" ratings, with only one percent in the latter category. Seventy-nine percent thought the City was generally headed "in the fight direction," while fifteen percent disagreed. Disagreement stemmed from the perceptions of"poor government decisions," "undesirable businesses moving to the community," and "slow response to change." "Location" was the most liked feature of the city. At thirty-five percent, it outdistanced all other 23 responses. Nineteen percent pointed to "nice people," while twelve percent valued the "small town ambience." Just behind, eight percent mentioned "quiet and peacefulness." Smaller percentages posted "safety," "good city services," "affordable housing," and "stability." In thinking about serious issues facing the city, there proved to be two major concerns. Seventeen percent pointed to "crime," while eleven percent worried about the "redevelopment of Central Avenue." Nine percent worried about "rundown areas," while eight percent cited "Iow income housing," and seven percent, "need for more businesses." Six percent mentioned "City Council decisions" and five percent said "quality of schools." Smaller numbers cited "high taxes," "lack of activities for children," and "traffic congestion." Four percent of the residents, however, saw "no major issues" facing Columbia Heights at this time. In evaluating a number of characteristics of the community, a plurality of residents reported the city currently had "about the fight number or amount" of each one; on average, forty-nine percent of the community expressed satisfaction on each characteristic. But, there were sizable minorities on seven of the characteristics which indicated some dissatisfaction with the status quo. Significant numbers of residents thought there were "too many" rental units and "too man3"' low income housing opportunities, even though pluralities saw "about the right number." Similarly, significant numbers of residents thought there were "too few" upper bracket housing opportunities, "too few" condominiums and townhouses, "too few" senior housing opportunities, and "too few" light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing industries, while the plurality on each characteristic expressed satisfaction. On only one dimension, parks and open spaces, did a contented majority of respondents report there was "about the right amount." A moderately large sixty-four percent felt they could have an impact ofthe way things were run in Columbia Heights, twenty-eight percent felt they could not. Among this latter group, only one- half actually felt they would be ignored by City Hall. Overall, then, this level of perceived empowerment was well above the suburban area norm. Columbia Heights residents, then, were feeling connected to their local decision-makers. A high thirty-one percent thought there xvere areas in the community where they did not feel safe, with the concern centered on Central Avenue, Hilltop, and the Minneapolis border. Two safety concerns dominated from a list of six problems: "juvenile crime and vandalism," at twenty-six percent, and "speeding cars," at twenty-four percent. "Burglary and other residential crime" followed at eighteen percent. Residents rated the quality of the Columbia Heights Public Schools very highly: sixty-five percent thought it 'was either "excellent" or "good," while only sixteen percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." Twenty4hree percent were unsure of the quality of education provided by the School District. By an overwhelming 73%-8% margin, residents favored the Cities of Columbia Heights and Hilltop cooperating more in the provision of services and issues of mutual interest. In fact, twenty-four percent "strongly favored" greater cooperation between the two municipalities. 24 STRONGLY FAVOR ............................. 20% FAVOR ........................................ 45% OPPOSE ........................................ STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ......................... 23% Support increased among members of over $50,000 annual income households and residents informed about the work of'the Mayor and City Council. It decreased among city residents for six to tv,'enty years. While not as intensely supported as the redevelopment of the Downtown Area, a mandate exists for action on commercial and industrial development ofthe Industrial Park. Summary and Conclusions l In assessing the potential use of"eminent domain" in four areas of the community, residents posted majorities in favor in each case. By a 69%-19% judgment, they supported its use "to get rid of blighted properties and areas in the Downtown area." By a 59%-26% verdict, residents supported the use ofeminent domain "to assemble land to redevelop areas along Central Avenue." Similarly, by a 56%-28% margin, respondents favored its use "for redevelopment of Downtov,'n." And, finally, by a 50%-34% judgment, residents supported the use ofeminent domain "to create a larger tax based by redeveloping the city's industrial area." In discussing Downtown Columbia Heights, fifteen percent reported they liked most the "convenience" of the area. "New development," at eleven percent, and "shopping opportunities," at ten percent, ranked next. Smaller numbers pointed to "restaurants," "ample parking," "new gas station," "bus routes," "movie theater," "new bank," "cleanliness," and "small town ambience." But, fourteen percent reported there ,,,,'as "nothing" they liked about the Downtown Area. "Rundown and dirty condition" ,,,,'as the aspect tv,'enty-eight percent liked least about the Downtov,'n Area. "Empty buildings," at twelve percent, and "traffic congestion," at ten percent, ranked next. "Lack of stores" followed at seven percent. Fewer residents pointed to "too manv fast food drive-ins," "poor roads," "bleak shopping mall," "poorly designed bus hub," and "lack of safety." However, nine percent disliked "nothing" about this area of'the community. In prioritizing nexv development in the Downtown Area, tv,'enty-three percent suggested "retail opportunities," ',','lille fifteen percent cited "nice restaurants." Nine percent thought "additional set'vice providers" would make an excellent addition. Smaller numbers urged % hardware store," "more entertainment and theaters," "family-friendly businesses," "light industrial opportunities," ':a community center," and "small shops." In reacting to a list of potential development projects for the Downtown Area, eighty percent urged the City to attract "quality sit-down restaurants," while seventy-seven percent felt the same way about "family-style restaurants." Seventy-three percent wanted the City to pursue ",,,,'omen's clothing stores," while seventy-one percent each urged "a library building," "men's clothing stores," and "children's clothing stores." Between sixty and seventy percent supported attracting % police and public safety building," % sports bar or dining establishment, like Applebee's," 6o "coffee shops," "electronics stores," and "sporting good stores." On only one potential development, "second-hand or thrift stores," did a majority oppose its attraction to the Dov,'ntovm Area. Other retail stores suggested by moderate numbers of'residents included "department stores" and "hobby and cral~ stores." By a forty-six percent to thirty-sN percent margin, residents opposed a more consistent appearance for on-building advertising if it might cause establishments already there to relocate or discourage new businesses from coming. Those most opposed did not want any other impediments placed on retail development in the Dov,'ntown Area. Two areas were cited by a combined majority as their principal retail shopping locations, excluding grocer)' and gasoline purchases: "Target in Fridley," by thirty percent, and "Rosedale," by twenty-two percent. "Northtown," at ten percent, and "K-Mart in Columbia Heights," at nine percent, attracted a moderate number of households. Smaller numbers cited "Brookdale," "Herberger's in New Brighton," "Horizon DrUgstore,'' "Walgreens in Columbia Heights," "Columbia Heights Mall," and "Downtov,'n Mirmeapolis." Tv,'o grocer3' stores were exceptionally popular with residents: fifty-eight percent regularly purchased groceries at "Rainbow in Columbia Heights," while twenty-six percent went to "Cub in the Apache Mall." Smaller numbers regularly shopped at "Cub in Fridley" and "Byerly's at Rosedale." Sixty-five percent reported they were either ",.'er5' familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with the Industrial Park located in the area south of Huset Park and east of'University Avenue. Thirty-six percent, though, ,.,,'ere either "not too familiar" or "not at all familiar" with it. Residents split on the general appearance of the Industrial Park: forty-one percent rated it as either "excellent" or "good," while thirty-seven percent sa'',,' it as "only fair" or "poor." Twenty-two percent ,,,,'ere uncertain about its appearance. A solid sixty-five percent would support the redevelopment of the Industrial Park to attract more commercial and light industrial development there. Only thirteen percent reported opposition, while twenty-three percent were uncertain. 61 BRW, Inc. March 12, 2002 Mr. Kevin Hansen, PE Public Works Directol~ City Engineer City of Columbia Heights 637 - 38a'Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Scope of Work/Estimated Cost for Design Guidelines Central Avenue (TH 65) Improvement Project City Project No. 99-12 Dear Mx'. Hansen: As requested, we have developed a preliminary scope of work and estimated cost for the development of Design Guidelines for the Central Avenue ~ 65) corridor. We understand that the Design Guidelines should include both sides of Central Avenue between 37~ Aven~e and 42nd Avenue and perhaps 40th Avenue from Central to University as well. It is likely that several districts will be identified during the preliminary inventory and analysis phase...These might include the Central Avenu© core area from 39th to 41st, Central Avenue north and south of the core area and 40th Avenue from Quincy Street to University Avenue. The content of the guidelines may then vary by district. As discussed at our previous meetings, we have worked with a number of local communities to develop Design Guidelines to assist them with development/redevelopment issues. We have attached a copy of an article out of the January - February 2001 issue of Architecture Minnesota that discusses how the City of Wayzata has developed Design Guidelines to assist them with development/redevelopment along Lake Street in their community. The following is a summary'of a preliminary scope of work and estimated cost for the 'development of the Design Guidelines. The scope of work and cost estimate have been prepared based upon our past experienCe with similar work for other communities. SCOPE OF WORK The following is a summary of a preliminary scope of work for the development of the Design Guidelines. 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415-1199 612.370.0700 Tel 612.370.1378 Fax BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen March 12, 2002 Page 2 1. Project Scoping We would meet with City staff to review the work program and finalize .the schedule. We would also review prior Visioning efforts, discuss problems or shortcomings of past development and identify other issues that the project should address. -Inventory and Analysis Define and document the "typology" of the built environment along Central and 40th Avenue. si The typological examination will include street cross-sections, building setbacks, building dimensions, common architectural elements, street trees and landscaping, lighting and street furniture, signage, historic architecture and vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and movement patterns. We would illustrate these elements in photographs~ sketches and descriptive text. We also suggest that we meet with the City Council and/or Planning and Zoning Commission at this time to get their assessment of problems or shortcomings of past development and their sense of buildings or sites that exemplify community character. Community Preference Survey Define'visual preferences .and community character. We propose a two-part process,. using a focus group or task force composed of approximately 8.to t2 members of the City Council, EDA, Planning and Zoning Commission, business and neighborhood representatives and other interested citizens. The two parts would be as follows: ao · Conduct a visual preference survey in which participants would rate the visual appeal of buildings and streetscape elements, using images from Columbia Heights and other communities. be Score the results and .discuss them with participants. While the results of this method are often largely predictable, subtle differences will emerge which help define the character of a particular community. The preferred images are then used to establish basic design principles, which are used in developing .the Design Guidelines. BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen March 12, 2002 Page 3 Design Principles and Guidelines · Drawing on the results of the previous task, we would develop design principles: brief statements accompanied by sketches or photos illustrating the community preferences. These Principles would focus on both the individual building, the development site and the surrounding neighborhood, and would likely include the following design elements: · Building scale and massing · Proportion (height to width; building height to street width) · Building materials and detailing; appropriate primary materials, accents and prohibited materials · Fenestration: pattern and rhythm of windows and doors · Signage · Site circulation and parking, balancing pedestrian and vehicle needs · 'Preservation of existing landscaping and introduction of new landscape material Public spaces, including street furniture, lighting and streetscapeelements · Transitions between commercial and residential areas · Community entrances, gateways and focal points Draft Ordinance Language Prepare a draft of an ordinance in outline form, including statements of the basic principles and illustrations. Review draft language with staff, City Council and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Review and Revise Based upon the results of the previous task, refine the ordinance language into a final draft format. Present the draft ordinance, illustratic~ns and results at a public meeting and receive: public comments. Develop Final Ordinance · Incorporate staff, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and public comments into final design standards ordinance. Present final ordinance to the City Council and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission. BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen March 12, 2002 Page 4 ESTIMATED:COSTS The following is a summary of the estimated costs for the services described above. .T. ask Project Scoping $ 2,000 Inventory and Analysis $ 7,000 Community Preference Survey $ 3,000 Design Principles & Guidelines $ 9,500 Draft Ordinance Language $ 2,500 Review and Revise $ 2,000 Develop Final Ordinance $ 2,000 Subtotal $ 28,000 Reimbursable Expenses 5; 500 Approximate Total Cost. $ 28,500 'Estimated Cost Thc estimated cost for the development of the Design Guidelines is, therefore, $28,500. This is iniended.to be a preliminary cost only as the costs could vary with the further refinement of the scope of work. Facilitating the production of multiple copies of a final color booklet of the guidelines document would be an additional expense the City may wish to consider. Typically printing costs about $20.00 per booklet. We propose to perform these services on an hourly basis under the terms of our Professional Services Agreement for the design phase of-the Central Avenue'Impmvement Project. Labor will be billed at the rotes included in our hourly rote schedule. Reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost with no BRW markup. We estimate that it would take between four to five months to complete the development ..of the Design Guidelines. The schedule would be dependent upon the City Council, Planning and Zoning CommiSsion and public involvement processes used for the project. Two original copies of this proposal are enclosed. If the proposal is acceptable, please execute both copies on the signature .blocks provided'below and return one copy to us for our records. BRW, Inc. Mr. Kevin Hansen March 12, 2002 Page 5 Please let mc'know if you have any questions or you need any additional information. Since~ly, BRW, Inc. APPROVED BY: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Name Name Title Title Signature Signature Date Date Copy: Bob Kost/BRW Kim Schaffer/BRW File 33910-004-1001 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 3/18/02 AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BY: K. Hanse~~/x w ~.a~ DA ~:: 7~/-~ ~BY~/t~//ff//-~fff~ ITEM: RESOLUTION COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO ENTER INTO A DATE: 3/15/0~ : COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT FOR TH 65 RECONSTRUCTION Background: Feasibility reports have been prepared and accepted by the Council for Street and Utility Improvements (December 13, 1999) and StreetScaping and Water Services (March 12, 2001). The first report included utilities: sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main and street reconstruction which includes center medians, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous pavement and concrete sidewalk. The second report included street landscaping improvements: decorative concrete sidewalk, benches, planters and street lighting and replacing water services within the project area. Right-of-Way deficiencies, pavement design issues and funding issues delayed construction until the 2002 construction season. The engineering reports and financial estimates indicate a funding level from MnDOT in the amount of $1,296,000. Analysis/Conclusions: The Central Avenue Project was resubmitted to the State for funding consideration and awarded a Cooperative grant in the amount of $540,000 for fiscal year 2003. Staff has been working with MnDOT to secure the remaining funding necessary for the entire project. Attached is a letter from the Cooperative Agreements Engineer, Mike Kowski indicating that the remaining balance will be provided by MnDOT. Another $620,000 will be included in the TH 65 Cooperative Agreement available in 2002. The remaining $136,000 is secured from the Office of Traffic Engineering, but will not be available until FY 2006, or July 1, 2005. A cooperative agreement is required by MnDOT and essentially details several things regarding the project: 1. Engineer's Estimate with detailed quantity takeoff. 2. Cost participation by the State and City. 3. Maintenance responsibilities after construction is complete. The Central Office of MnDOT is currently completing the TH 65 Agreement and indicated they would forward it by next Thursday, March 21. MnDOT's financial contribution to the project will be what is defined in the attached letter from the Cooperative Engineer. The maintenance responsibilities of the project are defined on the attached two page listing from MnDOT. Staff recommends adopting the resolution which authorizes the City of Columbia Heights to enter into a Cooperative Agreement No. 82966 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Central Avenue, TH 65. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2002-21, there being ample copies available to the public. Recommended Motion: Move to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2002-21, being a resolution adopting the City of Columbia Heights Street Sweeping Policy. Attachment: Mike Kowski letter dated March 12, 2002 Resolution Maintenance Responsibilities COUNCIL ACTION: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 12, 2002 651-582-1661 Mr. Kevin Hansen Director of Public Works City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue North Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3835 RE: Funding for SP 0207-73, TH 65 in Columbia Heights Dear Mr. Hansen: This letter is to inform you of the funding available for the above referenced project. When this project was resubmitted in October of 2001 for funding through the Municipal Agreement Program the amount requested by the City of Columbia Heights was $1,296,000. This amount was presented to the Municipal Agreement Selection Committee on January 18, 2002. At that time the Municipal Agreement Selection Committee award $500,000 (plus 40,000 for CE&I) in FY 2003 funds toward the project. Following the directions given by the Committee regarding any unused FY 2003 (or FY 2002) funds I attempted to obtain the remainder of the requested funding. As of March 11, 2002 1 have been able to obtain an additional $620,000 fi.om cancelled or postponed municipal agreement projects. In addition I have gotten a commitment fi.om the Metro Traffic Engineering Office to dedicate the remaining $136,000 fi.om their Safety Capacity Program. The funds fi.om Traffic are only available on a Debt Managed basis, the payback date would be no earlier than FY 2006. It is now up to the City to decide whether to accept this funding package and continue with the project. Please let me know the decision of the City Council as soon as you can. If the City chooses to mm down this funding I will need to redirect it to other projects. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, ./~/~'~.~) / Cooperative Agreement Engineer Metro Division cc: Bob Brown, Mn/DOT-Metro State Aid Tom Leibli/Project File - Metro State Aid Kevin Kielb, URS Inc. An equal opportunity employer RESOLUTION No. 2002-20 BEING A RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT) FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE (T.H. 65) WHEREAS, the engineering consulting fn-m of URS has prepared final plans and specifications for the improvement of Central Avenue from 37th Avenue to 43ra Avenue, City Project 9912 and 9912(A); and WHEREAS, the City has approved the plans, ordered the project and ordered the advertisement for bids by City Resolution No. 2002-01 and Resolution No. 2002-18; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has designated the improvements as SP 0207-73 (TH 65 = 005); and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal State Aid account, Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement Funds, Special Assessments and City Utility Funds shall provide the funding for the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has secured funding in the amount of $1,296,000.00 for the project and has prepared Municipal Agreement Number 82966 for the making of the improvements; and, WHEREAS, the improvements continue the City goal(s) of improving the physical appearance of the City's commercial and industrial corridors and replacement of deteriorated infrastructure; and, WItEREAS, the improvements will benefit MnDOT's Trunk Highway system. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA that the City of Columbia Heights, Anoka County Minnesota, enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 82966 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to the City of Columbia Heights for the Minnesota Department of Transportation's share of the costs of the roadway construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 65 from 37th Avenue to 43ra Avenue within the corporate limits of the City of Columbia Heights. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and the Director of Public Works are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. Dated this 25th day of March, 2002. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BY Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk TH 65 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES T.H. 65 from 37th Avenue to 43rd Avenue and at 51st Avenue. T.H. 47 from 37th Avenue to 49t~ Avenue. I. DUTIES OF CITY City will provide routine maintenance on the above described roadway in accordance with the standards and guidelines City uses to routinely maintain its street system, and will include the following: Keep the median opening, island, and adjacent turn lanes located approximately 400 feet north of 37th Avenue reasonably free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. Replace damaged signs on this island as needed. Keep the east and west islands and associated turn lanes located at the intersection of T.H. 65 and 51st Avenue reasonably free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. Replace damaged signs on these islands as needed. 3. Keep all pedestrian walkways free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. 4. Maintain the new pedestrian decorative lighting as needed. 5. Perform all sweeping including mainline, turn-lanes, parking bays, and sidewalks. Perform all routine maintenance of vegetation and other plantings, including necessary and regular mowing, tree trimming, weed control, and replacement of dead vegetation including trees and shrubs. 7. Perform all routine maintenance of streetscape hardware, including but not limited to, planters, tree grates, benches, waste receptacles, and colored concrete walks. 8. Replace or repair damaged or settled concrete sidewalks, crosswalks, and medians. 9. Joint and crack sealing of bituminous surface as needed, not to exceed once every eight years. 10. Maintain internally lit signs on University Avenue (T.H. 47) from 37th Avenue to 49th Avenue. City will furnish at its own cost all labor, equipment, materials, supplies, tools, and other items necessary for the performance of the services to be provided for by City under this Agreement. All materials used by City in the performance of the work under this Agreement must conform to the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, 2000 Edition, and to any subsequent amendments thereto. E. Ail work performed by under this Agreement shall conform to all applicable Mn/DOT Standards. II. III. Co DUTIES OF STATE Keep the roadway, other than described in "Duties of the City", reasonably free and clear from ice and snow, undertake proper cleaning, and perform ice and snow control measures when necessary. Perform any extraordinary maintenance, betterments, construction, or reconstruction on the trunk highways described in Section I, Paragraph A. If State desires City to perform any such work, the parties will enter into a separate agreement therefor. Extraordinary maintenance, betterments, construction, or reconstruction includes, but is not limited to, overlay of the roadway surface, milling and overlay of the roadway surface, replacement of drainage structures and culverts, and major washout repairs. State will retain its authority to administer, issue, and regulate access permits, sign advertising permits, drainage permits, and permits to install new utilities on the trunk highways described in Section I, Paragraph A. ANNUAL INSPECTION Authorized representatives of State and City will jointly inspect the highways and bridges on an annual basis to review the adequacy of the maintenance work being performed, and to determine if any extraordinary maintenance, betterments, construction, or reconstruction is required. IV. LANE CLOSURES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL City may partially block the trunk highways and bridges for a period of time necessary for the performance of the services covered under this Agreement. In cases of emergency, such trunk highways and bridges may be wholly blocked and the passage of traffic thereon prevented by City. At no time, however, will City continue to obstruct the free passage of traffic on the trunk highways or bridges for a longer period of time than is reasonably required for performing the necessary work thereon. In the event of the total blocking or closing of any such trunk highway or bridge, City must provide a suitable detour during such time, with the assistance of State, as needed. City may close to travel the trunk highways and bridges at such time as it is necessary for the emergency repair of water or gas mains, electric or telephone cables, or sewers. However, City will not cause any portions of said trunk highways and bridges to be closed to traffic for any reasons other than those above set forth, and in no event for a time longer than reasonably necessary to complete authorized work. All partial and total closures of the trunk highways and bridges covered under this Agreement must be in conformance with the current Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 3/25/02 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE #1446 AMENDING THE BY: K. Hansen '~ xy..~ BY: STREET EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE CITY DATE: 3/13/02(~ CODE (6.301) Background: The Public Works Department is recommending amending the Street Excavation section of the City Code (6.301) by replacing it with an entirely new ordinance based upon League of Minnesota Cities recommended language. The primary purpose is to address safety and restoration issues revolving around the City's public streets and fight-of-way. The City and other public entities have invested substantial public funds to build and maintain our infrastructure and right-of-way. The public fight-of-way is also used by other for-profit utility providers such as Xcel, Minnegasco, Quest, AT & T and others providing natural gas, electric, phone and cable services to our residents and businesses. Although the installation of such service facilities is necessary or convenient, the installation and maintenance of these facilities all too often have a detrimental affect on our public streets and/or the right-of- way. Consequently, the City must be able to better regulate and manage the usage of public fight-of-way areas. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) along with a consortium of city and county engineers and private utility representatives, developed a Model Ordinance to address right-of-way issues and set standards for restoration in the fight-of-way. The intent of the ordinance is to allow the Cities to impose reasonable and uniform regulations on the placement and maintenance of equipment currently within its right-of-ways or to be placed therein at a future date. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies while providing the city with the means necessary to recover the costs associated with managing, maintaining and/or repairing public fights-of-way. Analysis/Conclusions: Approximately seventy five percent of the cities in the Metro area have adopted a Right-of-Way Ordinance. City staffhas reviewed the LMC model ordinance, contacted other cities for review of fee slructures, and formulated a draft Right-Of-Way Ordinance for Columbia Heights. The Public Works Department discussed the benefits of a fight-of-way ordinance that would assist Public Works in regulating and maintaining the integrity of the City's rights-of-way and infrastructure throughout the City. Through the implementation of this ordinance, the Public Works Department intends to achieve the following goals: · Restoration - Right-of-way and surrounding area is returned to condition that existed before any surface disturbance; · Accountability - The permit holder shall be required to perform repairs and restoration in accordance with the standards and materials specified by the ordinance; · Revenue - Recovering of costs associated with administering and maintaining the City's fights-of-way program. It should be noted that this ordinance is not intended to be a large revenue generator, but structured to recover City costs associated with managing the public right-of-way. A spreadsheet showing what the revenue difference would be from 2001 existing fees to 2002 new proposed fees is included as attachment 'A.' A second spreadsheet lists what other cities fight-of-way COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 3/25/02 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE #1446 AMENDING THE BY: K. Hansen BY: STREET EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE CITY DATE: 3/13/02 DATE: CODE (6.301) 2002 new proposed fees is included as attachment 'A.' A second spreadsheet lists what other cities right-of-way fee structure are as attachment 'B.' Staffproposed only two fees for this ordinance: An annual registration fee by company, in the amount of $50.00, and a permit fee in the amount of $150 for street excavation or $50 for boulevard excavation. The primary intent of this ordinance is to provide consistent restoration standards that will ensure the long-term structural integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the public rights-of-way. The City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for continued maintenance of the right-of-way, one of the causes for early and excessive deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation and disturbances. This ordinance places the responsibility on those that excavate or disturb the public right-of-way to restore the public streets and surrounding area to the condition that existed before the commencement of the work. Staff is recommending the First reading of the Right-of-Way ordinance for March 25, 2002. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance #1446, there being ample copies available to the public. Recommended Motion: Move to establish April 22nd at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the Second Reading of Ordinance #1446, being an Ordinance replacing City Code Section 6.301, Street Excavations, with a Right-of-Way Ordinance Attachment: Attachment 'A' - Revenue Comparison Attachment 'B' - Right-of-Way Fee Survey Draft Right-Of-Way Ordinance Standard Plates COUNCIL ACTION: Projected ROW Revenues.xls 2001 Street Excavation Information Application Forms 2001 Totals Cost Attachment A Estimated 2001 Street Excavation 40 Permits Permits Issued $30.00 Revenue $ 1,200.00 2002 Projected Right-of-Way Information Registration Forms Service Cost Estimated Proposed 2002 Registration Revenues Cable Television $ Gas Company $ Telephone Company $ Electdc Company $ Utility Companies $ Construction Compan $ Cellular Phone $ Revenue 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.00 50.00 $ 50.O0 $ 350.00 Application Forms Street Excavation Permits Boulevard Excavation Permits Projected 150.00 50.00 Estimated Revenue 3,750.00 750.00 2002 Totals Cost $ 4,500.00 25 $ 15 $ Revenue Comparison 2001 Total 2002 Project Totals Estimated Revenue Generated $ 1,200.00 $ 4,850.00 $ 3,sso.oe Prepared by Public Works 3/14/02 Page 1 ORDINANCE #1446 BEING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE OF MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The City Columbia Heights does hereby establish City Code Section 6.304 to read as follows: Purpose. The City holds the rights-of-way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust for its citizens. The City and other public entities have invested substantial dollars in public funds to build and maintain the rights-of-way. The City also recognizes that by placing other utility equipment in the right-of-way for the purpose of delivering services to the citizens of the City also is a public use of this property for the public good. Although such services are necessary or convenient for the citizens, other persons or entities receive revenue and/or profit through their use of public property. Although the installation of such service delivery facilities are in most cases a necessary and proper use of right-of-way, the City must regulate and manage such uses. To provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the rights-of-way, one of the causes for the early and excessive deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation. This ordinance imposes reasonable regulations on the placement and maintenance of equipment currently within its rights-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this ordinance, persons disturbing and obstructing the rights-of-way will bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for their integrity. This ordinance shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statues Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050- 7819-9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this ordinance cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This ordinance shall not be interpreted to limit regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinance necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Election to Manage the Public Rights-Of-Way: Pursuant to the authority granted to the City under state and federal statutory administrative and common law, the City hereby elects pursuant Minnesota Statues, 237-163 subd. 2(b) to manage rights-of-way within its jurisdiction. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, as used herein, have the following meanings: Applicant. Is the person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. City. For purposes of this ordinance, City means the City of Columbia Heights and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents or any commission, committee or sub-division acting pursuant to lawfully delegated authority. City. Cost. The actual cost incurred by the City for public rights-of-way management; including but not limited to costs associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verif3ring right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving facilities during public right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; mapping of "as built" locations of facilities located in rights-of-way; and revoking right-of-way permits and performing all other tasks required by this Section, including other costs the City may incur in managing the provisions of this Section. Deeradation. The accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way caused by excavation or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation did not occur. Degradation Cost. Money paid to the City to cover the cost associated with a decrease in the useful life of a public right-of-way caused by excavation. Emerliencv. A condition that 1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or 2) requires immediate repair or replacement in order to restore service to a customer. Equipment. Any tangible thing or asset used to install, repair or maintain facilities in any right-of-way; but shall not include boulevard plantings or gardens planted or maintained in the right-of-way between a person's property and the street curb. Excavate. To dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. Permit. A permit issued pursuant to this Section. Permit Holder. Any person to whom a permit to excavate or place equipment or facilities in a right-of-way has been granted by the City under this Section. Public Rieht of Way. The area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cart way, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. It shall also include utility easemems along side and rear lot lines. A right of way does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other non-wire telecommunications or broadcast service. Registrant. Any person who has or seeks to have its facilities or equipment located in any fight-of-way. Restore or Restoration. The process by which the right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the condition that existed before the commencement of the work. Restoration Cost. Money paid to the City by a permit'tee to cover the cost of restoration. Right-of-Way. The surface and space above and below a public roadway, highway, street, cart way, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated fights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements owned by the City for City utility purposes. Service or Utility Service. Includes but is not limited to 1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. §216B.02, Subds. 4 and 6; 2) telecommunications, pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm communications, water, sewer, electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services; 3) the services provided by a corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minn. Stat. §300.03; 4) the services provided by a district heating or cooling system; and 5) cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chap. 238. Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User. A person owning or controlling a facility in the public right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the public fight-of-way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this Section, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services are not telecommunications right-of-way users. Administration. The Public Works Director is the principal city official responsible for the administration of thc fights-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The Public Works Director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. (1) (2) Registration Requirements. (A) Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use the fight-of-way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the fight-of-way, including persons with installations and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease, or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. (B) No person shall construct, install, repair, remove, relocate or perform any work within any right-of-way without first being registered pursuit to this subsection. Such registration shall be made on an application form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the registration fee required by the City. All fights-of-way registration fees shall be set forth in the City of Columbia Heights licensing fee section. Registration Information. The registrant shall provide the following at the time of registration and shall promptly notify the City of changes in such information: (a) Registrant's name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and Gopher One- Call registration certificate number if required by State law. (b) (c) Name, address, e-mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number of the person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the registrant. A Certificate of Insurance from a company licensed tl do business in the State of Minnesota providing coverage in the following mounts. (i) GENERAL LIABILITY: Public Liability, including premises, products and complete operations. (ii) Bodily Injury Liability Property Damage Liability Bodily Injury and Property and Damage Combined $1,000,000 each person $3,000,000 each occurrence $3,000,000 each occurrence $3,000,000 single limit COMPREHENSIVE: Automobile Liability Insurance, including owned, non- owned and hired vehicles. Bodily Injury Liability Property Damage Liability In lieu of 1) & 2) Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined $1,000,000 each person $3,000,000 each occurrence $3,000,000 each occurrence $3,000,000 single limit Such certificate shall verify that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the fight-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of equipment or facilities in the fight-of-way by the registrant its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground equipment and collapse of property. Such certificate shall also indicate the registrant's insurance is the primary coverage, shall name the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverage's required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverage's. Such certificate shall require that the City be notified 30 days prior to cancellation or non-renewal of the policy. (d) 24 hour emergency number. (e) An acknowledgment by the registrant of the indemnification. (f) Such other information the City may require. (3) Exceptions. The following are not subject to the requirements of this subsection. (a) Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens. (b) Persons erecting fences, installing driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, or parking lots. (c) Persons engaged in snow removal activities. (d) Federal, State, County, and City agencies. (e) Persons installing pet containment systems. (f) Plumbers licensed in accordance with City Code. (g) Persons acting as agents, contractors or subcontractors for a registrant who has properly registered in accordance with this subsection. (4) Term. Registrations issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall expire on December 31st of each calendar year. Reportine Obligations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of fights-of- way. The plan should include, but not be limited, to the following information: (a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year; and (b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year. The term "project' in this section shall include both next-year projects and five year projects. By January 1 of each year the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all project of which the city has been informed ofthe annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed on the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February 1, each registrant may change any projects in its list of next-year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a Next-year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a fight-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for a project. Permit Required; Bond; Exceptions. No person shall excavate, dig, tunnel, trench, or install any facilities, equipment or improvements above, on, or beneath the surface of any fight-of-way in the City or any property owned by the City without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this subsection. (a) Excavation-Boulevard Permit. An excavation perm_it is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the fight-of-way described in such permit to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. A permit is also required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of-way to the extent and for the duration of the permit. Application Fee. An application for a permit shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth by the City of Columbia Heights which are established to reimburse the City for associated costs. If the work is to be performed by an agent, contractor or subcontractor on behalf of a registrant, the registrant shall sign such application. The application shall also be accompanied by the following: (a) Scaled drawings showing the location of all facilities and improvements proposed by the applicant. (b) A description of the methods that will be used for installation. (c) A proposed schedule for all work. (d) The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be temporarily closed to traffic during the work. (e) The location of any public streets, sidewalks or alleys that will be disrupted by the work. (f) A description of methods for restoring any public improvements disrupted by the work. (g) Any other information reasonably required by the Public Works Director or City Engineer. Security. A surety bond, letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount determined by the Public Works Director or City Manager but not less than $5,000, shall be required from each applicant. A surety bond shall be from a corporate surety authorized to do business in the State. Security required pursuant to this subsection (2) shall be conditioned that the holder will perform the work in accordance with this ordinance and applicable regulations, will pay to the City any costs incurred by the City in performing work pursuant to this section; and will indemnify and save the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless against any and all claims, judgment or other costs arising from any excavation and other work covered by the permit or for which the City, Council or any City officer may be liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or property through the fault of the permit holder, either in improperly guarding the excavation or for any other injury resulting from the negligence of the permit holder. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be released by the City upon completion of the work and compliance with all conditions imposed by the permit. For permits allowing excavations within public streets, such bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be held for a period of 24 months to guaranty the adequacy of all restoration work. Permit Issuancel Conditions. The Public Works Director or City Manager shall grant a permit upon £mding the work will comply with applicable sections of this ordinance. Thc permit shall be kept on thc site of thc work while it is in progress, in the custody of the individual in charge of thc work. Thc permit shall be exhibited upon request made by any City official or police officer. The Public Works Director or City Manager may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant there-under to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to ensure the structural integrity of the right-of-way, to protect the property and safety of other users of the right-of-way, and to minimize the disruption and inconvenience to the traveling public. No permit shall be issued to anyone who has failed to register in accordance with this ordinance. Exceptions. No permit shall be required for the following: (a) Landscaping work permitted by the City pursuant to site improvement agreements. (b) Driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and other facilities permitted by the City pursuant to site improvement agreements. (c) Snow removal activities. (d) Activities of the City. Dilieence in Performing Work. Work shall progress in an expeditious manner as reasonably permitted by weather conditions until completion in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to traffic. In the event that the work is not performed in accordance with applicable regulations pertaining to excavations and utility connections, or the work is not done in an expeditious manner, or shall cease or be abandoned without due cause, the City may, after 72 hour notice to the permit holder, correct the work and fill the excavation or repair the street. The entire cost of such work shall be paid by the permit holder upon demand made by the City. The financial guarantees may be used by the City to reimburse itself for costs incurred through private engineering consulting fees and attorney fees to complete the work under this section. Standards During Construction or Installation. The permit holder shall comply with the following standards when engaging in the work: (1) Take such precautions as are necessary to avoid creating unsanitary conditions. Observe and comply with all laws, rules and regulations of the State, County, and City. (2) Conduct the operations and perform the work in a manner as to ensure the least obstruction and interference to traffic. (3) Take adequate precautions to ensure the safety of the general public and those who require access to abutting property. (4) If required by the Public Works Director or City Engineer, notify adjoining property owners prior to the commencement of work which may disrupt the use of and access to such adjoining properties. (5) In all cases where construction work interferes with the normal use of the construction area, provide for closing the construction area to traffic or to afford it restricted use of the area and comply with MUTCD traffic safety signing requirements. (6) Exercise precaution at all times for the protection of persons, including employees and property. (7) Protect and identify excavations and work operations with barricade flags, and if required, by flagmen in the daytime, and by warning lights at night. (8) Provide proper trench protection as required by O.S.H.A. when necessary and depending upon the type of soil, in order to prevent cave-ins endangering life or tending to enlarge the excavation. (9) Protect the root growth of trees and shrubbery. (10) Installation of pipe (utility conductors) under Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete, or other high-type bituminous pavements shall be done by jacking, auguring or tunneling as directed by the Engineer unless otherwise authorized. HDPE sleeving shall be an acceptable casing or sleeving material for telecommunications installations. (11) When removing pavement of Portland Cement Concrete, asphalt concrete or high-type built-up bituminous surfacing, the pavement shall be removed on each side of the trench (12) (a) (b) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) or excavation a distance of nine inches beyond the trench width and length, in order to provide a shoulder and solid foundation for the surface restoration. To obtain a straight edge and neat-appearing opening in pavement surfaces, the following procedure is required: Portland Cement Concrete Pavement - The surface shall be saw-cut scored two inches deep and the concrete broken out by sledge or pneumatic hammer chisel. Asphalt Concrete - The surface shall be cut full depth by pneumatic hammer chisel. Excavations, trenches and jacking pits off the roadway or adjacent to the roadway or curbing shall be sheathed and braced depending upon location and soil stability, and as directed by the City. Excavations, trenches and jacking pits shall be protected when unattended to prevent entrance of surface drainage. All backfilling must be placed in six-inch layers at optimum moisture and compacted with the objective of attaining 100 percent of AASHO density. Compaction shall be accomplished with hand, pneumatic or vibrating compactors as appropriate. Backfill material shall be Class 5, or better at the judgment of the Public Works Director. Backfilling with the material from the excavation may be permitted provided such material is granular in nature and acceptable to the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer. Compacted backfill shall be brought to street grade and crowned at the center not more than one inch. Backfill procedures shall provide for no settlements. Settlements, which occur within a 2-year warranty period, shall be repaired in a timely manner. The City may authorize another contractor to make the repair if it is not done in a timely manner. Reimbursement may be made from the surety bond, letter of credit or cash deposit with City. Street and pedestrian traffic shall be maintained throughout construction unless provided otherwise by the permit. No lugs damaging to roadway surfaces may be used. Dirt or debris must be periodically removed during construction. Other reasonable standards and requirements of the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer. Repair and Restoration. (1) Schedule. The work to be done under the permit, and the repair and restoration of the fight-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the permit holder, when work was prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable or when extended by the Public Works Director. In addition to repairing its own work, the permit holder must restore the general area of the work, and the surrounding areas, including the paving and its foundations, to the condition that existed before the commencement of the work but only to the extent the permit holder disturbed such surrounding areas. (2) General Standards. The permit holder shall perform repairs and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer. Both individuals shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the restoration, and may do so in whtten procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. In exercising this authority, the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer shall be guided by the following standards and consideration: (a) The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to the fight-of-way. (b) The traffic volume carried by the right-of-way; the character of the neighborhood surrounding the fight-of-way; (c) The pre-excavation condition of the right-of-way; the remaining life-expectancy of the fight-of-way affected by the excavation; (d) Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the permit holder is in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way that would otherwise result from the excavation, disturbance or damage to the right-of-way; and (e) The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowing the depreciation of the fight-of-way that would otherwise take place. (1) City Restoration. The permit holder may request that the City restore the fight-of-way. If the City agrees to perform the work, the permit holder shall pay to the City, in advance; a cash deposit equaling 150% of the estimated restoration cost. The restoration cost shall be estimated by the Public Works Director or designee shall include an estimate of the degradation cost. The estimate of the degradation cost shall be based upon criteria adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Following completion of the restoration, any funds in excess of the actual restoration cost and the degradation cost shall be returned to the permit holder. Notwithstanding this section, the City shall have no obligation to honor the permittee's restoration request. (2) Guarantees. The permit holder shall guarantee its work and shall maintain it for twenty-four (24) months following its completion. During this twenty-four month period it shall, upon notification from the Public Works Director or Assistant City Engineer, promptly correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the Engineering Department. (3) Permit Limitations. Permits issued pursuant to this Section are valid only for the area of the fight-of-way specified in the application and the permit and only for the dates so specified. No work shall be extended beyond the permitted area or dates without a new 9 permit being procured therefore, provided the Public Works Director may extend the completion date of the work in accordance with §6.147(1) of this Code. Denial of Permit. The Public Works Director may deny a permit due to the following: (I) Failure to register pursuant to this ordinance. (2) A proposed excavation within a street or sidewalk surface that has been constructed or reconstructed within the preceding five years unless the Public Works Director or City Manager determines that no other locations are feasible or when necessitated by an emergency. (3) (4) The applicant is subject to revocation of a prior permit issued pursuant to this ordinance. The proposed schedule for the work would conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival or any other similar event. (5) The right-of-way would become unduly congested due to the proposed facilities and equipment when combined with other uses in the right-of-way. (6) Businesses or residences in the vicinity will be unreasonably disrupted by the work. (7) The proposed schedule conflicts with scheduled total or partial reconstruction of the right-of-way. (8) The applicant fails to comply with the requirements of this Section or other Sections of this Code. Emergency Work. A registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to an emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the emergency the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Section for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the Public Works Director becomes aware of an emergency, the Director shall attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the Public Works Director may take whatever action deemed necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities or equipment occasioned the emergency. Revocation of Permits. The Public Works Director or City Manager may revoke any permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, this Code, rule or regulation, or any condition of the permit which substantial breach shall continue uncured for 10 calendar days after the issuance of a written order of the Public Works Director. A substantial breach of a permit holder shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) The violation of any material provision of the permit; (2) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; (3) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a permit; 10 (4) The failure to maintain the required bonds and insurance; (5) Failure to complete the work in a timely manner; (6) The failure to correct a condition indicated on an order issued by the Engineering Department. Appeal. (1) Filing of Appeal. Any person aggrieved by, i) the denial of a permit application, ii) the denial of a registration, iii) the revocation of a permit or, iv) the application of the fee schedule imposed by the City may appeal to the Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the Administrative Secretary. Said notice must be filed within 20 days of the action causing the appeal. (2) Notice of Hearing. The Council shall hear the appeal no later than 30 days after the date the appeal is filed. Notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the heating shall be mailed to the appellant not less than 10 days before the date of the hearing. (3) Hearing and Decision. The Council shall, at such hearing, hear and consider any evidence offered by the appellant, the Public Works Director or Engineering Department, and anyone else wishing to be heard. After heating the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future meeting. MaooinR. Within 120 days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the registrant shall provide the Public Works Director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as-built" location of all facilities and equipment installed, owned and maintained by the registrant. Such maps and drawings shall indicate both the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided in a format consistent with the City's electronic mapping system. Failure to provide maps and drawings in accordance with this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Location of Facilities and Equipment. (1) Under grounding by Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users. Any new construction and the installation of new equipment and replacement of old equipment of telecommunication tight-of-way users shall be underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes. Provided, telecommunications right-of-way users may attach equipment and facilities to existing poles and structures maintained by a service or utility service. (2) Corridors. The Public Works Director may assign specific corridors within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of equipment that is or, pursuant to current technology, the Public Works Director expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All permits issued by the Public Works Director involving the installation or replacement of equipment shall designate the proper corridor for the equipment at issue. (3) Limitation of Space. To protect health and safety, the Public Works Director shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional equipment within the right-of-way if there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of registrants or persons to occupy and use the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the Public Works Director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and 11 potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing equipment in the right-of-way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. Relocation. (1) Relocation for City Purposes. A registrant shall promptly but in no event more than 120 days of the City's request, permanently remove and relocate at no charge to the City, any facilities or equipment if and when made necessary by a change in the grade, alignment or width of any right-of-way, by the construction, maintenance or operation of any City facilities or to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The registrant shall restore any rights-of-way to the condition it was in prior to removal and relocation. (2) Under grounding of Relocated Telecommunications Facilities. A telecommunications fight-of-way user shall relocate all above ground facilities and equipment to underground locations at its own cost and expense at the City's request when, i) thc City requires the relocation of all telecommunications facilities and equipment to underground locations or ii) structures or poles to which the registrant's facilities or equipment is attached are abandoned or removed by thc owner of such structures or poles. Right-of-Way Vacation. (1) Reservation of Right. If the City vacates a right-of-way which contains the equipment of a registrant, and if the vacation does not require the relocation of registrant facilities and equipment, the City shall reserve, to and for itself and all registrants having facilities and equipment in the vacated right-of-way, the right to install, maintain and operate any facilities and equipment in the vacated right-of-way and to enter upon such right-of-way at any time for the purpose of reconstruction, inspecting, maintaining or repairing the same. (2) Relocation of Equipment. If the vacation requires the relocation of registrant facilities and equipment; and (a) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the registrant, the registrant must pay the relocation costs; or (b) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the registrant must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the registrant; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a person or persons other than the registrant or permit holder, such other person or persons must pay the relocation costs. Abandoned and Unusable Equipment. (1) Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations in the City must either: (a) Provide information satisfactory to the Public Works Director that the registrant's obligations for its equipment in the right-of-way under this ordinance have been lawfully assumed by another registrant; or (b) Submit to the Public Works Director an action plan for the removal or abandonment of equipment and facilities. The Public Works Director shall require removal of such facilities and equipment if the Public Works Director determines such removal is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Public Works Director may require the registrant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for reasonably anticipated costs to be incurred in removing the facilities and equipment. 12 (2) Abandoned Facilities Equipment. Facilities and equipment of a registrant located on the surface of or above a right-of-way or on City property that, for two years, remains unused shall be deemed to be abandoned. Such abandoned equipment is deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, i) abating the nuisance, or ii) requiring removal of the equipment or facilities by the registrant, or the registrant's successor in interest. (3) Removal of Underground Equipment. Any registrant who has unusable and abandoned underground facilities or equipment in any right-of-way shall remove it from that right-of-way during the next scheduled excavation, to the extent such facilities or equipment is uncovered by such excavation unless this requirement is waived by the Public Works Director or City Manager. Indemnification and Liability. (1) Limitation of Liability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of a right-of-way permit, the City does not assume any liability (a) for injures to persons, damage to property, or loss of service claims by parties other than the registrant or the City, or (b) for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of equipment by registrants or activities of registrants. (2) Indemnification. By registering with the City, a registrant agrees, or by accepting a permit under this Section, a permit bolder is required, to defend, indemnify, and hold the City whole and harmless from all costs, liabilities, and claims for damages of any kind including the City's reasonable attorney fees and costs arising out of the construction, presence, installation, maintenance, repair or operation of its equipment, or out of any activity undertaken in or near a right-of-way, whether or not any act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed, or prohibited by a right-of-way permit. It further agrees that it will not bring, nor cause to be brought, any action, suit or other proceeding claiming damages, or seeking any other relief against the City for any claim nor for any award arising out of the presence, installation, maintenance or operation of its equipment, or any activity undertaken in or near a right-of-way, whether or not the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited by a right-of-way permit. The foregoing does not indemnify the City for its own negligence except for claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence where such negligence arises out of or is primarily related to the presence, installation, construction, operation, maintenance or repair of said equipment by the registrant or on the registrant's behalf, including but not limited to, the issuance of permits and inspection of plans or work. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the registrant or to the City and the registrant, in defending any action on behalf of the City, shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. Right-of-Way Management Regulation Fees: (2) (3) Annual Registration Street Excavation Permit Boulevard Excavation Permit $ 50.00 (PerYear) $100.00 (Per Excavation) $ 50.00 (Per Excavation) 13 PLATE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RESTORATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDARD PLATES PART NUMBER 7819.9900 7819.9900 7819.9905 7819.9905 7819.9910 7819.9915 Subpart 1 Subpart 2 Subpart 1 Subpart 2 7819.9920 7819.9925 7819.9930 7819.9935 7819.9940 7819.9945 7819.9950 SUBJECT UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION Pavement 0 to 5 years old Pavement 0 to 5 years old Pavement 5 years old to 5 yr. project plan Pavement 5 years old to 5 yr. project plan Pavement in 5 year project plan Pavement in 2 year project plan UTILITY HOLE RESTORATION [.~ Pavement 0 to 5 years old Pavement 5 years old to 5 yr. project plan Pavement in 5 year project plan Pavement in 2 year project plan MISCELLANEOUS Gravel roads with driveways Cross sections from plate 11 Road shoulder restoration 0 ~ 0 0 UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION TYPICAL PAVEI~ENT 0 TO 5 YEARS OLD Bate: 4-29-98 PLATE 1 No Scale ,,.~.. ~... u o ~ ~ '[ ~ E .[ ._ ~ ~'~ ..e s ~ ~ TYPICAL PAVEMENT 0 lo 5 YEARS OLD Dote: 4-29-98 No Scole UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION TYPICAL PAVEldENT 5 YEARS OLD TO 5 YEAR PROJECT PLAN Date: 4-29-98 PLATE 3 No Scale C) 0 ~ C) c- z z z UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION TYPICAL PAVEMENT ,5 YEARS OLD TO ,5 YEAR PROJECT PLAN Date: 4-29-98 PLATE 4 No Scale CD UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION IN 5 YEAR PROJECT PLAN OR UTILITY TRENCH PATCH Date: 4-29-98 PLATE ,5 No Scale PLATE 6 UTILITY TRENCH RESTORATION Dote: 4-29-98 TYPICAL PAVEMENT IN 2 YEAR PROJECT PLAN OR TEMPORARY SURFACE No Scole II I I I I .~_ =o ~_ .~_ '-' I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~. { ~ ~Compoc[ aggregate bose / ~ to orig;nol density ~ C~poc~ subgrode to origlnol density ~PICAL RESTORATION ~PICAL HOLE UTILITY HOLE RESTORATION Date: 4-2~-98 P~T[ 7 TYPICAL PAYEUENT 0 TO 5 YEARS OLD No Scale II 14' 12' 12' ~ 12'~10' I I I I I I I I I (. j~. ~,._Compoct oggregote bose ~Compoc[ subgrode to orlginol density TYPICAL RESTORATION TYPICAL HOLE UTILITY HOLE RESTORATION TYPICAL PAVEMENT 5 YEARS OLD TO 5 YEAR PROJECT PLAN Date: 4-29-98 PLATE 8 No Scale ' '11 'I '1 ~1 112' 2'I , , ' ' I I ~ I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I ' I I I I I I II I I I I] I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I I I I , I I I I ' I I I II I I ! I II I I I I ~ I I II ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I I · I I .I · I I I I I I I I I I I I -.... /.....~'~.,/ I I I ...... "'""-'""~ ~l-- - -:"- -'""'1'-'- - - '"'---.-'"t r--i- - -,t-,--,-,,..,.,l,,,,,.---, F I I ~ I I I I I i i I i ' I I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I I x I I ' ~1 I I I I · ~: I I I I ~ I I I I t-- ~, ~ I I I I ~ I t I [ ~ [ I I I I ' I I I I ~ I I~ I I I I I "*-- I I I I I I I I I I I I ] I I I II I I I I] I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I .J. /I I I I Il I I I I I I I l i iI : I I I I I i I I! I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I IIi I i I i I i i i i i i i l i i ] i i i i i l i iI I i i i I i i i i i i i i i l [ iII I I I I I I I I I I I [ i I I I :' '"-'-'---- ~' ~a ~,,,_Compoct aggregate bose Z ~, r~,a · to originol density Compact subgrode to or~cjinol denslty TYPICAL RESTORATION TYPICAL HOLE UTILITY HOLE RESTORATION IN 5 YEAR Dote: 4-29-98 PLATE 9 PROJECT PLAN OR UTILITY HOLE PATCH No $cole I II I I I II I I r---~~H- ,-h'-+--' , -~~'I-~,--~-, ,, , ,, L , , ,,, ,, ~ I I~ I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II I I ~ I I I I ' I I! I I I I I I I II I I :, I I I I I ~ , ~ I' I ~ I I C~ompo X_¢ompoct o~re~ote bose ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ori~inol den~t~ ct ~ubor~de to od~in~l density TYPICAL RESTORATION TYPICAL HOLE UTILITY HOLE RESTORATION D~: ~-2~-9~ P~TE 10 TYPICAL PAVEMENT IN 2 YEAR PROJECT P~N OR TEMPORARY SURFACE No Scale ~ I I I I , i DRIVEWAY ROW. ._1 -- I-- Utility----~1-- [ ~1 jl I m< I J I CONCRETE I~ I ~1 DRIVEWAY I I I ~ I I ~ I i_ _i_ ~ ~ Utility ' m DRIVEWAY ~ote: ~ll utilit~ linos must be pushed under roods, shoulders ond drivewo~s unloss other conskuction methods ore opprov, d b~ PLATE 11 TYPICAL ROAD P~N Do~e: 4-2B-B8 No S~ole Section A-A Section A-A Restore Gravel Surface Restore Gravel Surface Trench Plow I B~~~JJJ Gravel Surface I I Oravel Surface ~i ~ I ~ I---2'-,-- -,--2'---.I L2'-,,-- 2'-,--I Compact subgrode to --..~' ~w-.--j- original density Compact subgrade to orlginol density Section B-B Restore Gravel Surface (Plow or Trench) ro e, ,oce i 1 or greater I B~ Cqm. po,c[,subgrade to ong~nal oens~y Section C-C Full PanelRestoration: Concrete or Bi,uminou~y Side,~k or Path / 0 No're 1: Restore all surfaces to original condition with in-kind malerials TYPICAL ROAD, DRIVEWAY, OR PATH RESTORATION Date: 4-29-9B PLATE 12 No Scale Trench Installation Restore shoulder to oriainal condition with ~ / in-'kind materials . I Top soil Replace subgrode with ~w approved co. mpacted fill ~... ~ed and/or sod l or greater I Trench/- Compact subgrade to original density Plow Installation Restore shoulder to original condition with in-kind materials ~ /---Top soil i~i~_~seed~ --..- and/or sod f 1 orgreater ii Plow ~(.~')%,,,~ Compact subgrode~to '", original density TYPICAL ROAD SHOULDER RESTORATION Dote: 4-29-9S PLATE Section D-D No Scale CITY COUNCIL LETTER MEETING OF: MARCH 25, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER NO: FINANCE APPROVAL DATE: 03/14/2002 NO: During the 2002 budget review with the City Council there were discussions about the need for automated computer software, and as part of the budget process, $50,000 was budgeted in the Cable/Television fund to purchase the CityView software program. Over the past 17 years, the City of Columbia Heights has made significant advancement into computerizing and automating several areas of City business. However, there are still some areas that need computerization and automation and some areas where the previous programs are obsolete and no longer provide cost-effective solutions. Upgrading to a new software program will provide a more efficient and cost-effective solution that will result in better service to residents of Columbia Heights. The areas of primary concern are: Building Permits and Inspections Fire Protection Program Human Resources Tracking and Reporting Special Assessment Tracking Business License Time Cards/Public Works Labor Tracking As you can see, the above list is relatively significant. Staff has done a significant amount of research into solutions and alternatives to provide adequate automation for these needs. In virtually every area, there are stand-alone programs available that could adequately fulfill the various needs. However, stand-alone programs can be cumbersome and do not provide an overall tie-in or database between the various components. City View software does provide one overall database and software modules that could resolve the needs in all of the above-listed areas. The advantage to City View is that it is one program and one database that ties everything together whereby all applications would have a similar appearance and uniformity. The primary advantage to going with a single source program is that it is far easier for the IS Department to maintain the software and to provide training to users as they would be responsible for maintaining only one database rather than a multitude of databases. Also, City View provides an open architecture basis of programming so that other components and modules can be added in the future at a very insignificant cost as compared to stand-alone programming costs. Subsequently, it is staff's recommendation that we purchase the City View program as outlined in the attached proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with Municipal Software for the purchase of the City View software program at a cost of $45,470 as outlined in their proposal of June 1, 2001 with funding coming from the Cable/Television budget. WE:sms 0203143COUNCIL Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS DATE: MARCH 14, 2002 TO: FROM: WALT FEHST CITY MANAGER WILLIAM ELRITE~~j FINANCE DIRECTOR PRESENTATION OF CITYVIEW SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR SOFTWARE PROGRAMS (Page 1 of 2) Attached are several documents that will be presented to the City Council at the work session on March 18, 2002. The first yellow document is a printout of a slide presentation that briefly summarizes what CityView is, it's benefits, costs, and it's potential for a long-range software solution for the City of Columbia Heights. The green document is a memo from Aleksandr Chemin, the IS Director, summarizing the current proposal costs and what the City would receive in the initial purchase from CityView. In essence, the cost breakdown here is $18,475 for the licensing of five concurrent users and acquiring the building permits and inspection module along with the business license module. The next cost factor is $14,800, which would be the cost to develop a special assessment module and a human resources module. This would be a totally customized software module designed specifically for the needs of Columbia Heights. The third component, $9,200, is for staff training on the administration of CityView and its general operation. Here the goal is to train IS staff for the primary system administration and to allow them to provide additional training to other City users in the future. The fourth component, $2,995, would be to purchase a fire module to replace the current Firehouse software that is used in the Fire Department. The total cost of this package is $45,470. As a comparison in the yellow sheets, slides 10 and 11 reflect the cost to buy stand-alone programs for these functions, which have a cost range of $44,000 to $61,000, and this cost range does not include updating the Fire Department program. The purpose of this is simply to indicate that CityView, as a total package, is less expensive than other alternatives. The next document, on white, is a memo of March 8, 2002, to Aleksandr Chernin fi'om Robert Carlson at CityView. On this document we have highlighted in pink some of the key information. The first highlighted section states that CityView is unique. CityView's approach to soft-ware development is entirely new and innovative. In the past, software companies developed software that severely limits any modifications or changes that the end-user may require. The conventional approach to soft:ware development is to make sure the end-user has to return to the software manufacturer for any updates or enhancements. CityView's approach to this has been to utilize more of an open architecture format that will allow end-users to make significant modifications and enhancements on their own, thus making the end-user less reliant on the software manufacturer and in the long run saving the end-user a significant amount of money for software improvements and changes. This truly allows the end-user to customize the Page Two software for their own individual needs. The next highlighted area states that CityView does have a Web Server module available. It is not included in this proposal but down the road it could be purchased and added on. This would allow the City to selectively make information from the CityView program available to Intemet users. The next highlighted section documents that CityView has been in business for 20 years and has seen significant growth in more recent years. Because of their innovative, cost-effective, approach to the software market, we anticipate that they will continue to grow and continue to provide cost-effective solutions to end-users. The last highlighted section reflects what could be our most significant future expenses with CityView. In the initial package we are purchasing five concurrent user licenses, which means at any given time five users can be on the system. As more programs are developed it will be necessary to purchase additional user licenses to allow more than five individuals to access the information at any given time. These licenses have an initial cost of $4,990 with an annual licensing fee of $1,000 per license. It is anticipated that within the next two years we will need to buy an additional five licenses at a total cost of $24,950. However, once these licenses are purchased, the only ongoing expense is the $1,000 per license annual fee. For this fee, CityView provides us with ongoing customer support. The only other potential expense would be if we hire CityView to do additional custom program development. This is not anticipated within the next two years. The next document on buff paper is the CityView proposal that provides more technical information on their support and software. The final document, on blue paper, provides information on the CityView Web Server module, which we are not proposing to purchase at this time but would be available in the future to provide more information to Intemet users. In summary, the purchase of CityView software should provide a long-term, cost-efficient solution to several of the City's automation needs, which will result in much more efficient service to our residents. Paul Grosse and myself will be available at the work session to explain this proposal in more detail. WE:sms 0203141CM Attachment CityView System for the City of Columbia Heights Prepared by IS Dept 03/18/02 What is CityView? CityView is a database system for municipalities that can automate: · Building permits and inspections · Assessing · Fire protection · Business licenses · Human resources · Time cards and other business processes of the City 2 Who makes CityView, who uses it? Vendor: Municipal Software Corp. - Founded in 1982 - Dedicated to local government market - 31 employees Used by municipalities and counties across USA and Canada - 119 jurisdictions (56 in USA, 63 in Canada) - 1300 user licenses - Sales almost tripled since 2000 CityView benefits: Single source of information · Data are currently entered and stored in many databases - For example, Community Development, Fire, Public Works, and Finance have different databases on properties · With CityView, data are entered into the system once and immediately become available to employees in various departments (according to access rights) · It saves time and labor for data entry, and eliminates redundancy and inconsistency in data With other solutions we have to enter, store, and update the same data in multiple databases 4 2 CityView benefits: Customization and flexibility · Data, reports and forms used by the City must conform to City or state requirements · With CityView, database tables, data entry forms, and reports can be customized; new tables, forms and reports can be created as necessary · It can be done by IS personnel and advanced users With other solutions we get pre-defined "canned" tables, forms and reports - either cannot be customized at all or require services from vendor CityView benefits: Workflow automation · Many business processes in the City require actions from several employees - For example, issuing Building Permit may involve Building Inspector, Fire Inspector, Permit Clerk · CityView forms can be e-mailed from one employee to another without additional paperwork Other solutions do not have this capability CityView benefits: Integration with GIS The City's GIS (Geographic Information System) stores spatial information about properties and City infrastructure CityView can be integrated with GIS to provide additional information for decision-making, as well as additional services - For example: CityView can find properties that are located within 500 yards of a proposed project site, and generate letters to the owners Other solutions do not have this capability CityView benefits: Integration with other databases · City employees often need to use data from external resources - For example, county system has the most current information on property ownership · CityView allows to import data from external sources into the database · This option also allows importing of data from currently used systems into CityView to speed up transition Other solutions do not have this capability. 4 How much? Software licenses for 5 concurrent users Implementation User training Annual software maintenance (5 users) TOTAL UPFRONT COST Additional concurrent user licenses Additional annual software maintenance * With 50% discount for base licenses valid until April 30, 2002 $16,470' $14,800 $9,200 $5,000 $45,470 $4,990/user $1,O00/user What do we use now? · For Building Inspections and Permits: - Banyon system (DOS-based, obsolete) - Purchase/development cost: $20,000-25,000 - Support cost: $2,000-3,000 · For Fire protection: - FireHouse system - Support cost: $1,400 ° For Business licenses: - Nothing - Purchase/development cost: $7,000-10,000 - Support cost: $1,000-$2,000 10 5 What do we use now? · For Human Resources: - Nothing - Purchase/development cost: $7,000-10,000 - Support cost: $1,000-$2,000 · For Time cards: - Nothing - Purchase/development cost: $4,000-7,000 - Support cost: $1,000-$2,000 Our total current and future expenses for keeping and implementing other solutions: $44,400 - $61,000 11 What will City get with CityView? Better information, better decision-making, and better services: - Up-to-date and consistent data - More informed decision-making by council members and City staff - Faster business processes with less paperwork - City staffmore productive - Eventually, public access to CityView data, forms and reports (according to security fights) 12 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DATE: TO: FROM: November 21, 2001 BILL ELRITE, FINANCE DIRECTOR ALEKSANDR CHERNIN IS DIRECTOR SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE PROPOSAL FOR THE CITYVIEW IMPLEMENTATION The latest proposal from Municipal Software for the CityView implementation (dated 06/29/01) provides for the following: Item Quantity Unit Cost Extended Price 1. Licensing for two modules (Building Permits and Inspections plus one of the following: Firs, Code Enforcement, Planning, Ucep_sing) ..................... Promotional Discount 2. Annual Softwars Maintenance 3. MapObjeota Licenses (for integration with elS data) 4. Data ¢ollooUon 5. Scope Document 6. Prototype Customized Forms 7. User Review 8. Customized Form Refinement 0. Data Conversion - Estimate 5 users · 5 users $1,050 5 users $200 1 day $1,500 I document S 2,500 t0 forms ~ $630 per diem 1 day $1,500 10 forms $630 per diem $18,475 software $4,ooo ~ $24,950 licenses and initial building ........................... )ermits and ($t2,475) business license modules ~5,000 $1000 Si,SOO $14,800 cost to $2,500 ,develop special ~ $3,150' assessment and · human resource , St,50o programs $3,150' ~ $3,000~ 10. u'ur Trsihing (Maximum __~z~.. - 8) Essentials (2 days) 5 studanta Application Training (1 days) 5 students System Administration Trsining (1 2 students .da~) Designer (1 days) i 2 students Reporter (1 days) ~. 2 students One additional module (one of the following: Fire, Code Enforcement, Planning, Ucensing, besides the one ._selected at item 1} TOTAL BUDGET: $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $3,000 $2,000 $2oo ea. $1,oeo I~r d~m $1,400 $20o ea. $1,000 per d~m ! $1,400 $200 ea. $1,000 per diem '~ $1,400 $2995 $2,995 $45,470*** *Based on estimate of 10 forms - actual number determined upon site review. **Amount is an estimate only - subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed. *** Travel expenses are not included. $9,200 staff training $2,995 Fire Isoftware Proposal also says: "Most data conversion and customization work can be performed from our offices in Victoria using couriers, fax, and the Internet (E-mailed attachments). All site visits for data collection, training and project management will have costs including travel, meals and accommodation billed at cost upon return. A budget should be established for travel expenses." Ten customized forms will allow us to implement Human Resources Management functions, since CityView doesn't currently have a standard HR module. It also might provide customization of some other forms (depending on how much forms HR would require). All required customized forms must be included into the Scope Document. As per proposal, "additional customization requirements not included in the Scope Document are considered extras and pending approval are costed at $90 per hour." After the initial implementation and training, our ongoing costs would be $5,000 for Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) which includes all software upgrades, phone support (180 minutes per month), and software escrow. ASM cost is payable in advance of each year. A few comments on CityView implementation: As with any other "enterprise-level" system, top- management and end-users commitment is vital for success of the project. Managers and key users are "subject matter experts", and therefore must be willing to dedicate significant time and efforts at all stages of CityView system design and implementation: · Initial Subject Matter Experts training · Defining business processes, sources of data, forms and reports used, intra- and interdepartmental communications involved (that would include a lot of paperwork, as well as several meetings within departments and at the DivisionfDepanment Heads level) · Discussing requirements with Project Manager (all subject matter experts must be present during the Project Manager on-site visit) · Reviewing Scope Document · Reviewing prototype forms and discussing them with Project Manager (again, all subject matter experts must be present during the Project Manager on-site visit) · Bringing all databases up-to-date before submission for data conversion · Final user training All tasks related to CityView design and implementation must have the high priority and receive sufficient resources. The worst thing that may happen is implementing the system that is irrelevant to the actual business needs. Therefore the design and implementation decisions must be made by Division Heads and approved by the City Manager. The realistic time flame is also very important. My optimistic estimate is 6 months from bu. dget approval to end of final user training; pessimistic- 12 months. The switchover to CityView must be scheduled outside the busiest time for the departments involved. I strongly believe that CityView will be beneficial for the City in the long term. IS Department is ready to actively participate at each stage of CityView design and implementation. MuniCiPal'al S 0 F TP~'.~ R il March 8, 2002 Mr Aleksandr Chemin IS Director City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421-3878 Dear Mr. Chemin: Municipal Software Corporation is excited to offer its products and services to the City of Columbia Heights. Municipal Software Corporation offers a fully integrated software application that provides municipalities with a scalable solution that improves internal efficiency and enhances customer service. Our flagship product, CityView®, is an enterprise-wide solution used by over 115 jurisdictions in North America (fitly-six in the US and sixty-three in Canada) to automate their business processes including building permits, inspections, code enforcement, business licenses, planning and zoning, public works, voter registration, and fire and police incident reporting. ~ It is designed on the premise that one size does not fit all. Municipal Software realizes that every municipality has its unique application requirements. ~ ~ We will train your staff in the application tools we used to build your application so your staff can be as self-sufficient as possible. Municipal Software understands that automating your business processes is not inexpensive. It requires an investment of both time and money. CityView protects your investment in the future. It is scalable so Columbia Heights' growth will not exceed CityView's capabilities. Our training will insure that your staff is able to take full advantage of your customized application and that your IS staff will be able to use CityView to address other city requirements. Our concurrent licensing policy enables you load your CityView application on any appropriate PC and it allows any five users to access the application at any one time. CityView offers Import and Export Wizards that can ease the transfer of data between CityView and other city applications. ~1~ CityView is also easily integrated with ESRI, the leading geographic information system provider, so you can share your mapping information with your appropriate CityView application. Finally, CityView is developed on industry-standard Windows technology. One of the best protections of your investment, though, is Municipal Software Corporation itself. ~~~. Our management team is focused on making CityView the best it can possibly be. Our thirty-one employees are dedicated to providing applications of the highest quality...on time...and within budget. Our technical support team resolves two thirds of all problems on the first call. Our 1,300 licensed users provide a constant flow of new ideas to enhance CityView. CityView clients range in size from Medina, Washington (about 3,000 people) to the City and County of Denver (over 1 million). We would like Columbia Heights to join our roster of clients. Though I cannot freeze the license fee for future years, I can guarantee no increase in the annual software maintenance charge for two years at our current rate ($1,000 per license, $5,000 per year). We hope you will become a member of our growing family of clients. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert C. Carlson Manager, Business Development - Midwest Municipal Software Corporation 1623 McKenzie Avenue Victoria, British Columbia Canada, VSN IA6 C~ of Columbia Hdg~ L~® AUTOMATING SYSTEMS /o,- LOOA£ OOVERNMENTS Proposal for: Data Management System Submitted By: ~ MunlCi al $ OF q'P',~ R E Mumctpa l Software Corporation June ~, 2001 Document Contents Ci O, of Colurnbia Heights Data Management System Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section 2 Section 3 MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 Our Mandate .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 History .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Corporation Duration and Ownership .................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Government Software Experience ......................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. 2.5 Services ................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. Project Management ........................................................................ Error.) Boolanark not defined. Implementation/Customization ....................................................... Error.) Bookmark no! defined. Data Conversion .............................................................................. Error). Boo 'kmark not defined. Training ........................................................................................... Error.) Bookmark not defined. Annual SotS, are Maintenance progxam (ASM) .............................. Error). Boo 'kmark not defined. Newsletter Subscription ................................................................... Error: Bookmark not defined. Annual User Group Conferences ..................................................... Error! Boo 'kmark not defined. CityView WEB Site ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABOUT GITYViEVV ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section 4 3.1 CityView Features .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Forms ............................................................................................... £rrorl Bookmark aot defined. Reports ............................................................................................ ErroH Bookmark not defined. Database .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Mapping .......................................................................................... £rrorl Bookmark not defined. Security ............................................................................................ £rrorl Bookmark not defined. Images .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT ............................................. Errod Bookmark not defined. Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 4.1 Software Maintenance ........................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Technical Support .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1 Environment .......................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. 5.2 Database .............................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. 5.3 Mapping ................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. 5.4 Security .................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. PRODUCT PRICING ................................................................. Errod. Bookmark not defined. 6.1 Software Licenses ................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. 6.2 Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) ...................Error! Bookmark not defined. IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS .........................Error! Bookmark not defined. Mumcipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Section 8 Section 9 Document Contents Ci O' of Columbia Heights Data Management Syste.t 7.1 Initial Subject Matter Expert Training ..................... Error! 7.2 Site Visit ................................................................. Error! 7.3 Scope Document ................................................... Error! 7.4 Prototype Forms .................................................... Errorl 7.5 User Review .......................................................... Errorl 7.6 Form Refinement ................................................... Errorl 7.7 Data Conversion .................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. Bookmark not defined. 7.8 Training .................................................................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............... Error! Bookmark not defined. COST SUMMARY ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.1 Software and Implementation Services ................. Errorl Bookmark not defined. 9.2 Expenses ............................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. 9.3 Financing ............................................................... Errorl Bookmark not defined. Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 al ~ 0 F T~.~ I~ E City of Columbia Heights Data Management System Section I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We are very pleased to have the opportunity to provide the City of Columbia Heights with the following proposal. We believe that we can provide the City a4th the software and services that meet the requirements of all your users. CityView was programmed to deal with the specific needs of each local government. It is open and flexible enough to fit with any business process. The City of Columbia Heights's requirements can be met through our method of implementation where we help you to create your forms and processes in CityView. Existing databases and forms are availble for use, however given the unique requirements of the City and other cities across North America, we find our implementation approach to be the best methodology to getting up and live. We have provided cost estimates based on what we have experienced in the past with other local governments. Of course these costs will change based on the exact number of licenses purchased, the exact number of forms to be implemented and the number of people the City wishes to train. Based on our assumptions and the information provided, your project will cost $45,470. We can also provide financing to the City, which works out to a monthly fee of $110.38/License. Once again, thank-you for the opportunity to respond! If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact: Steven Favalaro Municipal Software Corporation Telephone: 1-800-828-9284 Emil: sfavalaro~rnunicipalsoflware.com Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page I Section 2: MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION Ci O' of Columbia Heights Data Management System 2.1 Our Mandate 2.2 Municipal Software Corporation is focused on providing our clients the software and knowledge necessary to make their organizations more efficient and productive. Our mandate is: "provide systems that are capable of being installed on time, on budget and that perform beyond the computer user's level of expectation." We believe that computer users dictate the role of computer systems and software developers - not the other way around. History Our interests in local government are deeply rooted. Two former local government employees, one a planner and the other a computer scientist founded the company in 1982. At that time PCs were a fledgling technology but both founders felt that PCs were the future. Therefore, they developed software to run on these new computers - software designed by local government users for local government users. Since most local governments lagged technologically compared to the private sector, the company spent its early years supplying local governments with PCs, networks, and third party software such as word processors, along with the software it had developed. In the early 1990's the company decided to divert its resources entirely to its flagship software. Our past experience with hardware, networks and municipal systems is embodied in the software and allows us to understand your needs better. The software has continued to be refined and updated over the last 18 years to reflect changes in both technology and local government. Municipal Software Corporation is a leader in the local government marketplace. The company has experienced 100% growth as a result of the refocusing and our client base now stretches across North America. 2.3 Corporation Duration and Ownership Municipal Software Corporation was founded in 1982 by two former local government employees as a private corporation and continues to operate as a private corporation currently owned by four partners. 2.4 Government Software Experience Municipal Software deals exclusively with local governments across North America. As a result, we are a valuable information pool that municipalities can tap, for both systems automation knowledge and general information about local government operations. Municipal Software is not diverted by other interests. The local government marketplace is a definite niche - it is our niche. For most companies this market is a sideline business; for us it is our only business! In the early 1990s, lhe company decided to divert its resources entirely to its flagship software "CityView". The software has continued to be refined and updated over the last 18 years to reflect changes in both technology and local government. We plan to remain in the local government marketplace. We will keep pace with technology so our clients can keep pace. Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 2 Section 2: MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION Ci o' of Columbia Heights Data Management System 2.5 The software will continue to develop and embody all that we learn from our clients. Municipal Software Corporation is committed to providing local governments with the software and support they need. Since the initial release of CityView, Municipal Software has continually invested in the development of the software. This development is directed by the client base and facilitated through the Annual Software Maintenance program. The most recent release of CityView (version 7) is the 4* complete rewrite of the software Services Municipal Software can provide a complete range of services to assist the City of Colun~bia Heights in implementing and maintaining CityView. Project Management The Project Manager can conduct an on-site visit and will work in conjunction with City representatives to review existing systems and business processes, and gather existing data sources, in order to design the City's database and form requirements for CityView. lmplementation/Cuslo mization Sen'ices provided by Municipal Software Corporation, once the business process of a particular phase of implementation has been approved, will include the development and custonfization of necessary prototype on-screen forms, and reports, most of which will be conducted in Municipal Software's offices. Data Conversion Municipal Software can take all sources of digital data, including City Assessment or Property data, any historical data in digital format, and convert it to CityView. In addition, CityView can directly use common forms of GIS or digital mapping, such as ArcViewTM, ArcInfoTM, AutoCADTM, DX.F, GeoTiff and many others. Training Municipal Software presents a series of full, in-depth and comprehensive course programs designed to provide clients with the required skills, tools, and time saving tips and techniques to increase their proficiency in the operation of CityView. Courses range from hands-on introductory overviews for new users and non-technical managers, to more advanced and custom application mining for key operators, technicians and system administrators. Training course material is presented in a hands-on environment, and conducted at a location and schedule which is convenient for our clients. A complete outline of training courses available through Municipal Software is included for your information as Appendix A. Annual Software Maintenance program (ASM) The ASM entitles CityView clients to a limited quantity (based on the number of CityView licenses purchased) of free monthly support, using a toll-free line for clients, during which they may receive advice on any issue relating to the CityView software, as well as all upgrades and enhancements to the software at no extra charge. These upgrades are supplied between 2 to 4 times each year via CD, or may be downloaded directly from our FTP site. The ASM Municg~al Software Corporation dune 1, 2001 Page 3 Section 2 i MUNICIPAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION CiO' of Columbia Heights Data Management System also provides the client with a free subscription to "CityView" a regularly published newsletter, and an invitation to the Annual User Conference. Newsletter Subscription A free Newsletter Subscription provides clients with "The CityView"; current and relevant information on product features and enhancements, as well as on general local government news. Annual User Group Conferences Annual User Conferences provide an excellent forum for sharing information, trouble- shooting advice and peer support. Conferences usually consist of workshops and open discussion. CityView Web site The CityView Web site at www. MunicipalSoflware.com, provides a comprehensive and entertaining resource for keeping in touch with CityView and Municipal Software. Partners Municipal Software is a Microsoft Certified Solution Provider (MCSP)CSP, a strategic partner with Hewlett-Packard, and an ESRI Business Partner [ M icrosoft'[ :l MapObjects Municipal Software Cortn~ation June 1, 2001 Page 4 Section 3 -' ABOUT CITYVlEW Ci G' of Colurnbia Heights Data Management System CityView is an easy-to-use, Windmvs based, systems automation so~vare product designed specifically for local governments. It collects, tracks, stores and displays all types of information for various departments. CityView is flexible, customizable, versatile and scalable to any size organization. You can automate any system in your organization using CityView, increasing your efficiency and productivity. 3.1 CityView Features Forms Users can create and modify your forms and applications, add data fields, text, graphics and images to create perfect replicas of their existing forms. cp Buildi,~g Application (Office Use Only) al Municipality o! CilyVlew .~1 [ A~itc~n mfonna~.~c,~, ! ~'"~ I~u~"~ r ,u~,~nu~em ~ ~toric:~ 0~ ocr I~orm~n I ~ I~ ~1 J ~ I~c'~ ~ 1~ ~' K ) · · 1 , , I ~:~,~ [ ................. ! ............. I ................... F : ~l'~ ~ · ~ B '~ ~ .I ~-. I ~...1~ ~ Cib, Viex~ provides you with the flexibility and tools to bc able to create your own forms and/or modify existing fom~s to automate any business process. Reports Users can create custom repons to compile statistics, flag bring forwards, or do any ad-hoc analysis. A Report Wizard is provided to make report x~xiting very user friendly. Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page Section 3 ! ABOUT CITYVIEW City of Columbia Heigttts Data Management System Ci~Mew' powerful Repor~ Wizard allows you to generate accura[¢ and detailed repons for all activities managed b) CityView Database CityView allows municipalities to develop their own databases and seamlessly integrate with other municipal systems using ODBC (Open Database Connectivity). Workflow A sophisticated "expression builder" allows users to perform complicated calculations and operations such as e-mailing and calendar scheduling automatically. This graphic shows CityView mapping in use to create · quick geographically based mailing list. Note the rights of way marked by red lines. Mapping ~ GIS ~d mapping fo~ats such as , Shapefiles (~om ?Z~ ......... ~ ESm's ~cView ~' ~ or ~clnfo), CAD files (such as ~om ~"~ AutoDesk's ,~. AutoC~), DXF, ~ ~d GeoTiff ~. ~ geo~aphically ~.,~ ~ferenced aerial mm photos c~ be ~ l~ed to prope~ ~ da~ ~ou~ the ~ ~ fo~s. Maps c~ ~ ~ be displayed and ~ ~ prated to show ~ : : ' ;"-: ~ r ' ' prope~ Municipal Sofneare Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 6 Section 3 ! ABOUT ClTYVlEW Ci O' of Co lumbia Heigh ts Data Management System boundaries, zoning, infrastructure, etc. CityView has incorporated the MapObjects GIS library from ESRI. This eliminates the need to import mapping data into a proprietary CityView format, as well as provides an enhanced feature set, such as display of raster data (digital ortho photos). Security Security features control access to a municipality's data and CityView menus. Security is used on Tables, Fields, and Commands for users and user groups. Images Users can attach site plans, aerial photos and digital photos directly to property files. Future of CityView and the Web CityVicx~ 7.6 allows publishing reports and status information to thc Web. Publish your forms and reports to thc Web! Apply for permits on-line, schedule and check inspections fromm the field, reduce paperwork and improve service. Wireless connectivity with no HTML required! Currently under development, CityView 8 will allow the full deployment of all of your CityView business logic to the Intcrnct through a simple migration. Investment in systems ~, .... ~..-::-__r~-.,-.~:.i ,;' designed and implemented today continues to pay offas technology evolves in thc ~ ~ Mobile : and ......................................... ~ Wireless [ Computing Inspectors, contractors, appraisers and others the ability access CityVicw forms and reports via handheld wireless devices 24 hors and day 7 days a week. This access can be gained through any device with a connection to the World Wide Web. This will allow contractors and citizens to complete permit, license and other applications over the Web, as well as check the status of applications, make payments and more! CityView puts you in the drivers ~eat when it comes to E-government. With CityView you have the ability to make information and processes available to your citizens incrementally, without having to contract Web developers every time you want to add a new function. 3.3 Your CityView System Unlike most other soft'are that is purchased in the form of preset modules with limited ability for customization, CityView is made to the specifications of your business processes from the Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page ? Section 3 ! C#y of Columbia Heights Data Management Systern ABOUT ClTYVlEW table level up. This is the reason that CityView will be able to exactly meet every one of the application and report activities that the Data Management System requires. In our 8 step implementation process we conduct site visits to examine your business processes and then create a scope document that details the scope of the project and the deliverables. This ensures that Municipal Software and the City can advance quickly in the production of your CityView system. Municipal Software currently has clients using CityView for planning and zoning, building permitting and inspections, business licensing, code enforcement and complaint tracking, fire administration and emergency/911, parking tickets, cemetery administration, health departments, dog licensing, voter registration and more. The tables and fields vary from client to client so it is not possible to provide a data map of how the City of Columbia Heights's system would appear. CityView is an open database structure and clients have the ability to view and modify all relationships contained therein. MunidPal Software Corporation Jur~ 1, 2001 Page 8 Section 4 .' MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT City of Columbia Heights Data Management System 4.1 Software Maintenance New releases of CityView are developed using in-house programmers. Clients have the choice of receiving updates by CD or by downloading them from our FTP site which is accessible from our Web page on the Intemet. Each new release of the software is complete and contains all the features included in previous releases. All releases are supplied at no additional charge as part of the Annual Software Maintenance Agreement. Municipal Software encourages all clients to take advantage of the features provided in the most recent release. CityView is constantly evolving. The nature of our relationship with our clients is an integral part of that development. The relationship begins with the Annual Software Maintenance Agreement (ASM). This agreement provides not only regular support to the users through our toll free lines but also provides for all new releases, updates and enhancements at no extra charge. The development of CityView is funded directly from the ASM program. In addition, Municipal Software relies on its clients to provide guidance in the area of future development for CityView. We maintain a comprehensive database of features that are requested by our clients in c-mail or during telephone conversations, or that get generated internally. Clients are also provided a forum on our Web Page and also at our User Conferences to voice their suggestions and opinions. At least two User Group Conferences are held each year. These conferences, facilitated by Municipal Software, are an opportunity for users to share some of their implementation strategies and processes that have been automated using CityView. They are also an opportunity for the users to advise Municipal Software in the development of CityView with features that would provide benefit to the entire user base. Suggestions for software enhancements are incorporated into the software at no charge as part of the Annual Software Maintenance Agreement. The scheduling and priority for the development of the enhancements are determined by the degree of benefit the enhancement will provide the entire user-base. 4.2 Technical Support Support and maintenance of the system for the City of Columbia Heights would be handled from our head office. Support is provided by telephone between the hours of 7:30 am and 5:30 pm PST. Secondary support is offered through our Eastern Office during the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm EST. Additional support packages can be negotiated should there be a need. Our support department is trained to isolate a potential problem within 15 minutes via a toll- free support line for CityView Clients. In addition, we have the ability to connect directly via modem or lnternet directly to the user's environment to assist in any diagnosis. We rely on the client to accurately describe the problem and attempt to isolate the area affected. Municipal Software Corporation June I, 2001 Page 9 Section 4: MAINTENANCE and SUPPORT Ci 0' of Columbia Heights Data Management System The goal of our support department is to resolve any issue on the same call and most issues are resolved in the same day. Clients receive an allotment of support at no charge as part of their Annual Software Maintenance Agreement and very seldom does that allotment not cover the support required to resolve any issue. Assistance is provided until the issue is identified as either the software or the application of the software and then resolved. The allotment of support provided to each Client at no charge, provides those Clients with access via our toll free telephone line, fax, email and our Web page. Mumctpal Sofa,'are Cotln~ation June 1, 2001 Page 10 Section $: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS City of Columbia Heights Data Managernent S)'stem CityView can be implemented with little outside assistance and requires no specialized hardware other than the specifications listed below. Municipal Software does not distribute hardware, and therefore, cannot offer cost estimates regarding these expenditures. 5.1 Environment Workstation: Any PC compatible Pentium 200MHz or better, with a minimum of 64 megabytes of RAM (128 MB preferred). Network: Any network supported by the Windows 9x, Windows NT or Windows 2000 workstation, including (but not limited to) Novell NetWare and Windm~ s NT/2000 Server. Disk Space: Minirnum of 20 megabytes on each workstation, plus 1000 - 2500 bytes per parcel on the server. Display, Mouse, Printer, All devices supported by Windows 9x, Windows NT Scanner: 4.0 or Windows 2000 or better. ODBC Level: 3.0 (server and client) MAPI Level: 1.0 (Simple MAPI) Year 2000 Compliance: CityView 7.x is Year 2000 Compliant! 5.2 Database Database Engine: Maximum File Si-e: Maximum Record Length: # of Records: # of Base Data Types Field Types Supported Microsoft Database Access Objects (DAO) and Jet are distributed with CityView, and will work with Client/Server, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle and DB2. 12 Gigabytes 255 fields Limited only by the maximum file size and the size of the storage media. Unlimited Text, Memo (Notes), Boolean (Logical, True/False), Integers, Floating Point, Currency, Fixed Point, Dates, Times, Unique ID's (GUID's) and OLE (BLOB) Municipal Sofm'are Corporation June I, 2001 Page 11 Section $ i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS City of Columbia Heights Data Management &'stem Database .... Keys: Import / Export Formats: # of Binders Supported: # of Forms per Binder: # of Elements per Form or Report: Element types Supported: 5.3 Mapping (CityView uses ESRI Supported Map Projections: Supported Data Formats: Supported Map Projections: Supported Units of Measure: # of Map Sheets Supported: # of Maps Supported: # of Layers Supported: Full support for keys, foreign keys and segmented keys (multiple fields in one key). Dbase, FoxPro, Access, Delimited and Fixed-Width Text, Excel, HTML, and any ODBC-compliant database such as MS SQL Server and Oracle. Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Line, Rectangle, Round Rectangle, Ellipse, Polygon, Text, Field, Checkbox, Listbox, Aggregate Field, Expression, Image, Link Sheet, OLE Object, Subsection with control over size, font, color etc. MapObjects) Over 100 different mapping projections supported by the MapObjects environment, including UTM, Polar and LaVLong. Direct connect to a wide variety of native data including: GIS formats (ESRI Shapefile and Archfro Coverages), CAD formats (DX/*, DWG, and DGN) and image formats such as BMP, TIFF,/PEG, Ge#Tiff, SUN, ERDAS, BIL, BIP, BSQ, and MrSID Any Any N/A (indexed, seamless map base) Unlimited Unlimited # of Layers per Map: Unlimited 5.4 Security Municipal So. fnvare Corporatton June 1, 2001 Page 12 Section 5 i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS City of Columbia Heights Data Management System # of Users Supported # of Groups Supported: Security Provided For: Security Access Levels: Unlimited Unlimited Files (tables), fields, and commands Add, Read, Modify, Delete, Design or None Muntc~oal Software Corporation June I, 200~ Page 13 Section 6 ! PRODUCT PRICING CiO' of Columbia Heights Data Management System 6.1 Software Licenses The initial step in implementation is the purchase of licensing. CityView licensing is concurrent licensing which allows for a license to be shared over the network. For the purposes of the following proposal, price breaks will be identified and costs will be provided for 5 concurrent users. The cost of 5 Hcenses is $4,990 each, or $24,950 in total. 6.2 Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) An Annual Software Maintenance (ASM) charge for each of the licenses purchased will entitle the City of Columbia Heights to all software upgrades, and telephone support. Telephone support will amount to 36 minutes per license each month, for a total of 180 minutes each month. Also included with the ASM is a Software Escrow Agreement. The total ASM cost would be payable in advance of each year. The ASM cost for 5 licenses is $I,000 each, or $5,000 in total. Mumctpal Sofa,,are Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 14 Section ?: IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS Ci O' of Colurabia Heights Data Management System 7.1 Initial Subject Matter Expert Training We have found that prior 'to the initial visit to collect data for the scope document, that the participants deemed as the Subject Matter Experts involved in the process are better equipped if they have received training in CityView. We recommend that the Subject Matter Experts receive training in CityView Essentials, System Administrator, Designer and Reporter. This initial training will provide to all those that are involved in defining the business processes and design requirements a thorough understanding of the software's features and capabilities. (See Appendix A for a complete description of each course) 7.2 Site Visit The implementation process begins with the collection of information necessary for a successful implementation. The Municipal Software Project Manager assigs~ed to the project will spend one day at the Ci.ty of Columbia Heights offices to observe and assist in defining the business processes to be automated. During this time, information regarding the sources of data, forms and technical environment will be determined. Cost for the Site Visit is 1 days @ $1,500 per day. 7.3 Scope Document The product of the site visit will be a Scope Document that will outline our findings and provide our recommendation on how to proceed. Cost for the completion of the Scope Document is $2,500. 7.4 Prototype Forms The Prototype on-screen forms and reports are then developed to include fields, database, preliminary lookup tables and fee expressions in a non-production or alpha environment. We are estimating that the total number of forms used in the identified departments is 10. However, this number may change upon conducting the on-site review as it may be determined that some forms may be combined or additional forms may be included. At such time any additional costs or credits will be handled appropriately. The Prototype delivery of 10 forms amounts to approximately ½ day a form @ $630 per diem, equaling $3,150. 7.5 User Review Following the development of the protot~,pe forms, a second site visit will be conducted during which time users would review the forms. It is during this time that our Project MunW~l Sofm, are Corporation June 1, 2001 Page Section 7: IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS C/ry of Columbia Heights Data Management System Manager would gather information required from the City's subject matter experts to develop and tailor the various systems for the City and from this review, a list of changes or refinements could be established in a Change Control Document. The cost for the user review is 1 days ~ $1,500 per day. 7.6 Form Refinement The next step in the Implementation process would be to complete the changes that have been identified in the Change Control Document. At this point, the City could decide to have Municipal Software complete the work or complete the work internally after its staff had received appropriate training. Our past experience indicates that it would take Municipal Software approximately ]~ day per form to complete the necessary refinements as outlined in the scope document. The cost for the form refinements is 10 forms amounts to approximately % day a form @ $630 per form, equaling $3,150. Additional customization requirements not included in the scope document are considered extras and pending approval are costed at $90 per hour. 7.7 Data Conversion Data Conversion is also a consideration. Municipal Software can take all sources of digital data the City ma)' have, including your assessment or property-based data, any historical data in digital format, as well as any digital mapping, and convert it or link it to CityView. CityView is ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) compliant and could interface with another database that is also ODBC compliant, or, property-based data could be converted into CityView. In order to set expectations we have provided an estimated cost for data conversion. The amount estimated is subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed. More information will be required before a concise quote on data conversion needs can be determined. The City of Columbia Heights's conversion needs are defined during the Initial On-Site visit where as the data to be converted and cost is included in the Scope Document Municipal Soft. June 1, 2001 CihlV*ew CityView's Data Exchange wizard allows for the importing of a number of different data formats to ensure that any data new and existing is captured for use in Cit3.'View [] Section 7 ~ IMPLEMENTATION METHOD and COSTS Ci O, of Columbia Heights Data Management System 7.8 Training One of the most important aspects in the implementation of any software is the lraining. Recommended training in CityView, for your City, includes CityView Essentials, Application Training, as well as, Designer and Reporter, more advanced training in design and customization of forms and repons intended to empower the City's Staff with the skill-set required to evoh,e the system internally All of our training courses are priced at $1,000 per day and $200 per student. The number of training sessions for each course has been determined by assuming a classroom size for 8 students maximum. Based on the student numbers likely to require training in your City less the 0 Subject Matter Experts receiving training at project startup, the budget for training should be as follows. Course Duration No. of Cost Students CityVicw Essentials 2 day(s) 5 $3,000 Custom Application I days(s) 5 $2,000 System Administrator I day(s) 2 $1,400 Designer ! day(s) 2 $1,400 Reporter 1 day(s) 2 $1,400 Total cost for this training, based on our recommendation of at least $ students, is $9,200. Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 17 Section 8 .' DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE CiO' of Columbia Heights Data Management ~rstem Once authorization to purchase the licensing has been received, Municipal Software will ship the software and begin the process of developing the prototype forms and scheduling the site visit. It has been the experience of Municipal Software that once the initial site visit has been set, development of the forms, the user review, training, and the ultimate launch of CityView can be accomplished within a period of approximately 8 weeks time. Milestone Purpose Time Requirement Initial Training Subject Matter Experts I Week Initial Site Visit Data Collection 1-2 Days Scope Document Outline of Recommendation I Week Prototype Forms Forms are Developed I Week User Review Subject Matter Experts Review I - 2 Days Form Refinement Complete Form Revisions I Week Data Conversion Property and History Data I Week User Training System Admin and Users I Week Various components of the CityView delivery and installation can be scheduled as soon as the City's authorization to purchase is received. Ultimate completion relies upon the scope of the project defined during the initial site visit and outlined in the scope document. The input of the City's subject matter experts would be required during various phases of the implementation project. The first occasion would be during the initial site visit when the City's subject matter experts would be required to offer advise to the Municipal Software Project Manager to determine the ultimate scope of the project. The second occasion would be during the user-review when the Project Manager would require assistance in defining the City's definitive business process to be reflected by the prototyped forms and reports, and to complete the Change Control Document for revision purposes. Our experience indicates that it is best for the City to also appoint a Project Manager to coordinate staff activities during the duration of the implementation. Munictpal Sofm,are Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 18 Section S; COST SUMMARY Ci O' of Columbia Heights Data Management S)'stem We would like the City of Columbia Heights to become a CityView client, and we understand the need to deal within budgetary realities. We have tried to include all costs the City might incur to implement CityView successfully. 9.1 Software and Implementation Services Item Quantity Unit Coat Extended Price 1. Licensing 5 $4,990 $24,950 Promotional Discount ($12,4;'5) 2. Annual Software Maintenance 5 $1,000 $5,000 3. MapObjects Licenses 5 $200 $1000 4. Data Collection 1 day $1,500 $1,500 5. Scope Document 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 6. Prototype Forms - f0 Forms t0 $630 per diem $3,150' 7. User Review I day $1,500 $1,500 8. Form Refinement - 10 Forms 10 $630 per diem $3,150' 9. Data Conversion - Estimate $3,000'* 10. User Training (Maximum class size - 8) Essentials (2 days) students $200 ea. 81,000 per diem $3,000 Reporter (1 days) 1 Additional Form Set TOTAL BUDGET: Application Training (I days) 5 students $200 ea. $1,000 per diem $2,000 System Administration Training (I 2 students 8200 ea. $1,000 per diem $1,400 Designer (1 days) 2 students $200 ea. 81,000 per diem $1,400 2 students $200 ea. 81,000 per diem $1,400 82995 $2,995 $45,470*** 9.2 *Based on estimate of 10 forms - actual number determined upon site review. **Amount is an estimate only - subject to change once the actual data has been reviewed. *** Travel expenses are not included. Expenses Most data conversion and customization work can be performed from our offices in Victoria using couriers, fax, and the Interact (E-mailed attachments). All site visits for data collection, training and project management will have costs including travel, meals and accommodation billed at cost upon return. A budget should be established for travel expenses. Municipal Sofnvare Corporation Jur~ I, 2001 Page 19 Section 9 i COST SUMMARY Ci O, of Columbia Heights Data Managernent System 9.3 Financing Municipal Software does offer a financing option in order to accommodate some of the budgetary constraints that local governments face. Sometimes it is easier for a City to purchase CityView and our sen'ices using operating funds instead of capital funds. If the City opted for financing the fee, based on a total of $45,470, would work out to approximately $110.38/month / license for a term of 36 months. Of course, this number will vary upon the actual dollar value of the contract, when the cona"act is executed and a finalized term. Municipal Soft~,are Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 20 CiO' of Columbia Heights Data Management System Municipal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 21 APPENDIX A Ci O' of Columbia Heights Data Management System Munictpal Software Corporation June 1, 2001 Page 22 APPENDIX B CiO: of Columbia Heights Data Management System Appendix B Municipal Software Corlmrat~on June 1. 2001 Page 23 CityView 8.NET Page 1 of 2 ctp,a! Print Thinking about E-Government Now CityView is Web Based! 8.NET allows you to fully distribute your business processes over an Intranet and over the World Wide Web with full and convenient control. Municipal Software Corporation unveiled CityView 8.0, the first release of its innovative new 8.NET product line, at their annual user conference in Boston on November 29. CityView 8.NET combines the power of Microsoft's .Net Web-based technologies, ESRI's ArclMS, and CityView's award-winning business process automation and management capabilities into a convenient and easy-to-use application for local government. This significant new release is the first truly Web based local government automation software on the market. It allows users of all types (municipal, agencies, contractors and the public) to access relevant business processes over any Intemet connection - E-government made easy! The CityView 8.NET series features seamless integration with the Web. All modules, forms and reports can be viewed from a traditional desktop platform or through a Web browser from any Intemet connection. Once the user's Web site is set up, there is no HTML coding necessary and no Web site maintenance is required. CityView 8.NET is the application to quickly and easily define, build, deploy and use business processes and data on any device and any network connection. CityView 8.NET allows users to provide secure access to any business process from anywhere. It provides real time data access from the field and remote offices with device independence - use your laptop, palmtop, or cell phone! Further, CityView 8.NET allows local governments to distribute GIS data over the Web using ESRI's ArclMS. This mapping data is combined to property based and other related data for spatial investigation and display. CityView 8.NET's Web Services module will allow frequent users of property and other data to link directly to CityView (through the Intemet) from a spreadsheet, or similar application to search for addresses, valuations, permits, maps and more. According to Mike Palmer from the District of Langford 'CityView 8.NET is not only innovative in the new technology it synthesizes for local government use, but in the sensible approach taken by Municipal Software in charging for the products Web capability. With the CityView 8,NET model, we can budget our Web expenditures for a fixed amount for a whole year and guarantee no denial of service to our client base. This removes a lot of the uncertainty about going to the Web.' Rebecca Lake from the City of Keene, NH commented 'Municipal has obviously put a lot of thought into the design and business model of 8.NET and this will provide an enormous benefit to e-Government initiatives everywhere" Mike Palmer from the Distdct of Langford, BC also remarked that CityView 8.NET will greatly simplify the Distdcrs drive to automate government services and make them available to council members, contractors and the public. Mike says that the Distdct currently uses CityView to offer Development Application Reports over the Web and they will be eventually expanding this to property searches, sewer billing, business license renewal, and property tax certificates. Troy Kusy, Vice President of Product Development at Municipal Software said, "We are proud to be the first http://www.municipalsoflware.com/news 18_$NET.html 2/26/2002 CityView 8.NET Page 2 of 2 on the market with this important new technology. Unlike our competitors who offer to host your data and forms for you (and build them in HTML), CityView 8.NET allows you to do it all yourself with no programming. It allows you to choose what business processes you wish to make public and how they will be presented. What's more, because it is CityView, it gives you the ability to add to, change and modify any and all forms and reports that you use, either internally, or on the Web - without Municipal Software's assistance." Rob Bennett, the President of Municipal Software said, "1 can't stress enough what an innovation this is in the market place. CityView 8.NET gives us a commanding lead in enabling remote access and E-government for our local government clients. Working in CityView 8.NET, user's don't have to worry about getting on the Web, they are already there." For more information please contact: lan W. Carmichael Sales and Marketing Manager Municipal Software Corporation Tel: 1-800-665-5647 Emaih icarmichael~mu_ .nicipalsoflware.com About Municipal Software Corporation Municipal Software Corporation (www. MunicipalSoftware.com) is a provider of a fully integrated suite of software products that assist municipal administrators and managers with scalable technology solutions for increasing municipal government productivity in order to service citizens and communities more efficiently and effectively. CityVievv3) provides forms automation software combining forms and reports with mapping, Web enablement, and database management, and is used to automate any local government process. CityView Xpress is designed specifically for out-of-the-box departmental management and comes complete with ready-to-use forms and reports for a variety of municipal functions. CityView is a registered trademark of Municipal Software Corporation. Environmental Research Systems Institute, Inc. provides all ESRI trademarks under license to ESRI Canada Limited. All rights reserved Go to Municipal Software. http://www.municipalsoftware.com/news 18_SNrET.html 2/26/2002