HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 01-28 City Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
MAP LEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:00 P.M. Monday, January 28, 2013
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis Update Presentation by the Washington
County Planning Department
2. Discussion on Request for Proposals for General Civil Attorney and Prosecuting
Attorney Contract
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis Update Presentation
by the Washington County Planning Department
DATE: January 22, 2013
INTRODUCTION
At the January 28, 2013 city council workshop, representatives from Washington County
will be in attendance to present the findings and alternatives for the Gateway Corridor.
Washington County staff serves as the project managers and staff liaisons for the
Gateway Corridor Commission.
In the fall of 2010, the Gateway Corridor Commission began leading an Alternatives
Analysis Study to determine the best mode of transit. Options included light-rail transit,
commuter rail and bus-rapid transit. In addition the Commission needed to determine
estimated ridership, potential routes and estimated costs for construction and operation
of the transit line.
The Gateway Corridor is a proposed transit line that would run mainly within the
Interstate 94 corridor from Woodbury to downtown St. Paul. The line would have a
potential walk up transit stop at or near the 3M Center. Originally, the corridor study
considered transit opportunities from St. Paul to Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
DISCUSSION
On January 28, 2013, at the regular city council meeting council will consider adopting a
resolution supporting the Gateway Corridor Commission’s Alternatives Analysis Study.
After reviewing numerous options to improve transit connectivity of the east metro to
downtowns St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Gateway Corridor Commission identified a
dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line or Light Rail Transit (LRT) line along Hudson
Road from St. Paul to Woodbury as the best option for the region. The Hudson Road
decision was the best option after extensive analysis and public involvement campaign
spanning nearly two years. More information on the decision making process and the
preferred alternatives can be found at the corridor’s website –
www.thegatewaycorridor.com.
The Gateway Corridor Commission released the draft final report for the Alternatives
Analysis Study in early November 2012. Public comments are being sought on the
report and the recommendation by the Commission to advance the Hudson Road
alignment into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The draft final report
can also be found at the website given above.
Agenda Item E 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 1 of 55
2
The next phase of the study, preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), is expected to start in early 2013. The Commission advanced the BRT and LRT
options along Hudson Road. Both options have the same route, station stops and similar
service plans.
RECOMMENDATION
No action required.
Attachments:
1. October 2012 Gateway Corridor Newsletter
Packet Page Number 2 of 55
Alternatives Analysis Newsletter
Volume 6 October 2012
The Gateway Corridor Commission initiated a “Transit Alternatives Analysis” (AA) study in Fall 2010,
looking at the I-94 corridor from downtown Minneapolis to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The AA is the first
step in determining the best transit mode (light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit or express bus)
and route for transit service in the corridor. The study includes forecast ridership, station stop loca-
tions, and estimated cost to build, operate and maintain a system. The study will help address issues of
congestion, potential economic development/revitalization, and social and environmental impacts.
1
Gateway Corridor Commission Narrows List of Transit Alternatives
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Hudson Road is the Top Option
On October 11, the Gateway Corridor Commission recommended that two alternatives along one route
advance into the next phase of study which will involve the preparation of a Draft Environmental State-
ment (DEIS). Alternative 3 - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Alternative 5 - Light Rail Transit (LRT) are
recommended for further study. The final Alternatives Analysis (AA) report will be released for public
comment at the end of October. Public comments will be taken until January 3, 2012 (see page 4).
The preferred alignment runs from Union Depot in downtown St. Paul east along Kellogg Boulevard, then
southeast along Mounds Boulevard and then runs generally along Hudson Road east to Manning Avenue.
The ten proposed station stops will provide connections to key destinations throughout the Corridor in-
cluding Union Depot, Metro State University, SunRay Shopping Center, 3M and multiple commercial and
job centers in the eastern suburbs. This “optimized” alignment was selected following additional analysis
focused on finding ways to increase the benefits and decrease the impacts and costs of all of the alterna-
tives evaluated during the AA process.
Gateway Corridor Alternatives 3 (BRT) and 5 (LRT)
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 3 of 55
Overall Evaluation of Alternatives after Optimization
2
The purpose of the optimization work was to look at ways to reduce the impacts and costs and increase
the benefits associated with each alternative. The additional analysis provided better data for selecting
recommended alternatives. The optimization process included several refinements to the alternatives.
The most significant of these refinements included:
• Adjusting the alignment of Alternatives 3 and 5 to run along Hudson Rd east of I-494/I-694 rather than
in the median of I-94.
• Shortening all alternatives to end at Manning Ave with express bus serving Hudson.
• Adding bus bypass lanes at BRT stations to allow express buses to use the transitway.
• Evaluating reductions in transitway and/or street widths on St. Paul streets for Alternatives 4 and 6
(it was found that these changes did not significantly reduce property impacts along East 7th Street,
White Bear Avenue or Hudson Road).
The optimization process resulted in the following notable improvements:
• Ridership increased for all optimized alternatives.
• Capital costs and operating and maintenance costs decreased for all optimized alternatives.
• Economic development opportunities increased for exclusive guideway BRT and LRT alternatives.
Based on the new technical data, the alternatives were reevaluated against project goals and ranked
based on their overall performance in relation to those goals.
Alternative Ranking after Optimization
Alternative Alternative Description Revised Ranking Carry Forward
3 BRT along Hudson Rd/I-94 - OPTIMIZED HIGH Yes
5 LRT along Hudson Rd/I-94 - OPTIMIZED MEDIUM Yes
8 BRT Managed Lane (I-94) - OPTIMIZED MEDIUM No
2 TSM - FTA requirement - OPTIMIZED LOW No
6 LRT along St. Paul streets/Hudson Road LOW No
4 BRT along St. Paul streets/Hudson Road LOW No
7 Commuter Rail
Dismissed by Gateway Corridor
Commission on March 15, 2012
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 4 of 55
Alternative 3: BRT Along Hudson Road
Alternative 3 was ranked the highest after the optimization pro-
cess. The alternative best meets the Commission’s established
goals of improving mobility; providing a cost-effective, economi-
cally viable solution that promotes economic development; pro-
tects the natural environment; and preserves community quality
of life and overall safety.
Alternative 5: LRT Along Hudson Road
Alternative 5 was ranked second due to its higher capital costs
for generating the same amount of riders as Alternative 3. Both
alternatives have the same route, station stops and similar ser-
vice plans. Advancing this LRT option forward provides an op-
portunity for a more detailed side-by-side comparison of the two
transit technologies.
3
Comparison of Recommended Alternatives
Criteria Alternative 3 -
BRT along Hudson Rd
Alternative 5 -
LRT along Hudson Rd
Daily Ridership 8,800-9,300 9,300
Capital Cost $400 million $920 million
Annual Operating &
Maintenance Cost
$9.6 million $11.5 million
Travel Time 17 minutes from Oaks Business Park
to Union Depot
15 minutes from Oaks Business Park
to Union Depot
All alternatives were given serious consideration before the decision was made to recommend only Alter-
natives 3 and 5 for further study in the DEIS.
The commission removed BRT and LRT alternatives that traveled along White Bear Avenue and East 7th
Street, Alternatives 4 and 6, due to the significant number of properties impacted and slower overall trav-
el times compared to alternatives along Hudson Road.
BRT Managed Lane, Alternative 8, was removed because its limited number of stations and location in the
median of I-94 provided less opportunity for economic development compared to the other alternatives.
Advancing Alternatives
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 5 of 55
www.thegatewaycorridor.com
GatewayCorridor@co.washington.mn.us
651-430-4300
Additional Opportunities for Input
The Gateway Corridor Project Team can present more information about the Gateway Corridor, the recom-
mended alternatives, and the next steps in the project development process. Contact us if your neighbor-
hood association, educational institution, community organization or business group is interested in learning
more. Your feedback will provide the Gateway Corridor Commission with valuable insights about your com-
munity needs and desires.
4
Next Steps
January, 2013 Gateway Corridor Commission approves final AA report
Early 2013 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Begins
Late 2013 Process to select final alternative for the Gateway Corridor, known as the
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
2013-2014 Further detailed evaluation on environmental impacts, capital and operat-
ing costs, ridership and station locations and design.
Ongoing Public Involvement and Outreach
Public Comment Sought on Recommended Alternatives
and Final AA Report
The Commission is seeking public comment on the alternatives recommended for study in the DEIS and on
the final AA report, which will be available for review at www.thegatewaycorridor.com by the end of Octo-
ber. All comments should be submitted in writing prior to January 3 to:
Gateway Corridor
Washington County Regional Railroad Authority
11660 Myeron Road North
Stillwater, MN 55082
gatewaycorridor@co.washington.mn.us
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 6 of 55
Work Session Agenda Item E2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion on Request for Proposals for General Civil Attorney and
Prosecuting Attorney Contract
DATE: January 23, 2013
INTRODUCTION
At the November 26, 2012, City Council meeting, the staff recommended a 2-year contract
extension to continue general civil attorney services and prosecuting attorney services with Alan
Kantrud. The Council approved a 1-year contract and requested a work session review of
information on the process for conducting a request for proposals [RFP] process to review the
costs of services beginning in 2014. This report is intended to start the discussion and to
determine if additional information is required for the City Council; and for the Council to provide
direction to the staff on any process for an RFP review. No decision on the RFP or attorney
contracts is recommended at this time.
Background for Discussion
The following table summarizes the costs that the City has incurred for Prosecution and Civil
attorney expenses since 2001:
YEAR Prosecution Civil TOTAL
2001 63,000.00 123,531.83
186,531.83
2002 117,900.00 172,279.54
290,179.54
2003 117,900.00 196,304.34
314,204.34
2004 117,900.00 200,533.58
318,433.58
2005 117,900.00 190,180.20
308,080.20
2006 116,512.50 162,919.87
279,432.37
2007 99,000.00 103,755.00
202,755.00
2008 99,000.00 103,105.15
202,105.15
2009 99,000.00 103,701.50
202,701.50
2010 99,000.00 104,489.50
203,489.50
2011 99,000.00 109,428.85
208,428.85
2012 102,000.00 105,320.26
207,320.26
Services for City Attorney, both Prosecution and Civil were provided by Kelly and Fawcett
through July 10, 2006. At the July 24, 2006, Alan Kantrud was introduced as the City Attorney
and Prosecuting Attorney. He has been in that role since that time.
Note: Kelly and Fawcett provided limited HR Attorney services as part of their General Civil
contract prior to July 2006. That is currently a separate cost to the City.
Workshop Packet Page Number 7 of 55
CITY ATTORNEY RFP DISCUSSION
PAGE TWO
Review of Other Cities
The staff has conducted a brief review of 4 other communities with similar contractual attorney
arrangements as Maplewood, including relatively similar staff size, prosecution for police
functions and city size, as follows:
Richfield: have separate firms for Prosecution and Civil.
2013 Budget: $148,000 for Prosecution and $149,550 for Civil.
They have a retainer and bill for hours depending upon legal issue.
Civil includes HR hours needed.
Roseville: has one firm handle both Prosecution and Civil.
2012 Costs: $160,332 for Prosecution and $144,480 for Civil.
All work is done on retainer except litigation which is based on their hourly rate.
Civil includes HR hours as needed.
White Bear Lake: have separate firms for Prosecution and Civil.
2013 Budget: $111,200 for Prosecution and $54,150 for Civil.
Retainer plus pay for additional hours as needed.
Brooklyn Park: Have separate firms for Prosecution and Civil.
2012 Costs: $365,000 for Prosecution and $257,000 for Civil.
Retainer plus pay for additional hours.
Above amount includes $90,000 for HR needs.
$55,000 in 2012 were due to special litigation and project expense.
Request for Proposal Process
Council Member Cardinal provided the attached information from the League of Minnesota
Cities. That packet provides samples of Request for Proposal documents and processes used
by other Cities. From that information, as possible schedule for the Council to consider should
they choose to go through a proposal process would be:
RFP Preparation and Approval by the Council June 2013
Notice of RFP Published July 2013
Receipt of Proposals Early August 2013
Small Group [Management/Council] Review Proposals Mid-late August 2013
Council Approves Semi-Finalists 2nd Meeting of August 2013
Interviews conducted with Semi-Finalist Firms Early to mid September 2013
Council Select Firm(s) as Finalists 2nd Meeting September 2013
Contract Negotiations Early to mid October 2013
Council Approves Contracts for 2014 2nd Meeting October 2013
Firms start work for City January 1, 2014
Packet Page Number 8 of 55
CITY ATTORNEY RFP DISCUSSION
PAGE THREE
Discussion
Mr. Kantrud was appointed as the City Attorney and City Prosecutor on a permanent basis on
September 25, 2006. The process for his selection at that time was conducted by the City
Manager and the Council approved the appointment. During the 1990’s, the City had separate
Prosecution and Civil Attorney firms, which were combined late in the 1990’s. Staff has not
researched the timing or process for the selection for that change. If the Council wishes to
review this information, they should direct the staff to re-schedule an additional Work Session for
the purpose of receiving that information after additional staff research.
From a staff perspective, the cost of Mr. Kantrud’s services from 2007 through 2012 are nearly
$100,000 less on an annual basis than costs incurred during 2001 – 2005. Our brief review of
other communities show that our costs are below similarly sized cities. This is certainly not a
detailed review that an RFP would provide, but generally costs seem very reasonable. Again, if
the Council desires additional research, they should direct the staff accordingly. The biggest
difference between Mr. Kantrud and other firms in other communities on a cost basis as well as
previous years in Maplewood, appears to be that Mr. Kantrud does not bill for additional time for
larger projects, although by contract, he is permitted to do so. An example is that Mr. Kantrud is
providing general civil services for the TH 36 – English project property acquisition process
without billing additional costs to the City. During 2003-2005, on a similarly sized project, the
County Road D Extension, the City incurred sizable legal expenses above the normal annual
costs. It is also noted that Mr. Kantrud’s service and performance, from the staff perspective,
has been very satisfactory during the past 5-6 years.
Recommended Action
No specific action is recommended.
It is requested that the City Council discuss the information provided regarding the City Attorney
and City Prosecuting Attorney costs and provide direction to the staff regarding the Request for
Proposal [RFP] process and timeline or if additional information / research is desired.
Attachment
1. Sample RFP Documents
Workshop Packet Page Number 9 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 10 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 11 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 12 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 13 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 14 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 15 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 16 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 17 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 18 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 19 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 20 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 21 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 22 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 23 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 24 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 25 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 26 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 27 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 28 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 29 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 30 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 31 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 32 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 33 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 34 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 35 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 36 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 37 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 38 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 39 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 40 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 41 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 42 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 43 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 44 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 45 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 46 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 47 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 48 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 49 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 50 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 51 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 52 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 53 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 54 of 55
Workshop Agenda Item E2
Attachment 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 55 of 55